The Gaming Den

DSMatticus wrote:Slavery is predicated on the idea of "work for me or I hurt you, and you can have whatever I need to give you to keep you alive while you work." And there's a perfectly valid idea for a social order, because being enslaved is usually better than being dead, and in an anarchy there's a whole lot of chance of ending up dead.

Wrathzog wrote:In a society with slavery, slaves will probably be given a constant supply of Food and a Place to sleep. They'll also be provided a nominal amount of protection based on the idea that it's rude to break other people's things.
It's not ideal by any means but I consider that better than nothing at all.

(emphasis added)

Just for the record, you guys actually did reach the level of justifying slavery. Congratulations.

PoliteNewb wrote:Just for the record, you guys actually did reach the level of justifying slavery. Congratulations.

Do I win a prize?

No, but seriously, I'll admit that I made a ton of assumptions with my reasoning but that's only because there is almost no information about this hypothetical society that we're talking about. All I know is that it has some form of Slavery, but nothing else is defined.
What I have said and will continue to say is that a Society with Slavery will PROBABLY have rules regarding the "Fair" treatment of slaves. Those rules are PROBABLY enforced. And that is more than Anarchy even pretends to have.

Now, all of this is Moot because we're not talking about the Real World. We don't care about things like Black/White when we have Racial Conflicts that actually matter like how the Elves are lynching Orcs.
We're talking about worlds that have races like Ogres, who combine monstrous strength with the intellect and thought processes of a retarded child. Ogres straight up should not be left to their own devices because they are left confused when confronted with the complexities of Pants. I would argue that enslaving Ogres is a good thing.

@Wrathzog: It really would depend on the society in question, and the job that slaves are supposed to do. Treatment can differ vastly in the same society - slaves for menial tasks led a pretty bad life in ancient rome. The same ancient rome had slaves tasked with educating the children of the patricians, and of course, nobody ran around stabbing and hitting said slaves, because you usually don't do that to people you're feeding and housing for important tasks like education. Those slaves where supposed to be motivated and loyal, which is not compatible with arbitrary punishment - cruel by modern standards maybe, but not arbitrary. On the other hand, labour slaves were supposed to do grueling work with no compensation, and that's not compatible with fair treatment. While legally, both groups of slaves had object status, it was only really enforced for the latter, wheras the treatment of the former was restricted by social mores and rational considerations on getting the most out of your investment. And if said investment is in fact a human, a rational person won't care if he legally counts as an object - he still won't behave like one, so he was treated differently.

Slaves for mining and similar tasks probably would be better off revolting and going back to hunter-gatherer level. True anarchy probably isn't even an option to consider - it won't happen when you're still existing and making decisions as a group, so the whole anarchy vs. society point might be kind of moot. We're not Rosseau or Locke, we don't have to make arbitrary assumptions about pre-social humanity. We have pretty solid knowledge that humans lived in some kind of society even before they were considered homo sapiens. The question is not so much if you should have society at all, the question is what society is better. "No society" is only viable if you happen to be a completely solitary creature. Which Ogres aren't, unless they somehow don't procreate and yet exist.

Nacht wrote:It really would depend on the society in question, and the job that slaves are supposed to do.

I agree. Which is why I emphasized PROBABLY like I did. I can't say for certain what's going on because there is limited information.

-e-
Hit Submit way too quickly.

Anyhow, Anarchy, on the other hand, is actually defined. Anarchy doesn't have any rules at all and that isn't good for anyone. It isn't guaranteed to improve a Slave's situation at all.

Somalia has a lot of slaves. Right now. In 2011.

A complete breakdown of the social order doesn't mean that random people can't rape, kill, or enslave you. Quite the opposite.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: A complete breakdown of the social order doesn't mean that random people can't rape, kill, or enslave you. Quite the opposite.

Yes, if there is no government it means that your survival depends on how effective you are in convincing people not to screw with you.

