Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cycloptic_squirrel 05-22-07, 05:28 AM	An interesting question popped up in a mod last night. After a bit of discussion I declared it irrelevant and pushed on with the mod. But I'm curious as to what people think. Would you consider it an evil act to sell an evil creature? What if it was not yet fully developed? I for one can't really think of any activity that would involve live evil creatures that would not be evil itself; then again I just may not be thinking creatively enough. Someone made the comment that you could redeem the creature - turn it to the path of good. I'm not so convinced. I'll agree redemption is possible for things that are 'usually evil', but what about things that are 'always evil'. And would anyone that would be willing to try redeeming a creature be willing to pay for it? Let's just say it was a black dragon egg. Would it be evil to sell it? What if it was a wyrmling? Say it was a half-fiendish kobold toddler that tries to bite you every time it gets the chance?
TallGuy 05-22-07, 07:23 AM	An interesting question popped up in a mod last night. After a bit of discussion I declared it irrelevant and pushed on with the mod. But I'm curious as to what people think. Would you consider it an evil act to sell an evil creature? What if it was not yet fully developed? I for one can't really think of any activity that would involve live evil creatures that would not be evil itself; then again I just may not be thinking creatively enough. Someone made the comment that you could redeem the creature - turn it to the path of good. I'm not so convinced. I'll agree redemption is possible for things that are 'usually evil', but what about things that are 'always evil'. And would anyone that would be willing to try redeeming a creature be willing to pay for it? Let's just say it was a black dragon egg. Would it be evil to sell it? What if it was a wyrmling? Say it was a half-fiendish kobold toddler that tries to bite you every time it gets the chance? Personally, I would deem selling an intelligent creature into slavery evil. Black Dragon egg, maybe not, wyrmling yes, half-fiendish kobold toddler definately. If you want to try and redeem the creature, do so. If you'd like someone else to try to do that, turn it over to them. But selling an (intelligent) creature is (IMHO) slavery, which is evil in my book. Bas Vermeulen
Timlagor 05-22-07, 07:28 AM	"Always Evil" in the MM doesn't mean it. If you read the 'small print' it's clear that exceptions do exist and redemption is possible. Selling an intelligent creature into slavery is evil. Selling a BDEgg to a good temple need not be.
awroe 05-22-07, 08:20 AM	Selling an intelligent creature into slavery is evil. Why evil in LG? Many regions in LG exist where slavery is within the law, and it is quite acceptable within many societies there. Are these societies always evil?
TallGuy 05-22-07, 08:50 AM	Why evil in LG? Many regions in LG exist where slavery is within the law, and it is quite acceptable within many societies there. Are these societies always evil? Slavery may be within the law (Law/Chaos), but afaik is always evil (Good/Evil). Something lawful is not necessarily good, and viseversa (sic). There are some non-good (and non-evil) societies in LG that have something you might call slavery, but that's usually a form of indentured servitude, allowing the indentured servant to buy himself free. Of course, my Holy Liberator will label both as 'Evil', but then, he's a freedom nut. Bas Vermeulen
pedr 05-22-07, 08:52 AM	Why evil in LG? Many regions in LG exist where slavery is within the law, and it is quite acceptable within many societies there. Are these societies always evil? Probably. Remember, morality in D&D is absolute, even in Greyhawk (perhaps to the dismay of Gary Gygax, but that's a side-issue!) It's probably difficult to see slave-keeping and slave-trading (and particularly slave-taking) fitting in with the descriptions of good or neutral in the PH (though I've not checked). Anything which best fits the description of evil in the PH (and/or, perhaps the BoVD) is evil, regardless of the subjective views of those involved. Even in a society which recognises and encourages slavery, clerics and paladins are going to be aware of the moral nature of those actions. Now, what you do about something being evil, and the extent to which you think evil is an all-together negative thing is a different question, and far more subjective. It becomes important in LG for two reasons: alignment-based spells and effects, and the prohibition on evil PCs.
Fakegoatee 05-22-07, 09:55 AM	I recently had my first experience of intra-party moral conflict, so I've had these sorts of questions on my mind. In my case, my PC thought something was evil that the party paladin was about to do. When my PC objected, the DM stepped in and said it wasn't evil, even trying to convince *me* it wasn't evil. My response was to say that my PC thinks it's evil, and I'm roleplaying my PC. That was pretty much the end of it. I wish the rules were clearer that there are many non-evil things good characters and creatures wouldn't do. That's because good characters have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (PHB 104) but, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." You don't have to be evil to be unconcerned with the dignity of sentient beings. But such lack of concern isn't good. Selling evil creatures into slavery (except perhaps as punishment for what they've done) is probably evil, but I think it's definitely not good.
Lupo 05-22-07, 11:00 AM	I recently had my first experience of intra-party moral conflict, so I've had these sorts of questions on my mind. In my case, my PC thought something was evil that the party paladin was about to do. When my PC objected, the DM stepped in and said it wasn't evil, even trying to convince *me* it wasn't evil. My response was to say that my PC thinks it's evil, and I'm roleplaying my PC. That was pretty much the end of it. I wish the rules were clearer that there are many non-evil things good characters and creatures wouldn't do. That's because good characters have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (PHB 104) but, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." You don't have to be evil to be unconcerned with the dignity of sentient beings. But such lack of concern isn't good. Selling evil creatures into slavery (except perhaps as punishment for what they've done) is probably evil, but I think it's definitely not good. the problem with slavery is how you define it in relation to "good";) while pholtus [lawful/good] and his church - which is mostly stubborn lawful [neutral/lawful] - might consider slavery a "normal" status in a stable society, tritherion and his followers are fanatically opposed to this idea. my home region is innspa/adri. in innspa city, slavery is more or less accepted under ahlissan laws - there were at least two regionals that featured slaves, without "pushing" or demanding the players to free them, on the other hand the folks of the adri are vehement against it - a certain special was all about freeing some poor woods folk from slavers. while my cleric of phaulkon will actively do anything to prevent any sentient being to be enslaved my cleric of obad-hai might tolerate it - and both are of good alignment :cool:. ok, anyone bringing a slave to sunndi might face problems :) but what do you expect from a country were the main deity is tritherion :P. ciao martin m.
trollbill 05-22-07, 11:35 AM	I have always seen Slavery as strickly a Lawful issue rather than evil, especially if you view the antithesis of slavery being freedom. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Lawful Good societies would have slavery as a possible punishment for crimes, (Is slavery really worse than imprisonment?) especially in the form of indentured servitude, where you are only a slave until you have paid back your debt to society. In a Lawful Good society, slave owners would also have to be held to some standard of ethical treatment for their slaves, i.e. slaves would have some minimal rights just like prisoners in todays' prison system. I know D&D and today's society doesn't really agree, but I don't see what would be so evil about it compared to other forms of punishment.
bitznarf 05-22-07, 11:50 AM	I've got to agree with trollbill on this one; slavery itself is Law/Chaos in and of itself. The treatment of slaves would be the Good/Evil thing. In the case of the OP, if one was selling X to someone that one knew was going to treat it very badly (in an evil fashion if you will) then the act could be considered evil. If one was selling X to someone who was known to take good care of his/her possessions, I think I would consider it a neutral (on Good vs. Evil still) act: you are merely selling an item. Selling X to random person Joe the Merchant would also be a neutral act in my opinion. If you sold X to someone who you knew would improve/help X in some fashion, I would consider it a good act. One more note here folks, in Unearthed Arcana (I think) there is an alternate Paladin class: the Paladin of Freedom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVaria ntsFreedomSlaughterAndTyranny). I think that would be the (base) class, being CG and all, with the most objection to slavery as a whole.
