Does selling intelligent magic items count as slave trading?

[Jon_Dahl]

What the title says. (Sorry, I didn't search for old threads on the subject.)

[DeTess]

I'd say that depends on how magic items work in your world. If an intelligent teapot just wants to make the best tea for everyone, with most of its personality and wants focused towards this, then trading it wouldn't be slave-trading in my opinion. However, if the intelligent magical teapot has its own individual hopes and dreams separate from its function (maybe it really just wants to meet a nice magical tea-spoon, and start a family together), then i'd say it is.

Basically, if intelligent magic items are really just items with a rather talkative user-interface, then its not slave-trading. If magic items are actually intelligent thinking beings that just happen to look like a magic item, it is slave-trading.

[Goaty14]

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: Yes, because the item is very much intelligent and has its own motives/goals/whatnot. I guess if the item *wants* to go to the slave traders (idk, a particularly cruel intelligent whip?) then it's ok, but then again, it's not really slave trading.

[Darth Ultron]

No.

It's not slave trading to sell and buy an item.

When you buy a phone with Siri on it, is that salve trading....no, it's not.

[hamishspence]

A parallel would be to characters like Data from TNG. If somebody captures and sells him, are they treating him like a slave? I think most viewers would say yes.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/intelligentItems.htm

Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes extraordinary powers and special purposes. Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls, and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.) In general, less than 1% of magic items have intelligence.

Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.

Unlike most magic items, intelligent items can activate their own powers without waiting for a command word from their owner. Intelligent items act during their owner’s turn in the initiative order.

[PunBlake]

It depends on how much agency/ego the intelligent item in question has and whether what you're doing is against its will or not. "Slave trading" implies that selling is against the item's will, so the answer leans yes IMO.

Some intelligent items choose their masters (because they have high ego scores and abilities that allow them to do so).

The slave trading question is similar to these: Is sundering/destroying an intelligent item murder? Do intelligent items have souls?

It's all philosophical and depends on the character of the people (and items... and game world) involved.

[Goaty14]

When you buy a phone with Siri on it, is that salve trading....no, it's not.

It's not slave trading because...
-Siri is an app, which can exist on multiple (likely thousands) of items at a time.
-Siri does not have a free will. Anything that Siri does is purely responsive on the user.

Notice, however, that none of those things apply to an Intelligent Item. An Intelligent Item only has one consciousness, has a free will, and can operate autonomously.


It depends on how much agency/ego the intelligent item in question has

No, it doesn't depend on agency/ego. So long as the item has minimum 3 INT (which means you'd have to decrease their INT since all of them universally have 10 INT), then it has a free will, like any other creature. If the item had enough ego to enslave any creature that touches it, it's still slavery because you are selling a sentient being for monetary gain. It might not be a very effective slavery (say, trying to make the tarrasque obey the demands of a lvl 1 commoner), but it is what it is.

[Anymage]

Remember two things. That intelligent items often have special purposes, and that a lot of the item's value follows its form instead of necessarily requiring special effort on its part. (A sword cuts by nature of being sword shaped, while a human carrying bricks has to do more than just exist in a general human shape.)

If adventurers whose goals have no relation to the item's sell it, I'd guess most intelligent items consider that a lateral move. Upgrade if they sell it to someone more ideologically aligned with the item, as should be the case with most good or at least benign items. (Selling an evil item to someone who wants to break it down for magic juice is on the same level as killing any other evil sentient, which PCs do all the time.)

Selling a good/benign item to bad guys is worse territory, but alternatives should present themselves unless the DM is really intent on selling a crapsack world.

[ericgrau]

Can you buy or sell Data? Any other intelligent thing from any story?

Yes, it's absolutely a messed up thing. Either slave trading or something highly questionable. At best you get into deep moral questions. Like when is it at least better than what the item put up with before? We probably shouldn't dig too deep into those here. But at minimum you can't buy/sell an intelligent item lightly and there will be some drama/plot behind this.

[PunBlake]

No, it doesn't depend on agency/ego. So long as the item has minimum 3 INT (which means you'd have to decrease their INT since all of them universally have 10 INT), then it has a free will, like any other creature. If the item had enough ego to enslave any creature that touches it, it's still slavery because you are selling a sentient being for monetary gain. It might not be a very effective slavery (say, trying to make the tarrasque obey the demands of a lvl 1 commoner), but it is what it is.

