Slavery, morality, and changing times

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

This thread is picking up from the final two posts in Humakt, Rashoran, and justice. The first of the post was still fairly-well integrated with the original thread, and the second is directly responding to it, so it didn't make much sense to split them off. But read them first, then let's pick it up here.

Best,
Ron

[Donald]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I don't think there are many cultures in Glorantha which have a blanket objection to slavery. Modern objections are based on a combination of Christian teachings (which were largely ignored for centuries) and the 18th Century humanist movement which argued that all people are equal.

So how would people in Glorantha view slavery?

Firstly anyone could become a slave, from being taken prisoner in a war or raid, from being convicted of a crime, or from being unable to pay their debts.

Secondly it is up to a persons' family, friends or contacts to help someone avoid being enslaved - whether by paying ransom, launching a raid or bribing an official.

Thirdly slavery is just the lowest rung on a social scale, a slave is someone even a serf can look down on.

Fourthy it is an economic matter, if it's cheaper to get a job done by slaves than hiring someone to do it then slaves will exist even if there is a moral or legal objection.

There are even circumstances where people choose to become slaves. If the wages they can make are insufficent to support themselves and their family, enslavement may be the only alternative to starvation.

[Ian Cooper]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I don't think there are many cultures in Glorantha which have a blanket objection to slavery.

But, and I think this is the direction Ron was interested in, many of those cultures make statements that conflict with that pragmatism. The Heortlings say'No one can make you do anything' and 'Obey chosen leaders'. They have cult of Free Hendriek in Herotland (mentioned in Glorantha: introduction to the Hero Wars IIRC) who liberate slaves. But they also have thrall takers among the Sambari (see Barbarian Adventures) and the Exiles. These two positions are in tension. The suggestion is that, as the Hero Wars approaches, these tensions will explode into conflict as people try to decide which is right.

Similarly the Lunars have a 'We are all us 'attitude' but 'some animals are more equal than others'. We knoe from Glorantha:Introduction I think, that the White Moon movement will rebel against contradictions. In fact the Empire is a study in conflicts between traditional attitudes and Lunar ones (status of women in Dara Happa for example).

My observation is that fans sometimes see this contradictions as problems. I suggest that they are built in, and supposed to generate in-game conflict as we approach the Hero Wars.

If you don't like slavery then there are others.

[simon_hibbs]

Ok, with the caveat that this in no way represents my true opinions about slavery in the real world....

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I don't think there are many cultures in Glorantha which have a blanket objection to slavery.

No neck-sticking required, I feel.

But, and I think this is the direction Ron was interested in, many of those cultures make statements that conflict with that pragmatism. The Heortlings say'No one can make you do anything' and 'Obey chosen leaders'.

Sure, but the heortlings do accept that if you have an obligation you should fulfill it. Slaves are simply people who have an obligation to serve their master. I can see some orlanthi objecting to slaves taken by force, and may also object to the treatment of slaves in some other cultures, but economic slavery (people who became slaves to avoid starvation, or to pay off a debt, or as a punishment for some crime) would be perfectly acceptable to most.

Similarly the Lunars have a 'We are all us 'attitude' but 'some animals are more equal than others'. We knoe from Glorantha:Introduction I think, that the White Moon movement will rebel against contradictions. In fact the Empire is a study in conflicts between traditional attitudes and Lunar ones (status of women in Dara Happa for example).

All such contradicitons are fully reconcilable by the love of the goddess, I assure you.

My observation is that fans sometimes see this contradictions as problems. I suggest that they are built in, and supposed to generate in-game conflict as we approach the Hero Wars.

Oh quite! Just look at the real world. Not having such contradicitons would be unrealistic.


Simon Hibbs

[Mac Logo]

Which cultures do not do slavery?

I'm guessing the Hrestoli find it abhorrent as it is a way of fixing someone in a caste to which they do not belong. Probably, the Rokari aren't too fond of it either as being captured by slave-takers could mean being forced out of caste. OTOH they may see it as a punishment par excellence for uppity knights.

I do think the Malkioni as a whole would find slavery to be offensive. It is the IG's Will that you be born into one of the ordained castes and those do not include slaves. It could be argued that the peasant caste is effectively a slave caste amongst the Rokari, but they do have their ordained rights - poor as they are.

The status of foreigners I have no ideas about.

Graeme

[simon_hibbs]

I do think the Malkioni as a whole would find slavery to be offensive. .....