You can do this by being personally such a bad-ass that nobody will mess with you, or be being related to a bad-ass that nobody wants to annoy by messing with you, or be being allied to some group that is collectively a bad-ass. Or by being the property of a bad-ass who will protect you from being beaten to death for the amusement of other bad-asses in exchange for you doing his cooking and providing" entertainment and company" to his important guests.

DSMatticus wrote:Fectin, what he wanted most was crack. Dead people cannot smoke crack. In that regard, killing himself (even with crack) was counterproductive to his interests, but he did it anyway.

That's not really an ambiguous counterpoint at all. That is the clearest possible rebuttal of "there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them."

It's really not a rebuttal though. It would be if I were willing to accept as given that there was never anything worth dying for, but that's ridiculous.
For some activities, some people are willing to accept an elevated risk of death, in exchange for immediate convenience. Everyone proves this whenever they get on highways, or eat fast food, or play with solder, or do nearly anything at all. That's not a wierd thing. How is killing yourself with crack different?

fectin I would be willing to accept your premise if people were perfectly rational odds players with perfect information about the risks they were taking.

But that is demonstrably not true. People make completely improper choices based on irrational fears with incomplete information all the time. It's practically the human condition.

PoliteNewb wrote:Just for the record, you guys actually did reach the level of justifying slavery. Congratulations.

First of all, not all forms of "slavery" are equal. It's really hard to discuss slavery in the abstract, just as it is sometimes difficult to discuss anything in the abstract. One can always find an example where the best example of a bad thing is better than the worst example of a good thing.

Wrathzog wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:Just for the record, you guys actually did reach the level of justifying slavery. Congratulations.

Do I win a prize?

Well, you didn't specifically defend slavery in the antebellum south, so you miss out on the "awesome racist" award. Too bad.

But THIS earns you a prize:

We're talking about worlds that have races like Ogres, who combine monstrous strength with the intellect and thought processes of a retarded child. Ogres straight up should not be left to their own devices because they are left confused when confronted with the complexities of Pants. I would argue that enslaving Ogres is a good thing.

This earns you the "fantasy racist" award, because it is ridiculous. Ogres are no dumber than many adult humans or dwarves walking around free...they have an average Int of 6, which is about a -4 penalty...so when an ogre takes 10 on a knowledge check, his result is about 2 points lower than an average human's. Some ogres are probably smarter than you.

But when you make quick stereotypes like "ogres are too dumb to wear pants" (never mind the fact that even a 6 Int person can handle pants just fine, thanks), it allows you to make mass assumptions like "ogres can't be trusted to self-govern", even when those assumptions are crap. And much as you might like to overlook it, telling ogres "go sit in the corner, dummy, big people are talking" is racist. Ogres are entirely capable of self-governing...granted, the social order they develop may involve killing humans and wearing their bones as ornaments, but they're not incompetent.

Nachtigallerator wrote:Slaves for mining and similar tasks probably would be better off revolting and going back to hunter-gatherer level. True anarchy probably isn't even an option to consider - it won't happen when you're still existing and making decisions as a group, so the whole anarchy vs. society point might be kind of moot.

This is a valid point. It all depends on how you define "social order".

Anarchy doesn't have any rules at all and that isn't good for anyone. It isn't guaranteed to improve a Slave's situation at all.

If the rules are all designed to fuck you over, then yes, no rules is better than the existing rules. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence. And also admittedly, you would be better off with rules that benefited you in some way instead of no rules.

Of course it isn't "guaranteed" to improve a slave's situation. I never claimed it was. My point is, rules are not guaranteed to improve a person's situation over anarchy, either.

A complete breakdown of the social order doesn't mean that random people can't rape, kill, or enslave you.

This is true. I've never denied it.
A complete breakdown of social order also means that organized groups do not have a vested interest in raping, illing, or enslaving you. There is not an overarching structure intent on fucking you over...just people, who are often easier to deal with.

With no laws, any tough asshole with an M-16 can push you around...but you only have to deal with him, and maybe his buddies. You don't need to deal with the police, the army, or any law-abiding schmuck who is going to uphold the law by dragging your escaped-slave ass back to your old owner. And people can be willing to help you (for any number of reasons) without fear of organized retribution from the social order.

