Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MooseTracks 06-17-03, 08:21 PM	After some reading in the FRCS and other material, I've discovered a lot of societies that openly practice the selling and trading and utilization of slaves. The Dragon Coast, Nelanther Isles, and Thay for example practice it openly and (freely). a term I use loosely in this context. For the most part, they are evil, and I accept that. But in Calimshan, a society predominately of a neutral bent, slavery is a commodity. This made no sense to me. I strictly adhere to the belief that slavery, no matter how you try to explain it, is EVIL. Through and through. 100%. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts about it. Any society with groups of LN or N peoples living amongst slaves would, by virtue of basic moral standards realize that it is wrong and that by forcing a 'lower class' into indentured servitude would eventually throw an organized community into chaos, and eventual rebellion. Granted that PCs and NPCs that typically have roles in which they pass judgment on others, can send someone into a prison, exile or even slavery. But, in the course of time these ideas will lead into the decay of (civilization). Another word I use loosely. I eagerly and probably futiley await an epic scale slave revolution from Thay and into the Unapproachable East. Generations of slaves led by a single prophet into a brighter future far away from their oppressors. Sounds a bit 10 Commandments-esque, I know. :angel: -- Here's hoping one of Alaundo's Prophecies revolve around this subject matter -- :angel:
Dargoth 06-17-03, 08:24 PM	The Communism Feat is not Avaliable in the Forgotten Realms
Armedes 06-17-03, 08:28 PM	Originally posted by MooseTracks But in Calimshan, a society predominately of a neutral bent, slavery is a commodity. This made no sense to me. I strictly adhere to the belief that slavery, no matter how you try to explain it, is EVIL. Through and through. 100%. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts about it. Any society with groups of LN or N peoples living amongst slaves would, by virtue of basic moral standards realize that it is wrong and that by forcing a 'lower class' into indentured servitude would eventually throw an organized community into chaos, and eventual rebellion. I could not disagree with you more.. what does LN or N have to do with GOOD or EVIL? It is apart of society for Calimshan to have slaves. Some people sell themselves into slavery to pay their debts or to offer up a better life for their kin. If the society was LG or NG then I can see an issue with Slavery but it still could be explained (though far fetched.).. but the slaves would be treated better that other societies.
primemover003 06-17-03, 09:00 PM	You also have to realize that the criminal syndicates and many evil power groups truly rule Calimshan. The Twisted Rune, the Rundeen, the Iron Throne, various Thieves guilds, powerful wizards, all have vested interests in contiuing the slave trade.
PhilCW 06-17-03, 09:06 PM	Just because someone lives in a society that condones slavery does not make that person "evil". Evil is a very relative term. As per Oxford's dictionary: "Evil is morally bad or wrong". Now if we look up the word moral we get several interresting definitions. In the case of my reply I will employ the following: "conforming to accepted standards of general conduct". Now, Calimshan's society condones slavery, so in the eyes of Calishite society, slavery is not morally wrong. Secondly, we must remember that the ideal calishite life is one of ease. The ultimate goal being to live comfortably without having to labour for sustenance or to gain comfort. I remember reading a passage on the church of Ilmater's dogma in Calimshan being that rather than help slaves escape, they preach that by sacrifice, through performing hard manual labour, or slavery, they allow others to attain the "perfect" life. The Calishite Dream if you will. Which fits very well into the martyrdom aspect of that deity. Furthermore, other posters mentioned identured servitude. In Lands of Intrigue, it mentions that Amn and I believe Tethyr do allow this. Much like real world middle ages. Is slavery morally wrong in today's society? Yes. But we must remember that just because someone else does allow it, does not make them a bad person. Many in Calimshan live very poor lives, so may have the mentality better them than I. It is a selfish attitude, but not one born of malice. There was also mention of decay of civilization. One of the major themes surrounding Calimshite society is that very decay. It is a society rich with history, but it's society is in a downward spiral, much like Rome in its final years.
Bragi 06-17-03, 09:16 PM	Slavery is also alive and well in many of the Old Empires nations including, Chessenta, Unther, Mulhorand; which are not inherently evil societies. In most cases, the slaves are treated better than peasants and there are laws restricting the mistreatment of slaves. Slavery is not considered evil in these societies and I believe the alignment values assigned to communities reflect each societies beliefs. As another example, many people would view cannabalism as evil, but a cannibalistic society would not view themselves as evil. As always, alignment is very subjective but the alignment of cities are based more on the morals of that society.
PhilCW 06-17-03, 09:39 PM	Well said Bragi. This topic also somewhat overlaps (for myself at least) on how inane the Paladin class is. For morality is determined greatly by society, a paladin, who is a champion of good, justice and law is loosely a champion of society's standards. This topic becomes more skewed when one tries to introduce "anti-paladins", or how I call them: Geeky evildoers in armour. A paladin from say Zhentil Keep or Thay would be much more different than say one from Waterdeep. A more apt alignment for the paladin class would be say LN, rather than LG. Unless we decide to employ the Paladin class as a champion of faith, which would depend on the deity in question. I personally run the Paladin much like clerics in 3e, depending on the god and/or society the character wishes to represent. Paladins that say take the city of Waterdeep as their moral standard, would strive to promote the values and ideals of Waterdeep (and possibly the Lord's Alliance). While a Paladin of Tyr would value the teachings of the Even-handed and promote his worship and portfolios. In my games, I allow a broader range for the "Paladin" class. I kept the name, but made a distinction that it can be based on either society or a deity (on a case by case basis). I think we can all agree that Talos is not a very apt god to have something along the lines of a "Paladin".
MooseTracks 06-17-03, 09:53 PM	Originally posted by Armedes I could not disagree with you more.. what does LN or N have to do with GOOD or EVIL? It is apart of society for Calimshan to have slaves. Some people sell themselves into slavery to pay their debts or to offer up a better life for their kin. If the society was LG or NG then I can see an issue with Slavery but it still could be explained (though far fetched.).. but the slaves would be treated better that other societies. Alright, let me put it another way. A society that accepts slavery, even under your conditions, has given in to moral corruption. A neutral character, lets say a druid, maintains the balance as best as she/he knows how. Level of effectiveness, however, still revolves around that persons place in the world. From a neutral standpoint, any reasonably intelligent character seeing the results of slavery such as concubines and gladiatorial fighters would consider such things depraved or degenerate. As such, the practise of using another being for personal pleasure or to satisfy the peoples bloodlust, would eventually swing towards evil and even chaotic intent. A neutral character seeing this happen where they live would either pack up and leave (weak-willed), or try to shift the power back into a more balanced state of being. Is slavery immoral? Yes Can a Neutral character be immoral? No. The basic philosophy of neutrality is 'Avoid Extremes'. Acting in an immoral fashion breaks that philosophy in two.
Silver Falcon 06-17-03, 09:58 PM	In regards to Calimshan and the evil of slavery, the ruler of Calimshan is Neutral Evil. So, the ruler would most likely not view slavery as a bad thing even though it is. However, in Mulhorand the ruler of the nation is a Lawful Good Paladin, who also supports slavery. The difference in slavery in the nations comes in how slaves are treated. In Mulhorand, slaves are the property of the church and are treated better than in Calimshan. I am not trying to justify slavery-it is a terrible, despicable practice-but I am just showing that it is practiced in relatively good nations like Mulhorand under different circumstances; however, this doesn't make it acceptable. Sorry, I'm rambling again.
Armedes 06-17-03, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by MooseTracks Alright, let me put it another way. A society that accepts slavery, even under your conditions, has given in to moral corruption. A neutral character, lets say a druid, maintains the balance as best as she/he knows how. Level of effectiveness, however, still revolves around that persons place in the world. From a neutral standpoint, any reasonably intelligent character seeing the results of slavery such as concubines and gladiatorial fighters would consider such things depraved or degenerate. As such, the practise of using another being for personal pleasure or to satisfy the peoples bloodlust, would eventually swing towards evil and even chaotic intent. A neutral character seeing this happen where they live would either pack up and leave (weak-willed), or try to shift the power back into a more balanced state of being. Is slavery immoral? Yes Can a Neutral character be immoral? No. The basic philosophy of neutrality is 'Avoid Extremes'. Acting in an immoral fashion breaks that philosophy in two. I don’t see it that way.. you are placing Morals of our common day society on a society that has different morals. We find the though of slavery awful, and unjust. but not too long ago the US had slavery. it was common practice and considered a sign of someone that was well off. Even good people had slaves.. the law stated that you could. now those good people treated their slaves well. While the other people that were not good (read Evil) treated their slaves very badly.. The neutral were somewhere in-between.
Silver Falcon 06-17-03, 10:31 PM	Even good people had slaves.. the law stated that you could. now those good people treated their slaves well. While the other people that were not good (read Evil) treated their slaves very badly.. The neutral were somewhere in-between. That is what I was saying about slavery in Calimshan versus slavery in Mulhorand. Calimshan is more aligned towards evil (because of the emphasis on personal economic advancement)than Mulhorand (which is an extremely religious nation with gods inclined towards good, i.e. Horus-Re is LG). Thus, Mulhorand treats it slaves better, such as how it is illegal to harm a slave because it is considered to be vandalism of church property. However, this still doesn't make slavery right.
PhilCW 06-17-03, 10:33 PM	From PHB p89: "A neutral character does what seems a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs evil or law vs chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way..." By a rules standpoint, your argumentation is flawed. Not all neutral characters (and I'm using the example of "True Neutral") seek to uphold neutrality. You contend that the use of concubines and gladiators is morally corrupt. Now in my view, it is barbaric, yes. But that is because we have questioned such beliefs for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Eventually, we came to the consensus that it is morally wrong. I personally don,t recall reading that Calimshan openly engages in mass gladiatorial games, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had small organized fights or games. As far as concubines go, Many harems (they are harems) placed women on the level of artisans and wives to their master/husband, and were fairly treated. I am not saying it is right or wrong, what I'm trying to convey is that a calishite will not see it as wrong because that is how they were raised and they were instructed on how it was normal. In my view, many would simply take it for granted, accepting it without making that moral judgment. Just as, and I fear touching the subject, the USA invaded Iraq claiming higher moral ground while ignoring arguments to the contrary. Is slavery immoral? For modern, western society, yes. But ask that same question 100-150 years ago in the south of the USA, and you will get a different answer. Calishite society has always been portrayed as being in decline. A person (no matter how unrealistic it sounds) that promotes neutrality might fear acting against slavery on a grand scale because it would cause a great disruption to society. Calimshan, just as much as Thay, has grown so dependant on slavery that if it was abolished, their respective economies would crumble.
Sarzyn 06-17-03, 10:35 PM	I thought neutrul meant undecided not maintaining some theoretical balance. Neutrals are more self interested and slaves would make life a whole lot easier
Masakado 06-17-03, 10:36 PM	I have to disagree & agree with Bragi. There is nothing remotely good, even subjectively, about the consumption of a sentient being. The FR fantasy setting allows for polarized views of morality, & there are such things as good and evil acts. There are creatures both natural, and supernatual, that represent the extremes between good & evil, so there is no such thing as relativity. Something is either good, evil, lawful, neutral, or chaotic. It does not matter how a society views itself in a fantasy setting. If the act itself is morally reprehensible by the doctrines of alignment, then it is morally reprehensible, period. That being said, whether or not slavery itself is evil depends on the condition of the slaves. In places like Calimshan & Mulhorand, slavery is more of a caste & slaves are not as quite as down trodden there as they are in places such as Thay, Unther, or Zhentil Keep. This does not make slavery less unsavory to a person of good alignment, but it does make it somewhat easier to bear, Given that Calimshan is Arabian in flavor, it may have mamluks there: a caste of people who are technically slaves, yet have various administrative & military powers given to them by a ruler. Slavery itself, is a deplorable practice, but it is made even worse when it is oppresively enforced. A paladin probably wouldn't react as badly to a taste of slavery in Mulhorand as he would the same thing experienced in someplace like Thay. I fear touching the subject, the USA invaded Iraq claiming higher moral ground while ignoring arguments to the contrary. There is a mountain of difference between something that is justified and something that is right BTW, I try never to draw real-world politics into a discussion about fantasy. It gets too messy. Is slavery immoral? For modern, western society, yes. But ask that same question 100-150 years ago in the south of the USA, and you will get a different answer. You will get several answers: one from the slaves, one from the abolitionists attempting to free the slaves, and one from the slave owners making their profits from the slave's unpaid labor. Given the brutal treatment of slaves in the US, and on the trip to the US for that matter, I think we all know on what end of the moral spectrum US slavery falls under.
MooseTracks 06-17-03, 11:00 PM	Originally posted by Masakado Given that Calimshan is Arabian in flavor, it may have mamluks there: a caste of people who are technically slaves, yet have various administrative & military powers given to them by a ruler. Question: As per the reference above, do women hold a lesser position in Calishite society than men, as is quite common in Arabian culture?
PhilCW 06-17-03, 11:13 PM	Yes they do, in fact Empires of the Shining Sea mentions that women are seen as inferior due to the rule (or misrule) of a former Empress that is seen as responsible for the downfall of the Shoon Imperium.