TallGuy 05-22-07, 12:16 PM	I have always seen Slavery as strickly a Lawful issue rather than evil, especially if you view the antithesis of slavery being freedom. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Lawful Good societies would have slavery as a possible punishment for crimes, (Is slavery really worse than imprisonment?) especially in the form of indentured servitude, where you are only a slave until you have paid back your debt to society. In a Lawful Good society, slave owners would also have to be held to some standard of ethical treatment for their slaves, i.e. slaves would have some minimal rights just like prisoners in todays' prison system. I know D&D and today's society doesn't really agree, but I don't see what would be so evil about it compared to other forms of punishment. In which case it's called indentured servitude. Indentured servitude means working for as an indentured servant for a specified time. After that time, you have repaid your debt to society, and are free to go. You have rights, your 'owner' is supposed to treat you correctly, and usually have free time as well as room and board. More un-scrupulous individuals will charge the room and board to keep you indentured indefinately. But technically, you are repaying your debt, and after it is paid, you are free to go. Slavery on the other hand, means you HAVE no rights, and your owners are free to do with you as they please. If they want to kill you, you are dead. If they want to cut off your foot so you can't stray too far, the foot is gone. I can see indentured servitude in a lawful neutral society, and perhaps even in a lawful good one, within limits. Slavery, in my book, is evil, as it has no regard for the rights or well-being of the slave. Of course, my Holy Liberator is violently opposed to both types, but that's just his mind-set. Bas Vermeulen
pedr 05-22-07, 12:18 PM	Great, another alignment thread :D From the PH: "Good characters ... protect innocent life. Evil characters ... debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings ... Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Clearly this is going to be a matter of the players' subjective views on what fits or doesn't fit within that description, but to my reading, slavery would show a lack of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and instead be a matter of "hurting [and] oppressing" others, no matter how enlightened. Indentured servitude is a different matter, of course.
trollbill 05-22-07, 12:35 PM	In which case it's called indentured servitude. Indentured servitude means working for as an indentured servant for a specified time. After that time, you have repaid your debt to society, and are free to go. You have rights, your 'owner' is supposed to treat you correctly, and usually have free time as well as room and board. More un-scrupulous individuals will charge the room and board to keep you indentured indefinately. But technically, you are repaying your debt, and after it is paid, you are free to go. I will point out that indentured servitude is outlawed in most countries today because it is considered a form of slavery, i.e. your definition of slavery does not match that of the current legal definition.
trollbill 05-22-07, 12:41 PM	Great, another alignment thread :D From the PH: "Good characters ... protect innocent life. Evil characters ... debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings ... Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Clearly this is going to be a matter of the players' subjective views on what fits or doesn't fit within that description, but to my reading, slavery would show a lack of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and instead be a matter of "hurting [and] oppressing" others, no matter how enlightened. Indentured servitude is a different matter, of course. Historically, there have been 'enlightened' slave owners who treated their slaves with more respect and dignity than was normally accepted and gave them rights they did not legally have. One could even argue the slaves of such people were even better off than many non-slaves. Yet these people still kept their slaves. So were people like Thomas Jefferson evil?
pedr 05-22-07, 01:04 PM	Thomas Jefferson didn't inhabit the D&D universe. In the 'real world', we have a plurality of moral beliefs. What people consider to be 'right' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'evil' differs between cultures. There is no incontrovertible evidence that these things have any effects on the world, so 'good' and 'evil' cannot be conclusively determined. (I'm trying, here, to be neutral on the question of whether real morality is relative: different real world religions, belief systems and metaphysical understandings take different views on whether there is objective 'good' and 'evil', and some will believe that 'good' and 'evil' have real-world consequences. My point is simply that this cannot, I don't think, be proved (or disproved) which leads to a de-facto moral pluralism: different people believe different things to be 'good' or 'evil'.) The D&D universe is not like this. In the D&D universe, 'good' and 'evil' are real, and this can be proved. So it isn't very useful to use real-world 'hard-cases' and argue that because we can't all agree that all slave-owning was evil in the real world, that slavery is morally neutral in D&D. For D&D we have to use the D&D sources and nothing else: D&D morality is different from real-world morality. And my take on the D&D sources is that slavery is incompatible with a good alignment and probably more in line with an evil one. Slave-taking is almost certainly going to be evil, and slave-trading quite possibly so. Slave-ownership might just sneak into the 'neutral' category, but a good-aligned character ought to avoid it if he values his good alignment. Again, though, I'd consider indentured servitude to be different: a nation which uses it would probably have a hard time remaining institutionally 'good', but I can imagine good characters who use indentured servants but treat them well: the system is a corrections/penal one, not one which is based on the denial of some sentient beings' equal worth.
Mattastrophic 05-22-07, 01:24 PM	The Book of Exalted Deeds gives a very good example of what pedr's talking about: "What if two paladins of warring nations meet on a field of battle and attempt to use Smite Evil on each other?" D&D is built on an absolute definition of good and evil. "Is it evil? Cast Holy Smite and find out." Vile Darkness, iirc, helps define "What is Evil in D&D." And I do believe slavery is on it. IMO, any aspiring D&D hero should flip through those books. They're really good for helping you put your hero on the path of goodness. -Matt
Samwise 05-22-07, 02:35 PM	Probably. Remember, morality in D&D is absolute, even in Greyhawk (perhaps to the dismay of Gary Gygax, but that's a side-issue! No, the only thing that would dismay him (he would have to care enough about it to be dismayed) is people not understanding the rules he wrote about alignment, and the role it plays in the game system. Gary Gygax wrote a very direct, very absolute moral system with the alignments of AD&D. People regularly confuse this, as with the whole issue of celestials showing up to put a smack down on PCs of a differing Good alignment. The Book of Exalted Deeds almost totally denies the absolute commitment to Good such beings should have. Slavery in and of itself is not of any alignment. While Chaotic Good creatures would avoid it, Chaotic Evil creatures wallow in it. Lawful creatures differ in how they regulate it. What is too often missed in Lawful Good is the element of "greatest Good for the greatest number." If that means some must be denied their freedom, then that is what it means. If that means the selection of who is denied freedom is based on type, subtype, sex, faith, or some other aspect, then that is what it means. However repulsive that may sound in light of real world morality, we aren't talking about real world morality, we are talking about a D&D alignment. A Lawful Good society, by definition of the alignment, looks at it from the point of view of what is best for the majority of its people. If that means 100,000 goblinoids must be enslaved for the benefit of 1,000,0000 humans, then the goblinoids must be enslaved. Their dignity will be considered. They won't be otherwise abused, they will simply be denied freedom of choice in occupation and travel, and Heironeous and Rao won't smite any of their paladins for suddenly becoming Evil.
Fakegoatee 05-22-07, 03:01 PM	Slavery in and of itself is not of any alignment. While Chaotic Good creatures would avoid it, Chaotic Evil creatures wallow in it. Lawful creatures differ in how they regulate it. What is too often missed in Lawful Good is the element of "greatest Good for the greatest number." The PHB description of "good" is not utilitarian, and it doesn't talk about the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, it talks about altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings. I would expect that different good-aligned factions would have different ideas about what's involved in respecting the dignity of sentient beings. Even those who are lawful good might disagree with one another on that score. Some might say that certain instances of slavery are necessary evils, and others might say no evils are ever necessary. Still others might say that getting rid of fiends and the undead are much higher priorities than dealing with slavery right now, so we'll tolerate slavery in the interest of combating the real Evils in the world. Some "goodies" might be utilitarians, and others might be deontologists, virtue theorists, or something else. I'd still have to say that enslavement (except as punishment for crime) would be prima facie difficult to reconcile with respect for the dignity of sentient beings. That's not to say it would impossible in all cases, but only that it would be hard. The assumption should be that taking, owning, or trading in slaves is not good, with the onus on the good-aligned slave taker, owner, or trader to show that circumstances make his own case an exception to the general rule.