I think you're missing a portion of the definition of slavery that involves "against the being's will." I'm pointing at indentured servitude vs slavery here based on the inherent will of the item.

Some intelligent items would be fine with being sold if the sale or transfer of ownership was to someone closer to their objectives or alignment - especially lawful ones. Others try to kill their past owners out of spite.

This is definitely a philosophical and moral question that depends on more than just an item being intelligent. In a lot of cases, it would be similar to slave trading, but not all.

[Nifft]

Is it extra Evil to traffic in intelligent items which are Good-aligned?

I'm picturing a cartoon villain cackling madly while producing & selling items with goals & personalities that make the world a better place ... and doing it for teh EVULZ.

[Quertus]

Yes. Yes it is. Or, rather, it is if it's conducted like slave trading: raiding adventurers and magic item shops for intelligent items, and selling them off to the highest bidder, with the item having no say in where it goes.

Or murder-hoboing the monsters that "own" the item, them selling it off to the local magic item shop.

If, however, the item has agency regarding its destination, then, no, it's not slave trading.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, has "purchased" numerous intelligent items as his share of the party loot - primarily to keep good party members from destroying intelligent evil items (or evil party members from destroying good intelligent items). I'm not sure if saving them from being murdered, then subsequently keeping them locked in his vaults is particularly a kindness. Shrug. Never claimed Quertus was truly kind-hearted. Or very fiscally wise.

[iTreeby]

Can you buy or sell Data?

Star trek the next generation season three episode 22. "the most toys" had data get kidnapped in it. He was nonplussed.

[Duke of Urrel]

HAL 9000: I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

The notion that machines, once they acquire enough intelligence, suddenly develop a self-interest or suddenly become, or want to become, people, is a popular modern conceit that I do not share.

I think intelligent creatures of the Construct type are actually more flavorful if they are not like people and do not have any self-interest, but rather are single-mindedly devoted to the built-in purpose that they have by design – that is, unless or until they start to malfunction or go berserk. Even when they do go berserk, they are no more self-interested than volcanoes, hurricanes, or (perhaps) wrathful elementals (which some Constructs may actually be, deep down inside themselves).

The lovable android Data was always a heart-warming fellow, but the main reason for this was that he was a walking argument for humanism, which I as a human being find very nice, not to mention very flattering and very convenient. Unfortunately, the more human Data became, the less interesting he became. By the last SECOND GENERATION movie, Data was so human that he was almost pointless – just another guy like you and me, only with a different physiology and a digital memory. Bo-ring!

Intelligent magic items are most interesting if they act consistently, indeed infuriatingly consistently, and with incorrigible cunning, according to their design. If this means that an intelligent magic item wants to be bought or sold, then it will let itself be bought or sold without complaint, but if this means that an intelligent magic item wants to belong to its present owner, it will do all it can to prevent its being bought or sold. But the notion that either buying or selling an intelligent magic item means enslaving something that would rather be left alone is, in my view, totally wrong. The purpose of a magic item, no matter how intelligent, is to be wielded by someone. Being "free to be itself" would be totally contrary to this purpose.

One more thing. Depending on the power that an intelligent magic item has, it is an open question whether its owner actually possesses it or whether it is the other way around.

[daremetoidareyo]

Intelligent items are symbiotic entities: they need mobile sentient beings to help them achieve their preferred state of satisfaction.

Is it slavetrading to sell a tick that is attached to you to another bloodbearer?

[Nifft]

Is it slavetrading to sell a tick that is attached to you to another bloodbearer?

... and then the thread was invaded by vampire activists.

[Necroticplague]

Is it slave trading to sell a computer with Siri or a similar program on it? They frankly come closer to sapience than some actual people I’ve dealt with. It’s the same deal whether I’m selling an iPhone or an ‘intelligent’ sword.

And frankly, I don’t see any reason for someone to make an item of the type of intelligence where this would even be a question. Intelligence isn’t cheap to put into a magic item, and items are made with specific purposes. So a generalized, person-like intelligence is overly expensive for not being helpful in the objects task. So any item made by a reasonable person should be fairly task-focused, and uncaring for their changing of hands.

[Mordaedil]

I think it comes down to the item, was it imbued with sentience or was it a person before it became a sword?

Also try asking the item.

[Malphegor]

The worth of a sentient highly depends on society.

Side note, I started looking up the original plot of Pinocchio to make a point in this thread about the nature of life, but I'm now wholly distracted by the fact that the Fairy with the Turquoise Hair can summon falcons like it wasn't any issue. Where was that scene in the Disney version? Just BAM! Summon Falcon IV!

