Slavery

[Crosmando]

Now before I'm attacked, I'm not saying this to be hurr durr or so edgy I cut you, but in terms of actually dealing with slavery (and racism, as they go together) as a moral issue, why not make it a gameplay feature. It would make sense that any "half-breed" races (half-elf, half-dwarf) would be descriminated against, and D&D also had "sub-races", so why not have a gameplay feature of being able to purchase a personal slave (or call it servant if it's too controversial).

 

- Costs a high number of gold coins from a slaver trader to purchase.

- Behaves in the same manner as a companion, but does not count toward total companions (represented with a smaller portrait in corner of PC's portrait).

- Does not fight, has no combat abilities of any kind.

- Has an inventory the same as a companion.

- If you recruit a companion who is morally adverse to slavery (or purchase a slave when an anti-slavery companion is already in your party), you suffer a penalty of some kind, this penalty is stackable if more than one companion is anti-slavery.

- There are two ways to get rid of an existing slave. 1) You may change your moral stance on slavery and free your slave which will relieve the penalty, this will give you an extra bonus from those anti-slavery companions because they now see you in a better light for your action. 2) You can sell your slave to a merchant without changing your moral stance on the issue, meaning the penalties will go away but no bonus.

- You can engage in dialogues with your slave, but will not make interjections or banter. Each one will have their own unique story and background that you may discover by talking to them, and even quests that can be uncovered by talking.

 

It's one thing reading text in an RPG explaining some philosophical concept or moral theme, but it could also be practically shown in the game. It would also add realism, as medieval-ish societies didn't have 2012 morality, so it would challenge the player to think.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Crosmando

[Thraxen]

Seems like there'd need to be some kind of extra benefit to having a slave, otherwise it could just be seen as a waste of money. Also, I imagine there would need to be an option to just free the slave immediately, so no-one gets angry at you for slavery when you're only trying to free them.

 

However, if you have a house then maybe the slaves could keep that in good nick while you're off stabbing things. Maybe having slaves could even INCREASE your standing in the eyes of some nobility types, which would increase as you gained more and more of them.

[Lexx]

A slave companion could be interesting. I mean, not a freed slave... but an actual slave. Bougth from a slave market. But I would make him a fully designed companion, technically. With filled companion slot, real dialog and stuff.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Lexx

[Badprenup]

I wouldn't mind this. It would be a neat thing if you could purchase one simply to free them and then they can join you as a faithful follower, and not just a slave. Maybe even give them some combat prowess through side quests (Like if you help a Sorceror with something he will offer to take one of your companions for a short while to teach them some magical skills, which will either severely boost a magic user's skill, allot a ranged or melee user to multiclass with some support stuff, or give your freed slave an opportunity to make a name for himself and be of more use when he returns from training.

[Crosmando]

Seems like there'd need to be some kind of extra benefit to having a slave, otherwise it could just be seen as a waste of money. Also, I imagine there would need to be an option to just free the slave immediately, so no-one gets angry at you for slavery when you're only trying to free them.

 

However, if you have a house then maybe the slaves could keep that in good nick while you're off stabbing things. Maybe having slaves could even INCREASE your standing in the eyes of some nobility types, which would increase as you gained more and more of them.

I listed the benefit.

The slave is an inventory carry.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Great idea. Give me some sort of molerat/lim lim hybrid and I'll name him "Slave" and make him wear a fake mustache. He'll be responsible for washing my back and my dishes.

[-O-]

Mr. Slave already exists in Obsidian´s South Park. Why add one in PE?

On the other hand you could combine romances and slavery and play the pimp, would be an interesting concept...

[General_Disarray]

I find this idea interesting. I like that they'd be a proper person too.

While multiple slaves would be cool. I'm torn with the idea of them being a party member or not. One hand, making them a party member with a portrait makes them more real, and doesn't really let you forget they're a person. On the other hand, not having them be a party member could work to much the same effect.

 

Problem is... I see it was being far to controversial for it to be worth the gamble. Nay-sayers would pounce on the negative aspects and avoid any positives from it being included. And I admit I can't see a great many positives in the concept of being allowed slaves in a game.

That said, this is a kickstarter so, who knows? As I said, it would be interesting if such an aspect was included.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If slavery is a theme of the game, of course we should be allowed to own some. (With properly disgusting dialog options on the part of the character.) But it shouldn't be a feature just for its utility.

Edited September 19, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid

[MReed]

The only way that I could see this as working is if the slave(s) were employed at a business / house and never joined the party. It just doesn't make any sense to bring along a slave in a situation where you might be serious injured -- any "slave" that is worthy of the term would take advantage of such dsiability to try to escape (and / or kill you / the party). If a slave wants to serve his/her master, then that's not really slavery.

 

With that being said, I don't have any objection to including something along these lines, as long as it fits within the gameworld and has realistic consequences -- in particular, there should be positives associated with slave ownership in addtion to negatives, and it shouldn't be clear that one route is necessarily better than another (in terms of gamplay / mechanics / etc. -- morally is a different question altogether).