trollbill 05-22-07, 03:07 PM	Thomas Jefferson didn't inhabit the D&D universe. In the 'real world', we have a plurality of moral beliefs. What people consider to be 'right' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'evil' differs between cultures. There is no incontrovertible evidence that these things have any effects on the world, so 'good' and 'evil' cannot be conclusively determined. (I'm trying, here, to be neutral on the question of whether real morality is relative: different real world religions, belief systems and metaphysical understandings take different views on whether there is objective 'good' and 'evil', and some will believe that 'good' and 'evil' have real-world consequences. My point is simply that this cannot, I don't think, be proved (or disproved) which leads to a de-facto moral pluralism: different people believe different things to be 'good' or 'evil'.) The D&D universe is not like this. In the D&D universe, 'good' and 'evil' are real, and this can be proved. So it isn't very useful to use real-world 'hard-cases' and argue that because we can't all agree that all slave-owning was evil in the real world, that slavery is morally neutral in D&D. For D&D we have to use the D&D sources and nothing else: D&D morality is different from real-world morality. And my take on the D&D sources is that slavery is incompatible with a good alignment and probably more in line with an evil one. Slave-taking is almost certainly going to be evil, and slave-trading quite possibly so. Slave-ownership might just sneak into the 'neutral' category, but a good-aligned character ought to avoid it if he values his good alignment. Again, though, I'd consider indentured servitude to be different: a nation which uses it would probably have a hard time remaining institutionally 'good', but I can imagine good characters who use indentured servants but treat them well: the system is a corrections/penal one, not one which is based on the denial of some sentient beings' equal worth. Well, if the D&D books flat out said "Taking, selling and owning slaves constitutes an evil act," we'd be fine. But they don't so you have to look for real world references. D&D isn't the real world, but both its morality and physics were modeled after the real world (just greatly simplified for easier game play).
pedr 05-22-07, 03:44 PM	Well, if the D&D books flat out said "Taking, selling and owning slaves constitutes an evil act," we'd be fine. But they don't so you have to look for real world references. D&D isn't the real world, but both its morality and physics were modeled after the real world (just greatly simplified for easier game play).Well, to a degree. My point is that it is the PH and other D&D sources which should guide our understanding of what is 'good' and 'evil' in D&D not our own personal moralities; nor the norms of 21st century Britian (in my case!) or America, or Australia, or wherever else we happen to be playing LG; nor any attempt to 'reconstruct' a medieval European morality. Those will cause a great muddying of the water as we will all bring completely different assumptions to the discussion. What we should focus on is the description in the PH, and other current D&D sources. In a sense, Samwise's point reflects this. I'm not a Utilitarian, despite being a graduate of University College London, where Bentham's embalmed body is on constant display. I'm not enough of a scholar of moral philosophy to know what I am mind you! I quoted everything from the 'good vs evil' section of the PH which wasn't just an example (cutting out the references to killing, for brevity and because it wasn't relevant to the discussion on slavery). I find it very hard to reconcile that authoritative statement of what 'good' and 'evil' are in D&D with a utilitarian approach. Now, this might be a change from what EGG wrote, I don't know as I wasn't playing in those days and haven't studied early D&D material. But it is what we have to go on now, and so I continue to focus on 'altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings' vs 'hurting, oppressing, and killing others' and base on that a belief that slavery cannot be good, and is usually evil, and the promotion of slavery or the capturing of slaves is almost always going to be evil. What is too often missed in Lawful Good is the element of "greatest Good for the greatest number." If that means some must be denied their freedom, then that is what it means. If that means the selection of who is denied freedom is based on type, subtype, sex, faith, or some other aspect, then that is what it means. ... <snip> ... A Lawful Good society, by definition of the alignment, looks at it from the point of view of what is best for the majority of its people. If that means 100,000 goblinoids must be enslaved for the benefit of 1,000,0000 humans, then the goblinoids must be enslaved. Their dignity will be considered. They won't be otherwise abused, they will simply be denied freedom of choice in occupation and travel, and Heironeous and Rao won't smite any of their paladins for suddenly becoming Evil.Samwise, if you have other sources which supports these conclusions I'd love to see them, as I might be missing something significant, and I'm finding this discussion interesting!
trollbill 05-22-07, 03:57 PM	Well, to a degree. My point is that it is the PH and other D&D sources which should guide our understanding of what is 'good' and 'evil' in D&D not our own personal moralities; nor the norms of 21st century Britian (in my case!) or America, or Australia, or wherever else we happen to be playing LG; nor any attempt to 'reconstruct' a medieval European morality. Those will cause a great muddying of the water as we will all bring completely different assumptions to the discussion. What we should focus on is the description in the PH, and other current D&D sources. I agree with this, in theory. Unfortunately, in practice it becomes more difficult because the designers created an absolute morality they didn't absolutely define. And I suspect the reason they did this had to do with very real world reasons. If they were to absolutely define morality, I am sure they would catch a lot of flack from people that didn't agree with that morality. In fact, depending on how far they went, I might even have a problem with them doing that. I am a father and have used D&D as a teaching tool for my kids. If D&D absolutely defined morality, I might have a problem doing that as I might not want my kids to learn that morality even (or perhaps especially) if it is a purely ficticious one.
bitznarf 05-22-07, 04:09 PM	The PHB description of "good" is not utilitarian, and it doesn't talk about the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, it talks about altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings. I would expect that different good-aligned factions would have different ideas about what's involved in respecting the dignity of sentient beings. Even those who are lawful good might disagree with one another on that score. Some might say that certain instances of slavery are necessary evils, and others might say no evils are ever necessary. Still others might say that getting rid of fiends and the undead are much higher priorities than dealing with slavery right now, so we'll tolerate slavery in the interest of combating the real Evils in the world. Some "goodies" might be utilitarians, and others might be deontologists, virtue theorists, or something else. I'd still have to say that enslavement (except as punishment for crime) would be prima facie difficult to reconcile with respect for the dignity of sentient beings. That's not to say it would impossible in all cases, but only that it would be hard. The assumption should be that taking, owning, or trading in slaves is not good, with the onus on the good-aligned slave taker, owner, or trader to show that circumstances make his own case an exception to the general rule. I don't think anyone is saying that slavery is a [Good] thing. I am saying that in my opinion it is neither [Good] nor [Evil]. An anti-slavery position could definitely be considered [Chaos] aligned however: "'Chaos' implies freedom..." I hesitate to call slavery a [Law] aligned idea however "respect authority and honor tradition" do seem to be in line with the idea of slaves being an established part of the culture. It is entirely possible to behave in a manner that shows "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" while owning or trafficking in slaves. The important part with respect to [Good] would be to ensure that people treat your slaves properly (ie. in a manner that respects life, dignity, etc.), and that anyone you would sell a slave to values the same ideals. If you claim that owning slaves is not 'right' then you are putting forth an idea from a position of [Chaos]. Note that the Paladins Code of Conduct does not forbid [Chaotic] acts, merely [Evil] ones. In that respect I believe that most Paladins are more concerned with [Good] than [Law], and viewing slavery as 'wrong' would support my belief there, as such a Paladin would be acting more [Chaotic] on that issue. P.S. Am I right in assuming that you believe slavery to be [Evil] based on this statement (and others like it)? "...certain instances of slavery are necessary evils..."
mlund 05-22-07, 05:07 PM	Good only cares about slavery in terms of Justice. Taking innocent folk and slapping them in chains just because they aren't Suel is [Evil]. Treating other people as if the were livestock is [Evil]. That doesn't mean that under all circumstances depriving someone of their liberty and forcing them to perform a service is Evil. If that were true, spells like Quest/Geas would have be Evil. Putting an Ogre under a Geas to rebuild the parts of a town his rampage destroyed is not [Evil]. Instead [Evil] comes into play based on context. The "why" and "how" of the condition of servitude determine whether or not it is [Evil]. - Marty Lund
GrahamWills 05-22-07, 05:51 PM	Some interesting points on slavery: 1) It is not true to say that slaves have no rights. That might be the case in some cultures, but not in most cultures where slavery existed. Not saying they were good rights, but it is easy to think of a system where slaves have rights. 2) In the greek slavery system, it was often the case that people sold themselves into slavery -- teachers especially. Often in times of famine. 3) If you had the choice of selling a family into slavery under a lawful good regime to a known good person, and using the money to buy medicine for their sick daughter, who will otherwise die ... then is that evil? CAVEAT: I am opposed to slavery. But I am also opposed to any exploitation of peoples. Slavery is a known example, but in the western world economic and social exploitation are more common. Who is better off relativ to their peers -- one of Jefferson's slaves, or an illegal immigrant forced to work for lower than minimal wages or be deported away from his family? CAVEAT #2: This post was not meant to start an immigration thread. That was just used as an example of exploitation. Feel free to consider my opinion on that subject as stupid and use a different example.