Dargoth 06-17-03, 11:22 PM	The Forgotten Realms is a based on Medevial earth and after setting all the magic and monsters aside your average Faerian views would be very similar to the views of a 12th Century English peasant and it is with that background that they judge right and wrong. They are not living in a world of civil rights lawyers and civil libertarians
KismetRose 06-18-03, 12:41 AM	Slavery has been supported by people who wrote and were in favor of laws, in our world. Slavery has been an institution of lawful people, people who felt that they were *good* and *caring* and perfectly within their rights. Slavery has been defended by passages from the Bible. Likewise, slavery has been supported by materialistic people, and people who enjoyed the power ownership gave them. I do not find slavery to be a case of instant evil. I view it this way, for the purposes of the game: slavery is only inherently good or bad in the eyes of the people who view it. The eye of the beholder :behold: and the belief of the beholder decides much. The problem is that there are different ways to view D&D's alignment system. MooseTracks has made plain that they feel slavery is inherently evil, and they can run their games with that view. In my games, it works a great deal differently. Allow me, for the sake of thought and argument, to elaborate. In my games, there are going to be some places in the world where people view slavery as a good thing because they have grown up with it, the laws have encoded it and traditions have been built around it. Slavery has been a source of money or a means of gaining wealth. Slaves have been around the house, in shops and otherwise a part of everyday life. "How do we first learn to covet?" asks Silence of the Lambs. "We covet what we see every day." For some people, the slaves of their youth are cause for nostalgia the same way that the old homestead is. They would not view slavery as the first step to the collapse of civilization but the very *embodiment* of what civilization should be (and the domino theory of the original poster is a common logical fallacy). Lawful neutral folks in my game don't care so much about good or evil, but about the letter of the law. So, if slavery was efficient and supported by the laws of the land, there would be no problem with it. It would be controlled by laws and overseen perhaps by agents of the government. In a lawful neutral society, slavery might be the most ordered because of the extent to which it would be important to the law. The society would not want slavery to disrupt the dominant order, so every measure would be taken to assure that things run smoothly. Proper food and drink rations might be recorded in the lawbooks (the way that such rations were passed into law in the 1800s for immigrants coming over to the U.S. on packet ships). Physical health might be monitored by a government agency. Incidents of stealing or rape might be handled as property damage in the court system. Likewise, slaves might be condemned to whippings or other means of torture for infractions - by the same courts securing them enough to eat. Slaves might be condemned to death for crimes that citizens wouldn't be put to death for, or in a society where citizens are not subject to capital punishment (thus making citizenship all the more a privilege). Neutral evil societies in my game wouldn't care if it was law or not - if they wanted slaves, they'd have them. They might not have the most ordered system, and they might suffer some runaways. They wouldn't be afraid to threaten, torture, or otherwise harm their property - in fact, they might enjoy it. They might have slaves just for that purpose. They wouldn't need statutes to back up their "rights" to have slaves, and they wouldn't hearken back to their forefather's ownership to validate their own. They might simply say: "Because I can," or, "Because my pets please me, whether they are pleased or not." Yes, evil. Neutral good societies in my game might keep slaves for tradition's sake, or because they genuinely feel that their slaves couldn't make it on their own. In their eyes, they might be doing a good thing by giving people employment and a place to stay. They would care that results are achieved with as little harm as possible, but unlike chaotic good folks they might not consider the loss of personal freedom to be a "bad" thing. If slavery works and adds to the greater good, a neutral good society would espouse it. Or so it goes in my game. The group I run is primarily lawful good and their encounters with slavery have been in a lawful neutral society and a lawful evil one. I wanted to show the spectrum of lawful societies. Each encounter with slavery has been upsetting to them, and they have felt the difference between other societies and their own. But never have I outright called it evil in and of itself. I let them decide for themselves, and they have, and kept to their alignments. I try to let them decide for themselves in as many instances as possible so that their own emotions will show them what their characters feel is right. To them, slavery was ugly. To other characters, slavery would be right.
MooseTracks 06-18-03, 02:00 AM	Originally posted by KismetRose I do not find slavery to be a case of instant evil. I view it this way, for the purposes of the game: slavery is only inherently good or bad in the eyes of the people who view it. Neither do I, rather a gradual build-up of bad behavior. Unfortnately, it is inherent in all humans to rise to great heights in valor as well as stoop to unspeakable violence against their own kind. This just happens to be a weird quirk humans have. --To everyone, I didn't mean to come off as pompous. The opinions voiced here are the coupled thoughts of me and my long-time beloved Fighter/Druid character. Whether a PC in somebody elses campaign or an NPC in my own, she feels the same about anyone or anything in bondage. (An odd side-affect from a personal experience she had as a child)
deadite 06-18-03, 04:32 AM	Slavery is simply part of a medieval world. Nothing evil about it. Unless your views on slavery are that of 19th century america... It'all about the treatment of slaves. Owning them is not evil.
niss'tyre 06-18-03, 08:15 AM	Alaundo's a fraud!!! Disregarg the false prophet's words!!!!! Wait, where am I? Oh, sorry 'bout that. Wrong page. :bow: :bow:
Sicnarf 06-18-03, 09:44 AM	Don't throw me any stone, but I don't think that, in a medieval society, slavery is completely immoral. Just look at a poor sod, born with nothing. Is it better to him to live in the service of a rich lord, with some clothes, food almost each day, protection from barbares, even if it sometime means to give your live for the good of the other slaves in a war? Or to go wild, live in a forest and die at the claw of some wolf only pass 12 years old? I read a novel that occurs in Antiq Rome, where the hero had a slave. The slave was a woman from Egypt, she was happy to live in a large city like Rome, she was almost free, she just had to cook. What is the difference between this slave and a common American proletarian who never vote at the elections? Nothing.
Nine Hands 06-18-03, 11:05 AM	A clip from the Old Empires book: Most of the people of Mulhorand are slaves, the official property of the churches. Landholders are not permitted to buy slaves (yet) but may rent them from a temple. Each temple buys its own slaves, which it trains for its own purposes. Slaves in Mulhorand are reasonably well-treated. Food is plentiful and no one starves. Killing a slave is a capital crime, and any slave who is unfairly punished is able to make a complaint to the priests of Osiris, who judge how slaves are treated in Mulhorand. Punishment for abusing a slave usually involves forfeiture of some lands and possessions. Work is hard and sometimes dangerous, but few masters are willing to be responsible for the accidental death of a slave. All slaves must take an oath to obey the gods and whatever master the gods see fit to give them. It is not uncommon for a master to pay his slaves when they are returned to their priesthood; this often favorably impresses the priests who own the slaves. Life as a slave in Mulhorand is not easy or particularly pleasant, but it is better than a slave’s life in other lands, especially Thay. In this regard I would say that in this case slavery is both moral and good in the context of Mulhorand. Other societies may view this as barbaric and possibly evil. Now consider a typical western medieval society. A peasant is very similar to a slave in Mulhorand. They are effectively the property of a lord and as their communities are fought over, they are "effectively bought and sold". The word of a peasant has little weight compared to that of a lord. The right of first night. The list goes on and on. Basically it is hard to put a modern day set of values on a medieval game world. You have to put everything in context :)
SoulLord 06-18-03, 11:46 AM	I was wondering now that slaves are mentioned how are slaves treated in hlondeth? the city was freed from chondath (arrabar) and now is ruled by yuan ti SoulLord p.s. (cant post to the boards using netscape only with IE)
MooseTracks 06-18-03, 01:36 PM	Originally posted by SoulLord I was wondering now that slaves are mentioned how are slaves treated in hlondeth? Not too sure. Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Yuan-Ti want to dominate with prejudice. The RoF accessory mentions assimilation via something called a Servitor Draft. Whenever I hear the word assimilate, I think Borg. So that cannot be a good slave/master relation. P. S. - Although, it seems that despite their true motives, on the surface they seem to be able to conduct good relations with others. Civility, how charming. (sarcasm) Try finding info on Dediana Extaminos, Yuan-Ti halfblood and current ruler of Hlondeth.
Masakado 06-18-03, 01:53 PM	Slaves are probably worse off with the Yuan-Ti than with anyone. If you've encorporated James Wyatt's Winding Serpent portal system from the Perilous Gateways! articles into your gaming world, the Yuan-Ti are using their portals to actively trade slaves in areas as far flung as Hlondeth, Skullport (where one of their number is a slavemaster with the Iron Ring), the Serpent Hills of the Western Heartland, and the Black Jungles of Chult. Click here for info on the Winding Serpent! (http://wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/pg20010711x)
ENHenry 06-18-03, 03:50 PM	Originally posted by PhilCW I personally don,t recall reading that Calimshan openly engages in mass gladiatorial games, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had small organized fights or games. As far as concubines go, Many harems (they are harems) placed women on the level of artisans and wives to their master/husband, and were fairly treated. I am not saying it is right or wrong, what I'm trying to convey is that a calishite will not see it as wrong because that is how they were raised and they were instructed on how it was normal. I remember reading a reference to a Calishi-te Arena known as the Manshaka Arena of Blood, in the city of Manshaka. Gladiators there fight to the death, and are initially marked by soldering a metal band onto their right wrist. Those who fought enough fights won their freedom, but it was in the neighborhood of hundreds of fights. Don't know if this is an apocryphal story or not, but it makes for a great campaign hook. :)
SoulLord 06-19-03, 12:01 PM	i recall some article on the yuan ti not so long ago in dragon magazine regardin slavery how would you modify the "legal" system of hlondeth to reflect their situation? "if any yuan-ti is harmed by non yuan ti the offending party will become a slave of the yuan ti in question" "slaves may be owned only by yuan ti" etc... also why do you think the slaves here would be worse??
Mirtek 06-19-03, 12:26 PM	Originally posted by Bragi As another example, many people would view cannabalism as evil, but a cannibalistic society would not view themselves as evil. As always, alignment is very subjective but the alignment of cities are based more on the morals of that society. Actually not in D&D. In D&D good, evil, law, and chaos are the strict forces that define the very structure of reality and far older than the first sentient beings able to think about them. Even if the whole population a world would have a moral that defines evil at good, the primordial forces of good and evil would not be affected by their PoV. The people may think and claim that they are good, but they would still be evil. They may complain as much as they like, but a anti-evil spell would still hit them and their souls would still go to the lower planes after their deaths
Celtavian 06-20-03, 02:20 AM	Slavery has been more common throughout human history than freedom. Freedom is a recent development. Are you then saying that all past human cultures are evil? There are no human cultures I can think of that didn't practice slavery. Not a single one. Slavery is in The Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Vedic texts, and just about every tribal culture that ever existed. I can think of no human culture that did not engage in slavery or endentured servitude in the history of humanity. What does this mean? It would have been strange if slavery didn't exist in the Forgotten Realms whether a society be good, neutral or evil.
Druxus Rhym 07-08-03, 10:27 PM	LN alignment describes the will to uphold law whither it be tyranny or a nice kind happy kingdomship :bow: thank you thank you very much
SoulLord 07-23-03, 08:58 AM	ive been reflecting on this .... wouldnt serfs(villagers) also be considered slaves? they belonged to their lord couldnt leave if they wished (only freeman could do that) and hd many rstrictions similar to those of slaves? and if the realms are similar to the middle ages in this aspect i guess slavery is much more widespread and common altough in diferent degrees. slavery exists not only in the just "obvious" realms that trade on it SoulLord
inci 07-23-03, 10:38 AM	what is the difference between a poor person(the farmer, the beggar, etc) in so called 'free' lands and the slave? right, there is none. both are treated like scum by the aristocrats/rich people anyway. prolly the slave is treated better after all since he is a monetary value (and his owner would charge you when you kill/harm him) capturing ppl and sell them into slavery should be considered 'evil' in D&D games (except in wars) but having a slave that sold himself to pay depts ... certainly not.
Dungeon_Master 07-23-03, 01:47 PM	Originally posted by Dargoth The Communism Feat is not Avaliable in the Forgotten Realms Acctually, it is. I think the Thayans are communists, to an extent. There is the group of Zulkirs, with old Szass heading it. As for "is slavery evil?", here's my thoughts. Keep in mind that I am not condoning the practice in any way. George Washington practiced, if you could call what he did that. However, from what I have read, I do notice that he treated them quite well. Now, do we consider George Washington "evil"? Not many people in America do. Like deadite said, in the FR, the owning of slaves isn't considered "evil" by most of the people. It's how they are treated. However, I think most palidans would do their best to free slaves by lawful means, or by crusading against evil slave lords. So, is slavery evil? In most worlds, including the FR and our own, it depends on who you ask. As I said in the begining, I in no way condone or support slavery. That was just my 2 CP.
Cthulhu 07-23-03, 02:28 PM	I'll point out that Ben Franklin also owned slaves his entire life, but was an active abolitionist. He even freed his slaves in his will (although the few he had never outlived him).
Xae'an 07-23-03, 07:06 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master Acctually, it is. I think the Thayans are communists, to an extent. There is the group of Zulkirs, with old Szass heading it. I could not disagree more. Thay is much more a fascist country than a communist one. Never forget what the idea of communism is before you talk about it: Equality and justice, which are values that are, let's say, not very common among the Red Wizards! I'm not trying to defend the regimes that called themselves communist and the crimes the commited, but I am defending the original concepts of Marx. A revolution may not be a kind way to change the situation in a country but it might be the only way. Ending the reign of capitalism, fascism and greed is a noble aim.
Dungeon_Master 07-24-03, 10:08 AM	I'm fine /w democracy, but there's times I think a limited form of communism could be a good government type. Get things done... Here's some examples: The U.N (this may be something old) was trying to make a childs bill of rights. Ya, real productive when we have terrorists in the Mideast, the Phillipines..... When you're a kid, you don't *have* many rights. You get those when you're 18. In America anyhow. Another? Ok. The government is having to pay for a prisoner to get a sex-change operation in a prison somewhere. Your supporting a famikly and lose money from the bad economy and are living from paycheck to paycheck, we can't help ya. Your a convict and want to be a woman? Well, let's see... :rolleyes: That, and the Dixie Chicks can pose nude on a Entertainment Weekly issue and get away with it. So, I guess Communism would have perks, but I'll stick /w what America has now. Ya, your right. Thay isn't a communism. It's pretty close to what Communism was made out to be during the Cold War though. Dictatorship maybe?
Serinde 07-24-03, 02:31 PM	Oligarchy. A small group of powerful people control everything.
Sarelle 07-25-03, 08:48 AM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master Acctually, it is. I think the Thayans are communists, to an extent. There is the group of Zulkirs, with old Szass heading it. :confused: Mmhmm... without meaning it I am forced to say... typical American view... COMMUNISM ISN'T NECESSARILY EVIL. I think slavery = evil or not? is a question that like many others boils down to the fact that alignments do not encompass reality and the decisions people make. It also depends on the player's views on alignment or the issue. For roeplaying purposes I'd say that CN, LN and N people could have slavery, LE, NE and CE obviously could, and even LG and CG could encompass it, if subterfuge, or opression of society were included (i.e. a righteous paladin brought up with the views that slaves are normal). Even NG could, theoretically (if, say, it helped the balance), but that alignment seems most unlikely. For reality - slavery is evil, in the human and common definition of the word evil.