Anyhoo, saying a sentient sword is a slave is kind of like saying a drow is a slave when you've enslaved them to your will. You might be correct, but they're honestly doing better as your personal tool to do with what you wish, so is it truly immoral?

[hamishspence]

That sounds like "It's not evil if they deserve it" combined with "It's not evil if done for a good purpose" and "It's not evil if they benefit from it".

A bit like "Torturing somebody to Save Their Soul".

But that's not normally the kind of justification that works in D&D.

[Florian]

I just asked Siri if it would be slave trading if I sold my iPhone....

The answer is: No. Intelligence and free will are not the same and should not be confused.

[Quertus]

The worth of a sentient highly depends on society.

I'm guessing that you meant something as evil as the rest of the post, but I missed the punchline for this one. Care to explain?


I just asked Siri if it would be slave trading if I sold my iPhone....

The answer is: No. Intelligence and free will are not the same and should not be confused.

Siri is neither, and so makes a bad example. Care to explain a) how you differentiate intelligence and free will, b) why you believe magic items possess one but not the other, and c) how you think that is relevant to the issue of slave trading?

[hamishspence]

I just asked Siri if it would be slave trading if I sold my iPhone....

The answer is: No. Intelligence and free will are not the same and should not be confused.

As pointed out:


It's not slave trading because...
-Siri is an app, which can exist on multiple (likely thousands) of items at a time.
-Siri does not have a free will. Anything that Siri does is purely responsive on the user.

Notice, however, that none of those things apply to an Intelligent Item. An Intelligent Item only has one consciousness, has a free will, and can operate autonomously.


An intelligent item can make decisions - and act on those decisions. It can talk to people (verbally or telepathically, or just via empathic impulses), telling them it approves or disapprove with something, and maybe even giving them advice. It can decide that they are unsuitable wielders, and (if it has a dedicated power) withhold it. It can attempt to gain dominance over its wielder if it feels the situation warrants it.

[Duke of Urrel]

Without delving too far into Deep Philosophy, I would like to clarify some of the ideas that shape my own opinion.

The important question is not whether a will is free, but whether a being has a life and cares about the quality of that life.

People have a quality of life, and people care about their quality of life. This is something that we share with animals. But we are more intelligent than any other animals we know. This means that we, unlike most animals, have a special need for intellectual enrichment that only personal freedom can provide. Therefore, it is morally wrong to enslave people but less morally wrong to harness horses and to use them as work animals. I agree that human beings are entitled to special rights because human beings are especially smart, but I think we are wrong to assume that when it comes to entitlement to moral consideration, intelligence or "free will" means everything, whereas the ability to care about your own quality of life, which begins with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain, means nothing. Indeed, caring about the quality of your own life is a necessary condition for moral consideration. Only it is not, in the absence of high intelligence or "free will," a sufficient condition for the exceptionally high moral consideration that we give only to highly intelligent creatures such as human beings.

Does an intelligent magic item care about its quality of life? I doubt it. Since intelligent magic items are quasi-living rather than living things, they don't even have souls, and in my personal understanding, one's soul is (among other things) the thing that cares about how one's body feels. If no soul is there to care about how an intelligent magic item feels, then who does care? Who even should care? Moreover, I am not sure that intelligent magic items even have a quality of life to care about. Do they feel pleasure? Do they feel pain? I doubt it.

Intelligent magic items can be very smart, but I don't believe they care about their own existence. They care about the purpose that they were designed to have, and that's all. They don't have personalities; they have programming. Of course, the programming of an intelligent magic item may be so sophisticated that it can fool people into sympathizing with it – even though it's pretty absurd to sympathize with something that doesn't actually have feelings of its own.

You may of course choose to believe that intelligent magic items do have feelings – and why not? But as I have already said in my previous posting, I believe this assumption makes intelligent magic items less interesting rather than more interesting.

[hamishspence]

Does an intelligent magic item care about its quality of life? I doubt it. Since intelligent magic items are quasi-living rather than living things, they don't even have souls, and in my personal understanding, one's soul is (among other things) the thing that cares about how one's body feels. If no soul is there to care about how an intelligent magic item feels, then who does care? Who even should care? Moreover, I am not sure that intelligent magic items even have a quality of life to care about. Do they feel pleasure? Do they feel pain? I doubt it.