Timlagor 05-22-07, 06:15 PM	One evil act (even an ongoing one) does not necessarily make you evil. Many people like Thomas Jefferson were indeed evil. I don't know about him in particular. In real life intention is generally considered to matter in a way that it doesn't in D&D. I don't think indentured servitude can ever be considred good. A penal code that involves labour might be ok but generally isn't going to be good either.
Timlagor 05-22-07, 06:24 PM	The existence of a worse form of evil does not make an evil non-evil. If the person is really good he will give the money for the medicine.
Fakegoatee 05-22-07, 06:34 PM	P.S. Am I right in assuming that you believe slavery to be [Evil] based on this statement (and others like it)? "...certain instances of slavery are necessary evils..." I shouldn't have said "necessary evil." That invites too much confusion. I was trying to say that good-aligned factions are apt to disagree about the extent to which they would tolerate what they see as wrong. Some will say that something like slavery is prima facie wrong, but in certain cases it is permissible due to overriding considerations. Others will press for a more absolutist view, on which things are always right or wrong without regard for possible overriding considerations. Various middle positions are also possible. (I'm here using "wrong" to mean something like "inconsistent with altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings." Not everything wrong is [Evil], and not everything [Evil] is wrong. That's the funny thing about D&D alignment.) I do agree that those who are chaotic good would be much less tolerant of slavery than those who are lawful good. I see chaotic goodies as insisting that slavery is twice damned. It's not only inconsistent with altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings, but it necessarily involves the restriction of freedom and the imposition of order. Lawful goodies will not see slavery as damned twice over, and they're apt to disagree with one another about how to respond to its inconsistency with altruism and respect for dignity.
Mattastrophic 05-22-07, 06:36 PM	And this, my friends, is exactly why the Book of Exalted Deeds comes with a Mature Content sticker. -Matt
bitznarf 05-22-07, 06:48 PM	I don't think indentured servitude can ever be considred good. A penal code that involves labour might be ok but generally isn't going to be good either. Once again, I don't think anyone is saying 'slavery by itself is/can be [Good]'. I am saying that slavery in and of itself is neither [Good] nor [Evil]. Just like most everything else, the manner in which it is used determines [Good] or [Evil].
Timlagor 05-22-07, 06:59 PM	Once again, I don't think anyone is saying 'slavery by itself is/can be [Good]'. I am saying that slavery in and of itself is neither [Good] nor [Evil]. Just like most everything else, the manner in which it is used determines [Good] or [Evil]. I'll rephrase: I don't think it can ever be used in a way that is Good. You have to work very hard to get it into Neutral.
KarmaInferno 05-22-07, 07:20 PM	The existence of a worse form of evil does not make an evil non-evil. If the person is really good he will give the money for the medicine. There's an opposing viewpoint, that relying on charity is harmful in the long run. Better to set someone on the path of earning their own way, rather than merely providing another day or week of living off the generosity of others. This may require that the needy person serve another for a time to earn his way to freedom. Or perhaps not even freedom - a life without freedom, but with assurances of relative security and comfort might be preferable to, say, begging in a gutter. Slavery in and of itself is merely the ownership of one sentient by another. Any other connotations, mistreatment, or such issues are determined by the owner and the society they exist in. It is possible to have a ill-treated, starved, miserable existence as a slave. It is also possible to live a very comfortable and pampered life as one. It depends on the surrounding conditions. -karma
bitznarf 05-22-07, 07:26 PM	Slavery in and of itself is merely the ownership of one sentient by another. Any other connotations, mistreatment, or such issues are determined by the owner and the society they exist in. It is possible to have a ill-treated, starved, miserable existence as a slave. It is also possible to live a very comfortable and pampered life as one. It depends on the surrounding conditions. -karma Exactly. The argument 'no sentient should own another sentient' is one that falls under [Chaos] in my opinion, not [Good].
jstorrie 05-22-07, 08:29 PM	"Good implies... a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Straight from the PHB. Slavery is non-good. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing," also straight from the PHB. Slavery is already on the evil side of things (oppression) and the further slaves are mistreated, the further the slaver descends into evil. If you tried to sell a sentient creature into slavery at one of my tables I would warn you that you were comitting an evil act, and I would likely mark one on your AR unless there were very extenuating circumstances. Tolerance of slavery is neutral at best, and evil if the slaves are being mistreated. I am not very approving of code-of-Good-conduct charactes supporting institutional slavery at my tables, and in Zeif, it is something that comes up quite a bit. Luckily for any paladins at my tables the LG rules give everyone a free Phylactery of Faithfulness, as far as Goodness is concerned.
bitznarf 05-22-07, 09:04 PM	"Good implies... a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Straight from the PHB. Slavery is non-good. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing," also straight from the PHB. Slavery is already on the evil side of things (oppression) and the further slaves are mistreated, the further the slaver descends into evil. My argument stems from the idea that 'anti-slavery' (freedom) is a [Chaos] thing, independent of [Evil] or [Good], while slavery is a thing of structure and rules and thus, related to [Law]. Who says that slavery is always oppressive? What if people voluntarily enter a state of slavery? There are cases in the North American/Western world today in which slavery is accepted and practised. Some aspects of BDSM are one such example. Some people need/crave the structure (among other things) that such an arrangement brings to their lives. How is that 'oppressive'? What I am getting at is the slavery is not necessarily [Evil], nor is it necessarily [Good]. It is independent of both. The implementation of slavery is what introduces [Good] and [Evil], not slavery itself. If you tried to sell a sentient creature into slavery at one of my tables I would warn you that you were comitting an evil act, and I would likely mark one on your AR unless there were very extenuating circumstances. Tolerance of slavery is neutral at best, and evil if the slaves are being mistreated. I am not very approving of code-of-Good-conduct charactes supporting institutional slavery at my tables, and in Zeif, it is something that comes up quite a bit. Luckily for any paladins at my tables the LG rules give everyone a free Phylactery of Faithfulness, as far as Goodness is concerned. An idea like indentured servitude is simply another form of slavery, one that provides a means for someone to pay off a debt. Hell, it even exists in Western society to this day (I think): can't pay for your meal? off the the kitchen with you to work it off. How is this an [Evil] thing? Edit: Another example came to mind: prisoners being put to work cleaning up litter from highways. If I recall correctly, they are effectively told 'this is what you are doing today'. How is that different from slavery? Is it [Evil]? Is it [Good]? Not in my opinion, just [Lawful].