Every hand against every other is a tough situation, no doubt...but it's highly unlikely that all the other hands are going to join up against you. Which is the exact situation you have when you are at the bottom of the social order.

It's really not a rebuttal though. It would be if I were willing to accept as given that there was never anything worth dying for, but that's ridiculous.
For some activities, some people are willing to accept an elevated risk of death, in exchange for immediate convenience. Everyone proves this whenever they get on highways, or eat fast food, or play with solder, or do nearly anything at all. That's not a wierd thing. How is killing yourself with crack different?

Nicely put. I would also add, in rebuttal to the "some people are so stupid they do things against their best interest"...plenty of not-so-stupid people do this as well.

Do you think only complete imbeciles use drugs, or OD on drugs? There's a pretty large segment of society, from people with MBA's to brilliant and successful musicians, who abuse drugs, sometimes to the point of death.

Someone who only acts in their own best interest is usually a sociopath.

PoliteNewb wrote:This earns you the "fantasy racist" award, because it is ridiculous. Ogres are no dumber than many adult humans or dwarves walking around free...they have an average Int of 6, which is about a -4 penalty...so when an ogre takes 10 on a knowledge check, his result is about 2 points lower than an average human's. Some ogres are probably smarter than you.

By that same line of thinking, Dogs are really not much dumber than Ogres. They have an average Int of 2, which will only result in about 2 points lower than an average Ogre's for a Knowledge check.
What does this prove? That there isn't enough fidelity between sub-par intelligence scores and that Ogres are still dumber than humans.

PoliteNewb wrote:But when you make quick stereotypes like "ogres are too dumb to wear pants" (never mind the fact that even a 6 Int person can handle pants just fine, thanks), it allows you to make mass assumptions like "ogres can't be trusted to self-govern", even when those assumptions are crap. And much as you might like to overlook it, telling ogres "go sit in the corner, dummy, big people are talking" is racist. Ogres are entirely capable of self-governing...granted, the social order they develop may involve killing humans and wearing their bones as ornaments, but they're not incompetent.

Look, all I'm saying is that I very rarely see Ogres with Pants on.

But you've pretty much given me my justification for why Ogres shouldn't be allowed to Self-Govern. Given free reign to do what they want, they opt to ambush and eat merchant caravans and that's not acceptable behavior.
And I'll be completely clear on this, when we enslave them, we're doing it because it benefits everyone else. There is no illusion of doing this for the Benefit of the Ogres. We're doing it for us.

Alternatively, we keep things the way they are right now... and pay adventurers to run around murdering Ogres in their sleep for paltry sums of gold.

Just for the record, you guys actually did reach the level of justifying slavery. Congratulations.

Little late on the response, but whoa. PoliteNewb, that's just unfair.

Valid social order != morally upright social order. Those are two completely different claims. By valid, we mean 'will hold together as opposed to dissolve into anarchy.'

And wrathzog has the appropriate response for the ogre intelligence thing. Ogres get -2 to knowledge checks, and in theory know 10% less than humans. Dogs get -4 to knowledge checks, and in theory know 20% less than humans. Either dogs in D&D are ridiculously intelligent, or the attribute system is a discrete linear abstraction that stops making sense at the low end (it's the second one). So, yes. Ogres are dumb. Very dumb. You can't map it linearly, even though that's what the intelligence modifier suggests, because then you occasionally get dogs that are literally as intelligent as the average peasant (18 roll, -8 racial modifier), and that doesn't correspond.

That said, ogres being dumb does not mean, at all, that they have no right to self-govern? Apparently I made a mistake bringing up the self-governing thing. I had no intention that that would be a keypoint of the discussion - everyone has the right to self-govern. I was not suggesting stupid people needed other people to take over for them. We already know that's a bad idea where everyone gets taken advantage of by those in power, and that's why we're justifiably afraid of it - I was just pointing out that, even though we give people the ability to self govern out of the necessity of preventing abuse, that doesn't mean they always self-govern well. And there's no reason to think groups of people self-govern well.