Dungeon_Master 07-25-03, 06:52 PM	I don't think communism is evil. It'd be good if it could be controlled to where we all have our freedom intact.
Xae'an 07-25-03, 08:48 PM	Originally posted by Sarelle :confused: Mmhmm... without meaning it I am forced to say... typical American view... That's exactly what went through my head too, though I didn't dare to post it. Obviously for some Americans the cold war isn't over yet and the resentments against communist ideology lives on. The fact that there was never a left wing party with significant power in the USA (though they truely needed one)adds to the problem. Dungeon_Master's posts show that his first impression was against better knowledge. I voted for the communist party twice in my life - but I'll likely do it again. A communist party with at least a limited degree of influence (5%-10%, not enough to rule the country but sufficient to carry the interests of the workers and the poor) would be a blessing for every country in nowadays world. As far as freedom goes, I think freedom in America today is ONLY the freedom of the wealthy and powerful, because common workers are easy victims of exploitation as a result of the limited power of labour unions, the lack of a welfare state and most of all the influence of big companies on the government. I don't say that this problems only exist in America, most European countries go into a similar direction. (The goverment we have in Austria now do their job in a horrible way and I'd rather mate with a night hag than defend them.)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-25-03, 09:34 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master Another? Ok. The government is having to pay for a prisoner to get a sex-change operation in a prison somewhere. Your supporting a famikly and lose money from the bad economy and are living from paycheck to paycheck, we can't help ya. Your a convict and want to be a woman? Well, let's see... :rolleyes: But prisons are often extremely unpleasant places to be, and it's not like the said convict can do what he wishes, or go where he likes, like we can. If he's in a maximum security prison, he has almost no freedom. My point: Prisoners don't necessarily "have it easy" the way many people think. I think I'd rather be struggling than be in prison.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-25-03, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by Xae'an As far as freedom goes, I think freedom in America today is ONLY the freedom of the wealthy and powerful I think you're wrong. According to the US Constitution, everyone is entitled to certain rights, no matter what class they come from. I'm an American, and for the record, I don't think communism is "evil" (that doesn't mean I want it here, though). Of course, it also depends on what your definition of "freedom" is, as well. PS: Have you ever actually lived in America?
Roxlimn 07-26-03, 12:03 AM	According to the 3e sourcebooks on the matter, slavery is not classified as an evil institution the way that churches or other evil organizations are. In fact, it's not even considered an evil practice at all. The books do mention that, by and large, the more ignorant peoples from the Western Heartlands and the Dales are likely to see it as an evil practice, but that good peoples from lands that practice slavery are unlikely to do so. The typical lot of a peasant in the Realms is really rather deplorable, as according to the sourcebooks. A free Cormeyrean really is rather more comfortable. However by medieval standards, Cormyr shouldn't even be alive as a kingdom. Nationalism is what holds it together, a social construct wholly alien to the medieval mindset. According to the books, a slave is probably about the same as a peasant or free farmer depending on where you find him. Some slaves in Thay are probably much better off than the average Cormyrean freeholder, and they'd probably not take a "rescue" attempt very kindly. It IS mentioned that most individual owners of slaves in Thay find these slaves very expensive, so they take especially good care of them and even take them into their households. It's the state owned slaves that have it bad. Thus, for people who have lived with the Realms version of slavery, the practice and institution of slavery isn't evil. It's just another socio-economic ladder on which you could climb if you happen to find yourself on it, much like the tenant-freeholder ladder in other realms in FR.
Sothran of Waterdeep 07-26-03, 04:31 AM	hia. iīm in a bit of a rush so i havnīt had time to read all post so what iīm saying might allready been said... in any culture there is allways a small violent minority who makes up "the revulutionary part". for instance vegans (the guys who run around and setting experiment animals free). so if a society in the realms have a alignment of LG all in the country donīt have alignment LG. there are all kinds... so i donīt think you should stare your self to blind on the alignment of the countries. if you donīt like the slavery bit just ignore it... itīs your world to change to your liking. :D
Dungeon_Master 07-26-03, 11:46 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin PS: Have you ever actually lived in America? I am an American citizen in good standing, thank you very much. :) I do not think communism is evil, and I understand quite well that the cold war is over. Yes, I did say Thay looked like what many communisms evventually turned into: Dictatorships. A communism could work well, but many of them in the history of the world have ended up as dictatorships or taken their peoples freedom away. note: DM does not protest the war in Iraq in any way. Nor is he a psycho who attacks anyone who believes we shouldn't have gone over there. He simply believes that we should have thought this through a bit more.
Dungeon_Master 07-26-03, 12:00 PM	Originally posted by Xae'an I voted for the communist party twice in my life - but I'll likely do it again. A communist party with at least a limited degree of influence (5%-10%, not enough to rule the country but sufficient to carry the interests of the workers and the poor) would be a blessing for every country in nowadays world. As far as freedom goes, I think freedom in America today is ONLY the freedom of the wealthy and powerful, because common workers are easy victims of exploitation as a result of the limited power of labour unions, the lack of a welfare state and most of all the influence of big companies on the government. Ya, the limited Communism could work. The only problem is with the current attitude of alot of people here would render it unacceptable. As for freedom ONLY for the rich, not the first time I've heard it. It's just part of having the republican party in power. Trickle down theory. Although all I've seen is the lower and middle class losing money, but these boards aren't the place for a political rant. Your right though. The lower class is easy to exploit. But, we can't have our constitutional rights taken away. We're all entitled to certain rights.
Astanphaeus 07-26-03, 05:28 PM	For the record: Technically, there's really no such thing as limited communism. The nature of the system doesn't allow for compromise, because it's effectively an extreme. However, to date, a true communism has yet to be implemented anywhere. It's an ideal state that must be worked towards and has yet to be reached. The interim state that paves the way for communism is socialism. So far, no country has made it beyond this socialist stage. This is why the Soviet Union, which upheld communism as the ideal, consisted of socialist republics. So, when people say "limited communism" they're likely actually referring to limited socialism. It's hard to go halfway with "the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all." It's an all or nothing type of thing. However, degrees of socialism can be (and are) adopted. -- A.
Xae'an 07-26-03, 08:12 PM	Though there is no limited communism there are different degrees of influence a communist party may have. And I honestly think that communist parties fit well into democratic nations. As far as my first post goes, I did not mean to offend anybody, as it was meant as a criticism of the political system (mainly of the Repulicans) and not the American people. Pleas keep that in mind. Of course I know that theoretically all citizens have the same rights but I think it's much harder for poor people to insisit on them - but I also have to admit that this is not only true for America but for most other countries as well. To Rinolalyrna: I have to say that I haven't ever lived in America but I've often talked to people who have - but of course - no, I can't speak out of first hand experience. But to me - and I think to many Europeans as well it's hard to imagine a country without even a socialist party - and I have actually experienced that a rigtht wing government usually isn't a good thing - Two right wing parties (one of them conservative, the other populists) are in the Austrian government now and have turned things rapidly to the worse than in the good old times of Kreisky, Sinowatz or Vranitzky (all of them socialists) within the last four years. The government introduced university fees, introduced fees for going to the doctor, cut down retirements, sold public goods to private companies and continues dismantling the welfare state (The socialists remain at 35% but are opposition now and don't have any more real power.) And now if I imagine a country without a socialist party at all, I imagine that with fear - maybe not thinking of the fact that the democrats are a left wing party at least to a certain extent as well. I apologiese if I have been rude, I didn't want to insult any American - though I certainly feel no love for Bush, his advisors and the big oil companies behind them... (Read Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men', really great book!) That much said, I start to realize that this is all far off-topic. Oops, ahem, ah, yeah, slavery in the realms, I have something about that too: The PCs in my campaign are now trying to convince the pharao of Mulhorand, who is a LG Paladin to abolish slavery. Since he is LG, I at least give them the chance of success - in my campaign he was kidnapped by the Shadowmasters and their prisoner for a few weeks - therefore now he knows what losing freedom means. Propably they will confront him with the issue tomorrow and he will decide about it - with some good arguements (and perhaps a good diplomacy check) they might convince him to abolish slavery for once and for all - and maybe to start a strategic alliance with Aglarond, Rashemen and themselves (They managed to become the reigning council in the Vast) against Thay.
Iegan 07-26-03, 09:47 PM	The argument that slavery is evil, "no ifs, ands or buts" is a poor standpoint for a DM. It requires an objectivist viewpoint. If you want to run a realistic world, you should try to be something of a cultural relativist. Objectivists often fail to understand the motives of "evil" people and societies.
Astanphaeus 07-26-03, 09:52 PM	Originally posted by Xae'an Though there is no limited communism there are different degrees of influence a communist party may have. Absolutely. And the agenda they'd be promoting would be a socialist one. And now if I imagine a country without a socialist party at all, I imagine that with fear - maybe not thinking of the fact that the democrats are a left wing party at least to a certain extent as well. The american democratic party, in its current incarnation, is driven by a liberal agenda, which, in the american political spectrum, includes a lot of socialist viewpoints. However, many americans complain that the two parties have become, in many ways, indistinguishable from one another... but that's beside the point. In bringing this back to slavery... As this dialogue has demonstrated, a lot of these terms and concepts have a degree of subjectivity attached to them. "Liberalism", for example, indicates different ideas for an american than it probably would for other folk. American liberalism is, arguably, quite a bit more conceptually specific than the classical meaning of the word. Also, to many people, "liberal" and "democrat" are synonymous... when, strictly speaking, they're not. A Jeffersonian democrat, for example, would disagree quite a bit with a liberal democrat. It would probably be good to keep all of this in mind when viewing slavery in the Realms. What slavery means to us, in the 21st century and in the western world, is likely somewhat divergent from what it means to the various cultures and peoples of Faerun. There are many different forms of slavery, manifested in a myriad of ancient cultures in our history. I'd suggest doing some research on them. What you find may not be in keeping with what you think of when you think of "slavery"... but it's slavery nonetheless. For instance, is indentured servitude as payment for debt or crime "evil"? I don't think that's so clear. Is serfdom obviously "evil"? Again, I think it can be argued that it isn't. Is it wrong from our current perspective? Definitely. But it's not our current perspective that we're talking about here. It's Mulhorund's, Cormyr's, Calimshan's and Thay's. We'd have to go back serveral hundred years to draw a real world parallel to the current Faerunian paradigm. Ultimately, in terms of D&D alignment, I think slavery is more of a Chaos vs. Law thing than a Good vs. Evil thing. Whether or not it's Good or Evil would depend on how it was implemented and practiced. That's my take. -- A.
GoodOlWillickers 07-26-03, 11:04 PM	Slavery is in itself lawful. Brutal mistreatment of the slaves would be evil. However, becuase of America's history, we're brought up to think slavery is brought from the pits of hell. Even though it's not evil, it's still bad. Peace -Will http://www.angelfire.com/md2/willspalace
Magus Occidentalus 07-26-03, 11:15 PM	Why would the Pharoh of Mulhorund even consider abolishing slavery? Mulhorund is the one great nation where state-owned slaves are treated very well, because slaves are the property of the gods. For a paladin to steal from the gods in that way is to incur some serious class penalties. Actually, Mulhorund is simply the tangible result of a very common philosophy: that mankind is owned, literally by the gods. After all, that was the argument that Socrates used against suicide. So, in a world where the gods take a more obviously active role, why not have this philosophical slavery become real? I've seen few (after Aristophanes) call Socrates evil, so why go after Mulhorund?
Roxlimn 07-26-03, 11:52 PM	The slaves in Mulhorand are no less free than a serf would be in Sembia or Cormyr. He'd be a lot MORE free, in fact. Free to think about things other than what he's going to eat later that day because his caretakers will do that for him. Sure, he doesn't get to choose what to eat, but its extremely likely that the serf won't get to choose either, and at least the slave will eat better. He gets protection from unwanted sexual or physical advances (something the serf doesn't get), he's always moral as long as he obeys his masters, and his safety is almost always better than the average adventurer's. If he performs well and is conscientious about his work, he might get promoted to a position of authority (again, something most serfs have no assurance of). Truth to tell, I'd rather be a slave in Mulhorand!
Sarelle 07-27-03, 07:08 AM	Evil is a human conception. It means what the person who considers/uses/reads/writes it wants it to mean. However, according to to what sources throughout Earth's history preach (and according to my, and most people of our times' thoughts) is evil - slavery is evil, however it is done. Please read my last post, though people. Slavery in the Realms can be done by any alignment, theoretically. Slavery in real life is evil, but people who did slavery would never have considered themselves evil for doing it, and nor would most other people at that time. Someone who is brought up when/where slavery is a common norm can still go on to do tremendously "good" things and still think slavery is ok. Bleh - relative sociology/philosophy hurts my head, especially when NO ONE LISTENS!
Astanphaeus 07-27-03, 06:41 PM	Originally posted by Sarelle However, according to to what sources throughout Earth's history preach (and according to my, and most people of our times' thoughts) is evil - slavery is evil, however it is done. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It would be dependent on how narrowly you define "slavery". Serfdom, for example, has been cited several times in this thread. That was not regarded as "evil"... but it certainly was a form of slavery. "A person in bondage or servitude" is part of the definition. The point that the slaves of Mulhorund have it better than the serfs of Cormyr seems to be a valid one to me. And if you use the broad "state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another" definition, it's can encompass a lifestyle choice, even today... albeit an unusual one... but still not "evil". I'm also hard pressed to see how indentured servitude as payment of debt or crime is "evil", even under D&D's alignment absolutes. Slavery in the Realms can be done by any alignment, theoretically. I'd say it'd be a stretch for CG or CN, but possible under specific circumstances. As Chaos encompasses the concepts of individualism and freedom, it's a hard one to reconcile. However, if the situation, for example, involved the indentured servitude noted above, I can see it... because it could involve the servant's choice (either directly or indirectly) to be bound by such a contract. -- A.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-27-03, 08:36 PM	Originally posted by Dungeon_Master I am an American citizen in good standing, thank you very much. :) I was not talking to you.
