Slavery

[Lawgiver]

I don't explicitly remember reading much regarding the issue of slavery in any of the Birthright material. What are your opinions of the issue (in the context of Birthright)? How is it viewed by the various cultures?

[marcum uth mather]

im sure the Vos are the premire slavers as a culture. the serpent would use slave markets as well. i dont belive the Anuriens or Rejurik would use slavery as a jeneral practise, out side the peasant or vassel role.

[ConjurerDragon]

marcum uth mather schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1734
> marcum uth mather wrote:
> im sure the Vos are the premire slavers as a culture. the serpent would use slave markets as well. i dont belive the Anuriens or Rejurik would use slavery as a jeneral practise, out side the peasant or vassel role.
>
>
Goblins are even more ruthless holders of absolutely rightless slaves I
think. Isn´t the goblin realm in Vosgaard explicitely mentioned as
having lots of slaves in one of the books?

I could see in Anuire under Nobles and free men also serfs, bound to the
land of the landowner, like in early Prussia.
Hasn´t the novel "Spiders Test" some lines about the sisters of Richard
Endier sold off to serve as indentured? servants?
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lawgiver]

indentured servants are a bit different than slaves. Then have hope of freedom. They genereally work either for a set number of years or until a specific financial debt is paid off. Slaves are servants until sold or freed by some other means.

[Green Knight]

In my campaings the follwing goes:

Anuire: No true slaves, but conviceted criminals my be sentenced to become de facto slaves in certain parts.

Brechtur: No slaves as the economy works on quite different principles (well, there probably is some people living under slave-like conditions, perhaps toiling under the thumb of harsh guildmasters).

Khinasi: Yes, slavery is legal. However, there are law regarding the treatment of slaves, and in many cases the life of the slave is better them for poor free people.

Rjurik: The Rjurik have a caste of thralls (slaves). They are not owned in the sense that they are property, but are sworn to the service of another and may not leave or refuse their master. Poor Rjurik may become thralls to gain benefits, then may become freemen again if they prove able. Among the nomads where raids are common, warriors may change back and forth with no stigma attached.

Vos: The Vos hold slaves. Most slaves are war-captives of some sort. Their lives are short and brutal, with little hope of advancing their station.


Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

IMO Anuireans hate slavery and wouldn't allow it.
Khinasi see slavery as a punishment of wrong-doers, otherwise as barbaric.
Brechtür: Maybe they have slaves. I see no reason, why not.
Rjurik: I think, they have slaves as cheep workers.
Vos: They have definitively slaves. Defeated enemies are hold as slaves, if they aren't killed and their live in slavery isn't that long, I think...

[Birthright-L]

If you want a real world comparison regarding the cultures that Cerilian
peoples most resemble:

Anuire (French/English): there was no law prohibiting slavery until later
centuries; but for the most part slavery was indeed frowned upon.
Indentured servitude was a daily practice however, but these servants had
some protections. War prisoners were either killed at the end of a battle,
freed if the commander was a decent sort, or held for ransom if such could
be gained.

Rjurik (Danes/Scandinavians): slavery was practiced, but more toward
increasing a people than holding down another. Women were particularly
taken as wives by raiders and then that woman`s sons and daughters became
part of the tribe or clan. Few enemy men were spared this way. Thralls
were kept however, and this was the usual lot of women and what few men were
spared after a raid. In later medieval times, the people of Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, and Finland (kind of a separate group though) began to take more of
a view similar to the French and English they were so very much enmeshed
with culturally.

Brecht (Balto-Germanic peoples): similar to the French and English, the
germanic peoples rarely kept slaves. Again, however, indentured servitude
was quite frequent. Germans were more likely to ransom captured prisoners
than slay them out of hand, but it was still quite common for prisoners to
be killed if they weren`t outright freed.

Khinasi (Arabic/Hindu peoples): the Khinasi most closely resemble Arabic
peoples, and so I`ll use them as my primary example. Slavery was very
commonplace in nearly all Arabic lands. Captured soldiers were almost
always sold into slavery, though some armies kept captured soldiers as
slaves in their own armies to increase their numbers. It wasn`t uncommon
for even somewhat poor people to own a slave. Slaves in Arabic society were
very well protected however, given nearly the same rights as a common man;
but they were still considered property. I`m honestly unfamiliar with the
practices of Hindu culture regarding slaves, so I can`t really comment.