Samwise 05-23-07, 02:30 AM	Samwise, if you have other sources which supports these conclusions I'd love to see them, as I might be missing something significant, and I'm finding this discussion interesting! DMG 1 & PHB 1 (That is, 1st edition versions of each.) Several hundred emails discussing ethics and morality with Gary Gygax. (Not openly available.) Once you go into "intent," there's a lot of older material in comparison to which things like the BoED are a poor retcon. You mention utilitarianism. Bear in mind, the concept that a defeated enemy is not "really" dead, and thus enslaving him is functionally an act of mercy, and that he does not in fact "owe" anything, be it fealty, subservience, or even basic gratitude, is exceptionally modern. (Post 16th century I believe.) In the context of any sort of medieval, quasi-medieval, or pseudo-medieval setting, it simply should not exist. Even early-Renaissance is pushing it. So however much a post-industrial Western Democratic Theory type (i.e. presumably any of us) views slavery as abominable and utterly incompatible with anything rationally defined as "Good," in context, viewing slavery as "wrong" should be atypical at best, to unnaturally bizarre political theory at worst. And this is where I switch to addressing concerns about slavery being Evil vs. some theoretical alternative. You see an orc. Do you kill it? That hardly shows concern for its rights and its life or dignity, but the PHB does say: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good." Without mercy? Zounds! But let's say you don't kill the orc. What do you do with it? Let it go? So it can wander through the wilderness, unarmed, until it starves to death. Execution vs. starvation, which is worse? And we won't consider his family (such as it might be), starving back home without him to bring home the long bacon (or whatever). (cf. A Critter Christmas episode of South Park.) Let it go armed? So it just kills some other poor peasant? That won't work. Keep it prisoner? Feeding it for years until it dies of natural causes, locked away somewhere, draining the economy, and requiring some poor peasant to work to feed this vicious creature that would cut his throat if given half the chance? Are you really sure those options aren't actually Evil, our paladin "without mercy" aside? So you make the orc work instead - you enslave it. If that is automatically called Evil, then I guess we have to go back to fighting without mercy, and just kill anything Evil we encounter on the field of battle, as that shows more concern for its dignity that taking it prisoner and doing anything else with it. I don't agree with that assessment of the rules and the alignment.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 02:44 AM	But let's say you don't kill the orc. What do you do with it? Lets ask the DM's Paladin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=808103) what to do, I'm sure he has some ideas.
_metz_ 05-23-07, 03:19 AM	It doesn't help if your DM is Lawful evil... Believe it or not this actually makes a huge difference, I am a Business Student Who is a capitalist Who actually believes that societies like Singapore are beneficial, Whilst another DM I know is an Anarchist socialist. Neither is wrong, they just have differing opinions. As such however, their DMing styles are radically different and they will adjudicate and run games VERY differently. This will always happen in game, and we will always have table variation in a system that uses more than one DM in a campaign. Best bet is to have a good explanation for your actions, and unless what you are doing have the "evil" or "good descriptor" that the DM is ok with it. Keep in Mind that Slavery is considered a violation of universal human rights - and as such should be considered non good as its the deprivation of something universal. Whereas law is to protect universal aspects. But this argument could go on forever.
TallGuy 05-23-07, 04:24 AM	Some interesting points on slavery: 1) It is not true to say that slaves have no rights. That might be the case in some cultures, but not in most cultures where slavery existed. Not saying they were good rights, but it is easy to think of a system where slaves have rights. Sure. 2) In the greek slavery system, it was often the case that people sold themselves into slavery -- teachers especially. Often in times of famine. Which would be indentured servitude... Usually they could buy themselves free after saving up as well. At least, that's my understanding. 3) If you had the choice of selling a family into slavery under a lawful good regime to a known good person, and using the money to buy medicine for their sick daughter, who will otherwise die ... then is that evil? If you are selling the family into slavery, yes I would call it evil, or at least decidedly non-good. The end does not justify the means, and all that. If the family decides to sell itself into slavery, that's a whole different matter (I'd call it good).
Madfox11 05-23-07, 04:52 AM	There's an opposing viewpoint, that relying on charity is harmful in the long run. Better to set someone on the path of earning their own way, rather than merely providing another day or week of living off the generosity of others. Than give him a job or loan the money to him. The fact that you consider he is worth something as a slave to me suggests you think he can work. In this particular example you are using his situation to blackmail him into a very unfavorable emplyment contract.
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 08:56 AM	It doesn't help if your DM is Lawful evil... Especialy if he thinks he's neutral good. This will always happen in game, and we will always have table variation in a system that uses more than one DM in a campaign. Best bet is to have a good explanation for your actions, and unless what you are doing have the "evil" or "good descriptor" that the DM is ok with it. I agree. Good characters are motivated by altruism by respect for the dignity of sentient creatures. It is possible for a good character to sincerely believe that someone is better off as a slave or that enslaving someone is the best course overall. Players of such characters had better have explanations at the ready, though, because slavery in itself (before we take mitigating circumstances into account) is so clearly contradictory to both altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient creatures. DM's, in their turn, should be willing to accept those explanations, within two limitations. First, the character should be roleplayed consistently with the explanation. A good character who thinks that something prima facie wrong is justified or acceptable in the circumstances should at least be regretful that circumstances have led to this. If selling slaves is necessary at a certain point, a good character would still try to mitigate the harms by selling to people of honorable reputation and by donating the proceeds. Second, for clerics/paladins/favored souls, etc., the explanation must be in line with the doctrines of their deity or church. DM's shouldn't tolerate clerics of Delleb justifying their actions as if they were clerics of Heironeous, or vice versa. We have a deities document; let's use it.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 10:58 AM	Keep in Mind that Slavery is considered a violation of universal human rights - and as such should be considered non good as its the deprivation of something universal. Whereas law is to protect universal aspects. But this argument could go on forever. Can you show me where the rules mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Which would be indentured servitude... Usually they could buy themselves free after saving up as well. At least, that's my understanding. And indentured servitude *is* a form of slavery. Thus, not all forms of slavery are [Evil]. The idea of slavery is contrary to the ideas of [Chaos]. It is the implementation of slavery that pushes it into [Good] or [Evil], not slavery itself. ...because slavery in itself (before we take mitigating circumstances into account) is so clearly contradictory to both altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient creatures. Now here is a statement that I can't agree with at all. Slavery is an idea that is counter to [Chaos] (freedom) not one that is counter to [Good].
Timlagor 05-23-07, 11:19 AM	I don't agree that indentured Servitude is 'ok' (and nor did Tallguy). Penal service can be ok where controlled by the state (or other benevolent *organisation*) especially where it has a reasonable prospect of reforming the offender. I have yet to see an example where slavery as a system benefits the slave -sure in a given situation it may be better than their alternatives... that's not relevant.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 11:22 AM	Can you support your argument in game terms, using the alignments as laid out in the PHB Tim? Note that I am not arguing that that slavery is 'right' here, I am saying that slavery is not a [Good] vs. [Evil] issue, it is [Law] vs. [Chaos]. Where 'right' lies within that is entirely based on ones point of view. 'Right' however is not a game term. I have yet to see an example where slavery as a system benefits the slave -sure in a given situation it may be better than their alternatives... that's not relevant. I've already given one example: in a BDSM context. Such an arrangement can be beneficial to all involved.
_metz_ 05-23-07, 11:22 AM	Can you show me where the rules mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I was referring to the opinions of GMs. Remember context when you are quoting someone. As the rules CANNOT be clear on alignment issues, then its a GM's call. As such we have "real" or "accepted" current morality to go off. I am very surprised you think its a matter of rules and not GM interpretation. Codifying morality into rules will never happen, that is what I said, it CANNOT, and any attempt to do so is foolish and naive. Arguing this is pointless and will get you nowhere. By missing my point you further validate my argument in some ways. Ethics isn't something you can say "here in the book - it says It is a neutral, good or evil act" it is contextually dependent, linked to the character of the PC, and what the DM's personal morals are.