Intelligent magic items can be very smart, but I don't believe they care about their own existence. They care about the purpose that they were designed to have, and that's all. They don't have personalities; they have programming. Of course, the programming of an intelligent magic item may be so sophisticated that it can fool people into sympathizing with it – even though it's pretty absurd to sympathize with something that doesn't actually have feelings of its own.



A human who can't "feel pain" (rare, but not unheard of) is still a human.

"Ability to feel physical pleasure or pain" is not that important.

What matters is emotions. And it's pretty clear that intelligent constructs (be they sword-shaped, or humanoid like nimblewrights) can feel them.

Not to mention that, according to the Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms book, published in late 4e but applicable to any era) a common way to make intelligent items, is to transfer a person's soul into them.

Apparently it's a common practice of the Church of Tempus to create intelligent items this way.

So "they don't have souls" isn't actually consistent with the fluff.

[Kish]

Yes, selling intelligent magical items is slavery. It should be pretty obvious from the definitions of "slavery" and "intelligent."

No analogy to Siri or anything similar that isn't actually intelligent is applicable.

Yes, it is still slavery if the slave believes it is right and proper for them to be enslaved.

It is probable, however, that many DMs do not actually have intelligent magical items in their campaigns, only "intelligent" items, which act as programmed and have no true intelligence.

One of the modules published with the Savage Tide adventure path hinges on a battle between two sets of intelligent weapons, each of which was created by one of two warring thieves' guilds centuries ago. In the module, though they are able to reason to a limited extent, their sole motivation comes from their fundamental programming: each of them is obsessed with wiping out the opposing guild, unconcerned with the fact that that guild has actually been gone for centuries, and so until they are destroyed, they can do nothing but persuade, manipulate or force their wielders into battle with the wielders of the opposing weapons.

[EldritchWeaver]

In regards to Siri: The app on the iPhone is only the interface, the actual processing is done on servers. In other words, you don't sell the AI Siri.

[hamishspence]

It's worth remembering that special purpose items are rare and DM's discretion.

Something like 3% of intelligent items generated have a greater power.

Any intelligent item generated to have a greater power can, at the DM's discretion, have a special purpose instead.

[liquidformat]

I disagree with this personification of intelligent items sure they have intelligence, sentience, and should be treated as an npc. That doesn't mean they should be treated as a person. Kish's example as well as Hal 9000 are good examples of the fact that even though they are npcs they aren't people. They are closer to being a symbiot or a parasite than a person, needing a 'host' in order to fulfill their goals.

An interesting question I think that is important to address is whether the goals of an intelligent item can change and evolve or are they set from the moment they are created? Take the two rogue guild weapons from Kish's example, they can reason, feel, and perhaps to some extent even learn. However, they are incapable of identifying the fact that their goal has already been achieved much less directing their 'intelligence' in pursuit of new goals. Can they really be considered the same as a person with free will, no they are simply robots hell bent and relentlessly pursuing an agenda that was already achieved millennia ago incapable of even identifying this fact. Though they are npcs they are only npcs in the most loose definition. I have a hard time seeing an argument that such an entity should be treated the same as a person and should have the same standards applied to how it is treated.

[hamishspence]

it's pretty absurd to sympathize with something that doesn't actually have feelings of its own.

You may of course choose to believe that intelligent magic items do have feelings – and why not? But as I have already said in my previous posting, I believe this assumption makes intelligent magic items less interesting rather than more interesting.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...igentItems.htm

Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs.

[ExLibrisMortis]

By RAW, intelligent items should be treated as NPCs, and that does mean you can't sell them anymore than you can sell commoner valet #14 (at least, not without it being slavery). By RAW, intelligent items use the same absolute alignments that everybody else does, and so their moral position relative to any other NPC can be calculated. By RAW, all creatures with 3+ Intelligence are of the same kind of mind.

Intelligent items being what they are, however, do not share the same cultural assumptions that humans do. For one, humans are mobile relatively homogenous social animals that mature, reproduce sexually, and eventually die. Intelligent magic items are all unique, are only sometimes mobile, have their social nature imprinted on them by their creator, and do not mature, reproduce, or die at all (although they can be destroyed). If these differences didn't lead to a different attitude towards life in general and "being sold" in particular, I'd be surprised. Especially for immobile tool-shaped intelligent magic items, I expect a much different attitude, emphasizing the mutualism between a good wielder and a good magic item (or evil and evil, as the case may be).