Vos (Russo-Mongoloid peoples): The Russian people were primarily serfs;
people with few rights and few prospects for anything better. This
persisted right up until the last century. The Steppe peoples believed that
slavery was an integral party of survival. A defeated man knew he would
either die are become a "member" (as in slave) to the victor. Very much
like the Scandinavian/Danish peoples, women were very much sought as a means
to increase the numbers, and power, of a particular clan (even though horses
were still considered more valuable, if not more respected). Such women
were not truly slaves in the common sense though. They were the wives of
whatever man took them into his family...but they were still not allowed
many freedoms.

As for the Demi-Human/Humanoid races of Cerilia:

Elves were known to keep vast numbers of goblinoid slaves before the
encroachment of humans into Cerilia. As Rhoubhe has proven in numerous
battles against humans, this is still the case in certain places. Rhoubhe
keeps goblins as slave soldiers, most of whom I will wager are sold to his
agents by goblins.

Dwarves believe to much in a personal work ethic to allow for slavery would
be my guess. I could see them believing in indentured servitude on a very
limited basis; but such a dishonor to a dwarf would be crushing, so I don`t
really see it for some reason. Dwarves are too socialist in that they take
care of their own, and I don`t see them allowing someone among them to go
down so far.

Halflings don`t strike me as slave owners, although depending on where they
live they may simply adopt the attitudes of the more dominant races around
them.

Goblins are very common slave holders. They enslave anyone to do their work
for them so that they may simply feast, raid, and fight. The Goblin Kingdom
of Thurazor I`m sure has slaves from all that I have read, and Markazor is
crawling with slave plantations and mine working slaves (especially since
goblins are the dominant species in the Gorgon`s Crown too). I`m not sure
about the cross-compatibility of goblins with other races, but I`m thinking
I remember that they can breed with humans; so this race would obviously be
one to increase its numbers with captured women.

Orogs are very likely to keep slaves as well, though I would wager dwarves
are so hated they wouldn`t last long in Orog slavery. Other races might be
used to serve in mines and such, or even as cattle.

Now all of this is mostly my opinion, but historically speaking it is
correct. The assumptions are somewhat broad in scope and aren`t reflective
EXACTLY of different earth cultures though. I just really don`t have time
to write a paper in an email. :-)

No matter the nation though, most people don`t realize today that slavery
wasn`t seen as evil even by the slaves themselves in ages now past. It was
undesirable, and certainly evil if practiced by certain cultures; but for
the most part it was seen as survival to many slaves who could either escape
or work their way free. Some slaves eventually became the rulers of their
nations because they were so well respected (the Mamluks of Egypt are a good
example). Others were honored to be considered slaves after ample
brainwashing from an early age (the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire) and
were even considered the elite warriors and given very high station in life.

Well, enough of my ramblings.


Tony

__________________________________________________ _______________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Edwards" <anthony_c_edwards@HOTMAIL.COM>

> Rjurik (Danes/Scandinavians): slavery was practiced, but more toward
> increasing a people than holding down another. Women were particularly
> taken as wives by raiders and then that woman`s sons and daughters became
> part of the tribe or clan. Few enemy men were spared this way. Thralls
> were kept however, and this was the usual lot of women and what few men
were
> spared after a raid. In later medieval times, the people of Norway,
Sweden,
> Denmark, and Finland (kind of a separate group though) began to take more
of
> a view similar to the French and English they were so very much enmeshed
> with culturally.
>
>

You are talking about very early Scandinavians here. Slavery was outlawed
around the year 1100 - and was pretty much obsolete even before then. The
Rjurik may have had ancestors that were somewhat like Vikings, but now they
have a mounted feudal overclass, more like the Scandinavia of the 13:th and
14:th centuries.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

----Original Message Follows----
From: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Edwards" <anthony_c_edwards@HOTMAIL.COM>