The status of foreigners I have no ideas about.

You beat me to the punchline. Actualy I can't see why the Hrestoli wouldn't enslave crimilas from their own society who were clearly not even suitable to be low ranking members of normal society. Since foreigners, mostly just pagans and heinous heretics, aren't part of normal society anyway so they're almost certainly fair game.

I imagine similar rules apply in other Malkioni lands, and as with europeans in earlier centuries on earth, do unto foreigners as foreigners do unto each other anyway. Even Malkioni who would not impose slavery on others themselves may be perfectly willing to buy and own slaves.

The slave owner can always justify it on the basis that the slave potentialy has the opportunity to earn freedom through diligent services and thus rehabilitate themselves. If they don't, then obviously they deserve their fate.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Simon's right about a major issue. I phrase it as, "slave" as a social status does not necessarily correspond to "slave" as a term.

Example 1: Slaves in Rome often commanded far more money, property, and political influence than free citizens. I can easily imagine parallels in Silver Shadow.

Example 2: Prison systems which routinely put incarcerants to work to save taxpayer or even private-corporate expense are arguably practicing slavery.

In both cases, the "personal merit" or "he deserves it" argument is used to explain the system to the puzzled foreigner who wants to know why the #1 person is called a slave and why the #2 person isn't.

On the other hand, Simon, I'm not sure at all that I understand the thrust of your argument. Issues of realism or judgments of the Lunar Way (which I can't even tell are positive or negative) aren't helping me get it. Just for us slope-brows in the back of the class, can you, without jokes or irony, state your point relative to the thread topic?

Best,
Ron

[Mac Logo]

Still on the Malkioni thing.
I seem to recall from somewhere (help?) that they don't actually consider most people outside of their culture to be true humans, but hsunchen descended animals (or animal descended hsunchen). I posit that they don't see foreigners as potential slaves. More like clever beasts and therefore less than Orlanthi thralls but with a very definite value.

The Orlanthi myths of the Storm Tribe taking animal forms to survive in the Greater Darkness seems to play to this.

So criminals become "true" slaves - or are executed, I'm open to debate and correction  on both of those- but foreigners are valuable animals. Hmm. It's long after beer o'clock  - tell me where I'm wrong.

Graeme

[Donald]

I would certainly agree there are elements in many cultures which are anti-slavery although some such as the Pentan and Praxian nomads do not.

The Heortlings of Dragon Pass are probably the most anti-slavery with entire clans and possibly whole tribes having no thralls. Even so it is not inconsistent with Orlanthi views - if a clan are sufficently desperate to have to plead with their neighbours for the food to last through winter then those neighbours deserve payment. Certainly some will choose to starve rather than thralldom but others will accept and be bound by the agreement. AIUI children born of thralls are free.

I like the idea that the White Moon cultists are proposing abolishing slavery, it sounds just right for a fringe cult ignoring the economic interests of the large landowners. I don't see the "We are all us" as a claim of equality, merely an acceptence of anyone of whatever standing as a member of the Lunar Religion. I see it as one of the few religions which accepts slaves as members. There is an argument that Danfive Xaron is a slaves cult - many members are placed in it as legal punishment and once in there is no opt out clause.

Malkoni areas probably don't have many slaves, most agricultual labour is performed by serfs so slaves will be either criminals or foreigners. I see slaves as outside the cast system, not accepted in the church and not going to solace when they die. A very useful threat to keep the farmer caste in line particularly if the whole family can be enslaved for an offence. The difference between the Rokari and Hestoli churches is whether slaves can be freed and as a consequence can be accepted into the church. Of course there are various independent preachers with all sorts of wild ideas like allowing slaves to worship but basically Malkoni don't see slaves as people - they're property like a dog or a sheep.

Esrolia, I would think, only enslaves criminals. It is totally co-incidental that the crimes for which that is the punishment are crimes more commonly committed by men and usually also involves castration.

That's my view anyway, it's certainly possible for a heroquester to create a slave free Glorantha but they are working against a lot of entrenched tradition.

[simon_hibbs]

On the other hand, Simon, I'm not sure at all that I understand the thrust of your argument. Issues of realism or judgments of the Lunar Way (which I can't even tell are positive or negative) aren't helping me get it. Just for us slope-brows in the back of the class, can you, without jokes or irony, state your point relative to the thread topic?