Faraer 07-27-03, 08:49 PM	But most of the Realms isn't feudal and doesn't have serfs. Cormyte farmers, for example, are freemen. I don't know where the idea that slavery isn't evil in the Realms comes from. None of the good-aligned nations practice it. "If you want to run a realistic world, you should try to be something of a cultural relativist." Maybe so, but the Realms isn't a realistic world, it's a swords & sorcery world. This is a matter of genre. (And yes, in the 19th century it was a totally mainstream idea that working for a corporation was "wage slavery", and we'd do well not to forget it.)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-27-03, 08:51 PM	Originally posted by Xae'an Though there is no limited communism there are different degrees of influence a communist party may have. And I honestly think that communist parties fit well into democratic nations. As far as my first post goes, I did not mean to offend anybody, as it was meant as a criticism of the political system (mainly of the Repulicans) and not the American people. Pleas keep that in mind. Of course I know that theoretically all citizens have the same rights but I think it's much harder for poor people to insisit on them - but I also have to admit that this is not only true for America but for most other countries as well. I wasn't trying to say that people are always considered absolutely equal, but the freedom and rights in my country are for everyone of all classes. To Rinolalyrna: I have to say that I haven't ever lived in America but I've often talked to people who have - but of course - no, I can't speak out of first hand experience. Thank you for at least acknowledging this. But to me - and I think to many Europeans as well it's hard to imagine a country without even a socialist party There are parties of all types here in America, including socialist/communist parties. What matters is whether or not they are voted into power. So far, socialist/communist parties haven't come into power here, and I will be completely honest and say I am happy this is so--not because I think those parties are "evil", but because I like the system we have here now. It's not perfect, but it works well and I like it. -and I have actually experienced that a rigtht wing government usually isn't a good thing Not all Republican ideals (or Republicans) are "bad". The Republicans here tend to stand for a limited government, which can be quite good, at least in a country like this. I won't comment on the problems your country is having (because I don't live there), but I will say that extremes of any kind can have bad results (including left-wing extremists). And now if I imagine a country without a socialist party at all, I imagine that with fear - maybe not thinking of the fact that the democrats are a left wing party at least to a certain extent as well. I apologiese if I have been rude, I didn't want to insult any American - though I certainly feel no love for Bush, his advisors and the big oil companies behind them... (Read Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men', really great book!) There are probably much better and more impartial political books to read and rely on then that one--spinsanity.com (a neutral site that criticizes pundits from both sides) criticized that book very heavily. I'm not insulted by anything you said; you have the right to your own opinion (but I do like Bush).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-27-03, 08:56 PM	Originally posted by Faraer But most of the Realms isn't feudal and doesn't have serfs. Cormyte farmers, for example, are freemen. I agree; I don't recall Sembia or Cormyr having serfs at all. In fact, I couldn't name a "goodly" nation off the top of my head that has serfs. As Faraer implied, most farmers in the Realms are free commoners.
Kuje31 07-27-03, 09:14 PM	Also according to the d&d alignments, slavery is evil. There is no "good" country or nation that would have slaves going by the d&d alignments.
Astanphaeus 07-28-03, 06:17 AM	Originally posted by Faraer But most of the Realms isn't feudal and doesn't have serfs. Cormyte farmers, for example, are freemen. There are many feudal realms or pseudo-feudal states in the Realms, and Cormyr's one of them... but you're right, the FRCS describes Cormyrean farmers as freemen. I don't know where the idea that slavery isn't evil in the Realms comes from. None of the good-aligned nations practice it. Mulhorand Alignment: LN, LG, LE Chessenta: N, CG, LN Moonshae Islands Alignment: NG, N, NE (the Northlanders practice slavery) Zakhara. Slavery is a cultural establishment for the entire subcontinent. The mamluks are slaves of the state and take a dim view of slavery... when one is not allowed to better themselves. Mamluks can rise to positions of considerable power. And I'd point out that still no one has explained how indentured servitude in payment of debt or crime is evil. "If you want to run a realistic world, you should try to be something of a cultural relativist." Maybe so, but the Realms isn't a realistic world, it's a swords & sorcery world. This is a matter of genre. You're certainly free to look at it that way. But I don't think the material supports the notion that slavery is flat-out evil across the board, no matter how it's practiced. Intent matters. How the slave is treated matters. Whether or not the slave can buy back their own freedom matters. Whether or not the slave willfully entered into the contract matters. Whether or not the slave is serving a sentence for a crime matters. Whether or not the slave is able to improve their lot in life matters. It's just not cut and dry. (And yes, in the 19th century it was a totally mainstream idea that working for a corporation was "wage slavery", and we'd do well not to forget it.) You have to go quite a bit further back in time than the 19th century, to the cultures that all that sword and sorcery material is derived from. Originally posted by Kuje31 Also according to the d&d alignments, slavery is evil. Cite where it states that, because I haven't found it. I'm sticking with my Law vs. Chaos view for now, because, so far, no "slavery is Evil" argument has been presented that covers all forms of slavery, and I think there's a significant amount of ambiguity in the material. Forms of slavery such as that practiced by Thay are indeed Evil, I agree. However, others are not. What they all are, though, are restrictions on individual freedom. For this reason, I think, from a CN or CG perspective, most forms of it, if not all, would be frowned upon. Certainly, my CG cleric of Lliira would not approve, no matter how it was presented. It is also for this reason that I think any Lawful alignment could accept it, depending on how the slaves were treated. Law, after all, is all about restrictions, tradition, and prioritizing society over the individual. Freedom of the individual is not a concept that goes well with Law. To me, it's the Chaotic Good ranger that'd freak out over slavery, no matter it's form, moreso than the Lawful Good paladin. Finally, as far as FR 3rd edition goes, everyone is bound in servitude... if they want to have an afterlife, that is. Devote yourself to a god and serve that deity dutifully, or "spend eternity writhing on the Wall of the Faithless or disappear into the hells of the devils or the infernos of the demons." That sound nice to you? Doesn't to me. ;) -- A.
Tempest of the 7 Storms 07-28-03, 09:48 AM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Also according to the d&d alignments, slavery is evil. There is no "good" country or nation that would have slaves going by the d&d alignments. Well , there are plenty of non-evil countries that practice it, as mentioned in the post above. But then again, this whole discussion is one that will never end, because nobody can produce an argument that will convince all (or almost all) to that standpoint. I agree that slavery is not a GOOD act, but that doesn't neccessarily make it EVIL. It is more a culture thing. Our culture (21st. centure Western) sees it as evil as we believe in individual freedom. Medieval (sp??) eastern culture had no problem with slaves, as well as, as somebody earlier mentioned, almost ALL old cultures practice slavery in one form or another. Can you then say that all the old cultures (American native, Nordic, celtic, chinese, japanese, indian, arabic) were evil?? ...at that point in time they were not, because it was part of their culture. Nowadays we might see that practice as evil, but maybe only because it is no longer a part of our culture. I am pretty sure that we do things today, that older cultures would have viewed as evil ...but it doesn't make it so. That ofcourse are only my views ;)
Dungeon_Master 07-28-03, 01:09 PM	"Stupid White Men"...... I saw that once. Looked entertaining, but I didn't get it. I'll have to check it out next time I go to the library. You forgot one other culture that practiced it, Tempest: the first European Settlers.
Kuje31 07-28-03, 01:20 PM	Originally posted by Tempest of the 7 Storms Well , there are plenty of non-evil countries that practice it, as mentioned in the post above. But then again, this whole discussion is one that will never end, because nobody can produce an argument that will convince all (or almost all) to that standpoint. I agree that slavery is not a GOOD act, but that doesn't neccessarily make it EVIL. It is more a culture thing. Our culture (21st. centure Western) sees it as evil as we believe in individual freedom. Medieval (sp??) eastern culture had no problem with slaves, as well as, as somebody earlier mentioned, almost ALL old cultures practice slavery in one form or another. I wasn't saying by our standards on earth. I was saying by the D&D alignments, slavery is evil. D&D alignments are black and white and no "good" nation would keep slaves according again to the D&D alignments. And I know whats printed in the material, but slavery by the D&D alignments would still be considered evil. You are keeping some one against thier will, a good person does not do that type of thing. Granted I don't have a quote about it but good aligned people would not keep slaves.
Iegan 07-28-03, 03:49 PM	I believe the question of slavery couldn't be farther from the Good/Evil spectrum of D&D. I would argue that it's a Law/Chaos issue. Law is for strict heirarchies of order. Chaos is for the rights of individuals to live their own lives outside of the collective whole. Good and Evil enter into it only when we talk about how the slaves are treated. I believe a Lawful Good slave-owning society is completely plausible (though less likely than a Lawful Evil one).
BITING-GNOME 07-28-03, 06:26 PM	I normally do help slaves in fr campains. Also i am thinking about a campain based around a slave revolution.
Astanphaeus 07-28-03, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by Iegan I believe the question of slavery couldn't be farther from the Good/Evil spectrum of D&D. I would argue that it's a Law/Chaos issue. Law is for strict heirarchies of order. Chaos is for the rights of individuals to live their own lives outside of the collective whole. Good and Evil enter into it only when we talk about how the slaves are treated. I believe a Lawful Good slave-owning society is completely plausible (though less likely than a Lawful Evil one). Thank you! That's my conclusion as well. -- A.
hippy's_return 07-28-03, 10:04 PM	i agree with the law/chaos slavery thing but i do think good and evil enter into it as well, for example a CE character wouldnt have any problem with forcing someone else to do their work for them while a CG would find the idea disgusting
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-28-03, 10:39 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus I'm sticking with my Law vs. Chaos view for now, because, so far, no "slavery is Evil" argument has been presented that covers all forms of slavery, and I think there's a significant amount of ambiguity in the material. -- A. I disagree with the law/chaos argument. I don't really see how it's a matter of law vs chaos at all. In most LG cities, slavery is looked upon as deplorable, and there are plenty of CE cultures that practice slavery.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-28-03, 10:40 PM	Originally posted by Iegan Chaos is for the rights of individuals to live their own lives outside of the collective whole. What about drow society? Do the drow care at all about an individual's rights? And as for the lawful argument, strict hierarchies of order don't have to include the ownership of other people at all.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 07-28-03, 10:44 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Law, after all, is all about restrictions, tradition, and prioritizing society over the individual. Freedom of the individual is not a concept that goes well with Law. -- A. I don't agree with this, either--some laws are all about preserving the freedom of individuals.
Astanphaeus 07-29-03, 03:45 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin I disagree with the law/chaos argument. I don't really see how it's a matter of law vs chaos at all. "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness, and a lack of adaptability." Lawful View: "Only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should." "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." Chaotic View: "Only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." Clearly, as illustrated by the above quotes, Law vs. Chaos is manifested in the classic conflict between the social maxim and the individual maxim, the collective vs. the one. Law favors the former, Chaos favors the latter. It's not an either/or argument (though it can be in extreme cases). Its more a matter of priorities... which of the two is deemed more important. In most LG cities, slavery is looked upon as deplorable, No, what's looked upon as deplorable is specific manifestations of the concept, because the L is mitigated by the G. Good introduces a "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Therefore, buying and selling people like cattle... that's deplorable. Treating them like dirt... that's unacceptable. How Calimshan and Thay go about the practice... that's untenable and should be eliminated. On the other hand, the concept of indentured servitude as payment for a crime could be perfectly acceptable, as long as their were certain laws in place to govern its practice and enforce appropriate conditions. In fact, it could be argued that such a penalty is more compassionate than simply tossing the criminal into a cell and forgetting about him. As a slave, he remains a productive component of the society (Law), and can expect, even demand, a certain degree of humane treatment (Good). The idea of servitude in payment of debt -- a contract willfully entered into by all parties involved -- could also be acceptable, as long as the above standards were in place. What matters is how the person is treated. I also don't see where a LG character would necessarily have a problem with how Mulhorand operates (particularly if he were a native). It is tradition (Law) that contributes to the orderly functioning of society (Law). They are treated well (Good), it is a crime to treat them poorly (Good), they know their place in the scheme of things (Law), they can improve their lot in life, through education and professional advancement (Good). Were I playing a LG character in Mulhorand, I'd try to push for the concept of slaves being able to buy their freedom, rather than trying to disrupt the society itself. Let's put it another way... do you think a LG character would accept the idea of Birthright? That you can be granted a certain station and a set of responsibilities simply by virtue of the fact that you were born into it? Who is more apt to embrace the idea of Nobility inherited through blood, or a preordained destiny... a LG character or a CG character? Now look at the slaves of Mulhorand. Follow the logic. and there are plenty of CE cultures that practice slavery. But it's important to note how they go about doing it. It's not through any codified system of laws, but through force and fear. It's plain subjugation rather than an enforced societal tradition. Might makes Right. It's a case where the C is mitigated by the E. A slave in a CE "society" is "free" to rebel... if they have the power to back up their rebellion. The slave could become the enslaver, and no one would cry "that's against the rules!" The slave would not be hauled off and be tried for the crimes he committed, because there are no crimes, per say. Rather, the others would probably bow down before the new lord. The "society", such as it is, is under new management. In a CE environment, there aren't any laws restricting what the enslaver, or the slave, can do. It's simply a matter of who has the power to impress their individual will onto others. It's still a case of the individual maxim over the social maxim (Chaos), but combined with a complete disregard for life, dignity, and compassion (Evil). What about drow society? Do the drow care at all about an individual's rights? Drow (when viewed as predominantly CE) generally care only about themselves, so, in a manner of speaking... yes. A typical Drow is going to be completely rebellious against the idea of slavery... if he's the one that's going to be enslaved, that is. As for others being enslaved, well he'd probably feel only contempt, maybe pity that they'd be weak enough to allow that to happen to them. As for a slave that accepted his lot? Laughable and beneath contempt. Completely alien to the Drow's chaotic mindset. Obviously, combining Chaos with Evil gets a different result than combining Chaos with Good. You end up with a paradigm in which it's perfectly acceptable to impress your own will over others through whatever means you have at your disposal. It's still prioritizing the individual over the society, though. Your "rights" are determined by your power and strength, rather than by the dictates of society. In any event, Drow are listed as NE now, which makes sense given the way they've developed over the years. And as for the lawful argument, strict hierarchies of order don't have to include the ownership of other people at all. No, but they do uphold the concepts of duty, obedience, respect for authority, and the idea that the wants of the society take precedence over the wants of the individual. All of these tenets can and will be enforced if necessary, regardless of whether the hierarchy is Good, Evil, or something in between. It's sometimes a very thin line between inescapable obligation and outright ownership. Witness the Modrons. I don't agree with this, either--some laws are all about preserving the freedom of individuals. Ah, but I'm not talking about mundane laws. I'm talking about Law, capital L, the fundamental metaphysical component of the cosmology. Societal laws that preserve certain individual freedoms over others, that put value on the individual maxim, would render that society, from a cosmological standpoint, NG as opposed to LG. It's an attempt to compromise between the polar extremes of Chaos (individual) and Law (collective). This is actually illustrated in real life, in the U.S., with the constant push-pull tension between the concepts of Feedom and Security, and the balancing act with the values of Equality and Liberty. Bottom line, the concepts of Law and Chaos are rigid elements of the cosmology. As such, they need to be represented on some level by very specific, objective precepts. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to dilute that specificity, thereby rendering the concepts effectively meaningless. If you think Law (capital L) is compatible with the concept of individual freedom, and Chaos (capital C) is not in conflict with the idea of codified, legalized slavery and the notion of Birthright... then you're going to have to tell me what you think Law and Chaos are, how they're distinguished, how they're opposites, and how they manifest in a cosmological sense... because it seems to me you're undermining their fundamental meaning. -- A.