> Rjurik (Danes/Scandinavians): slavery was practiced, but more toward
> increasing a people than holding down another. Women were particularly
> taken as wives by raiders and then that woman`s sons and daughters became
> part of the tribe or clan. Few enemy men were spared this way. Thralls
> were kept however, and this was the usual lot of women and what few men
were
> spared after a raid. In later medieval times, the people of Norway,
Sweden,
> Denmark, and Finland (kind of a separate group though) began to take more
of
> a view similar to the French and English they were so very much enmeshed
> with culturally.
>
>

>You are talking about very early Scandinavians here. Slavery was outlawed
>around the year 1100 - and was pretty much obsolete even before then. The
>Rjurik may have had ancestors that were somewhat like Vikings, but now they
>have a mounted feudal overclass, more like the Scandinavia of the 13:th and
>14:th centuries.


I`m sorry, did you miss the last part of the paragraph you quoted?


Tony

__________________________________________________ _______________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

Some good stuff in this thread, especially Tony Edwards`s RW analog list,
but one thing I would like to stress is that the individual countries in
each region will also vary greatly.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> IMO Anuireans hate slavery and wouldn`t allow it.

I think the peasants of most realms are probably not much better off than
slaves -- they may not technically be property, but there are probably a
great many laws strictly limiting what they can do or own and who needs
what kinds of permission for travel, etc. Haelynite law strikes me as
something which might very well contain a fairly elaborate caste system.
Wilderness areas (Talinie, Brosengae) probably have freer peasants than
the Heartlands, because it`s harder to project power into those regions.
Given the appearance of the One True Church of Vosgaard, Osoerde probably
does have slavery (even if only recently (re)introduced); Ghoere may be
moving in that direction as well. Mheallie Bireon is the sort of person
who must be involved in slave trading somehow, even if only shipping
captive Rjurik to Khinasi markets.

> Khinasi see slavery as a punishment of wrong-doers, otherwise as barbaric.

I agree with Tony that slavery should be fairly common in Khinasi
lands. However, again, the prevailing cultural attitudes about it will
vary from country to country. In Ariya they probably have a fairly
enlightened attitude, but probably also think that slavery under their
tutelage is good for the moral development of their slaves. Binsada may
be too egalitarian, but Zikala probably uses at least temporary slavery on
a church-run plantation as a punishment for all sorts of things. Aftane
should have slaves everywhere, and should in fact be the center of the
international slave trade in Cerilia.

> Brechtür: Maybe they have slaves. I see no reason, why not.

If they do have slaves, they ought to have the part of the Roman system in
which slaves can earn money on the side and eventually buy themselves
free. Again, in "evil" realms slavery should be more common than in
"good": e.g., I suspect many of the poor farmers in Grabentod are in fact
enslaved captives taken in pirate raids; but when Muden counter-raids they
set all the captives free, even if they were slaves in other realms when
first taken by the Grabens.

> Rjurik: I think, they have slaves as cheep workers.

I think the city/nomad conflict should come into play here somehow.
However, I`m not sure which side should support thralldom and which oppose
it. I could see it either way. I think I`m more tempted to go with
freedom-loving nomads fighting against the slavery introduced by the
decadent, foreign-influenced cities than cities raided by nomads to drag
thralls away into the dark interior, but both have their merits. The
White Witch, being a Vos transplant, certainly has lots of slaves, and so
should the bandit realm (Rjuven?).

> Vos: They have definitively slaves. Defeated enemies are hold as
> slaves, if they aren`t killed and their live in slavery isn`t that
> long, I think...

Yes, definitely. Warrior is the only acceptable occupation for a good Vos
male, and someone has to grow the food -- forcing your defeated enemies to
do it makes their defeat even more ignominious. This is actually one
issue on which I think the Torva and Nona Vos ought to agree. =)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Anthony Edwards wrote:

> Anuire (French/English):

Whereas those people (not me, but there are some) who view them as
Imperial Roman definitely ought to have slavery on a massive scale,
possibly with the same sort of "civilizing" goal as parts of the Roman
model (sort of "trial citizenship" and patron-client ties between freedman
and former owner, at least for the more favored and talented slaves).
Slave-operated latifundia in Alamie and Ghoere strike me as very
appropriate.

