Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's just in their published material though right? It's not like they're coming after you if you have slavers in your games.

Honestly its more likely that rape just doesn't happen to begin so there's no need for a mandate/policy. Whilst Slavery is a fairly common thing in a lot of fantasy settings to the point where people just don't think of it being a trigger or anything. Heck Conan starts out being a slave for a good chunk of his origin story; Anakin Skywalker is a slave; Sparticus is a slave etc...


So yeah I could see them needing a memo "no slavery now" and not needing a "no rape" one.



It would be like Toy Story having a "no plastic toys" memo and not having a "no rape" memo. One is a very common thing that requires a memo to remind and is a major change; the other is just never going to happen in a film so they don't need to remind everyone.

 Manchu wrote:
Relatedly, Paizo has unilaterally banned all references to (fictional) slavery in Pathfinder going forward with no in-setting explanation.

It's a weird thing to do IMO. How are you supposed to fight the bad guys or play as the bad guys if doing bad things is cancelled out of the setting?

Yeah, I really don't think Slavery and Rape disclaimers are needed. It's a culturally expected norm not to be a chud. We need to be better about self-policing though, and calling out bad behavior when we see it.

 Da Boss wrote:
That's just in their published material though right? It's not like they're coming after you if you have slavers in your games.

Well, kind of. A big part of the criticism that catalyzed the change was complaints that organized play participants could not appeal to any rules if they felt uncomfortable with slavery appearing in Pathfinder Society games. So now there is redress for those people

 Overread wrote:
So yeah I could see them needing a memo "no slavery now" and not needing a "no rape" one.

Yes; again, part of the catalyzing criticism was a complaint that slavery references are endemic to Pathfinder adventures. Now, so far as I can recall, I don’t know that there are a lot of references to rape. “Rape culture” on the other hand? Well, perhaps we will see that argument (continue to) develop ...

Cyel wrote:
How are you supposed to fight the bad guys or play as the bad guys if doing bad things is cancelled out of the setting?

It’s puzzling. Even in fantasy settings built from the ground up as intentional extensions of IRL liberal progressive politics (e.g., Blue Rose) the bad guys are allowed to be slavers. I suppose the issue was, Pathfinder tends to edgy, superficial “world of grays” morality in which slavery was a little too taken for granted? (See also, “rape culture” above.)

Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

Whatever works for your table. If your table is okay with slavery, or rape, or torture, or whatever other heinous acts you can imagine, then that's fine.

But for other tables, it wouldn't be acceptable. And for a company like Paizo, it's better to be cautious about what's done than just throw it all in.

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

No, it doesn't. This post on Reddit covers it fairly well: https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/ix0n41/slavery_is_a_lot_more_complex_than_authors/?sort=controversial

To add to that. There are situations where human hand dexterity outstrips whatever may be technologically possible as well and that might make it economically valuable.

Slavery is a really good way to mark "the bad guys" as "the bad guys". I don't see a problem, you're gonna be killing the slavers and liberating the slaves right? It's not like any game assumes the PCs are the slavers?

I guess in TTRPG it's fine to have lazier storytelling or worldbuilding, but it doesn't necessarily work in every single setting. It's been traditionally used that way and in some cases it makes plenty of sense, such as with Ilithids.

Or slavers, generally? No? Is this a controversial opinion now?

Slavers = Bad Guys is pretty obvious storytelling for sure, I dunno that I'd say lazy as it seems to have negative connotations. D&D is about fighting and killing people, and generally that requires people the PCs don't mind fighting and killing. So if you have intelligent enemies, making them really obviously bad guys is a good way to do that, and making someone a slaver is a really obvious cue to know that someone is a bad guy.

Seems obvious to me.

And yet you could have a setting based on Rome where if you are Roman, slavery and owning slaves is, within setting, not a bad thing.

Generally players bring fairly contemporary morals into their games and see slavery as totally unacceptable.

I mean if you want to have a roman style game also knock yourself out I guess? I'm not gonna come round your house and put a stop to it or anything. But generally the use of slavers in D&D has been to denote baddies. There's an entire series of modules about fighting slavers and many adventures that involve liberating slaves from evil masters.

I'm not pro banning anything from games anyway, seems kinda silly to me. I've always found corporation organised play to be fairly insipid and so it's not been a big part of my experience, but I guess this might be more of an issue for those who rely on it. But if you're gonna play in games organised by a corporation then they get to set the tone to an extent and I can see excluding stuff if they want. That's always been the case since these games were created, the companies often decided what to include or not based on various cultural mores or pressures. Look at the change in the names of Demons and Devils for example to try to quiet down the Satanic Panic. Doesn't stop any of us from doing our own thing at our tables.