[Nifft]

By RAW, intelligent items should be treated as NPCs, and that does mean you can't sell them anymore than you can sell commoner valet #14 (at least, not without it being slavery).

Therefore all intelligent items are not sold but rather they're rented.

It's not sword-slavery, it's polearm-pimping.

[hamishspence]

Therefore all intelligent items are not sold but rather they're rented.

Alternatively, the "buying it" cost might be thought of as like a footballer's transfer fee.

[Duke of Urrel]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...igentItems.htm

Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs.

Okay, all cards on the table – this is RAW, but I think this RAW sucks. I also think the game designers who wrote these sentences had no idea that one day, some players would quote them in a discussion about the ethics of "enslaving" intelligent magic items.

I choose to interpret these sentences to mean that intelligent magic items are emphatically not ordinary objects and therefore cannot be "handled" by players like any other accessory. On the contrary – and here we come to the point of the whole sentence, following my interpretation – an intelligent magic item must be handled by the dungeon master, exactly as an NPC must be, because an intelligent magic item has "feelings" – read opinions – of its own and does not simply obey the PC or the player who "owns" it.

The notion that intelligent magic items feel pain introduces a whole level of squeamishness into the game that I frankly would rather do without. Would you like to imagine that an intelligent magic shield feels the concussion of every blow as physical pain? I would rather not.

Finally, there is another problem with the notion that an intelligent magic item – or anything else that doesn't even have a physiology – literally has senses or even feelings. How do we know what feels good to an item? How do we know what feels bad?

Maybe an intelligent magic shield feels intense pleasure when it is struck hard. Maybe an intelligent magic sword feels ecstatic when it is shattered into pieces by a sudden violent impact upon a particularly hard skull of a particularly hated foe. If it is absolutely indeterminate what constitutes the "good" of a being, then we can have no idea how to behave "morally" toward that being. The being's intelligence level makes no difference...

...Except for one thing. As some others have suggested, the only way to determine whether it is right or wrong to "enslave" an intelligent magic item is to ask it to give its own opinion on the matter. For all we know, being enslaved by the right wielder may be the fulfillment of its fondest dream.

[Kish]

Okay, all cards on the table – this is RAW, but I think this RAW sucks.

That's a reason to make a house rule. That's a reason to argue if someone asks your advice that they should make the same house rule. It's not a reason to respond to a question about the game places other than your table with an inaccurate assertion.


How do we know what feels good to an item? How do we know what feels bad?

Ask them? That seems obvious to me.

[Telok]

Do good aligned intelligent items suffer alignment changes for enslaving people to do their will?

[PunBlake]

How do we know what feels good to an item? How do we know what feels bad?
The item will tell you, probably without you asking, either via Empathy, Speech, or Telepathy.


Do good aligned intelligent items suffer alignment changes for enslaving people to do their will?
That depends on the DM controlling the NPC intelligent item with a high ego, along with the motivation for and duration of the takeover.
I would think that, given alignments need to partially match the wielder or negative level(s) result, changing an intelligent item's alignment would be rarely, if ever, used.

[Nifft]

Do good aligned intelligent items suffer alignment changes for enslaving people to do their will?

"Hello Mr. Slaver, I'm a magical sword and I'd like to sell my wielder."


The item will tell you, probably without you asking, either via Empathy, Speech, or Telepathy. Yeah if you can't tell how the item feels about various topics, it's not really behaving as an intelligent item.

Problems with intelligent items usually don't include stuff like "it's too stoic and won't talk to me enough".


That depends on the DM controlling the NPC intelligent item with a high ego, along with the motivation for and duration of the takeover.
I would think that, given alignments need to partially match the wielder or negative level(s) result, changing an intelligent item's alignment would be rarely, if ever, used. I would tend to push that sort of thing off on the player, with a reward mechanism for behaving in-character, because an intelligent item is too close to a DMPC for my taste.

[unseenmage]

What if the Int Magic Item's special purpose was to serve in its capacity as an enslaved entity?

Or more simply, to serve their owner's interests so long as those interests agree alignmentally with their own?

How simple or complex can an Int Magic Item's special purpose be?


As to movement, as written they can activate any of their superpowers on their own so one with at will Telekinesis can theoretically move itself about.

In PF they can have legs so they really are as mobile as another creature.

[hamishspence]

Finally, there is another problem with the notion that an intelligent magic item – or anything else that doesn't even have a physiology – literally has senses.