Astanphaeus 07-29-03, 07:11 AM	Originally posted by Kuje31 I wasn't saying by our standards on earth. I was saying by the D&D alignments, slavery is evil. D&D alignments are black and white and no "good" nation would keep slaves according again to the D&D alignments. This is only your own interpretation. It isn't specifically or expressly supported by the material. And I know whats printed in the material, but slavery by the D&D alignments would still be considered evil. I disagree. I've presented examples of how such a concept would be acceptable -- even encouraged -- by goodly alignments (particularly lawful). These examples are in accord with the alignments, as described in the material. 1. Indentured servitude as payment for a crime committed. A means of reform, whereby the slave-convict pays his debt to society through enforced, compulsory service to it. He is treated humanely, as per the goodly laws of the realm. LG, NG 2. Willful entrance into an enforceable contract wherein a subject agrees to give up his freedom and enter servitude, either as a legitmate payment of a debt, or as an exchange for something (gaining arcane tutelage for his children, for example). The slave is treated humanely, as per the goodly laws of the realm. LG, NG, CG 3. Born into a slave caste/born into divine service. The slave is owned by the gods (and through extension, the church) or the state. This is according to divine/state decree. As the "property" of the gods/state, the slave must be treated with respect and dignity. Within the context of their caste, slaves can be upwardly mobile. They simply cannot go beyond the consquence of their birth. Examples: the slaves of Mulhorand and the mamluks of Zakhara. LG, NG 4. Willful devotion of self (or family) in service to church/crown/nation. A binding of blood, that will implicate multiple generations. LG, NG (CG is it's self only, and has no familial implications) You are keeping some one against thier will, a good person does not do that type of thing. Then you must consider the incarceration of criminals Evil, no? Because that's keeping someone against their will. And what if the slave chose to be a slave? Granted I don't have a quote about it but good aligned people would not keep slaves. Then that's your interpretation, which is fine as far as it goes. However, I do think that's a departure from the material. -- A.
Celtavian 07-29-03, 09:03 AM	Originally posted by Kuje31 I wasn't saying by our standards on earth. I was saying by the D&D alignments, slavery is evil. D&D alignments are black and white and no "good" nation would keep slaves according again to the D&D alignments. And I know whats printed in the material, but slavery by the D&D alignments would still be considered evil. You are keeping some one against thier will, a good person does not do that type of thing. Granted I don't have a quote about it but good aligned people would not keep slaves. Explain this false position? Where does it say that slavery is only practiced by evil people?
Roxlimn 08-03-03, 02:38 AM	Faraer: But most of the Realms isn't feudal and doesn't have serfs. Cormyte farmers, for example, are freemen. That depends on your definitions. Many countries of the Realms are, in fact feudal in nature. That's the entire point of the kingdom thing. Kingdoms are founded on a feudal state. Vassals and all that. There are countries that AREN'T feudal. Silverymoon and the Silver Marches are not, but they're fairly new, and no one's sure if they're going to make it. Other countries vary. Aglarond is a dictatorship. Thay is a magocracy, as is Halruaa. Sembia is an oligarchy. Cormyr is definitely feudal. Even says so on how they military is organized. The nobles are expected to field in units for their liege in war. Rashemen is plain weird. It could be called a magocracy, I suppose, since the Iron Lord is under the direction of the Witches, but that's not quite right. Tethyr is feudal. Calimshan is feudal. The northern city states like Waterdeep seem feudal, too. Dwarven heirarchies tend to be feudal as well. A freeman in Cormyr manages his own lands and tills them, but he gives his part to his lord and part to the king and so on and so forth. He has an obligation to till the land and there really isn't a set ladder for him to better himself. For the most part, he's expected to till the land until he dies. Doesn't seem particularly free to me. According to the FRCS: "Indentured servitude and serfdom are relatively common practices that approach the hopelessness and brutality of slavery in some lands..." "Most Heartland peasants... ...do not own their farmlands, but instead rent croplands and pastures..." "In some lands, the common farmer is a peasant or a serf, denied the protection of law and considered the property of whichever lord holds the land she lives on." In Cormyr, the farmers are presumed to be typical ones, since they have no special mention. They don't belong to the lands as in some of the harsher kingdoms, but they are poor, if content, and they have no ready means for improvement. They don't own their own lands, instead renting it from local lords or landowners, who are free to tax or charge them whatever they like. In Sembia, however, no note of contentment or freedom is explicitly said, implying that peasants there are more like owned serfs than anything else. In fact... "Officially slaves are illegal in Sembia, but the nobles define legality on their own estates." which really bodes poorly for you if you're a peasant on Sembian soil. Amn makes no mention of farmers at all, which bodes very poorly for what peasants actually are there. Despite what you want to believe, the life of a farmer in the Realms is not a very pleasant one, and somewhat difficult to escape. Being a slave in Mulhorand is not much different, and better in many respects. Note that Sembia is not noted for being especially harsh on its peasants, so "decide legality on their estates" seems to be rather commonplace. No, I think I would rather be a Mulhorandi slave, thank you.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-03-03, 04:27 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Bottom line, the concepts of Law and Chaos are rigid elements of the cosmology. As such, they need to be represented on some level by very specific, objective precepts. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to dilute that specificity, thereby rendering the concepts effectively meaningless. If you think Law (capital L) is compatible with the concept of individual freedom, and Chaos (capital C) is not in conflict with the idea of codified, legalized slavery and the notion of Birthright... then you're going to have to tell me what you think Law and Chaos are, how they're distinguished, how they're opposites, and how they manifest in a cosmological sense... because it seems to me you're undermining their fundamental meaning. -- A. No I'm not. I'm not undermining anything, just expressing my opinion. It is just that I do not like blanket statements about alignments, and I am seeing a lot of that in this thread. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are rigid concepts, but they aren't totally objective because it is ultimately up to the DM to interpret them. I disagree that they are totally objective, or else we wouldn't be having this debate. The Player's Handbook is, in my opinion, rather vague about how *exactly* these concepts are to be defined. Yes, there are general guildlines, but the DM is the ultimate arbiter of specific situations and in some cases, the "morality" of people's actions in the gameworld. And quite frankly, nowhere does it say we are not allowed to disagree with the way alignments in the PHB are written out--besides, there are all kinds of ways to play every alignment. Nowhere does it say LG people have to act the same way or have the same beliefs, nor do CE people, for that matter.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-03-03, 04:44 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Let's put it another way... do you think a LG character would accept the idea of Birthright? That you can be granted a certain station and a set of responsibilities simply by virtue of the fact that you were born into it? Who is more apt to embrace the idea of Nobility inherited through blood, or a preordained destiny... a LG character or a CG character? I can't answer that question just going by their alignments. :) There is more to a character and their beliefs than just their alignment. Alignment is ultimately just a guideline. Now look at the slaves of Mulhorand. Follow the logic. What are you trying to prove to me here? I didn't bring them up in my arguments at all, as I recall. I don't know much about them so I did not comment on them. I recall that the main alignment of Mulharond (the first one listed for it in the FRCS) is LN, not LG. My point was that I don't see how slavery is more a more of law vs. chaos than good vs. evil. So far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, since you yourself have shown how beliefs about slavery are mitigated by the good/evil part of a person's alignment. :) Drow (when viewed as predominantly CE) generally care only about themselves, so, in a manner of speaking... yes. I wasn't talking about drow feel about themselves, but how much they care about the individual freedoms of others. "Chaotic people value individual freedom" is such a general statement that it can be interpreted in completely different ways depending on who it is applied to. Again, this goes back to the idea that the good/evil part of one's alignment matters as much as law/chaos, and even then people of the same alignment may not share the same beliefs. but I'm not talking about mundane laws. I'm talking about Law, capital L, the fundamental metaphysical component of the cosmology. But different people (players) always interpret "The Law" differently, whether one likes it or not. Arguing that one's version is better than another's (unless that's person's version is totally ridiculous) is usually pointless. And as I said, people can and often do disagree with the way things are described in sourcebooks. Besides, I don't recall the PHB having a truly detailed, comprehensive guide to everything that "Law" means--I still feel that while it is considered a "static" concept, the exact details of it are left up to the DM.
Astanphaeus 08-03-03, 05:48 PM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin No I'm not. I'm not undermining anything, just expressing my opinion. And your opinion strikes me as being that alignments don't really represent anything communicable, ergo you're undermining their meaning and purpose. That's my opinion, based upon what I'm reading so far. It is just that I do not like blanket statements about alignments, and I am seeing a lot of that in this thread. Alignments are, by definition, blanket generalizations. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are rigid concepts, but they aren't totally objective because it is ultimately up to the DM to interpret them. First of all, I never stated they were totally objective concepts. However, they're not entirely relative either. If they were, they'd have no applicable meaning, and therefore would be useless to anyone as communicable concepts... which is the only reason they exist. If, for example, a DM interpreted individualism as being a Lawful ideal... he would be completely contradicting the material. It would have implications on spells and domains. It would have implications on alignment restrictions (now the bard can be lawful!). Law, as presented in the material, represents (among other things) society prioritized over the one. That's really not a debatable point. Abandon that, and you've abandoned the extant alignment system. You're now going to have to explain to everyone what your alignment definitions are, or abandon the idea of alignments completely. You can interpret the particulars, but at their base, these concepts represent specific things. They'd be pointless if they didn't. Secondly, from a cosmological perspective, Good, Chaos, Law, and Evil are, at some point, immutable absolutes. There can be cultural relativism to an extent, but these are ultimately forces upon which the universe is built, so they are what they are, irrespective of what anyone might think they are. Hence demons, angels, modrons, and so on... beings that emody these absolutes. They wouldn't be able to exist if there weren't any absolutes to embody. Again, you can argue the particulars, but when you boil it down, there is a conceptual kernel that cannot be argued. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are rigid concepts, but they aren't totally objective because it is ultimately up to the DM to interpret them. I disagree that they are totally objective, or else we wouldn't be having this debate. This is a straw man. You're attributing a viewpoint to me that I never presented. I never said they were totally objective. But you say they're "rigid concepts". It's the rigidity that I've been specifically referring to. What, I ask, is rigid about them? Total relativism would also negate the debate. The Player's Handbook is, in my opinion, rather vague about how *exactly* these concepts are to be defined. The basic meaning is conveyed, which I've already illustrated in my previous post by quoting it directly. Basic meaning is what is seemingly being contradicted by certain posters to this thread. That's what I'm addressing. I'm not concerned with what they *exactly* mean. I'm talking about what they fundamentally mean. Yes, there are general guildlines, but the DM is the ultimate arbiter of specific situations and in some cases, the "morality" of people's actions in the gameworld. Yes, the DM is the arbiter, using the guidelines presented. In order for those guidelines to be of any use, they have to mean something concrete. And quite frankly, nowhere does it say we are not allowed to disagree with the way alignments in the PHB are written out-- Never claimed otherwise... but we're not discussing your alignments or my alignments. We're discussing the alignments, as presented in the material. You said, "I disagree with the law/chaos argument." That argument was based on the existing material. If your position is that it's all relative, there wouldn't have been anything to disagree with in the first place. It'd all be a matter of intepretation. besides, there are all kinds of ways to play every alignment. Never claimed otherwise... but there are ways to go against alignments or, again, they'd be pointless. Living life according to whim, for example, is not Lawful. Nowhere does it say LG people have to act the same way or have the same beliefs, nor do CE people, for that matter. Never claimed otherwise... but they do operate within certain moral parameters. That's what an alignment is. Why is there is restriction on a monk's alignment choices? Or a paladin's? Or a bards? According to the material: Freedom is within the purview of Chaos. Discipline is within the purview of Law. Compassion is within the purview of Good. Malice is within the purview of Evil. Agree or disagree? -- A.