Ogres, though, are perfectly capable of self-governing well. It is in their best interests to slaughter and eat merchant caravans, because that is how they get shiny new things, and they like shiny new things, and being the big dumb brutes they are, civilized society would just take advantage of them as slaves or dumb labor. And it is in the best interests of humans to kill these ogres, to keep their shiny new things from being stolen. And these are both valid social orders (while being an ethical nightmare of constant racial genocide). They function, and they serve the best interests of each party for the most part.

No, it's a rebuttal of "there is no difference between what one particular person wants and what is better for him.

Uhh, yeah. Exactly. That was the point. And believe it or not, groups of people consist of individuals. And there's no reason to think that you can stick ten people who individually think "I love punching myself in the face" in a room together and watch them come to a consensus that "punching ourselves in the face hurts, we should stop." Groups of stupid people make stupid groups. We've established that individuals can be stupid. (By stupid, in this case, I mean act counter to their best interests).

Do you think only complete imbeciles use drugs, or OD on drugs? There's a pretty large segment of society, from people with MBA's to brilliant and successful musicians, who abuse drugs, sometimes to the point of death.

I'm using the word stupid liberally in a way that in no way reflects its actual definition. I am currently sitting here typing up this post instead of working on homework due in a few hours. I am being incredibly stupid (acting counter to my best interests).

But fectin is right that not all things that run the risk of killing you are cases of acting against your best interest. An elevated risk of death getting on the highway? Yeah, marginally - and in exchange, modern society keeps rolling. The fact that we spend more time on highways than more modern public infrastructural transportation, though, suggests that we are still being pretty stupid (as a collective group). No surprises there.

But OD'ing on crack, like playing russian roulette, is a whole lot different than driving on the highway. The magnitudes and mechanisms and agency involved are all clearly different - OD'ing is solely self-inflicted. Just like russian roulette. Also, the odds and the expectations are different. If you regularly play russian roulette, you should expect to die. If you regularly drive your car, you shouldn't really expect anything. OD'ing is somewhere inbetween.

DSMatticus wrote:because then you occasionally get dogs that are literally as intelligent as the average peasant

Well, they stop being animals if they somehow hit 3 intelligence (which they shouldn't). It's funky... but familiars start at 6 intelligence and eventually become more intelligent than most people.

DSMatticus wrote:And wrathzog has the appropriate response for the ogre intelligence thing. Ogres get -2 to knowledge checks, and in theory know 10% less than humans. Dogs get -4 to knowledge checks, and in theory know 20% less than humans. Either dogs in D&D are ridiculously intelligent, or the attribute system is a discrete linear abstraction that stops making sense at the low end (it's the second one). So, yes. Ogres are dumb. Very dumb. You can't map it linearly, even though that's what the intelligence modifier suggests, because then you occasionally get dogs that are literally as intelligent as the average peasant (18 roll, -8 racial modifier), and that doesn't correspond.

The moar you know: sapience in 3E starts from Int 3. Int 1 is reserved for "dumb" animals (lizard, toad, squid - soccer fans would disagree with the latter), Int 2 for "clever" animals (birds and mammals). Dogs do not roll for Int, they have it fixed at 2. The scale is screwed up in that that Int 3 is closer to Int 10 than to Int 2.

I think that the very act of abusing drugs makes you an idiot/imbecile. It's not like people don't know what they do to you. Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, none of those things are good for you, or do anything to your life but destroy it. Same for abusing prescription pills.

Just taking serious Drugs gets you an I) for Idiot.

It's like Drinking and Driving.
If you did it in the 70's and early 80's we'll forgive you for being an ignorant fuck. If you're doing it now, you're criminally negligent and I wish they crushed your life more. But then I'm one of the crazies who thinks that if you kill someone while driving drunk, that should be an automatic Murder 1 charge.