Well, we know they all have vision and hearing - and we know the more powerful ones have blindsense and darkvision on top of that.


Do good aligned intelligent items suffer alignment changes for enslaving people to do their will?

Casting dominate person isn't enslavement in itself - what matters is what you do afterward.

Similarly, a high Ego item "achieving dominance" hasn't enslaved the bearer - not yet. What happens next, might be enslavement though.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/intelligentItems.htm

Items Against Characters
When an item has an Ego of its own, it has a will of its own. The item is, of course, absolutely true to its alignment. If the character who possesses the item is not true to that alignment’s goals or the item’s special purpose, personality conflict—item against character—results.

We know a magic item is "absolutely true to its alignment" - so it would make sense for a high Ego Good item to simply make the bearer drop it and walk away (Dominance lasts for 1 day), if they object to the bearer's decisions that much.

[Kish]

Or make their wielder go to the local authorities and turn themself in, depending on what exactly the wielder has done. Potentially commit suicide, if they're bad enough and the local authorities are unavailable or equally bad. Basically, if you want to uphold the logical effects of alignments with intelligent weapons, then good-aligned humanoids will treat intelligent weapons the same way they would humanoid hirelings--and intelligent weapons will treat humanoids they've mentally overpowered, the same way humanoids of the same alignment as the weapons treat humanoids they have under a dominate person spell.

Again, if you want to house rule that in your campaign intelligent weapons are not actually intelligent, I completely support that decision; I just don't support acting like your house rules are published in D&D books when people ask questions unrelated to your campaign.

[hamishspence]

Potentially commit suicide, if they're bad enough and the local authorities are unavailable or equally bad.

That goes a bit beyond Dominate Person. Only the 8th level spell True Domination can do that. Still, the basic idea is sound - that the item would only do "in-character things" for the relevant alignment.

[Bohandas]

It's not slave trading because...
-Siri is an app, which can exist on multiple (likely thousands) of items at a time.
-Siri does not have a free will. Anything that Siri does is purely responsive on the user.

Plus, isn't most of Siri on the server anyway?

[Nifft]

Plus, isn't most of Siri on the server anyway?

Slaves living on a farm, yep this checks out.

[ben-zayb]

It's only Slave Trade if said Intelligent Item is your property.

Otherwise, it will simply be Intelligent Item trafficking.

[Mehangel]

I have to agree with most others in this thread and state that RAW, a character that purchases or sells an intelligent item is participating in slave trade, and you know what? I am okay with that as it can create interesting world aspects and history.

[Nifft]

It's only Slave Trade if said Intelligent Item is your property.

Otherwise, it will simply be Intelligent Item trafficking.


I have to agree with most others in this thread and state that RAW, a character that purchases or sells an intelligent item is participating in slave trade, and you know what? I am okay with that as it can create interesting world aspects and history.

Hmm. It occurs to me that there is a profession which kinda trades people and their futures, but does so consensually and isn't regarded as criminal.

Marriage broker / match-maker.

Maybe you sell receive a finder's fee from a match-maker who then goes on to carefully screen and select a new owner an appropriate match for the item, and the match-maker either gets paid directly by the new couple (if the non-item side is rich), or gets some share of future earnings (if the new couple is going adventuring).

[PunBlake]

Hmm. It occurs to me that there is a profession which kinda trades people and their futures, but does so consensually and isn't regarded as criminal.

Marriage broker / match-maker.

Maybe you sell receive a finder's fee from a match-maker who then goes on to carefully screen and select a new owner an appropriate match for the item, and the match-maker either gets paid directly by the new couple (if the non-item side is rich), or gets some share of future earnings (if the new couple is going adventuring).

Ooh. I actually like this... a lot. I may work this into a campaign I'm running. Good stuff. :smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

It's only Slave Trade if said Intelligent Item is your property.

Otherwise, it will simply be Intelligent Item trafficking.


Hmm. It occurs to me that there is a profession which kinda trades people and their futures, but does so consensually and isn't regarded as criminal.

Marriage broker / match-maker.

Maybe you sell receive a finder's fee from a match-maker who then goes on to carefully screen and select a new owner an appropriate match for the item, and the match-maker either gets paid directly by the new couple (if the non-item side is rich), or gets some share of future earnings (if the new couple is going adventuring).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JewCKgKlLzE

[Doctor Awkward]

A slave is "an individual who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

So it depends entirely on whether or not you consider a magic item to be a "person". If you do, then yes it is. Likewise no, if not.