> Rjurik (Danes/Scandinavians): Thralls were kept however, and this was
> the usual lot of women and what few men were spared after a raid.

Remembering always that if you take them from your neighbors, that clan
will probably try to raid you in return to free their captured relatives!
Good adventure seed here (and for all the slave-takings, actually). The
Rjurik I suspect are the only one of the five human cultures in which the
children of slaves are considered free.

> Brecht (Balto-Germanic peoples):

The Brecht strike me as the best and most profitable miners of the
Cerilian humans -- and mines with ancient tech are extremely dangerous
enterprises, and as such probably best worked with slave gangs.

> Khinasi (Arabic/Hindu peoples): It wasn`t uncommon for even somewhat
> poor people to own a slave.

It`s probably a major status symbol. "She owns how many slaves? Wow, she
must be really important!"

> Slaves in Arabic society were very well protected however, given
> nearly the same rights as a common man; but they were still considered
> property.

Sayim. There must be traditional rules on exactly what ways to interact
with slaves are proper, depending on the social stations of the free
person and the slave`s owner.

> I`m honestly unfamiliar with the practices of Hindu culture regarding
> slaves, so I can`t really comment.

I`m tempted to include much about the lives of the Untouchables -- e.g.,
in Khinasi there are probably jobs (undertaker, garbageman, tanner, etc.)
which are considered unclean, and thus are only ever performed by slaves
in order to prevent spiritual pollution of free people. This may mean
that very poor or unskilled people unable to get a better job are required
to sell themselves into slavery for social as much as economic reasons.

> Vos (Russo-Mongoloid peoples): Such women were not truly slaves in the
> common sense though. They were the wives of whatever man took them
> into his family...but they were still not allowed many freedoms.

Yes, this is probably the highest-status method of marriage among the
torva Vos! "Your father arranged a marriage with a girl from an allied
clan? You wimp! A _real_ man would have kidnapped a wife from a clan
we`re feuding with!"

> As for the Demi-Human/Humanoid races of Cerilia:

Pretty much what I`d have said. However, I would add that elves and
dwarves probably would not keep members of their own race as slaves, only
members of other races. The more paranoid elven realms might well keep
half-elves as slaves, and Mur-Kilad and Baruk-Azhik might keep POWs from
each other as slaves, but in general IMO both these races think that only
lesser beings (i.e., every species but their own) should be enslaved.

> Elves were known to keep vast numbers of goblinoid slaves before the
> encroachment of humans into Cerilia.

I would not be at all surprised if both the elves and the dwarves
considered slavery to be the natural and only proper condition for a
goblin.

> Halflings don`t strike me as slave owners, although depending on where
> they live they may simply adopt the attitudes of the more dominant
> races around them.

Adoption of the dominant trend is certainly the halfling way, but I
suspect it`s not very practical for halflings to enslave the bigger and
stronger races. For the same reason, I`d think that many halflings would
be enslaved by their neighbors -- except that their Shadow Walk ability
gives them a very effective means of escape.

> Goblins are very common slave holders.

Oh yes, definitely. If I were to closely detail goblin society, I`d
probably decide that *most* goblins were slaves of other goblins.

> Orogs are very likely to keep slaves as well, though I would wager
> dwarves are so hated they wouldn`t last long in Orog slavery. Other
> races might be used to serve in mines and such, or even as cattle.

Yes, good. I`d also suspect that dwarves will enslave any race *except*
orogs, all of whom are simply slain immediately upon capture.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:29 PM


> I think the peasants of most realms are probably not much better off
> than slaves -- they may not technically be property, but there are
> probably a great many laws strictly limiting what they can do or own
> and who needs that kinds of permission for travel, etc.

Slavery in the Greco-Roman model, sure no question, but this is miles from
slavery on the model of the American South.

> Haelynite law strikes me as something which might very well contain a
> fairly elaborate caste system. Wilderness areas (Talinie, Brosengae)
> probably have freer peasants than the Heartlands, because it`s harder
> to project power into those regions.