Hmm, perhaps I'm giving the impression of having more of a point than I actualy have. All I'm realy saying is that many cultures in Glorantha tolerate slavery, and do so for valid social, economic and even moral reasons.

Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Thanks, Simon. I think we can take that point or semi-point as given, with the proviso that the term "valid" carries no weight in this case.

More substantively, in what ways can the issue of slavery be utilized in character concepts and scenario creation, such that HeroQuest play is realized in full?

1. Before anyone gets all exercised about it, it's patently clear that "imposing 21st century values" on Glorantha is boring. This is not an isolated insight and needs no reinforcing.

2. Similarly, however, "I play [Glorantha person X] who does [Glorantha culture X] because 'I'm X'" is also boring. That is not a HeroQuest character, that is a fairly uninteresting NPC at best.

So, some way and some how, playing HeroQuest with slaves in the scenario will entail both your values and Gloranthan culture, and how they interrelate. That situation is no different in any way from that of any creative person who sets his or her work in a historical or fantasy/SF setting.

Now for the question: how?

This is not a debate about what Glorantha is like. That sort of debate degenerates swiftly into expert-egos swinging their dicks at each other. This is not a debate at all - it's a think-tank for how to generate characters and scenarios that bring #1 and #2 above into the most productive, fun, and emotionally-engaging form.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but the treatment of slavery is one of the things that makes the Iliad so interesting to me.

I mean here is Achilles, honored as a great hero (with flaws, all greek heros need flaws) but a great hero.  He spends the majority of the war plundering nearby Trojan island allies and capturing many slaves and taking tribute in the form of slaves.  This is mentioned so casually and without any hint of social commentary that its obvious through the text that slavery is not a moral issue for the greeks at all.  Its simply a right of the victor and a "sucks to be you" penalty for the loser.  

The message is clearly "don't want to be a slave, be strong enough to defend yourself.  don't want your family to be slaves, be strong enough to defend them".  In fact, if there is any immorality at all ascribed to slavery its aimed at those who were too weak to protect their people properly.  The enslavement of their people is their fault, not the slave takers.

Later in the story is the key event of the entire Illiad.  No not the Trojan Horse, the blow up between Achilles and Agammemnon.  That's the BIG THING.  That's the moral issue of the whole book.  The blow up is over a slave girl captured by Achilles and claimed as booty by Agammemnon.  Its pretty obvious what they both want her for.

The kicker is, the moral question that hinges the entire story has NOTHING at all to do with the slave girl, but entirely to do with the conflicting duties of obedience and loyalty of the vassal vs the duty of generosity of the lord.  The book goes to great lengths to illustrate the calamities that fall upon the Greeks as the result of these two men being at odds, and makes very clear that both are guilty.

But what are they guilty of.  Achilles is guilty of coveting his lord's property (by legal right the slave was Agammemnon's to take), disobeying orders, and essentially desertion.  Agammemnon, however, is equally guilty.  While it was his legal right to take the girl, his moral obligation was to be generous to his underlings.  King's accumulate wealth only so they can redistribute among their best people.  Achilles accomplishments earned him the right to expect generous treatment (even if he was a petty little snit himself) and the narrator clearly expects that the King should have satisfied himself with the copper pots and let Achilles have the girl.

The key thing is, this moral hinge which is the whole point of the story has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the morality or immorality of owning a slave.  That's a complete non issue.


For me the issue of Slavery in Glorantha would be most powerful presented in this same way.  To the players its a moral outrage.  To the characters its not a moral question at all.  Its no more wrong to own a slave than it is to own a wooden spoon.  That's an alien mindset (well, to most of us hopefully).  

Presenting that in a game for me is powerful stuff.  But even MORE powerful is not presenting that as the tradition to be challenged.  Not setting up the PCs as proto abolitionists.  But to have the PC's as total unquestioning participants in the slave culture, without thinking about the "big picture" at all.  That to me makes a bigger impact than actually addressing the issue as something to be "fixed".

[simon_hibbs]

More substantively, in what ways can the issue of slavery be utilized in character concepts and scenario creation, such that HeroQuest play is realized in full?

You realy are good at asking tough questions, aren't you?

