Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 AvonRekaes Dec 08, 2014 0:14:22	So, an interesting connundrum came up in my game, when a psion PC took the Mind Control power. For those not familiar with psionics, it's basically the same as Dominate Person/Monster.   There just so happened to be an NPC paladin in the party that was the main source of income for the group at the moment (The campaign is centered around an adventurer's guild that takes jobs posted on a notice board, and the paladin's job just happened to be the highest paying).    I think you can see where this is going.   A quick glance at the Law and Order section of the Sharn sourcebook didn't reveal any laws against slavery or dominate specifically, but I felt pretty confidently that slavery was a Big No for the Code of Galifar (what with it's non prejudiced view on sentient creatures of any kind able to be citizens).    After the session I had an opportunity to read the Law and Order section a bit more thoroughly and discovered that "spells that tamper with [...] thoughts" are considered to be, legally speaking fraud. But the examples it gives are the "softer" enchantment spells, like charm, suggestion, and fear. But... Dominate is Dominate. People that are dominated can't even pretend to act like normal, hence the easier Sense Motive check to detect them. They are nearly completely devoid of autonomy (except basic actions required for survival like eating and sleeping). Being charged with fraud seems pretty lenient for someone carrying around a menagerie of dominated people enslaved to their will like meat puppets.   Ultimately I determined that Dominate would be considered armed assault if the caster is proven to have cast it on a specific individual only once, but repeated uses of Dominate on a single sentient target would be considered a form of slavery.   It would be hard to prove, of course, how long someone had been dominated, and whether somone dominated for 11 days was the subject of one (at minimum caster level) or two or more castings (from a higher level caster). If the victim was of significant status, though, like the heir of a land-owning noble or something, divinatory investigation would be able to find out.   In the end, the Paladin felt squeemish about it when the psion dominated a bandit archer in the middle of combat, but he didn't insist that the psion release him. As long as the psion treated the dominated bandit as a prisoner and allowed him to defend himself if combat broke out, he was alright with it. (I.E., he specifically said that they would not be using the bandit as an untrained trap spinger or an expendable scout). I mean, the paladin had just gotten done murdering (legally speaking) the rest of the bandits with the rest of the party during a "fair fight", so I didn't really see how he could take that much of a moral high-ground, but I thought "treat as prisoner" would work best. Respect for the dignity of sentient life and all that.   Has anyone else got a better idea on how to treat Dominate under the Code of Galifar? Is there a specific reference to slavery being illegal in a book somewhere?
#2 Beoric Dec 10, 2014 22:04:02	I'm not sure that slavery is necessarily illegal, except possibly against enslaving citizens.  Galifar I freed the goblins in exchange for military service, and initially that was what Boranel was doing with the Warforged, IIRC.  I seem to remember references to rights extending to citizens, but not monstrous races, so I wouldn't be surprised if enslaving an ogre was just fine (until you ran afoul od Daask, anyway).  See p. 126 of Sharn CoT.
#3 AvonRekaes Dec 12, 2014 13:20:10	I am almost positive that all sentient races are elligible for citizens. Which is why you have things like a Medusa running Malleon's Gate in Sharn (though that could just be a de-facto leader, and not official, I can't remember off-hand exactly). If you kill an Ogre in Sharn in front of the right (or wrong, in this case) kind of guard, you'll get arrested for murder.   The freeing of the goblins, I'm pretty sure, is the basis for this law. Galifar the 1st did it, so it would be in his Code. Also, I'm pretty sure King Boranel freed the Warforged just to free the Warforged. The Treaty ended the war and freed them at the same time, and Boranel was largely sympathetic to them because of Bastion, a Warforged buddy of his. I don't think he argued for their freedom to be conditional. (He's too cool of a guy for that)
#4 Beoric Dec 12, 2014 16:26:51	I'm not going to quote it extensively, but for example, from SCoT, page 126:  "As a result, creatures from Droaam are not protected by the law unless they are working for House Tharashk. All beings are expected to abide by the laws of the city, so while there is technically no legal penalty for killing a Droaamite gnoll, the gnoll is held accountable if he murders a Brelish citizen."   Compare with p. 176:  "Most monsters of the humanoid type can move about unmolested in Sharn. The laws protect the liberties of humanoids—even orcs or drow—as long as they do not engage in criminal activities."  Note there is a reference in the "Followers" section on that page to "slaves of humanoids" not generally being slaughtered in the streets.   It occurs to me that Dominate is probably akin to kidnapping in many ways.  That might be a better analogy than slavery in that it is impermenant.  Whether slavery is illegal or not, kidnapping is disruptive enough to public order that it is almost certainly illegal.  Particularly because the wealthy and powerful are likely targets.