I think that the familiar code of Chivalry is a central doctrine of Haelyn`s
church. The good branch of the church is a compasion based teaching.
Therefore, mistreatment of dependents would be regarded as a violation.
Interestingly, I think this cleavage is most clear in Talinie, where Torias
Greene has used the teaching on Fitzalan on the value of work to impose more
labor than is typical for Haelynite churches. Why? Because if the laboring
masses abandon Haelyn, they are liable to go for Sera. Their lives are out
of their control, it must be kismet, why not worship the goddess of fate,
and hope for a lucky turn of fate.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Anthony Edwards" <anthony_c_edwards@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> I`m sorry, did you miss the last part of the paragraph you quoted?
>

You were saying the Rjurik ought to have slaves, based on the Scandinavian
model. I said that the scandinavian model did not include slaves - at least
not in medieval times, which you agreed on. Thus, if the Rjurik are to be
similiar to medieval Scandinavians (a gross simplification, true), they
ought not to have slaves. So somewhere along the line, we do not agree. It
seems to me that you want to base the Rjurik of pre-christian Scandianvia,
while I see it as more similiar to medieveal Scandinavia.

So I didn`t miss something - I was pointing out a point of contention. This
point of contention had little to do wit facts (where we seem to agree), but
with conclusions.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>

> > I think the peasants of most realms are probably not much better off
> > than slaves -- they may not technically be property, but there are
> > probably a great many laws strictly limiting what they can do or own
> > and who needs that kinds of permission for travel, etc.
>
> Slavery in the Greco-Roman model, sure no question, but this is miles
> from slavery on the model of the American South.

Oh, yes, certainly. Slaves look just like everyone else, and under the
right conditions can move into or out of servitude, and can rise to rather
powerful positions in society. Can one have slavery and serfdom existing
side-by-side? It would be interesting, but I`m not sure how to make it
work. But I also think there ought to be at least one major Haelynite
temple which teaches that anyone born a slave *deserves* to have been born
a slave, and forever stay that way as divinely ordained punishment for
their (possibly future) sins. Temples to Cuiraecen, OTOH, I would say are
very much into freedom. In fact, a (Chaotic Good) Storm Lord paladin`s
tithe would go precisely toward buying slaves in order to set them free,
and one might even go around raiding slave-pens to free the inmates.
In contrast, I think a *Haelynite* paladin`s duty would be to recapture
escaped slaves, rather than help them get away -- unless their master
violated the laws about their treatment, in which case the paladin would
be required to recapture them, and remand them to a state or temple
facility pending the outcome of the legal action he would then initiate.

> I think that the familiar code of Chivalry is a central doctrine of
> Haelyn`s church. The good branch of the church is a compasion based
> teaching.

Possibly, though I`ve always seen Haelyn as much more Lawful than Good.
There`s also literal Divine Right to contend with: in Anuire, it should be
illegal to enslave anyone who can show they have the blood of Anduiras in
them -- perhaps anyone who can show any bloodline other than Azrai. This
might also hold in parts of Khinasi or Brechtur, but mostly the other
lands I think should be of the opinion that for any true scion to be a
slave is entirely his own fault, and his own problem to fix if he can.

> Therefore, mistreatment of dependents would be regarded as a violation.

Yes, there clearly would be laws about the proper ways in which to treat
members of each level of society. I am very fond of the Roman concept
that each person`s status entitles them to a specific amount of praise:
giving more than that is flattery, and giving less is slander. OTOH,
perhaps that`s more a Khinasi thing than an Anuirean one?

> Why? Because if the laboring masses abandon Haelyn, they are liable
> to go for Sera. Their lives are out of their control, it must be
> kismet, why not worship the goddess of fate, and hope for a lucky turn
> of fate.

Interesting!


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Green Knight]

I agree.

I have assigned the warios temples different ”alignments”, based on
those alignemnts that Haleyn accepts; if Haleyn likes LE priests, who is
to say that such churches of Haelyn does not exist?