I think there's a lot to be gained from taking slavery into account in our games. It offers the potential or raising all sorts of social and moral issues in the game that normaly wouldn't necesserily surface. For example, imagine playing agame in which one character is a slave and another is the slave's owner. That's essentialy what we have in Gladiator, and Biturian Varosh. It might even be possible to play a character that is a slave, but is on a mission from his owner such that his slave status doesn't realy affect the game that much. He might even be able to use his relationship with his owner, if the owner is powerful, as an advantageous ability!

In the Lunar empire, the white moonies insurrectionist activities might raise all sorts of problems. In the main, their activities will probably be directed against the most grievous or clearly unjust incidents of slavery. Even an apparently content slave character might find it hard to turn away from helping runaway slaves that escaped death in the mines. See Spartacus for some great plot ideas.

I didn't mean to give the impression that it's unambiguously reasonable to support slave owning in the game. What I'm driving at is that there are no easy answers. For some slavery is a one-way ticket to death in the salt mines. To others, it's two square meals a day and an escape from crippling debt.


Simon Hibbs

[bluegargantua]

More substantively, in what ways can the issue of slavery be utilized in character concepts and scenario creation, such that HeroQuest play is realized in full?

We've already seen a wide defination of "slave" and what it might actually be.  To the list I might add a Lunar who was formerly the child of an Orlanthi chief before being taken away and raised as a foster child/hostage.  In some senses, he's very much a slave.

It seems that if you want to play with the slavery issue, you need to go back to the myths of the culture you play in and build up from there.  For example, the Lunars are very interested in "shackling" Orlanth -- essentially making him a divine slave (Orlanth isn't going to join up willingly and once impressed into the pantheon he's unlikely to be any help at all unless strictly forced).

So your heroquests are going nowhere, but perhaps someone gets the bright idea of trying a Heroquest to free Orlanth -- big stuff.  Or maybe they go looking for myths about thralldom/slavery within Orlanthi culture.  I don't believe there is one, but wouldn't it be interesting if a hero group formed around an obscure thrall spirit who (though development of his myth as the players try to free Orlanth) grows up into the Orlanthi god of Thralls/Slaves?

So once you've got mythic-level slavery issues involved, suddenly characters who are slaves or who own slaves find themselves considering the issue in ways they probably never have before.  To veer over to the Illiad example.  Greek heroquesters might look for ways to resolve the rift between Achillies and Agammemnon -- but if they suddenly turned it around and decided that fighting over the ownership of another human being was the real problem...that'd be a huge eye-opener for the heroes in general and the societies they represented.

If slavery is an issue you want to explore (in a heavy way), then you need to force people to re-examine their assumed choices and that means Heroquests and myths to look to.

My 2 clacks
Tom

[Donald]

More substantively, in what ways can the issue of slavery be utilized in character concepts and scenario creation, such that HeroQuest play is realized in full?

Well you can't make useful suggestions about characters and scenarios without having a clear idea what slavery in Glorantha means. You don't have to agree about the details but they are the spark for ideas. Otherwise you just generate ideas based on modern conceptions of slavery.

Simon has already mentioned the travels of Bituran Varosh which raises three practices which create game material:
1. The relationship between Bituran and Norayeep, owner and slave and how intimate contact changes the relationship.
2. The tradition of banning Morokanth from Pimper's Block.
3. The Lunar interest in Morak and what they would do with him (not detailed).

Imagine a Praxian character selling a slave to a trader who then sells the slave to the Morokanth, how does he react? what can he do about it?

A Lunar character is escorting a Priestess who is taking slaves back to Glamour - what's going to happen to them? does the character care? does the player care?

A Malkoni character is offered a lot of money by a slave trader for a prisoner, far more than the ransom the prisoner can pay. Does he take the money? if so how does it affect his relationships with his peers?

A Malkoni character's relative is accused of a crime which could lead to his enslavement - how does the character react? how far will he go to help his relative?

A Praxian character owns slaves (followers on his charcter sheet), he meets a relative of one of them at a neutral place where they are forbidden from feuding - how do they react? maybe the relative is happy to be rid of a rival?

A Lunar character has to keep slaves - maybe that's the way land is farmed where his income comes from, maybe his status depends on having slaves in certain jobs - how does he treat them? has he favourites? are they trustworthy?

A Lunar officer character is sent to put down a slave revolt - why did the revolt occur? perhaps the White Moonies behind it? can the character reconcile his view of slavery with his orders?

I'm not sure a slave player character is going to be much interest any more than a serf farmer is - there's to much restriction on what the player can do. A runaway slave though could be very interesting.