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

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.

Donald wrote: 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.

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

Donald wrote: 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.

Ian Cooper wrote: 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'.

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.

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

Mac Logo wrote: I do think the Malkioni as a whole would find slavery to be offensive. .....

The status of foreigners I have no ideas about.

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

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

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.

Ron Edwards wrote:
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?

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

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".

Ron Edwards wrote: 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?

Ron Edwards wrote:
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?

Ron Edwards wrote:
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?

bluegargantua wrote:
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.

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.

I don't think this thread was really supposed to be about the issue of slavery and Glorantha, but more that the premise of the Hero Wars as a Goranthan setting is about the ending of the world ('The Old World is over...') and how players are encouraged to take a moral position on the shape of the new (witness Hero Bands; and I am paraphrasing some comments of Ron's that I concur with here).

The idea is to create an issue which forces the player's to take a position. I understand the principle of alllowing such conflict to occur at the player rather than character level, but the purpose here is to show that as the Hero Wars take place, the old certanties are being overturned and people will be forced into making decisions.

Here is a slavery example. The clan generator in Orlanth is Dead let's us define many of our clan attitudes, including how we treated refugees in the darkness. We might have taken them in as carls, as cottars, or as thralls. Let us say that our clan took them as thralls, and that we have kept thralls ever since. Men and women with closely clipped hair, and a leather collar are a common site on our tula where they do heavy farm labour, cow milking etc. that in other clans is done by cottars. Possible story lines that might cause us to look at our attitude:

- A hero band inspired by Hendriek Freeman camps out on our tula. Thralls quickly discover that they will take in any who reach them, and by arming free them. The hero band promises compensation, when 'Sartar is free'. The possibility of a new life makes the other thralls fractious and rebellious. The loss of our thralls threatens the harvest + our clan magic which is empowered by our ancestors actions.
- Lunar slave traders contact us. They offer wealth and a favourable word with the authorities when it comes to deciding taxes if we act as middlemen for them, selling them Heortling slaves, particularly read-headed children for whom there is a huge demand in the Empire.
- A leader rises up among the thralls. With a rousing cry of 'No one can make you do anything' and 'We hate all Emperors' he challenges the clan to free all the slaves, and hand over a portion of our lands and wealth to those who have toiled on them for centuries. The clan is split: some bloodlines support emancipation, but the traditionalist majority don't. The abolitionists then offer to arm any slaves who reach their farms, freeing them. Many thralls flee to thier lands. Kinstrife looms.
- As above, but those who aid the slaves are a neighbours who offer freedom for any slaves who can reach their tula. The liberated slaves form a hero band whose purpose is to liberate thralls everywhere, by violence as Umath showed us if necessary. They mean to start with our tula. Our thralls support them, though many do so tacitly or by passive protest.




-

Ian Cooper wrote: The abolitionists then offer to arm any slaves who reach their farms, freeing them. Many thralls flee to thier lands. Kinstrife looms.

simon_hibbs wrote:

bluegargantua wrote:
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.

That's true, of course there's another obvious resolution to the dilema. Simply kill the slave. Any Humakti in the house?

Peter Nordstrand wrote:

I don't get it, Simon. How is killing the captured woman going to resolve the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon?

Well, killing her really doesn't solve the problem per se. In the story, she is nothing more than the catalyst which finally brings the growing resentment between these two to the fore. If it wasn't over her...it probably would have been over the copper pots.

About the only thing killing her would accomplish is getting both of them to unite against you -- at least for that brief moment it takes for two of the ancient worlds greatest heroes to off you :-)

Ron Edwards wrote:

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?

simondale wrote:
As I'm typing and mulling this I like the idea more an more. The reactions of various nomad tribes to the existance of an intelligent Gern would be interesting, but the extension of the idea to reactions to an intelligent *herd animal* would probably put the willies up many a tribal ring. "If it could happen to the Morocanth..."

simon_hibbs wrote:
In RQ, praxian magic to awaken the inteligence of a herd animal (including her men) was relatively common magic for rune-level characters.
Simon Hibbs

simon_hibbs wrote:

simondale wrote:
Mythicaly, and therefore magicaly I don't think having inteligence invalidates the survival pact, an inteligent herd beast is still subservient to it's master.
Simon Hibbs

Hi Simon

You're absolutely right! All intelligent Herdbeasts wouldn't normally be an issue. Everyone knows that they're a herd beast no matter how smart they are and if they get uppity it's to the cooking pot.