Some examples:

OIT (LE)
IHH (NG)
WIT (LN)
NIT (LG)

Well, that is the short version of it...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:33 PM


> I`ve always seen Haelyn as much more Lawful than Good.

I`ve given that role over to Avani. For Haelyn I have lots of competing
factions between the various alignments, with a strong conflict between Good
and Lawful. Temple politics are as much fun as realm politics.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > I`ve always seen Haelyn as much more Lawful than Good.
>
> I`ve given that role over to Avani.

Fair enough. I suppose I see Avani as personifying Reason more than Law,
which means to me that she`ll approve anything you can convince her is
correct. I think of her as rather more "ends justify the means" (i.e.,
the goddess set you a thought-problem, and you figured out a way to solve
it, so you`ve tested your method and proved it right) than he is.

> For Haelyn I have lots of competing factions between the various
> alignments, with a strong conflict between Good and Lawful. Temple
> politics are as much fun as realm politics.

Oh yes! Very much so. For all the religions, but especially the ones
with the most political power. Bjorn`s list is a fine guide for starters.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ariadne wrote:
> IMO Anuireans hate slavery and wouldn`t allow it.
> Khinasi see slavery as a punishment of wrong-doers, otherwise
> as barbaric.
> Brechtür: Maybe they have slaves. I see no reason, why not.
> Rjurik: I think, they have slaves as cheep workers.
> Vos: They have definitively slaves. Defeated enemies are hold
> as slaves, if they aren`t killed and their live in slavery
> isn`t that long, I think...

I`m going to involve indenture a bit here, I know people have said that
it is different from slavery, but I`m not sure I agree on that exactly.

I think that both Anuireans, Khinasi, and Brechts would allow `penal
servitude` so that criminals can pay any fines they owe to a victim if
they are unable to pay with coin or goods. Brechts may also allow
voluntary indenture in order to pay off other debts.

I do not think that the Anuireans or Brechts would have slaves,
particularly generational slaves. The idea of purchasing people seems to
be counter to my personal conception of how these cultures are.

I am of two minds about the Khinasi. I expect that some Khinasi do
support slavery, while that others do not.

I expect that the Rjurik allow thralls or something similar, but that
the children of thralls are born free.

The Vos certainly practice slavery, probably horribly unrealistically
cruel slavery if their backgrounds are to be believed (I`m still unhappy
with how the Vos are portrayed ;)).

The sidhelien would be revolted by the idea of law codes, let alone
penal indenture, let alone actual slavery.

The dwarves probably have some kind of debt or penal servitude in their
codes, but would - like the Anuireans and Brecht - avoid true slavery.

So there is my NZ$0.10.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

I wasn`t saying that anyone should have/do anything. The entire point of my
post, which was stated, was only to point out the similarities between
Cerilia`s cultures and those in Real World history. The addition of the
non-human cultures was only for completeness. The point of a fantasy
campaign is to "escape" reality, so they should only be tied together as
much as is needed to allow people to connect with things they are familiar
with.

As I`ve often tried to get students to do, I seem to have failed myself.
I`ll be more clear next time; though I did mention that the Scandinavian
peoples later became much akin to the English/French they were so entwined
with. The similarity is still there in the Rjurik/Anuirean theme as well;
so a literal interpretation of what I stated was that the Rjurik should have
views on slavery just as the Anuireans do.


Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>

You were saying the Rjurik ought to have slaves, based on the Scandinavian
model. I said that the scandinavian model did not include slaves - at least
not in medieval times, which you agreed on. Thus, if the Rjurik are to be
similiar to medieval Scandinavians (a gross simplification, true), they
ought not to have slaves. So somewhere along the line, we do not agree. It
seems to me that you want to base the Rjurik of pre-christian Scandianvia,
while I see it as more similiar to medieveal Scandinavia.

So I didn`t miss something - I was pointing out a point of contention. This
point of contention had little to do wit facts (where we seem to agree), but
with conclusions.

/Carl

__________________________________________________ _______________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 02:39 PM 6/19/2003 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>The dwarves probably have some kind of debt or penal servitude in their
>codes, but would - like the Anuireans and Brecht - avoid true slavery.