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 11:30 AM	Now here is a statement that I can't agree with at all. Slavery is an idea that is counter to [Chaos] (freedom) not one that is counter to [Good]. Why can't it be both? Should CE clerics of Gruumsh (also CE) have to get atonements for participating in the Pomarj slave trade? I think you've been assuming that slavery = unpaid labor. On that notion of slavery, I suppose indentured servitude might count, althought I'd rather treat I.S. as paid labor where the payment came in advance of the labor. What good characters should object to in slavery is not that it involves unpaid labor. Rather, they should object to the fact that it involves one sentient being OWNING another sentient being. Barring mitigating circumstances, that is inconsistent with altruism (putting others' interests ahead of one's own) and respect for the dignity of sentient beings (because owning a sentient being involves treating it as if it were not sentient, or at least had INT < 3). The fact that mitigating circumstances might exist doesn't mean that there's nothing to mitigate. Goodies will disagree with one another about what it takes to mitigate these intrinsic features of making sentient beings the property of other sentient beings. Lawful goodies will disagree about whether the traditions that stand behind slavery are enough to mitigate its contrariness to [Good]. I think all that disagreement should roleplayed, but I don't think we should let paladins take ranks in Profession (Slaver) just because "Slavery is more of a [Law] thing than an [Evil] thing."
bitznarf 05-23-07, 11:41 AM	I was referring to the opinions of GMs. Remember context when you are quoting someone. I didn't realize you were referring to it from a GM's perspective here As the rules CANNOT be clear on alignment issues, then its a GM's call. Right, but the GM needs to start from somewhere. As such we have "real" or "accepted" current morality to go off. As such we have the morals laid out in the PHB to work off of. It is the interpretation thereof that is important. And if a GM brought up 'universal human rights' as an arguement, I would ask where the rules point to such an idea. If there is no starting point within the rules, then the GM is simply making stuff up. I am very surprised you think its a matter of rules and not GM interpretation. Codifying morality into rules will never happen, that is what I said, it CANNOT, and any attempt to do so is foolish and naive. Well, I just re-read your post, and I don't see any mention of the above in your words. I must just be blind and or naive :rolleyes: Arguing this is pointless and will get you nowhere. By missing my point you further validate my argument in some ways. Ethics isn't something you can say "here in the book - it says It is a neutral, good or evil act" it is contextually dependent, linked to the character of the PC, and what the DM's personal morals are. The DM's personal morals shouldn't have any bearing on what is [Good], [Evil], [Lawful], or [Chaotic] in the Game World. I'm not saying they don't as it is impossible to truly separate oneself from the game in every way and still be playing, simply that they should have as little impact as possible. Simply because a GM personally feels that NG or CG is 'right' doesn't mean that LN is 'wrong' in the game world. It is simply different, not [Evil]. A CG NPC may react badly to someone acting in a LN fashion, but that does not make the LN act [Evil].
_metz_ 05-23-07, 11:49 AM	My last comment was that "slavery = bad cos of this" therefore we can argue forever Here you see the fundamental failing of the mechanic. DnD is about a campaign adjudicated by a GM, and as such shaped and influenced by their views, as well as the players. By separating the GM from this Process RPGA has unfortunately been unable to provide a clear morality system as it relies on GMs to do this. Hence there is no way it can be codified, and any set codification in the PHB will fail as many will disagree with it. Alignment in the game must be a hazy grey area issue, otherwise there is no room for roleplaying differing views, and thus roleplaying. It is our morality that defines us, our opinions on the state of things, and the GM is supposed to provide the morality of the world for us to play in, in RPGA they cannot, and as such one must expect variation, and just try to put forth as reasonable an in character argument as possible, and hope your GM is reasonable. I hope it is clearer now. :) Arguing the PHB alignments will get nowhere with me, if I sat next to a player that said I was CG I had to act this way cos thats what RAW said I would not play with them again. Admittedly there are cases where one can argue someone is playing out of character - I changed the alignments of several PCs in my group when they kept doing things out of character, to reinforce this point. There is of course some common sense to be thought of , if a lawful character constantly ignores laws of society and reneges on contracts then that is out of character, but codifying if they agree the law is just or not is up to the player.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 11:59 AM	My last comment was that "slavery = bad cos of this" therefore we can argue forever Here you see the fundamental failing of the mechanic. DnD is about a campaign adjudicated by a GM, and as such shaped and influenced by their views, as well as the players. By separating the GM from this Process RPGA has unfortunately been unable to provide a clear morality system as it relies on GMs to do this. Hence there is no way it can be codified, and any set codification in the PHB will fail as many will disagree with it. Alignment in the game must be a hazy grey area issue, otherwise there is no room for roleplaying differing views, and thus roleplaying. It is our morality that defines us, our opinions on the state of things, and the GM is supposed to provide the morality of the world for us to play in, in RPGA they cannot, and as such one must expect variation, and just try to put forth as reasonable an in character argument as possible, and hope your GM is reasonable. I hope it is clearer now. :) Arguing the PHB alignments will get nowhere with me, if I sat next to a player that said I was CG I had to act this way cos thats what RAW said I would not play with them again. Admittedly there are cases where one can argue someone is playing out of character - I changed the alignments of several PCs in my group when they kept doing things out of character, to reinforce this point. There is of course some common sense to be thought of , if a lawful character constantly ignores laws of society and reneges on contracts then that is out of character, but codifying if they agree the law is just or not is up to the player.Ah, that makes much more sense when laid out like that. I'll respond to Fakegoatee later, his post requires more thought than 'yup'.
Samwise 05-23-07, 12:15 PM	I don't agree that indentured Servitude is 'ok' (and nor did Tallguy). Penal service can be ok where controlled by the state (or other benevolent *organisation*) especially where it has a reasonable prospect of reforming the offender. I have yet to see an example where slavery as a system benefits the slave -sure in a given situation it may be better than their alternatives... that's not relevant. Actually, given all the real world comparisons, state-run slavery is typically significantly worse than "family" slavery because of the diffusion of responsibility. Penal service is more likely to be brutal to the point of excess than having someone serve a specific familiy that has invested money in them. As for reforming the offender, this is a medieval fantasy setting, not post-modern penal theory. Any criminal sentences are solely and exclusively punitive. Further, prison sentences are strongly anachronistic. Prisons were used only for political prisoners, people who were more valuable alive than dead. Everyone else was held only until punished, and punishments were primarily physical - death, maiming, beating, with public humiliation often tacked on to the beatings, or financial for lesser offenses. Some states who had a use for it replaced death with forced labor, sent to the galleys and such. If all that is going to be default declared Evil, then I doubt any region in LG can continue to call itself Good, and anyone PC who has ever "turned someone over to the authorities" should be facing removal from the campaign. (And Ket is really in trouble!)
Timlagor 05-23-07, 03:33 PM	Ket is indeed "really in trouble" in any claims to be Good -Lawful they do have though. Ket claiming to be Good would be like Hardby claiming to be Tolerant.. oh wait... State-run may be more likely to involve abuse but penal service (slavery is still different and non-Good) is more easily justifiable. Penal Service must have a fixed term to qualify as not-slavery. D&D does care about redemption...I'm sure I read something that said good people should try to redeem bad people and offer them chances at redemption where possible somewhere... Killing Evil creatures doesn't count as Evil at my table. Selling them as slaves does -barring extreme circumstances).