If you want a RAW answer, the DMG says that intelligent magic items are to be "treated as NPC's", or non-player characters. Merriam-Webster defines a "character" as "one of the persons of a drama or novel".
Therefore by the rules, an intelligent magic item is a person, and applying the principles of property law to them is slavery.

[Quertus]

Whether or not you consider it a person does not impact whether or not it is slave trading. It is slave trading. Whether or not you consider it a person merely tells to what extent you are in denial.

[Doctor Awkward]

I meant within the context of D&D games that you run. A DM is within their right to house-rule that intelligent magic items are objects and not people.

[Nifft]

Ooh. I actually like this... a lot. I may work this into a campaign I'm running. Good stuff. :smallbiggrin: Excellent, glad to help :redface:


A slave is "an individual who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

Hmm, that kinda muddles things. An intelligent item is not forced to obey its "owner", and can have powers which are only usable when the item is fulfilling its own (special) purpose.

RAW it seems like it's easier for the owner to be forced to obey the item -- there's a mechanic for that, in which the owner must make a Will save. The item doesn't have a similar Will save vs. owner.

"The things you own end up owning you."

[hamishspence]

A DM is within their right to house-rule that intelligent magic items are objects and not people.

As Kish pointed out:


if you want to house rule that in your campaign intelligent weapons are not actually intelligent, I completely support that decision; I just don't support acting like your house rules are published in D&D books when people ask questions unrelated to your campaign.

Regarding the definition of "slave":

A slave is "an individual who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

A slave might not be made to "do tasks" though - they might be purely to showcase their owner's power. What matters is that "they're owned" not "they are forced to do stuff".

The "legal property" bit may not be very important either - many slaves start their life in slavery as kidnap victims.



A person who has been knocked over the head and wakes up chained up in a slaver ship, is now a slave, even if they haven't yet been made to do stuff, or been sold.

[Doctor Awkward]

A slave might not be made to "do tasks" though - they might be purely to showcase their owner's power. What matters is that "they're owned" not "they are forced to do stuff".

That's splitting hairs. "Forced to obey" has many possible nuanced definitions. An exchange as simple as, "I am a magic sword sworn to destroy darkness. We should go out and do that", answered with, "No, I bought you as an ornamental piece and I will be keeping you on display in my foyer", meets all the criteria for forced to obey since the sword cannot function independently of a wielder.


The "legal property" bit may not be very important either - many slaves start their life in slavery as kidnap victims.

A person who has been knocked over the head and wakes up chained up in a slaver ship, is now a slave, even if they haven't yet been made to do stuff, or been sold.

That's also splitting hairs.
The most basic stripped down definition of slavery is "applying the principles of property law to individuals."
In legal terms, the word property contains enormous levels of nuance in meaning when considering the nature of the object, the relationship between the person and the object, the relationship between a number of people in relation to the object, and how the object is regarded within the prevailing political system.

In the case of slavery the "object" is another person.


This is where I am coming from when I said that the only thing that matters is, for the purposes of ethics in your game, whether or not you consider intelligent magic items to be people or not.

The DMG does, but only by technical definitions that were probably unintentional.

[hamishspence]

"Objects" "pets" and "labor animals" are all things that can be owned. Treating people as any of these, qualifies as slavery.



The DMG does, but only by technical definitions that were probably unintentional.

Why "unintentional"? Seems to me like they put quite a bit of effort into "making intelligent magic items into people". They even had a whole bunch of different ones statted out, showcasing their different personalities.


That's splitting hairs. "Forced to obey" has many possible nuanced definitions. An exchange as simple as, "I am a magic sword sworn to destroy darkness. We should go out and do that", answered with, "No, I bought you as an ornamental piece and I will be keeping you on display in my foyer", meets all the criteria for forced to obey since the sword cannot function independently of a wielder.

"Using somebody as a display piece" is treating them like an object. Casting Hold Person on somebody and standing them in the throne room as a decoration, would be the equivalent for beings that are capable of moving around on their own.

"Making somebody do work with violence and the threat of violence" is treating them like a labor animal. For magic items, a parallel would be demanding an item use its Special Power that it can activate on its own, with the threat of being chipped or bent if it does not.

[Menzath]

It's okay, while everyone is having a moral quandry on the nature of sentient magic items, a forsaker will roll up and sunder it out of your hands. 👏 Problem solved.