Astanphaeus 08-03-03, 06:20 PM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin I can't answer that question just going by their alignments. :) There is more to a character and their beliefs than just their alignment. Alignment is ultimately just a guideline. Not in the cosmology it isn't. The idea of preordained destiny is definitely in opposition to the idea of individual freedom. Freedom is the purview of Chaos. Therefore, a CG character is less likely to embrace the idea of preordained destiny. There may be more to a character's beliefs, but CG clearly indicates fundamental tenets. That is the point of an alignment. An answer to this query can easily be reached based on only those fundamental tenets alone. What are you trying to prove to me here? I didn't bring them up in my arguments at all, as I recall. I don't know much about them so I did not comment on them. I recall that the main alignment of Mulharond (the first one listed for it in the FRCS) is LN, not LG. And the second is LG, and the third and last is LE. Note the distinct lack of Chaotic alignments. Note that Evil is in third place. Note that slavery is an established element of this society. Note that Mulhorand was one of several examples. In short, it demonstrates the assertion that slavery is more a question of Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. My point was that I don't see how slavery is more a more of law vs. chaos than good vs. evil. So far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, since you yourself have shown how beliefs about slavery are mitigated by the good/evil part of a person's alignment. :) Evidence to the contrary: freedom is a Chaotic ideal. Evidence to the contrary: multiple examples of how slavery could be acceptable to a Lawful Good alignment. Evidence to the contrary: the implications of Mulhorand's society, as well as other cultures/societies in the Realms. I wasn't talking about drow feel about themselves, but how much they care about the individual freedoms of others. 1. Caring about the welfare of others is Good. This is made clear in the material. 2. Caring about individual freedom is Chaotic. This is made clear in the material. Therefore, caring about the individual freedom of others is Chaotic Good. Caring about only your own freedom, even if it's at the expense of others, is Chaotic Evil. "Chaotic people value individual freedom" is such a general statement that it can be interpreted in completely different ways depending on who it is applied to. Yes, it would depend on if it were applied to someone who was good, evil, or neutral in respect to good and evil. Individualism would still be prioritized in every case, because that's a Chaotic ideal. Again, this goes back to the idea that the good/evil part of one's alignment matters as much as law/chaos, and even then people of the same alignment may not share the same beliefs. Never stated otherwise. But different people (players) always interpret "The Law" differently, whether one likes it or not. And if the player's interpretation contradicts the fundamental meaning as it's presented in the material, the player is wrong. Arguing that one's version is better than another's (unless that's person's version is totally ridiculous) is usually pointless. I'm not arguing what's better. I'm arguing what's correct, as per the material. Freedom is a Chaotic ideal, not a Good ideal. And as I said, people can and often do disagree with the way things are described in sourcebooks. Besides, I don't recall the PHB having a truly detailed, comprehensive guide to everything that "Law" means--I still feel that while it is considered a "static" concept, the exact details of it are left up to the DM. Again, I'm not talking about exact details. I'm talking about the fundamental idea. I've quoted the PHB directly. I don't need anything more detailed or comprehensive than what I quoted to make the point. If it's all relative, there's nothing to disagree with. -- A.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-03-03, 11:57 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus And your opinion strikes me as being that alignments don't really represent anything communicable, ergo you're undermining their meaning and purpose. That's my opinion, based upon what I'm reading so far. Well, you are misunderstanding me then. I'm not arguing that they don't represent anything communicable, just that different people interpret them differently, which is true. You seem to be getting just a tad bit hostile towards me--I don't understand why. Alignments are, by definition, blanket generalizations. Yes, but there are different ways to play each alignment. If, for example, a DM interpreted individualism as being a Lawful ideal... he would be completely contradicting the material. It would have implications on spells and domains. It would have implications on alignment restrictions (now the bard can be lawful!). Well, for one thing I didn't understand the new rule about bards not being able to be lawful. They used to be able to be lawful. I don't see why they cannot be lawful now. Law, as presented in the material, represents (among other things) society prioritized over the one. That's really not a debatable point. What about a LN monk, whose personal lawful code is more important to him than society? Secondly, from a cosmological perspective, Good, Chaos, Law, and Evil are, at some point, immutable absolutes. But it is up to the individual player (more specifically, the DM) to determine what those "absolutes" are, and what these forces apply to in specific situations. I'm not saying "anything goes", just that people have different opinions that can be debated about, and equally well argued for. Hence demons, angels, modrons, and so on... beings that emody these absolutes. They wouldn't be able to exist if there weren't any absolutes to embody. Again, you can argue the particulars, but when you boil it down, there is a conceptual kernel that cannot be argued. You can't argue that it's there, but who is it that defines this "kernel that cannot be argued", and where are the specifics of this kernel written down? This is a straw man. You're attributing a viewpoint to me that I never presented. I never said they were totally objective. I am not purposely setting out "straw-men". :rolleyes: You may not have said anything about objectivity, but for the sake of the argument it is worth pointing out. But you say they're "rigid concepts". It's the rigidity that I've been specifically referring to. What, I ask, is rigid about them? The fact that the sourcebooks say they are "static, comsic concepts". Total relativism would also negate the debate. I didn't mention this, either, and yet I'm not accusing you of throwing out strawmen. The basic meaning is conveyed, which I've already illustrated in my previous post by quoting it directly. Basic meaning is what is seemingly being contradicted by certain posters to this thread. That's what I'm addressing. I'm not concerned with what they *exactly* mean. I'm talking about what they fundamentally mean. You can still argue about those, as well, because some things are chaotic in some situations, but lawful in others. Suicide can often be a "chaotic" act (as least as I see it), but what about a ritual suicide as an act to be carried out according to a lawful code? Never claimed otherwise... but we're not discussing your alignments or my alignments. We're discussing the alignments, as presented in the material. There are many different ways to play alignments. *shrugs* The way the alignments are written in the sourcebook are not totally comprehensive, either. You said, "I disagree with the law/chaos argument." That argument was based on the existing material. If your position is that it's all relative But that's NOT my position, and I never said it was. According to the material: Freedom is within the purview of Chaos. Discipline is within the purview of Law. Compassion is within the purview of Good. Malice is within the purview of Evil. Agree or disagree? -- A. I agree (conditionally), but you still seemed to have misinterpreted most of my post. Besides, my argument was mainly that I don't see the law/chaos argument as more important to this discussion slavery than good/evil.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-04-03, 12:14 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Not in the cosmology it isn't. A PC's alignment is a guildline that doesn't force the player to do or not do anything. That is what I meant. The idea of preordained destiny is definitely in opposition to the idea of individual freedom. What if a PC can reach their pre-ordained destiny in any manner they want to? Freedom is the purview of Chaos. Therefore, a CG character is less likely to embrace the idea of preordained destiny. So if a CG elf is pre-ordained by the CG elven gods to do something grand for the elven race (mostly CG), he wouldn't accept that? I have trouble buying that. There may be more to a character's beliefs, but CG clearly indicates fundamental tenets. That is the point of an alignment. An answer to this query can easily be reached based on only those fundamental tenets alone. So one should use mental shortcuts and formulas when playing their character? I'm not saying your saying that, but as I said I don't think it's so simple. And the second is LG, and the third and last is LE. Note the distinct lack of Chaotic alignments. Note that Evil is in third place. Note that slavery is an established element of this society. Note that Mulhorand was one of several examples. It was pointed out as a good society that has slavery. I merely pointed out that this nation is not technically good--it's first alignment is LN. In short, it demonstrates the assertion that slavery is more a question of Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. Not really, since many chaotic societies hold slaves. How they are treated is not really relevant (at least in my opinion). Evidence to the contrary: freedom is a Chaotic ideal. Which doesn't prove anything, since Slavery isn't necessarily a Lawful ideal. At least, I've never seen it mentioned in the Lawful section of any sourcebook. It's not like Slavery is the opposite of Freedom. Evidence to the contrary: the implications of Mulhorand's society, as well as other cultures/societies in the Realms. As I pointed out, Mulhorand isn't necessarily good. I brought it up to refute people holding it up as a "good" nation that practices slavery. And I'd wager that just as many chaotic societies have slaves as lawful ones--if not moreso. I'm not arguing what's better. I'm arguing what's correct, as per the material. Freedom is a Chaotic ideal, not a Good ideal. I don't recall arguing that point? Again, I'm not talking about exact details. I'm talking about the fundamental idea. I've quoted the PHB directly. I don't need anything more detailed or comprehensive than what I quoted to make the point. But the exact details often do matter. I really don't think you "got" most of my main points, either. If it's all relative, there's nothing to disagree with. -- A. Please tell me where I said it's all relative. :) Seems to me like you are the one throwing out strawmen, eh?:rolleyes: I don't consider myself a mean person or a usually hostile poster, but it's getting harder and harder not to be sarcastic when you keep attributing a viewpoint to me that I never said I had, nor meant to imply. What makes me even more angry is that you accused me of doing this (the strawman comment), but now you are doing it to me! I consider myself a person who loves a good debate, but I'm beginning to be burnt out by this argument and what seems to be some hostility on your part (and admittedly, my part). It almost seems at some points that you are taking my statements personally, and ultimately we really don't disagree *that* much. I never said there should be no guideline about how alignments are interpreted--when I talk about different interpretations I mean ones that have reasonable arguments backing them up. I've been on these boards and have discussed this game for a long time. I'm not always right, people don't always agree with me, but it's not as if I don't know what I'm taking about, either. I really don't want to debate this with anyone, though, if I am going to be accused of throwing out strawmen or "undermining" aspects of the game (by a fellow poster)--if it's going to be this way then I prefer to just agree to disagree and call it even.
Astanphaeus 08-04-03, 01:36 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin A PC's alignment is a guildline that doesn't force the player to do or not do anything. That is what I meant. I realize that. However, it's a different situation for the character. Alignment is not merely a guideline in the setting. If a player consistently has his or her character behave contrary to the character's alignment, the alignment will change. What if a PC can reach their pre-ordained destiny in any manner they want to? ...would be debatable if it qualified as a destiny, but it'd still be a negation of choice, a restriction on freedom. The idea would still chafe, yes, just not as much. So if a CG elf is pre-ordained by the CG elven gods to do something grand for the elven race (mostly CG), he wouldn't accept that? I have trouble buying that. Does Chaos represent the value of freedom or does it not? He might accept it, but as he's Chaotic, he's probably going to resent it to some degree. So one should use mental shortcuts and formulas when playing their character? Nope. I'm not saying your saying that, but as I said I don't think it's so simple. Sometimes determinations are indeed just that simple. If a demon is ravaging a peaceful, goodly town, no real consideration has to go into whether or not the paladin approves of it. It was pointed out as a good society that has slavery. It was pointed out as a society with a notable amount of goodly influence. I merely pointed out that this nation is not technically good--it's first alignment is LN. And I pointed out 1. it's last listed alignment was LE, and that all the alignments were Lawful. Not really, since many chaotic societies hold slaves. I'm not seeing codified slavery in any chaotic societies. I've already been over the difference between subjugation through the doctrine of force, and institutionalized slavery. How they are treated is not really relevant (at least in my opinion). Irrespective of your opinion, how people are treated is directly related to Good and Evil, as per the material. Which doesn't prove anything, since Slavery isn't necessarily a Lawful ideal. Freedom is the within the purview of Chaos. Law is the opposite of Chaos. Therefore, lack of freedom is associated with Law. No it's not an ideal. It is, however, a Lawful idea. It's not like Slavery is the opposite of Freedom. ... What then would be it's opposite? As I pointed out, Mulhorand isn't necessarily good. It doesn't have to be to make the point that slavery is more a Lawful idea than anything else. Mulhorand is more Good than Evil... and yet there is slavery. And I'd wager that just as many chaotic societies have slaves as lawful ones--if not moreso. I'd wager you're wrong. That would contradict the alignments. I look forward to the results of your research. I don't recall arguing that point? So you agree that freedom is a Chaotic ideal? But the exact details often do matter. I'm not talking about the exact details, so no, in the context of what I'm talking about, they don't matter at all. I'm talking about fundamentals. You can't have details without first considering fundamentals. There is apparently disagreement about what the fundamentals are. I am trying to arrive at a consensus regarding the fundamentals. Details have no bearing on that. I really don't think you "got" most of my main points, either. It's possible. Please tell me where I said it's all relative. :) Seems to me like you are the one throwing out strawmen, eh?:rolleyes: Actually, no. There is a very specific reason why I phrase things the way I do. There is a reason why I qualify statements with things like "my impression is", "it seems to me", and so on. I did not state that you were arguing that it's all relative. I stated: If it's all relative..." This allows room for my own error. It requests correction and/or clarification. It does not present the assumption as a given. I don't consider myself a mean person or a usually hostile poster, but it's getting harder and harder not to be sarcastic when you keep attributing a viewpoint to me that I never said I had, nor meant to imply. What makes me even more angry is that you accused me of doing this (the strawman comment), but now you are doing it to me! Simply put... no, I'm not. I take care to qualify my impressions as being just that... impressions. You have repeatedly cited player interpetration of alignment, DM interpretation of alignment, and the ambiguity of the concepts themselves as counterpoints to my position. Therefore, I believe the impression that you're implying total relativism is a reasonable and legitimate one. Even so, I haven't presented it as a given. -- A.