#5 Beoric Dec 13, 2014 12:07:48	I also note that the freeing of the warforged required specific provision in the Treaty of Thronehold - in other words, they were not already free under the Code.  From this, and the fact that legal protection is only given to citizens of Thronehold nations, I infer that there is no specific prohibition against enslaving sentient non-humanoids or non-citizens (i.e., creatures who "aren't like us", I wouldn't get too hung up on keywords).
#6 Hellcow Dec 28, 2014 18:51:52	It was certainly the intent that slavery is not practiced in the Five Nations, and that enslaving a citizen of the Five Nations would be illegal under the Code of Galifar. While it's true that the goblins were released from bondage in exchange for military service, this was also supposed to mark a general end to the practice in the Five Nations. If it's not stated clearly, it's something that can be inferred from the fact that many other nations - such as Droaam and Darguun - specifically call out the fact that slavery IS a practice within their borders. In the case of Warforged, the core idea here isn't that the treaty said "You can't have warforged slaves", but rather that it recognized warforged as being citizens entitled to ALL protections of the law... whereas previously they were seen only as property.   In my opinion, the core question is a matter of common sense. Magic is a recognized tool that exists in the world, and the law exists to regulate its use in the same way as mundane tools. A magic missile and a bow are both lethal weapons, and the law won't change because you kill someone with a fireball instead of a knife: the core fact is that murder is a crime, and the tool you use to accomplish it is secondary. In this case, I think you need to look at the circumstances and the long and short term intent. Replace the spell with another weapon: how would you see things then? What if it was a drug instead of a spell? What if you simply walked around behind him holding a gun to his head and ordering him to do things? What are the circumstances - is this an act of self-defense? Is it pre-meditated? Is it unnecessarily prolonged? Basically, if you're attacked by bandits, I don't see it as being somehow worse to dominate a bandit and make him shoot his friends than to shoot the bandit and then shoot all his friends yourself; if you are justified if killing the bandits, whether you do it with a sword or a suggestion is secondary. Basically, I'd say "Would you consider the actions you're accomplishing with dominate to be a crime if you were using a mundane method of coercion?" and take it from there.   But for what it's worth, in my opinion slavery is considered a barbaric practice in the Five Nations and the Code would prevent enslavement of anyone protected by it. Elementals and warforged escaped this because they were (and in some cases still are) seen more as tools or objects than people.
#7 Beoric Dec 28, 2014 22:22:10	Right, but who or what else can be seen as "more as tools or objects than people"?  Warforged have human-level intelligence.  Elementals have inteiigence at the lower end of the human scale, but are still arguably sentient.  So where is the line drawn?  It can't be mere sentience, or warforged and elementals could never have been property.  From your comment I think it must be extended to more than just citizens (ie. I expect you could not enslave a human non-citizen).  But what about a ogre, which is monstrous and not very bright (which is smarter, an ogre or a chimp)?  Or a sphinx or manticore which is not humanoid?   The Five Nations are generally described as feudal.  Are there serfs bound to the land and their leige lord?  Are serfs subject to local (manor) legal practices?  I feel like they would be, in Aundair or Karrnath at least.  Or are all peasants free peasants?  Does indentured servitude exist?   And what about diplomatic realities?  Are the Darguul embassador's goblin or kobold slaves freed if they travel with him on a diplomatic mission?   My point is that it is a very slippery slope.  In practice, if someone set up a sweat shop using troll slave labour, would the populace or the authorities worry about the poor, downtrodden trolls, or would they be more likely to advocate for their immediate destruction given the danger if they escaped?  De we really think the authorities would free the trolls and release them into the wild?  (Although a policy of deporting intelligent monsters to Droaam does raise interesting story possibilities.)   So, again, where is the line drawn?
(Reply to #7) Hellcow	Beoric wrote:
(Reply to #7) Hellcow	Beoric wrote:
#10 Beoric Dec 29, 2014 20:12:16	Thanks, Keith.  I'm going with citizenship as the defining factor, partly because the citizenship language is used in the relevant parts of Sharn:CoT, but also because it makes the Five Nations feel like something other than a proxy for modern western nations.