Starmaker wrote:The scale is screwed up in that that Int 3 is closer to Int 10 than to Int 2.

Yeah, especially since INT 3 isn't supposed to represent any sort of actual mental handicap.

Starmaker, I'm aware that dogs don't roll. That's sort of the point - the mathematics of the system implies dogs, even with an int of 2, would only know 20% less than the average human. But we know that's flat out wrong - dogs don't know anything. When considering what intelligence means, we have to abandon the linearity of the modifier system. Ogres are somewhere on the tail end of what is probably a logarithmic curve between dogs and humans.

Though, I suppose you're right that dogs are a little unfair, in that it's strongly suggested int 1 and int 2 are special cases by the MM's. But you can dig up plenty of creatures we know are comparatively stupid that have int 3, through.

You guys are being way too harsh toward dogs. I'm convinced that the average Border Collie is smarter than most people.

I'm sorry I picked Dogs for the comparison. We can use Hamsters if you want.

We can use abyssal greater basilisks (int 3), gray renders (int 3), gricks (int 3), rasts (int 3), tendriculi (int 3), and of course, the great and mighty tarrasque (int 3).

I don't think we would expect any of these creatures to know only roughly 20% less than the average human does, yet int 3 on D&D's linear system implies a -4 penalty on intelligence checks, translating to only a 20% higher chance of failure.

So the fact that int 1 and int 2 have special meanings (I'm not even sure by RAW they do, it's merely the case that all animals happen to have int 1 or int 2 in addition to the distinguishing feature of being of low sentience) isn't important. Int 3 is something a human peasant can literally roll up, yet it is also the intelligence of something like a gray render. So, yeah. Weirdness.

Either way, this is an old argument. D&D intelligence makes no sense linearly. We know that already. So we don't interpret it linearly. Actually, intelligence doesn't really make sense at all. Stupid intelligence. (Yes, that's a bad joke. It's okay if you don't laugh. It's probably better if you don't, actually, or you may belong in the list of int 3 creatures above.)

If we assume that the human standard of 80% commoners holds for ogres, then ogres can't have a standard agrarian society at all since half the ogres lack ranks in Profession (farmer) and have the option to either produce 1 sp worth of food per week and starve to death, or contribute +2 to some ogre who does have skills to produce 15 ogre sized meals between the two of them each week, which leaves nothing leftover for the baby ogres, let alone anyone that isn't part of their family, like the local lord, or the warriors they'd need to keep dragons and adventurers from eating them and burning down their farms. Nor does it account for the various craftsogres and so on and so forth that would be needed for the ogres to live in houses instead of caves, own weapons that aren't just large rocks and tree branches or create farming tools with which to raise themselves out of the muck and into a reasonable society.

This leaves two options (assuming the ogres don't get enslaved and become shock troops for some empire or another): either ogres have an unusually large number of "experts" who take ranks in the profession (farmer) and thus make up for the ogre's innate lack of intelligence with education and schooling which far exceeds that of human nations, OR the ogres use their innate strength advantage to set up a system wherein 90% of the population form warbands that go around enslaving humans, goblins and such to be helots on the ogre farmsteads. I think we all know which is more likely the case.

Under this system, we will assume that about 80% of the population have the commoner class, but use their resulting strenth bonus and ability to kill the average human commoner in a single blow to keep the helots in line while the 10% or so of actual warriors go out to find more slaves. The remaining 10% are stuff like adepts, aristocrats and experts.

While the ogre adepts draw on divine power for their spells, most do not have any specific knowledge of religion, nor skill at spellcraft, mundane healing and concentration. Religious services that aren't magical in nature, if they are done at all, would be something left in the hands of the experts. Fun fact: an ogre adept's familiar is, on average, as intelligent as its owner and surpasses the adept once it reaches level 3 in adept.

Aristocrats are similar to warriors, with 2 skill ranks per level, but 2/3rds BaB. These guys are basically courtiers for the Ogre Mages/Hags. They're too shitty in a fight to be actual combatants, but have worse skills than even the experts do.