 Da Boss wrote:
Generally players bring fairly contemporary morals into their games and see slavery as totally unacceptable.

I mean if you want to have a roman style game also knock yourself out I guess? I'm not gonna come round your house and put a stop to it or anything. But generally the use of slavers in D&D has been to denote baddies. There's an entire series of modules about fighting slavers and many adventures that involve liberating slaves from evil masters.

Indeed. It seems a little silly to remove such story potential. You'd think the snowflakes being triggered would be ok with slavers as bad guys to take out and thus wouldn't get triggered.

If the company wanted to just cover their butts they should just have said they will never portray any slaver characters in a positive light and ensure they are villains.

Banning all mentions of slavery outright without any in-setting explanation seems less about being thoughtful and reflective, or even just virtue signaling, and more about being pissed off that woke gadflies are criticizing you on twitter. It feels like a temper tantrum.

Similarly, the endless commentary about the hypothetical situations in which rape might figure into table top gaming is far, far worse than any actual time that has actually happened. The internet only “happens” insofar as users engage with each other; therefore, its content is inherently metareferential. The hobby becomes talking about a hobby. The issue becomes how one talks about the issues.

Always beware of anyone on the internet who evokes “the community.”

trexmeyer wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Slavery makes so much sense economically for cultures with no morals against it (or even specific "morals for it" in many cases). It was so widespread in the real world for a reason so it makes for something very believable in a fantasy setting.

I start wondering what evil things are the evil guys allowed to do nowadays in imaginary stories? The list seems to be getting shorter.

No, it doesn't. This post on Reddit covers it fairly well: https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/ix0n41/slavery_is_a_lot_more_complex_than_authors/?sort=controversial

To add to that. There are situations where human hand dexterity outstrips whatever may be technologically possible as well and that might make it economically valuable.

On the other hand, a setting where magic and enchanted magical constructs are available/common it might become increasingly silly and ridiculous to insist that medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism must still exist Or Else It Isnt Realistic.

*cut to a bunch of chained up fantasy race individuals, scything away in a field*

"New on the chain-gang, huh? Well, let me tell you the deal: you're a slave now, and we're in charge of scything the grain in this one field. Our master has to clothe us, feed us, and hope none of us develop any kind of natural magical inclination because boy oh boy would we kill the HELL out of him if we got even the remotest chance. The master's other 9,567 fields are scythed plowed and tended by one (1) unthinking unfeeling immortal golem designed for that purpose who will never rebel and never needs sustenance or shelter - its name is "Cotton Gin Times One Million" for some reason. Oh, and the master also has another 12,345 fields that he paid a wizard to bless with a fertility spell, they grow three times as fast and when they reach full maturity they actually scythe themselves.

Anyway here's your pointed implement, let's hope the master walks too close to us one day!

Oh, also, I see you have a slightly darker than normal skin tone and you are a human woman - we do look down on you racially, in this world where vastly weaker, explicitly subhuman creatures like Kobolds exist which do have human speech and language but are explicitly incapable of human levels of intelligence and morality. At some point we've been meaning to construct the egalitarian society that would probably naturally result from having such things around to be afraid of, but until then I guess lets just hope no women or racial minorities find powerful artifacts or come into extremely potent magical powers and decide to seek vengeance on us!"

And next week I've heard that the local king will be hiring Golems to perform military duties and protect the kingdom. As a result wild monsters, roaming bandits, rogue lords and all will be taken care of by the Golem Legion. Adventurers and Adventuring will be banned as they will be deemed non-essential.

Praise be to Slaanesh as we enter our new hedonistic future as Golems service all our needs; as magic ensures equality and justice for all. Praise be to pleasure, to excess, to the debauchery of a hedonistic lifestyle as golems, magic and free rights to all allow society to enter a golden age of perfection.

Peasant: The enslaved immigrating races have taken all the jobs!

Overlord: Silly peasant. You were replaced by a golem.

 the_scotsman wrote:
medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism

Just a quick note, those are modern rather than medieval norms.

EDIT - And the reason it’s worth pointing out is because these issues belong to us, and our times, rather than to some era that has irretrievably passed away. That’s why they remain controversial to us (as opposed to, say, veneration of saints’ bones).