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-04-03, 02:09 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus ...would be debatable if it qualified as a destiny, but it'd still be a negation of choice, a restriction on freedom. The idea would still chafe, yes, just not as much. What I'm saying is there is more than one way to reach a destiny (if the person even knew they had one). There are also theological aspects to this, but I have no desire to touch them. Does Chaos represent the value of freedom or does it not? Even chaotic societies don't have unfettered personal freedom--not usually, anyway. Sometimes determinations are indeed just that simple. If a demon is ravaging a peaceful, goodly town, no real consideration has to go into whether or not the paladin approves of it. To be fair, though, that's an extreme example. Some situations are that obvious, but not all of them are. It was pointed out as a society with a notable amount of goodly influence. In the more articulate posts, yes, it was. And I pointed out 1. it's last listed alignment was LE, and that all the alignments were Lawful. So what? Not all societies that keep slaves are lawful. Some are. Some aren't. I'm not seeing codified slavery in any chaotic societies. I've already been over the difference between subjugation through the doctrine of force, and institutionalized slavery. Again, so what? The drow may not have any "codified slavery", but it's not like drow put each other to death for owning slaves. It exists in their society, is extremely common and is a part of their lives. Besides, I really didn't think this argument was about codified slavery vs. unofficial slavery. Maybe I missed something, but when I said that law/chaos was no more important to this discussion than good/evil, I really wasn't talking about whether it was "codified" or not, so I don't see how that's relevant to my own particular points. Irrespective of your opinion, how people are treated is directly related to Good and Evil, as per the material. Of course it is. But I was talking about slavery regardless of how the slaves are treated and regardless of whether or not it is "official". Freedom is the within the purview of Chaos. Law is the opposite of Chaos. Therefore, lack of freedom is associated with Law. No it's not an ideal. It is, however, a Lawful idea. Does the lack of freedom always equal slavery? What then would be it's opposite? You tell me. It doesn't have to be to make the point that slavery is more a Lawful idea than anything else. Mulhorand is more Good than Evil... and yet there is slavery. See my comments about this above. There are plenty of chaotic societies and individuals who have slaves, with no qualms about it. I'd wager you're wrong. That would contradict the alignments. I look forward to the results of your research. And how does it contradict the alignments? And why are you being sarcastic to me? So you agree that freedom is a Chaotic ideal? Conditionally, yes. I'm not talking about the exact details, so no, in the context of what I'm talking about, they don't matter at all. I'm talking about fundamentals. You can't have details without first considering fundamentals. There is apparently disagreement about what the fundamentals are. I am trying to arrive at a consensus regarding the fundamentals. Details have no bearing on that. When was there disagreement about the fundementals? My disagreement was with the idea that good/evil wasn't as relevant to this discussion as law/chaos was. I think they both matter. There is a very specific reason why I phrase things the way I do. There is a reason why I qualify statements with things like "my impression is", "it seems to me", and so on. I did not state that you were arguing that it's all relative. I stated: If it's all relative..." This allows room for my own error. It requests correction and/or clarification. It does not present the assumption as a given. To be fair, I often do the same thing. If you don't believe me, then read my posts over time. If you couldn't be bothered, then at least believe me when I say I try to be a fair debater, as well. Since I try to be fair, I naturally become rather insulted and dismayed if my comments are taken to be "straw-men". This may not be logical, but it sometimes happens. You have repeatedly cited player interpetration of alignment, DM interpretation of alignment, and the ambiguity of the concepts themselves as counterpoints to my position. Therefore, I believe the impression that you're implying total relativism is a reasonable and legitimate one. -- A. Room for interpretation does not equal total relativism, so I don't see why my arguments should leave that impression. It may be a legitimate impression, but didn't I say that wasn't what I was implying? If you still don't see that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Astanphaeus 08-04-03, 02:38 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin Well, you are misunderstanding me then. I'm not arguing that they don't represent anything communicable, just that different people interpret them differently, which is true. Please then explain what is communicable about them, because, at face value, you just contradicted yourself. What specifically is not open to interpretation? What is communicable? You seem to be getting just a tad bit hostile towards me--I don't understand why. No, I'm not, actually. What I'm getting is increasingly more precise and direct in my language, as a result of the fact that I have to keep reiterating my points. I'm in debate mode. Yes, but there are different ways to play each alignment. Yes there are. And there are ways to play outside of an alignment. Therefore, there are basic tenets that cannot be transgressed against, or a character's alignment will change. These basic tenets are presented in the material. Well, for one thing I didn't understand the new rule about bards not being able to be lawful. They used to be able to be lawful. I don't see why they cannot be lawful now. The concept has been refined to be a very free spirit. A lawful bardic character is certainly possible, but it wouldn't be in keeping with the Bard as presented in 3E. Certainly, historical bards had at least a degree of Lawfulness to them... but the 3E Bard is a very specific spin on the general bardic idea. It's also possible to have a paladin-like CG character, but that character would not be the paladin, as it is described in the material. What about a LN monk, whose personal lawful code is more important to him than society? I stated: Law, as presented in the material, represents (among other things) society prioritized over the one. A monk would fall under the "among other things" category. The Lawful part of their alignment is primarily reflected in their orderly, disciplined approach to their own life, in accordance with a community's teachings (the monestary). This does not preclude a value of society, but the higher ideals are mystical or spiritual in nature rather than societal. It's still the collective over the one... but in this esoteric case, the collective would be the universe. Be that as it may, monks are not anarchists. They're not anti-society. There is certainly a degree of focus on self... which, in and of itself, isn't Lawful... but in context and in light of all the other Lawful factors inherent in a monk character, it is significantly outweighed. But it is up to the individual player (more specifically, the DM) to determine what those "absolutes" are, and what these forces apply to in specific situations. I'm not saying "anything goes", just that people have different opinions that can be debated about, and equally well argued for. And there's some things that can't be argued without contradicting the material. Such as, for example, freedom being a Chaotic ideal. You can't argue that it's there, but who is it that defines this "kernel that cannot be argued", and where are the specifics of this kernel written down? In the player's handbook. I am not purposely setting out "straw-men". :rolleyes: Good to know. Thank you. I didn't mention this, either, and yet I'm not accusing you of throwing out strawmen. It's interesting that you should be bothered by that, as it was deliberately phrased to reflect your own delivery. You can still argue about those, as well, because some things are chaotic in some situations, but lawful in others. Suicide can often be a "chaotic" act (as least as I see it), but what about a ritual suicide as an act to be carried out according to a lawful code? The circumstance around the situations is relevant, as is intent. Just as the circumstances and intent behind slavery are relevant. Killing someone can be done by any alignment. Killing someone arbitrarily for the sheer joy of it, however, is clearly and irrefutably Evil. There are many different ways to play alignments. *shrugs* The way the alignments are written in the sourcebook are not totally comprehensive, either. You keep making this point, and I'm not sure why, as I'm not contesting it. In fact, I've agreed with it several times now. Yes, there are many ways to play an alignment. Yes, the way they are written in the handbook are not totally comprehensive. There are, however, ways to play that clearly and blatently trangress against an alignment. Ergo, there is a point where interpretation stops, and the fundamental tenets come into play. Ergo, it's not all a matter of interpretation. I agree (conditionally), but you still seemed to have misinterpreted most of my post. I attempt to read things critically and take them at face value. That's really all I can do. Besides, my argument was mainly that I don't see the law/chaos argument as more important to this discussion slavery than good/evil. That's not so much an argument, as it is an opinion. Your argument to support that opinion still seems to be that alignment is largely subjective, despite your claims to the contrary. Perhaps you should present a case that demonstrates how slavery is always Evil... or point out how my example of slavery under goodly tenets are actually not goodly at all. I'd like to see it. -- A.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-04-03, 03:05 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Please then explain what is communicable about them, because, at face value, you just contradicted yourself. What specifically is not open to interpretation? What is communicable? That's the type of question that is easier to answer if you give me a specific example, and *then* I give my opinion about it. That's not so much an argument, as it is an opinion. Your argument to support that opinion still seems to be that alignment is largely subjective, despite your claims to the contrary. Perhaps you should present a case that demonstrates how slavery is always Evil... or point out how my example of slavery under goodly tenets are actually not goodly at all. I'd like to see it. -- A. Why should I do that? I don't recall arguing at any point that slavery was always evil. I do not intend to do so now. You won't see such a thing no matter how much you say you would like to. I don't understand why you think I should argue in favor of a point I do not recall making. :confused: I really am confused. As for alignment being subjective...in some ways, it is. How does one decide when the line is crossed from being CG to NG, for example? I would assume that everyone has a different standard for it, even if those standards do not differ drastically from each other. After all, I never argued that each person's standard could be (or had to be) drastically different from what is stated in the PHB (the viewpoint of the designers), or even from other players. The only interpretation I can give is my own, and that doesn't really matter that much (it's just one viewpoint). Overall, I'm not really sure we disagree all that much--by the way, I edited one of my posts a few posts back, if you care to look.
Astanphaeus 08-04-03, 03:38 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin Even chaotic societies don't have unfettered personal freedom--not usually, anyway. They're cooperative and generally held together by a forceful presence. They're about as free as a society can get -- even the chaotic evil ones -- while still managing to be a society. Because freedom is a primary value of Chaos. To be fair, though, that's an extreme example. I'd call it a fundamental example. My assertion was that sometimes thing are just that simple. I gave an example. Assertion demonstrated. Some situations are that obvious, but not all of them are. No, not all of them are. So what? Not all societies that keep slaves are lawful. Some are. Some aren't. The majority of them will be. Again, so what? The drow may not have any "codified slavery", but it's not like drow put each other to death for owning slaves. 1. Drow have become NE, not CE, more than likely in part to reflect how they've developed. 2. If power shifts, the slave owners will be put to death or become the slaves themselves. Besides, I really didn't think this argument was about codified slavery vs. unofficial slavery. Maybe I missed something, but when I said that law/chaos was no more important to this discussion than good/evil, I really wasn't talking about whether it was "codified" or not, so I don't see how that's relevant to my own particular points. I explained why it was relevant. But I was talking about slavery regardless of how the slaves are treated and regardless of whether or not it is "official". Okay... I'd like you to go back to my examples of slavery that could be upheld by Goodly societies and explain to me how they're not Goodly... because this is going in circles. Does the lack of freedom always equal slavery? In the strictest sense, no, but slavery is always a lack of freedom. You tell me. No. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You made the assertion, "It's not like Slavery is the opposite of Freedom." Please support this claim or retract it. I've answered each and every one of your questions. I would appreciate it if that were reciprocated. See my comments about this above. There are plenty of chaotic societies and individuals who have slaves, with no qualms about it. I disagree. Provide examples. So far you've provided Drow. Drow are NE. You've cited Chaotic Evil "societies". I've explained how the Chaos is mitigated by the Evil, and how Chaotic Evil, even with slaves, is still prioritizing the One (Chaos) over the many (Society)... because it is not a case of institutionalized slavery, but simply one creature forcing it's will over others. It's individualism in its darkest manifestation. Freedom is still valued, but only your own. It's not a societal condition, but a reflection of the individuals in that society. And how does it contradict the alignments? Freedom is within the purview of Chaos. Slavery is a significant restriction on freedom. Therefore, slavery is in direct opposition to Chaos. Evil can mitigate this opposition to an extent. Good is more likely to enforce the opposition. True Chaos does not mitigate the opposition at all, one way or the other. Therefore, a CG or CN society that endorsed and practiced slavery would be in direct contradiction to the material as presented. If such a thing existed, it 1. should be an abberation and 2. there should be a real good reason in the fluff to justify it. CE societies do not practice slavery per say... it's just the strong subjugating the weak. The weak could be the strong tomorrow, and the roles would reverse. And why are you being sarcastic to me? I'm not. Conditionally, yes. What are the conditions? When was there disagreement about the fundementals? All over the thread. My disagreement was with the idea that good/evil wasn't as relevant to this discussion as law/chaos was. I think they both matter. They do. But the most generally opposed alignment to the idea of slavery is Chaos. Because slavery is a restriction on freedom, and Chaos advocates freedom. Not Law. Not Good. Not Evil. Freedom is firmly in the realm of Chaos. This assertion is what you disagreed with. Thus, you were challenging the fundamental definition of the alignment. Room for interpretation does not equal total relativism, so I don't see why my arguments should leave that impression. Because, even when I cite the core ideas of the alignments, your agreement with them is only conditional? You're attempting to leave room for interpretation and relativism even with the the most basic precepts of the concepts! It may be a legitimate impression, but didn't I say that wasn't what I was implying? Yes... but if that's the case, where's the support? If you still don't see that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Or you could tell me what is indespensible about the alignment components. I've asked for that before. -- A.
Astanphaeus 08-04-03, 03:55 AM	Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin That's the type of question that is easier to answer if you give me a specific example, and *then* I give my opinion about it. But I've given you specific examples, to which I've received "conditional" agreement, without embellishment. Why should I do that? I don't recall arguing at any point that slavery was always evil. I do not intend to do so now. Then how is Good/Evil as important to the questions as Law/Chaos?!? I don't understand why you think I should argue in favor of a point I do not recall making. :confused: I really am confused. The idea of slavery is most opposed to Chaos, because Chaos represents freedom, and slavery is a severe restriction on freedom. Slavery is usually practiced by Lawful societies, because it is itself generally a Lawful concept. Based on these two points, I have made the assertion that slavery is more of a Chaos/Law issue than a Good/Evil issue. This is what you disagreed with, isn't it? As for alignment being subjective...in some ways, it is. Yes. We've agreed on this many times now. How does one decide when the line is crossed from being CG to NG, for example? I would assume that everyone has a different standard for it, even if those standards do not differ drastically from each other. That's a matter of particulars, not fundamentals. After all, I never argued that each person's standard could be (or had to be) drastically different from what is stated in the PHB (the viewpoint of the designers), or even from other players. The only interpretation I can give is my own, and that doesn't really matter that much (it's just one viewpoint). I'm not asking for an interpretation. I'm seeking consensus on what is not open to interpretation. -- A.
Astanphaeus 08-04-03, 03:57 AM	Double post.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 08-04-03, 10:52 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus But I've given you specific examples, to which I've received "conditional" agreement, without embellishment. You have asked me if "freedom" is a chaotic ideal. Yes, normally, but that can mean more than just one thing. Unless you are CG (IMO), "unfettered freedom" can be interpreted--as I see it--as freedom to own other people as long as one can acquire and keep them, for one's own person convenience. I don't think you even have to be "evil" to come to this conclusion, either. CN people can care only about their own person freedom, without regard to the freedom of others. And as I said, lack of freedom doesn't automatically equal "slavery"--in fact, I didn't see slavery mentioned at all in the law/chaos part of the PHB. Then how is Good/Evil as important to the questions as Law/Chaos?!? Last time I checked, more evil nations and societies practiced slavery than good ones (LE, NE, *and* CE). This isn't an argument that slavery is "always evil", just that it most likely counts for something. The only "good" nation people seem to have come up with so far is Mulhorand. The idea of slavery is most opposed to Chaos, because Chaos represents freedom, and slavery is a severe restriction on freedom. Slavery is usually practiced by Lawful societies, because it is itself generally a Lawful concept. But it is practically by many chaotic societies as well? Based on these two points, I have made the assertion that slavery is more of a Chaos/Law issue than a Good/Evil issue. This is what you disagreed with, isn't it? Yes, and I still haven't changed my mind. As I said, slavery isn't specifically mentioned at all in the law/chaos part of the PHB.