Samwise 05-23-07, 03:46 PM	Ket is indeed "really in trouble" in any claims to be Good -Lawful they do have though. Ket claiming to be Good would be like Hardby claiming to be Tolerant.. oh wait... It isn't Ket claiming to be Good, it is Ket claiming to be not Evil. As I understand it, killing someone gets you sent to the salt mines as a slave. According to you, that's Evil. State-run may be more likely to involve abuse but penal service (slavery is still different and non-Good) is more easily justifiable. Penal Service must have a fixed term to qualify as not-slavery. So torture is not Evil as long as it is only for a set time? That doesn't seem right at all. D&D does care about redemption...I'm sure I read something that said good people should try to redeem bad people and offer them chances at redemption where possible somewhere... You mean the BoED? I'll default to the DM's Paladin for my response to that whole book. Killing Evil creatures doesn't count as Evil at my table. Selling them as slaves does -barring extreme circumstances). So murder is fine but taking prisoners in for justice is Evil. Yes, I know that isn't what you wrote. That is the effect of what you wrote. If I can kill Evil creatures with impunity but don't dare to take one prisoner because the government will pay me a bounty for him then set him to work at forced labor, that is how you have set the alignments. Again, I don't agree with that interpretation of the alignment system, and it means most LG players should be removed from the game, and several regions are all but impossible to play in.
mlund 05-23-07, 04:39 PM	Sorry, but the arguments that all forms of involuntary servitude (re: slavery) are [Evil] simply falls flat on its face. Depriving someone of rights and privileges afforded to innocent or benign sapient beings is not [Evil] when that someone has done wrongs to bring about intervention and warrant punishment. We've already established in the D&D continuum that Execution is not inherently [Evil]. Those who commit gross violations against innocent folk commonly forfeit their rights to property, liberty, and even life. Forced servitude under humane treatment is surely a more merciful and productive fate than the gallows for many offenders. As I noted earlier, slapping a Geas or Quest on a sapient monster (say an Ogre) is definitely enslaving them. Using that compulsion to force the Ogre to make reparations towards the village he despoiled is definitely not any [Evil] act. The [Evil] in slavery depends completely on the reason why someone is subjected to servitude and how he or she is treated in the terms of such servitude. In the same respect one can find [Evil] in imprisonment pending on why people are locked up and how they are kept. - Marty Lund
copper_wyrmling 05-23-07, 04:42 PM	As for reforming the offender, this is a medieval fantasy setting, not post-modern penal theory. Any criminal sentences are solely and exclusively punitive. Interestingly, that's not true in Perrenland: the justice system there is largely restitutive. If you commit a crime you pay a blood-price to the victim (or their clan in case of murder): it gets doubled (I think - working off memory here) if you attempt to conceal the crime and get caught. If you don't have the money for the blood-price, then there are alternative punishments, most of them involving working off the debt in some way, but that requires the approval of the victim (or their next of kin). If no agreement can be reached as to a means of repayment, then I think that's one of the ways you get blood feuds, but I'm a bit hazy on that situation as it almost never happens and I haven't read the legal document in about a year. The exception is high treason and maybe mass murder (again, working from memory here): those are capital crimes, and involve sacrificing the offender to Nerull (i.e. they can't be brought back). State worship of the Old Faith gets a little disturbing sometimes... (Scene from a certain Perrenland mod: GM: "So you kneel before the Hand of Nerull and accept his blessing?" Good-aligned cleric 1: "Ummm..." *glances at other cleric in party* Good-aligned cleric 2: *sigh* *glances over at the head of the church of Pelor, who is watching approvingly* "Well, I guess it's for a good cause. I won't tell anyone if you don't?" Good-aligned cleric 1: "Okay, deal." My Sacred Exorcist really, really hates Veil of Undeath.)
ThaiGQ 05-23-07, 05:58 PM	Sorry, but the arguments that all forms of involuntary servitude (re: slavery) are [Evil] simply falls flat on its face. Depriving someone of rights and privileges afforded to innocent or benign sapient beings is not [Evil] when that someone has done wrongs to bring about intervention and warrant punishment. We've already established in the D&D continuum that Execution is not inherently [Evil]. Those who commit gross violations against innocent folk commonly forfeit their rights to property, liberty, and even life. Forced servitude under humane treatment is surely a more merciful and productive fate than the gallows for many offenders. As I noted earlier, slapping a Geas or Quest on a sapient monster (say an Ogre) is definitely enslaving them. Using that compulsion to force the Ogre to make reparations towards the village he despoiled is definitely not any [Evil] act. The [Evil] in slavery depends completely on the reason why someone is subjected to servitude and how he or she is treated in the terms of such servitude. In the same respect one can find [Evil] in imprisonment pending on why people are locked up and how they are kept. - Marty Lund Except that with a Geas or Quest (or similar spell), you've taken away the individual's freedom of choice. Who's to say that they aren't allowed to choose death over repentance? I believe the how is just as, and indeed perhaps more, important. A "lesser of two evils" argument does not negate the fact that both choices are still evil. For me, the "means" certainly does not justify the "ends". As for indentured servitude being a form of slavery, perhaps, but in the case of indentured servitude, both parties are willing to participate in it, whereas with slavery, one party is (usually) forced into it. Again, the how is a factor to consider. Also, with both indentured servitude and the penal system, as Timlagor pointed out, there are set terms for freedom. Sure, both of these systems can be abused and exploited, but as has already been stated, it is more in the execution rather than the system itself that determines whether a particular case is "evil" or not. Granted, the concepts of free will and freedom of choice are extremely modern concepts, but I would definitely consider the denial of either as a form of oppression. (And FYI, I do have a distaste of the use of "charm" spells as I think it infringes on the target[s] freedom of choice)
bitznarf 05-23-07, 06:04 PM	Except that with a Geas or Quest (or similar spell), you've taken away the individual's freedom of choice. Which is what makes this a [Law] vs. [Chaos] debate, not [Good] vs. [Evil]. We are not talking about what is 'right' here. We are talking about where slavery fits into the *D&D* alignment system. As for indentured servitude being a form of slavery, perhaps, but in the case of indentured servitude, both parties are willing to participate in it, whereas with slavery, one party is (usually) forced into it. Again, the how is a factor to consider. Thats exactly it. Without the how slavery is neither [Good] nor [Evil]. That right there is my point. Of course taking someone off the street and selling them as slaves is [Evil]. That doesn't make all forms of slavery [Evil]. Granted, the concepts of free will and freedom of choice are extremely modern concepts, but I would definitely consider the denial of either as a form of oppression. (And FYI, I do have a distaste of the use of "charm" spells as I think it infringes on the target[s] freedom of choice) What you are expressing here is a [Chaotic] viewpoint with a bias towards [Good], much like the Holy Liberator.
ThaiGQ 05-23-07, 06:23 PM	Which is what makes this a [Law] vs. [Chaos] debate, not [Good] vs. [Evil]. We are not talking about what is 'right' here. We are talking about where slavery fits into the *D&D* alignment system. Well, I'd have to say that since slavery is (usually) involuntary, I'd have to weigh in as it counting as "evil". Collecting a bounty from a legitimate government concerning a wanted criminal may or may not be "evil", depending on that government's justice system.
mlund 05-23-07, 06:29 PM	Except that with a Geas or Quest (or similar spell), you've taken away the individual's freedom of choice. Who's to say that they aren't allowed to choose death over repentance? I believe the how is just as, and indeed perhaps more, important. A "lesser of two evils" argument does not negate the fact that both choices are still evil. For me, the "means" certainly does not justify the "ends". Of course, the means certainly is not [Evil]. There is no [EVIL] label under Geas / Quest in the PHB. Ergo, this is just you imposing your real world belief system into D&D game mechanics where it has no business being imposed. As for indentured servitude being a form of slavery, perhaps, but in the case of indentured servitude, both parties are willing to participate in it, whereas with slavery, one party is (usually) forced into it. Again, the how is a factor to consider. That's simply misinformed. Indentured Servitude was often imposed on debtors. Just because the bulk of Indentured Servants than migrated to the Americas from Europe entered Indenture to pay for their trip does not mean that the bulk of Indentured Servants ever to exist volunteered for their fate. Also, with both indentured servitude and the penal system, as Timlagor pointed out, there are set terms for freedom. Yes. The set term for release under a penal system is often "when you die." Funny thing that, life sentences and whatnot. Sure, both of these systems can be abused and exploited, but as has already been stated, it is more in the execution rather than the system itself that determines whether a particular case is "evil" or not. Sure. Putting the destructive, monstrous person to work for the rest of his life as punishment for the grievous injuries he's done to the innocent (and hopefully forcing some small measure of restitution) is certainly not [EVIL]. Routinely beating him just because you have the power over him to do so, however, would be [EVIL]. Granted, the concepts of free will and freedom of choice are extremely modern concepts, but I would definitely consider the denial of either as a form of oppression. (And FYI, I do have a distaste of the use of "charm" spells as I think it infringes on the target[s] freedom of choice) As noted, that's a [LAW] vs. [CHAOS] argument in D&D and has no impact of [EVIL] or "Evil Acts," under the LGCS unless you take it to the point of debasing innocent life. Turning someone to stone surely takes away basically all their freedom of choice but no one's crying about that. - Marty Lund
bitznarf 05-23-07, 06:30 PM	Well, I'd have to say that since slavery is (usually) involuntary, I'd have to weigh in as it counting as "evil". Collecting a bounty from a legitimate government concerning a wanted criminal may or may not be "evil", depending on that government's justice system. Thats fine, the circumstances have pushed it from neutral (and possibly [Lawful]) to [Evil]. I am *not* saying that no form of slavery is [Evil], I am saying that slavery itself is not [Evil], it is not [Good] in D&D, it is the circumstances around the act that push it one way or the other.