Racism and sexism are good to bring up in this context. Should these also be banned? WotC has already dispensed with racial alignment. Good Drow, for example, are no longer the exception to the rule.

 Manchu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
medieval human norms like slavery, racism based on human skin color, and institutional sexism

Just a quick note, those are modern rather than medieval norms.

Did slavery even really exist in medieval Europe? Being a peasant would've sucked, but it's not literally slavery.

Being a peasant pretty often did not suck at all. It’s in no way comparable to being a slave. About a quarter of the population was enslaved during classical antiquity; by the middle ages, slavery was virtually eradicated in Western Europe. Of course, it made a giant come back during the birth of modernity in the transatlantic trade (although more so in the New World than Europe). The renaissance of slavery is intimately connected to our modern way of defining a person.

Vikings owned slaves (called thralls), traded in slaves, mostly coming from the Britush Isles and Baltic coast. England at that time (mid-middle ages) from what I know also had slavery -either in the form of captured local enemies (Welsh, Irish etc) or people just going into slavery voluntarily due to poverty (better be a slave than die of starvation). I can see how similar stuff was happening in other parts of Europe ~900's.

Slavery was present in most cultures but often you have the ability to leave and enter mainstream society as well - for instance you could earn money and buy yourself out - the Chatel slavery system is even worse than this as you normalyl have no way out. You would also have people from all races as slaves during the classical and earlier period. Later it tended to be one race enslaving another - although some like the Barbary pirates traided in all colours.

Some of the various fuedal systems were very close to slavery except in name. Indentured servants were also not far from this state.

Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

I don't see how your last sentence has anything to do with slavery in a fantasy setting or why you out white males specifically. You do realize white men were enslaved as well in the past? It's not exclusively in the purview of other races. I find it bizarre so many people like to hold "straight white men" as some weird archetype of evil, especially since the logical conclusion for intersectionality is that the greatest minority is the individual, but they somehow dodge that and try to set up oppression hiearchy that conveniently ignores that since then you would have to treat each person on an individual basis rather than their race and sex, and we can't have that

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus this is taking a far turn from Rape and sex crime. We are now discussing "fuedal slavery/indentured servitude" and tossing out terms like "Woke" and "lefties". By a Mod of all things.

How about we stop with the Tucker Carlson arguments and "Just asking questions" style, and actually make a definitive statement.

I personally believe the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery. I feel that until we as a society can actually agree that women and people of color have a distinctly different experience in life, than their white male counterparts, then we have no business using their suffering as the narrative for a game marketed to children.

Well, considering the Dakka mods can't even figure which side of the "Nazis are bad" trollapalooza to ban I can't say I'm really surprised.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
the common person is too rock cold stupid to accurately or intelligently roleplay non-consentual sex crimes, or issues of slavery

Would you consider yourself a common or uncommon person? If the latter, are you saying that you are capable of responsibly incorporating rape and slavery into your D&D sessions? If so, can you explain to us how this should be done? Sincerely, a common person.

It's a very American thing to equate slavery to African slave trade and instantly think of people of colour. Slavery wasn't a racism related thing for most of it's (thankfully mostly over) time. Why look for slaves on another continent if you had perfectly good prospective slaves in a rival neighbouring village or even your own one?

It's just another historical trope that gives fantasy settings their medieval vibe, alongside things like public executions, cattle raids, indentured servitude, arranged marriages, catastrophic epidemies, hostility towards strangers, forest bandits, religious wars...the list goes on. Get rid of all the nasty things and you no longer have medieval fantasy, you get... I don't even know what. Tellytubies?

The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one. In a lot of ways, fantasy settings are inherently idyllic as an escape from real life. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they are traditionally laden with medieval allusions. It’s a strong characteristic of the Romantic movement in the arts to idealize the middle ages (and not without a basis in reality).

In my games, the setting is like what you’d see in BBC’s Cadfael: a prosperous peasantry served by an artisan class and lightly governed by nobles. Slavers are more likely to appear than slavery itself — with the people looking on evil races like orcs something like, to use your example, Saxons might have looked at roving Viking heathens. Rape has never appeared in my games and I don’t really see much of a need for it.

I'm definitely more into low fantasy stuff, mostly played gritty Warhammer in my RPG-intensive days with adventures like being kids on the wrong side of the religious schism in the Empire and getting killed by the knights of the Blazing Sun for travelling with Hussite pilgrims.

I loved LotR when I read it as a 10y.old kid 30 years ago but only when I read the Witcher a few years later I felt how compelling and relatable and thought-provoking fantasy can be.