Yeah, I don`t really see dwarves having slaves in the sense that most of us
would really consider slavery. The exception being, probably, the dwarves
of Mur-Kilad whose "natural" dwarven culture is in many ways corrupted by
the oppressive influence from the Gorgon. Aside from a fundamental
self-reliance in the dwarven mentality that would find slavery itself
repugnant, but IMO another side of that same mentality would be that they
find slave owning a sign of one`s need to have others do for him rather
than do for himself--something that would probably be shameful.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

My view of the Vos is that they may or may not have slavery - it is a matter
of semantics. Poor and opressed people have no rights in Vos society. If
they are called slaves, pons, serfs or whatever matters little. With a
ruling diety that is Chaotic Evil, legal codes are likely to mean a lot less
than the excercise of raw power.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

I bow with respect before your humility.

/Carl


From: "Anthony Edwards" <anthony_c_edwards@HOTMAIL.COM>

> As I`ve often tried to get students to do, I seem to have failed myself.
> I`ll be more clear next time; though I did mention that the Scandinavian
> peoples later became much akin to the English/French they were so entwined
> with. The similarity is still there in the Rjurik/Anuirean theme as well;
> so a literal interpretation of what I stated was that the Rjurik should
have
> views on slavery just as the Anuireans do.
>
>
> Tony
>
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[fg]

This from the CotS book:
--------
Khinasi society:

From the beginning of history, the Basarji considered all people free and equal. No person should ever own another, tradition dictates, and no person is better than another by virtue of birth, gender, or class.
--------

I would think that this statement would preclude Khinasi from slavery.

[Green Knight]

Let`s all just start listing Canon quotes ;-)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by fg

This from the CotS book:
--------
Khinasi society:

From the beginning of history, the Basarji considered all people free and equal. No person should ever own another, tradition dictates, and no person is better than another by virtue of birth, gender, or class.
--------

I would think that this statement would preclude Khinasi from slavery.
Yes, this was what I pointed out some pages earlier. Nice to have someone of same oppinon...

[Trithemius]

Ariadne sez:
> Yes, this was what I pointed out some pages
> earlier. Nice to have someone of same oppinon...

Speaking for myelf, I like "canon material" that agrees with me. To my
mind the Khinasi draw upon too many disparate influences for there to be
a rule about slavery that applies to the -entire- culture. The opinions
of the embattled eastern coastal dictators, the genteel southern coastal
princes, and the fierce inland nomads are all going to differ IMO and
IMBR.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

I think much of the campaign descriptive material is all together to modern
in its tone. Egalitarian ideas are generally found in two kinds of
cultures, hunter-gatherers and industrialized societies. And that is aside
from the absurdity of a egaliratian notion juxtaposed with the fellow
carrying the blood of gods, a major bloodline, and several powers so
derived. In terms of mechanics and setting backround, it would seem that BR
is the aristocratic setting par excellance. Why so much of the setting
description is incompatable with that, is vexing.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Kalien]

Originally posted by kgauck
In terms of mechanics and setting backround, it would seem that BR is the aristocratic setting par excellance. Why so much of the setting description is incompatable with that, is vexing.

This disparity between what might be considered the core fundamentals of the setting and much of it's description also carries through to game play, moreso in PBeMs than table-top games, adding to a sense of disjunction. For example, I don't know how many times I have seen people argue for egalitarian voting systems to decide matters in PBeMs, insisting everyone's votes are of equal importance.

The fact that the offcial "canon" material of the boxed set blurs the lines of distinction between aristocratic governance and notions of divine right with those of modern post-industrial egalitarianism encourages similar patterns of thought and action on the part of players. We often end up with the curious result of contemporary social practises and belief systems superimposed upon a setting that is inherently contrary to such social practises and belief systems.

Often I have scratched my head in games and wondered just what another player was trying to do and why they were doing it - or even if they realised they were operating within the context of a medieval setting tailored to notions of divine right and not at the United Nations offices in New York. I suppose the more you actually know of history, the more over-sensitive to such divergences you might be though. ;)