Talk:Slave (5e Background)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article became a featured article! --Green Dragon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (MDT)

Just wanted to say, that is an AWESOME picture!--Kydo (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2014 (MDT)

Took some finding, searching for "slave" returns so many "cannot unsee" images on Flickr that I might have trouble sleeping tonight. Trying to narrow it down with "fantasy slave" made it worse... :) Marasmusine (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2014 (MDT)

• Support — No argument here. This article meets the criteria, but without links since there are not yet any for 5e. This may change when links have a place on these pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (MDT)

What kinds of links are required? I don't really understand the phrasing provided.--Kydo (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (MDT)

For example, with 4e we can link keywords to the index. Marasmusine (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Yes, an 5e Index would be great. Until then, I guess that we will just wait to complete the links. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Wow. That looks tedious to make. It would probably be best for us to start working on it now while source material is relatively limited...--75.156.182.195 05:27, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Also, the page seems to be written from two perspectives; one where you are a freeman, and one where you are still bound by status, and the page switches between these perspectives at random between posts. I propose some rearrangement of the information so as to either divide each section into a free/not-free order, or a rephrasing to make each section open to interpretation either way.--Kydo (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Ya, I agree. What does the background suppose, that the character is a slave or not? If there is a way to write it with both views I think it would be best. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

I had intended it to allow characters of both types, but admittedly, I did a bad job of expressing that. I find it difficult to justify a character who is a slave while simultaneously being an adventurer.--Kydo (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

The PHB does say that Background isn't something that the PC does anymore, and how they transitioned from their background to being an adventurer is part of character develolpment. Marasmusine (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2014 (MDT)

Ah! Truly it does! Still though, I'm not one for limiting character design options, and the idea of an adventurer who is technically obeying the will of a master is an interesting one.--Kydo (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2014 (MDT)

One small criticism

Good article! But one error, backgrounds in 5e grant two skills, not a choice between two skills. Unless I misread something? I hope I didn't misread something. I even went back and checked and I think I'm right. Not too big a deal, but I've noticed a lot of departures from the PHB precedents with the hombrew. (Maybe from confusion over the playtesting?) Anyhow, also wanted to say, I have a character I made a while back whom I'm planning on rebuilding for a future 5e campaign on the horizon, and this background is exactly the background that character requires. :3 (The character is a runaway slave, and none of the PHB backgrounds work for them, really.) (Also, first attempt at editing a page here...I hope I got the formatting right. Please pardon me if I didn't!)--GoodDalek (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2015 (MST)

Nope. No mistake. Backgrounds should grant two skills. This background is an experiment built just slightly outside the bounds. The idea was for a background which is intentionally more limited, mechanically, compared to the rest. It's a voluntary handicap. The flavour I thought up came from my reading an article on wikipedia about slavery at the time. It just fit. As a slave, you have no real formal education or training- you aren't a person. Instead of two skills, you get to choose one. The skills I chose are based on the idea that slaves fit into two groups; those who survive by making people happy, and those who just survive at all costs. As with the other experiment you commented upon, this does technically break the rules, so feel free to edit away. Having seen how the survival skill is used in the published adventures, it is clear I misunderstood what it was for.--Kydo (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (MST)

I want to know if you can more clearly state your reasons for the {{Design Disclaimer}} template you added to this page. I understand that you feel this may restrict character development, but on the other hand it can be used for all sorts of character-to-character decisions, campaign choices from the GM, etc. I want to first direct you to the Youtube channel from Wizards of the Coast, where they played a great series from "Out of the Abyss" where the players start as slaves. [1]. I don't feel that the characters were hindered by role-playing as slaves, but rather they continue to interact with their past and slavery throughout their sessions (in the Kua Toa village, their changing of the "main" quest to a side quest with the Derro adventures, etc). I just don't feel that a slave background is outside of the D&D 5e guidelines, especially after Wizards of the Coast choose one of the D&D channels to focus on this style of background. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2016 (MDT)

OK, so have your ever played Dark Souls? One of the class options starts you off naked and unarmed. That is the game's hard mode. This background is built in that spirit, except I was kind enough to give you the option of a dagger or a club. I changed my mind about allowing two skills; that goes against the original intent of this background, and I honestly don't care if the published adventures exclusively use the survival skill for wilderness conditions- it can be so much more useful than that. That's why I put up the disclaimer though, because people keep trying to bring those little mechanical properties back into lime with the guidelines, despite that being misaligned with the explicit purpose of this background. --Kydo (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2016 (MDT)

Protection and Design Disclaimers

Because it is a good example, and a FA, and the guideline actually states that its inclusion of a design disclaimer is valid. A design disclaimer is not a reviewing, editing, or removal template. It's a communication tool. It doesn't mean something is wrong, only that it requires specific consideration prior to use. --Kydo (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

It also makes the design disclaimer more available for use to new editors who may be creating such fringe content. --Kydo (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

In this case specifically, is the slave background imbalanced? It depends on the game you're playing. If it's a high-fantasy, high-combat, kick-in-the-door-and-save-the-princess type adventure? Absolutely. If it's a dark, grim, brooding, high-risk, high-PC-mortality adventure? No, not really, you're just making things a little harder for yourself. It's kind of like choosing the deprived class in Dark Souls- which was one of my main inspirations. --Kydo (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

This page needs a breadcrumb to the 5e Background Design Guide. I see that this page is an example page with a {{Design Disclaimer}}, but I find that poorly explained at best (it was just an edit comment). --Green Dragon (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

Hm. I haven't made a breadcrumb yet. How do I set one of those up? Also, I've edited the design disclaimer. With my recent work on the guidelines, I have come to some realizations:

• Some things really are objectively balanced
• Some things really are objectively imbalanced
• A few things somehow squeeze their way in between the fringes of the two extremes, and cause endless debates or confusion

I have edited the design disclaimer such that it can be used to cover those fringe cases, allowing them to be complete, to prevent people from trying to "fix" their correct state, to communicate that they are a fringe case and explain the situational issues they represent, and to eliminate such nonsense arguments from the wiki. This allows us to avoid the "Balance Points" method used by DnD-Wiki, which is, frankly, even more confusing than just using the word "balance". Aside from being burdensome and grammatically ugly, the individual points are just as poorly defined as the problem they were intended to solve. Instead, we should acknowledge the nature of balance as a subjective thing, embrace that fact, and communicate it. That will keep the wiki inclusive, and allow us to use the word "balance" with certainty and clarity. --Kydo (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2016 (MDT)