I was thinking more of the abnormallly heroic herdbeast that says
"Hey! Why am *I* the servant? I'm gonna do something about this stinky situation"
and then starts or joins a heroband that really cannot be ignored...


Cheers,
Simon

simondale wrote:
I was thinking more of the abnormallly heroic herdbeast that says
"Hey! Why am *I* the servant? I'm gonna do something about this stinky situation" and then starts or joins a heroband that really cannot be ignored...

simon_hibbs wrote:
Sure, I realise that. I'm just pointing out that such a beast would have all the mythic and magical power of the survival covenant against it. To succeed it would have to destroy or completely revolutionise praxian culture and religion for the nomads and beasts.

simon_hibbs wrote:
Sure, I realise that. I'm just pointing out that such a beast would have all the mythic and magical power of the survival covenant against it. To succeed it would have to destroy or completely revolutionise praxian culture and religion for the nomads and beasts.
Simon Hibbs

The Gern, Herdmen that is, really can't do anything sensible. They are animals.

Donald wrote:
Not really, the beast would just have to HeroQuest to alter the outcome of the contest. Probably either by cheating or catching the humans cheating. Not easy but certainly easier than changing the lifestyle of the entire region. Perhaps this is what the Morocanth did or what Gern are trying to do now.

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.

simon_hibbs wrote:
And there would be nothing revolutionary about that, sure ;)

I don't think that's at all feasible. An individual beast might be able to quest to reverse it's personal status. That would make for an interesting character, but quest for yourself and the rusults only affect you. Changing that for all the beasts in prax would take a major community supported quest. Trouble is, the other beasts are in no possition to offer support, even if they were remotely aware of the issue.
Simon Hibbs

epweissengruber wrote:
A slave has to do something extraordianary to win manumission.
In this case, the player has to make choices regarding safety/sanity/sanctity vs. liberty. Or, like Terence the Roman/Carthaginian playwright, he could be assebling some kind of cultural production while balancing his duties as an enslaved schoolmaster.
[not every slave is a brutalized farm labourer]

epweissengruber wrote: An escaped slave is tempted to return
- can't find the original, but I remember reading about a slave narrative who escapes from a South American plantation, spent some time on the island of Haiti, but ended up returning.
- If a slave's condition is closer to a European peasant than to an enslaved African in America, freedom might not be worth the loss of kin, religious support, or even social support. A person with no allies or resources might find their old servitude less demanding than liberty.

Donald wrote: So they have to get support elsewhere, the Lunars strike me as a good bet even if there isn't a Gloranthan equivelent of the Animal Liberation Front.

The Morocanth are another possibility

while a Bolo Lizard might be able to get help from the newtlings of the Zola Fel.

And they don't have to change all the beasts in Prax at once, just a single clan at first then a whole people. Reduces the problem from difficult 1w9 to 1w5.

Hello,

Simon, I'm becoming profoundly frustrated with your input in this thread. Maybe I'm alone in this. But if you're inclined to take pity on me, please consider the following.

No one is suggesting world-shaking, continent-redefining, slavery-abolishing-for-all consequences for heroquesting ... except you, in order to attack the idea.

You wrote,

Liberating a small herd and heading off to a remote 'lost valley' would be great, perhaps setting up a shangri-la style colony of free beasts up in a mountain pasture. That would make for some cool gaming.

I find the whole question of "what's in it for them?" to be entirely unhelpful when applied at the global level. This is a question you can ask of individuals and determine answers. Its not a question you can ask of an entire people.

History books (and headlines) are full of "The French wanted", and "The English people thought", and "The Italians reacted" and the like. But its all poppycock. In the best of cases its shorthand for "Certain individuals with the power to make decisions on the matter... wanted or thought or reacted".