Astanphaeus 08-13-03, 05:39 AM	You have asked me if "freedom" is a chaotic ideal. I have also asked if you agreed with the following statements: Discipline is within the purview of Law. Compassion is within the purview of Good. Malice is within the purview of Evil. To which you, again, gave "conditional" agreement. The problem is there can't be anything conditional about this, as these are fundamental defining attributes of the alignments. Make these attributes conditional, and the alignments cease to mean anything constructive. Are there times when compassion is not Good (capital G)? No. Are there times when compassion is Evil (capital E)? No. Compassion is unconditionally within the purview of Good. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no conditions. Yes, normally, but that can mean more than just one thing. And you're arguing from relativism again. Freedom will never mean slavery. It will never mean bondage. It will never mean enforced conformity. It is, by definition, the absence of these things. They are, as concepts, never valued by Chaotic creatures, even by CE creatures. Though CE beings will sometimes subjugate others, that inclination comes from Evil, not Chaos. Servitude is not valued. It's just a perk. Obedience is not expected. In fact, quite the opposite. Force and fear must be continuously applied, or else there'll be rebellion. Why? Because that's what they would do if they were in the same position. Unless you are CG (IMO), "unfettered freedom" can be interpreted--as I see it--as freedom to own other people as long as one can acquire and keep them, for one's own person convenience. That'd be Evil. The key factor there is "for one's own personal convenience". I don't think you even have to be "evil" to come to this conclusion, either. I'd say you'd have to have those tendencies at least. Taken alone, it's Evil, though other factors might balance against it. However, resorting to the doctrine of force with nothing but your own personal gain as motivation, is the very definition of Evil. CN people can care only about their own person freedom, without regard to the freedom of others. However, inhibiting the freedom of another for no reason other than your own personal gain is distinctly Evil. Moreover, to own a slave is a significant responsibility, which I don't see very many CN characters being comfortable with. Nor would they likely care for being dependent on someone. Owning a slave doesn't exactly encourage one to be self sufficient. And as I said, lack of freedom doesn't automatically equal "slavery" And as I said, slavery does automatically equal lack of freedom. Slavery is directly opposed to the ideal of freedom. Does slavery, in and of itself, define lack of freedom? No, and I never made that claim. However, it doesn't need to, so pointing that out is irrelevant. It falls under the heading of lack of freedom, and that's enough. That's all it has to do. Look up freedom and you'll find that "liberty from slavery" is part of the definition. It is in opposition to the ideal of freedom. Freedom is a chaotic ideal. Slavery runs directly counter to that ideal. Therefore, the only alignment component that slavery, no matter its form, is in direct opposition to is Chaos. Not Good, Not Evil, Not Law... Chaos. Just Chaos. Only Chaos. No argument has been presented that explains how it is more strongly associated with Evil. --in fact, I didn't see slavery mentioned at all in the law/chaos part of the PHB. Nor is it specifically mentioned in the good/evil part of the PHB. Last time I checked, more evil nations and societies practiced slavery than good ones (LE, NE, *and* CE). Evil societies practice a slave trade. Last time I checked, chaotic societies rarely practice any form of slavery, and those few that do are almost always evil. In those instances, they're not setting out to specifically practice slavery. Its presence is simply a byproduct of the Strong imposing their own individual will over the Weak... which is what you get when you combine Chaos (freedom) with Evil (disregard for the dignity of life). It amounts to: only caring about your own freedom to the point where you will subjugate others through force to secure it. That's what you get when you mix Chaos and Evil together. Evil warps the ideal of freedom until it's only your own that's valued, even when it comes at the expense of others. The ideal, however, remains. Regardless, slavery is not a critical societal component in such situations. In order to be so, you'd have to have a caste system, which is a manifestation of order, and that is the purview of Law. CE societies don't practice slavery so much as individuals within them do... because they feel like it, or because they can. Once slavery becomes enough of a tradition (Law) to be considered a defining characteristic of the society, the society would shift away from Chaos. This isn't an argument that slavery is "always evil", just that it most likely counts for something. A slave trade is always Evil. Slavery generally manifests in the Realms as a slave trade. So yes, Evil will, more often than not, be associeted with Slavery. However, the idea of slavery is not inherently opposed to Good, which has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. The intent and implementation matter. Enslaving a criminal as penalty for his crime, for example, is not Evil. It's still distinctly unchaotic, though, because it's still slavery, slavery is a lack of freedom, and freedom is unconditionally a chaotic ideal. The only "good" nation people seem to have come up with so far is Mulhorand. I listed more than Mulhorand. The common denominator in the examples was a lack of Chaos. Further, I gave several examples of how slavery could be accepted and even promoted by Goodly nations. The common denominator in those examples was also a distinct absence of appeal to the Chaotic. But it is practically by many chaotic societies as well? No. It isn't. Not that I've seen, and I've been looking at this stuff for a lot of years, so if you're seeing something I'm missing, you're going to have to point it out. A distinct and blatent minority of Chaotic societies are associated with slavery. Let's look at the major FR societies that engage in the practice... Calimshan. Practices slavery, specifically a slave trade. Alignments: LN, N, NE. No Chaos. The Dragon Coast. Practices slavery in the form of a slave trade. Alignments: N, NE, LE. No Chaos. The Moonsea. Practices slavery, specifically a slave trade. Alignments: N, LE, LN. No Chaos. Mulhorand. Practices slavery. Alignments: LN, LG, LE. It's not a slave trade, and Good is ahead of Evil. No Chaos. Thay. Practice slavery, specifically a slave trade. Alignments: LE, NE, N. No Chaos. Other examples: The Moonshaes. Northlanders practice slavery, which can be in the form of indentured servitude (see the societies/cultures of the Vikings and the Celts). Regional alignments: NG, N, NE. No Chaos. Zakhara. Slavery is a cultural tradition and societal institution (the Mamluks). That's Law. It's a means for one to improve their station considerably. That's Good. Zakhara has yet to be codified under 3E, but if it were, I'd bet the mainland would be assigned Lawful and Neutral alignments as being dominant. The islands, where slavery is practically non-existent, would be predominatly Chaotic. The Underdark. Alignments: N, LE, CE. The Underdark societies that slavery is strongly associated with? Drow: Usually NE Duergar: Often LE Illithids: Usually LE In fact, despite your insistance to the contrary, I can only find two cases in FR where slavery is going on in a society that has strong chaotic elements. In both instances, though, the discrepency is specifically explained in the "Life and Society" description of the nation. In one, Chessenta, it is an individual choice to own slaves, slavery is comparatively not widespread, and the owner can free the slave at will. In the other, Unther, the nation is experiencing a power vacuum. It's in flux, and thus Chaos reigns. Slavery, however, is a remnant of one Order that is currently being absorbed by another. Despite the current circumstance, the form of slavery there was Lawful and is becoming so again. Clearly, as illustrated by the above, Chaos is almost never associated with slavery, and on the rare occasion when it is, there's a overriding reason for the exception (and probably a temporary one, as is the case with Unther). Evil is not inherently associated with slavery when the form it takes is something other than purely a slave trade. You won't get any argument from me that a slave trade is always Evil. However, that's a specific form of the general concept. Yes, and I still haven't changed my mind. As I said, slavery isn't specifically mentioned at all in the law/chaos part of the PHB. Freedom, however, is... and the concept of slavery is directly opposed to the ideal of freedom, as made plain by the definition of the word. In any event, as nearly the whole of my argument has become reiteration, I don't see much point in continuing the discussion. I think I've explained my point as thoroughly as I possibly can. Unless and until a significant list of Chaotic societies that practice slavery is produced, and/or a submission of what isn't conditional about the alignments is presented, there's nothing left to cover. Thanks for the dialogue, though. -- A.
kedi 08-18-03, 01:48 PM	But slavery is "evil", Evil = immoral slave= a creature withoutany rights so, to any N creature, slavery is immoral because everybody is equal, Maybe some people doesn't hurt their slaves and thred goood, but that doesn't make them good. Any intelligent creatures (orcs are intelligent too, but their intelligent are lower) has rights, If a good creature has a slave, for gods sake free him and give him salary! if you are good, you shouldn't cut off peoples rights! Every person borns free and this is something you can't take, even if they are phisically slaves, they are free in their minds! (abviously I'm CN :D)
Dungeon_Master 08-18-03, 02:14 PM	No, my friend, you took the red pill and woke up. ;)
Charles Phipps 08-18-03, 03:12 PM	* The Drow are neutral evil not chaotic evil. * "Slavery" cannot be classified as a single institution unless sexuality, drugs, and forms of a specific government can be the same way Questions 1. Is the person mistreated 2. Is their a way to get OUT of slavery within their lifetime (debt peonage?) 3. Is the person a slave from birth or willingly enter into it or is being punished (even from capturing in war) 4. Are the people who own slaves owning them because it is illegal to free them? (this is the case of Thomas Jefferson) 5. Are the leaders simply unaware? (In Mulhorandi the Prince is forbidden from seeing any slaves that are unhappy-such as a great number of untherites who had freedom after Gilgeam that wasn't starvation) 6. Is the law a legal fiction? Are the slaves allowed to own property and sworn to specific people with only penalties for contractual labor done? 7. Is it being overlooked for style purposes? Like Monarchy and serfdom, they are part of the Meideval flavor rather than actually pointing out the ridiculousness of it.
kedi 08-18-03, 04:15 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps * The Drow are neutral evil not chaotic evil. * "Slavery" cannot be classified as a single institution unless sexuality, drugs, and forms of a specific government can be the same way Questions 1. Is the person mistreated 2. Is their a way to get OUT of slavery within their lifetime (debt peonage?) 3. Is the person a slave from birth or willingly enter into it or is being punished (even from capturing in war) 4. Are the people who own slaves owning them because it is illegal to free them? (this is the case of Thomas Jefferson) 5. Are the leaders simply unaware? (In Mulhorandi the Prince is forbidden from seeing any slaves that are unhappy-such as a great number of untherites who had freedom after Gilgeam that wasn't starvation) 6. Is the law a legal fiction? Are the slaves allowed to own property and sworn to specific people with only penalties for contractual labor done? 7. Is it being overlooked for style purposes? Like Monarchy and serfdom, they are part of the Meideval flavor rather than actually pointing out the ridiculousness of it. Look, man, he has no rights, he can't do anything he want except his master wills, his life is depended on his master, and no one wants to be a slave, maybe its legal, maybe moral to you, but not to me, he is not mistreated, but if he gets mistreated, he has no rights to take a step on his master, he is not free, and this is morre evil then killing a baby, think about, would you be happy if you were a slave, you have no rights, you are depended on your master, but he treates you good, he is a kind person? come 'on, everybody loves freedom and no one wants to be a slave. that made you unhappy making sb unhappy is immoral
Charles Phipps 08-18-03, 07:52 PM	Look, man, he has no rights, he can't do anything he want except his master wills, his life is depended on his master, and no one wants to be a slave, maybe its legal, maybe moral to you, but not to me, he is not mistreated, but if he gets mistreated, he has no rights to take a step on his master, he is not free, and this is morre evil then killing a baby, think about, would you be happy if you were a slave, you have no rights, you are depended on your master, but he treates you good, he is a kind person? come 'on, everybody loves freedom and no one wants to be a slave. that made you unhappy making sb unhappy is immoral [/QUOTE] HAHAHHAHA! *rolls on the floor laughing* Thanks dude. Okay he's evil. Simple huh? I presented to you a bunch of QUESTIONS not mitigating circumstances dude. Besides I want to point out I personally don't even believe TODAY's society is good let alone the violent sexist societies of yesteryear. Yet in D&D we have to extend the idea that even VIOLENT MURDER can be a force for good in the world of Dungeons and Dragons and is in fact one of the ideals of the setting. I'm a pacifist who is against capital punishment for example yet I play a man who cuts through orcs like a hot knife through butter. You've presented the slave who is a bad situation and yes in this institution he's definately suffering evil, lets examine though the facts 1. Look, man, he has no rights This of course makes it evil, but does being a slave constitute no rights? Its just a defination but many people don't have those or differ in FR. 2. he can't do anything he want except his master wills. Definately so but what if a slave's job description is that he can do whatever he wants when he's not obeying his master's will. Like after you clean the house and fix dinner, you can go walk around town. 3. his life is depended on his master, and no one wants to be a slave, maybe its legal, maybe moral to you, Uh huh, a minister in the 20th century whose family is descended from slaves thinks so. Thanks for assumptions dude. I know the subject is passionate though 4. but not to me, he is not mistreated, but if he gets mistreated, he has no rights to take a step on his master And what if say in Mulhorandi a person who strikes a slave is to be put to death? What if the slave laws in Calishay say that a slave cannot be killed by his master because it dimishes the kingdom's resources. What if there are work laws protecting them lest they be abused too much? 5. he is not free, and this is more evil then killing a baby, We are interdependent on one another. In our society prisoners are taken for years for single actions and this is done not for reformation but revenge. We hold huge amounts of our lives devoted to ideals like paper and restrict people from enjoying them to some bizzare worth measuring systems. I am not self sufficent and must rely on this insane system. We have laws against sexuality, drugs, prostitution, and yet license murder against other human beings under specific circumstances. 6. think about, would you be happy if you were a slave f I were in Ancient Roman times I would probably wish to be a household slave, probably Greek because that would allow me to be a teacher to children in a time when schooling was not available as a whole. People crave self actualization this is true and it is a fundemental need but in society many would gladly trade such for security. I've seen in my lifetime my society surrender many of their freedoms for such. Of course it is a bad decision but I wouldn't call these people evil.... I call it an institution of definate evil that frankly many good people are forced to tolerate in the realms and in the case of some sections (Calisham probably with some positions of slavery and Mulhorandi definately) What they call slavery is not slavery at all but hereditary positions
Amoun 08-18-03, 08:20 PM	You are all fools... and must die... YOU ARE ALL MY SLAVES MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Errrr* sorry... went mildly insane there for a second... I have delusions of grandeur... it happens to the best of us lol :) well g'day