Experts have an average of 4 skills each, and can take any skill. They are also the ones that are put in charge of things like Knowledge (religion), Craft(anything at all) and Speak Language so that the ogres can worship their ogre gods, have ogre sized greatclubs that aren't shit and tell the slaves what they need to be farming and which of their limbs will be ripped off first if they don't.

Ogre Mages and Hags would likely be at the top of a given Ogre society, but they don't actually have spells that are useful for any sort of societal progress. Their job is to kill adventurers that turn up for phat ogre loot.

Note that most of the above applies to anything that is Huge with a racial Int of -2 or worse, anything Large with a racial Int of -4 or worse and to anything Medium with a racial Int of -6 or worse. Things that are smaller eat less, so they can afford to be stupider about farming. Small and smaller creatures don't need the Profession (farmer) skill to get enough to eat. Things that are bigger than Huge simply don't have farming as a viable option at all when it comes to acquiring food, unless they are also unusually intelligent or well educated as a species.


tl;dr version: Ogres are so terrible at farming that they cannot have a functioning society that isn't based on them either enslaving or being enslaved by some other race.

Well, the big problem with that is that an ogre with a level of commoner is actually an advanced ogre. Anything with more than 1 HD does not have to have a class. There's just a special rule in there so that MM elves have a level of Warrior instead of a Hit Die of Humanoid.

D&D assumes that all basic ogres no only know how to use a great club in combat, but that they focus in it (barring MC tinkering with the feats). Anything above and beyond that makes them advanced.

First of all, every adult ogre has at least 4 hit dice, and thus at least 7 skill ranks, and Profession uses wisdom, which ogres have no penalty to, so even presuming farming is a cross-class skill for giants, an Ogre farmer with typical ability scores can still have a +3 bonus to profession(farmer).

I would also say that, presuming enough land is available, an ogre would be able to grow more food on the same perform(farmer) check because it would be farming large-sized fields rather than medium sized ones.

If they can find large-sized crops, that means they need only the same farming result as a human for subsistence farming, because they are growing plants that are twice as tall over an area twice as big on each side. If they are limited to medium-sized crops, then they only need to work twice as hard, because they are still working an area twice as large on a side.

@RobbyPants:
I was building the ogre commoners off of the "ogre as race" rules in the SRD. If you have an interpretation that makes them better than that, please feel free to present it and we'll use that. If you don't give ogres the additional 1 level of an NPC class, then all of them just straight up strave, as per below.

@RadiantPhoenix:
Ogres receive 7 ranks in 2+int mod (minimum 1) skills off the giant skill list for their levels of giant HD. These skills are Climb, Spot and Listen. Resultingly, they get 7 ranks split between Climb, Spot and Listen.

If we assume that, for whatever reason, ogres are able to spend their racial skill points on things that aren't on their racial list, then yes, ogres can make Profession (farmer) checks for an average of 6.5 gold with no Int bonus and 8.5 gold with one, for total of 15 gold between them, or 37.5 ogre sized poor meals (or 6.25 ogre sized average meals) per week. But, again, this is contingent on ogres both being able to and then going ahead and spending all of their racial skill points on a cross class skill. Which they probably don't.

Incidentally, if you can spend racial skill points cross class, then you are literally better off having a level of humanoid hid dice than you are having a level of commoner. You get better saves, more hit points and even better BaB. All that the commoner class offers you is the ability to spend your skill points as class skills rather than cross-class.

If there are rules for growing larger than normal crops, I'd love to see them.

Wisdom bonus, not intelligence bonus. Profession is not INT based.

I do not believe there are rules for it, however the rules in the equipment chapter don't cover increased cost for larger creatures either, although there is something saying small creatures need half as much food as medium ones in the chapter on adventuring, so I suppose you could extrapolate from that that large creatures need twice as much, which yields the same 'can afford to buy 4.8 meals a day' figure as I came up with earlier.

EDIT: huh, there are some foods under trade goods; and flour is 2cp/lb