Take the Morocanth idea. I have no clue who the Morocanth are. But I can guarentee that if they are any kind of realistic society they will have members all over the spectrum. Societal norms are just a construct created by anthropologists so they can write papers and sound impressive. Any GM worth his salt should be able to come up with a reason why some member of Morocanth society to some degree would be willing to help such an undertaking. Often the reason will be selfish and self serving. The individual may even be considered "evil" by the Morocanth at the same time he's a "hero" the herdbeasts. Hell such a dichotomy is the whole point to play in Glorantha.

Within an hour of reading up on the Beast Riders I could come up with a completely plausible reason why some powerful faction of the Beast Riders WOULD for issues of personal ambition go out of his way to make sure the under taking worked...as long as it undermined his rivals more than it threatened him. He may even be planning to betray the cause later to set himself up as the salvation of his people. He may completely underestimate the tidal wave he helped unleashed and be completely overwhelmed by. An ambitious person setting in motion something that spirals out of control...sounds pretty plausible to me.

I think you're on the right track with the idea of hero questing being personal. Glorantha is all about keeping things personal. The thing is the whole world is designed to take those personal issues and spiral them into world altering events.

The biggest danger in the encyclopedid tome that is Glorantha lore is to start thinking that things have to stay the way they were. The whole purpose behind the Hero Quest game is predicated 100% on things NOT staying the same.

The whole YGMV idea that "what should" happen is thrown out the window to be replaced with "what the players make happen".

simon_hibbs wrote:
I think heroquesting can add a lot to a campaign, it can highlight the way the myths relate to individual lives, but to me the trick is to keep it personal. I find it hard to relate to 'resurecting genert', or 'redefining Humakt' to the daily lives of my characters and the people they live with.

Valamir wrote:
Take the Morocanth idea. I have no clue who the Morocanth are. But I can guarentee that if they are any kind of realistic society they will have members all over the spectrum. Societal norms are just a construct created by anthropologists so they can write papers and sound impressive. Any GM worth his salt should be able to come up with a reason why some member of Morocanth society to some degree would be willing to help such an undertaking. Often the reason will be selfish and self serving. The individual may even be considered "evil" by the Morocanth at the same time he's a "hero" the herdbeasts. Hell such a dichotomy is the whole point to play in Glorantha.

Within an hour of reading up on the Beast Riders I could come up with a completely plausible reason why some powerful faction of the Beast Riders WOULD for issues of personal ambition go out of his way to make sure the under taking worked...as long as it undermined his rivals more than it threatened him. He may even be planning to betray the cause later to set himself up as the salvation of his people. He may completely underestimate the tidal wave he helped unleashed and be completely overwhelmed by. An ambitious person setting in motion something that spirals out of control...sounds pretty plausible to me.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Simon, I'm becoming profoundly frustrated with your input in this thread. Maybe I'm alone in this. But if you're inclined to take pity on me, please consider the following.

No one is suggesting world-shaking, continent-redefining, slavery-abolishing-for-all consequences for heroquesting ... except you, in order to attack the idea.

Donald wrote: If an obscure warrior from an occupied land can call himself Argrath, gather an army from half the continent, defeat the largest and most powerful empire in the world and pull down the Red Moon I see no great improbablity in an awakened herd beast reversing the result of one peoples contest.

There's definitely something to be said for the idea that some problems are tragically unsolvable, the PCs can't make everything right with the world with one or two HQs.

Certainly they should be made aware that there are more people in need of help than helpers.

The way I would most likely use this theme is an awakened herd-man desperately approaches the player's hero band for help after having been turned away by the other praxians, the lunars, argrath, etc. And the smart move is for them to turn him away too, because no matter how tragic his cause, he happens to be epically screwed.

Of course, if you wanted to make his problem one of the parts of the universe that are fixable, its not that hard. Just say that the awakening of the herd-men would be mythically linked to the opposite happening to the sable riders (the praxian tribe that collaborates with the Lunars). Suddenly, every lunar-hater would be queueing up to give him magical and practical support

soru