ThaiGQ 05-23-07, 07:32 PM	Of course, the means certainly is not [Evil]. There is no [EVIL] label under Geas / Quest in the PHB. Ergo, this is just you imposing your real world belief system into D&D game mechanics where it has no business being imposed. Alright, I'll concede this point to you...whether or not I believe it is "evil" or not to use these spells has no impact on the rules concerning alignment. And my apologies if it seemed like I was trying to impose my beliefs on anyone, that certainly was not my intent. I was just trying to point out that how you do something is a factor to be considered. For instance, a paladin that slaughters innocents for the "greater good" may still be considered to have committed an "evil" act, despite achieving "greater good". That's simply misinformed. Indentured Servitude was often imposed on debtors. Just because the bulk of Indentured Servants than migrated to the Americas from Europe entered Indenture to pay for their trip does not mean that the bulk of Indentured Servants ever to exist volunteered for their fate. To be honest, my knowledge of indentured servitude is primarily based on the example of immigration to the Americas, which you stated above. However, I find it difficult to believe (well, sadly enough, given what people have done to each other in the past, not really :( ) that indentured servitude was the only option given to those in-debt. And if they had another option (besides death), then I'd say that they still entered the contract willingly. Yes. The set term for release under a penal system is often "when you die." Funny thing that, life sentences and whatnot. I'm not sure how the penal system works anywhere else, but as I recall it, in the U.S., a "life" sentence usually has minimum number of years convicts are required to serve before they are eligible for parole. If you by some chance outlive that amount, you are then eligible for parole. I believe that's why they give multiple life sentences to certain convicts. Routinely beating him just because you have the power over him to do so, however, would be [EVIL]. Not sure if by this you are referring to what usually (I'm assuming) ends up happening in a real-life prison, but if so, then that's a problem with the execution, not the theoretical system. Also, as you pointed out earlier, that's real life and not necessarily how prison systems in D&D work. Turning someone to stone surely takes away basically all their freedom of choice but no one's crying about that. And so do "Hold" spells...albeit for a much shorter period of time. :P
wooti 05-23-07, 08:04 PM	As much from rules as possible. Assumption: Dominate is worse than slavery. This seem reasonable that as in slavery the slave has some control (trying the escape, commit suicide or hunger strikes) a dominated person has NO control at all. Conclusion: Since dominate does not have an evil discriptor thus slavery is not evil.
Timlagor 05-23-07, 08:27 PM	A bounty is not you selling someone to the government but the government rewarding you for capturing them. You do not claim ownership of the captive -you merely hold them under the laws of the country which require you to hand them over for 'justice'. I have not read the BoED so I didn't get it from there. Penal Service for crimes committed is not the same as slavery. I don't know enough about Ket to be sure if it's actually institutionally Evil of not but it wouldn't surprise me... I do seem to recall soemthing about liking Rary... perhaps they've all just been Dominated.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 08:31 PM	A bounty is not you selling someone to the government but the government rewarding you for capturing them. You do not claim ownership of the captive -you merely hold them under the laws of the country which require you to hand them over for 'justice'. That is merely semantics there Tim. The effect is the same. You have a person, you give the person to someone, you get money.
Timlagor 05-23-07, 08:40 PM	You think "take a prisoner" means the same a "make someone a slave"? Well there's really not much point in my arguing then.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 08:44 PM	You are taking someone agaisnt their will and recieving gold for giving them to a group.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:03 PM	An interesting question popped up in a mod last night. After a bit of discussion I declared it irrelevant and pushed on with the mod. But I'm curious as to what people think. Would you consider it an evil act to sell an evil creature? I think you're making a mistake. Is slavery evil? No. It's a lawful institution...overly lawful for most. Does it matter who you sell? No. It's your action, not really dependent on the critter's alignment. So, if you're worried good vs. evil. It's safer to just kill something that is, or probably will become evil. If you're thinking about slavery, you're talking about the chaos <=> law axis, not the good <=> evil axis....in my opinion.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:08 PM	The PHB description of "good" is not utilitarian, and it doesn't talk about the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, it talks about altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings. Forget the PHB, Samwise can, and has, gone straight to the creator. He's right...no and's if's or but's...if you want to think something different, then what can I say? What I can say is this: It isn't Gary Gygax's D&D...and I have no idea what you're playing.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:10 PM	Samwise, if you have other sources which supports these conclusions I'd love to see them, as I might be missing something significant, and I'm finding this discussion interesting! Other than EGG? *chuckle*
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:14 PM	Some interesting points on slavery: You have missed a rather large caveat concerning slavery: Caveat: Most discussions concerning slavery involve a perspective of slavery that was established fictitiously as part of a propaganda campaign before, during, and after the American Civil War.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:17 PM	"Good implies... a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Straight from the PHB. Slavery is non-good. Concern for dignity does not entail that slavery is non-good. The dignity of some sentients can be improved through slavery.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:19 PM	DMG 1 & PHB 1 (That is, 1st edition versions of each.) Several hundred emails discussing ethics and morality with Gary Gygax. (Not openly available.) Once you go into "intent," there's a lot of older material in comparison to which things like the BoED are a poor retcon. You mention utilitarianism. Bear in mind, the concept that a defeated enemy is not "really" dead, and thus enslaving him is functionally an act of mercy, and that he does not in fact "owe" anything, be it fealty, subservience, or even basic gratitude, is exceptionally modern. (Post 16th century I believe.) Romanticism arose as an implicit and explicit criticism of 18th century Enlightenment thought.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:22 PM	Why can't it be both? Should CE clerics of Gruumsh (also CE) have to get atonements for participating in the Pomarj slave trade? Personal gain...CE can appreciate slavery because they have someone they can oppress and take advantage of for a price. They arrive at the same place for an entirely different reason, CE doesn't give a damn about the issues surrounding slavery. It's just meat bought and paid for instead of meat in the wilds.
Zanzibax 05-23-07, 09:24 PM	Actually, given all the real world comparisons, *chuckle* ACTUALLY...given all the real world comparisons...slavery was never considered evil until the 19th Century...and EVEN THEN...only by Western Civilizations.
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 09:31 PM	Forget the PHB, Samwise can, and has, gone straight to the creator. He's right...no and's if's or but's...if you want to think something different, then what can I say? What I can say is this: It isn't Gary Gygax's D&D...and I have no idea what you're playing. I'm playing LG, which uses the 3.5 edition of the D&D rules. If you like another version, and its alignment system, better, that's great. More power to you. As Bitznarf has emphasized several times, these are questions to be answered by drawing on the RAW. Fighters no longer get one attack per level against creatures with less than 1 HD, and good is no longer defined in terms of utilitarianism.
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 09:34 PM	Personal gain...CE can appreciate slavery because they have someone they can oppress and take advantage of for a price. They arrive at the same place for an entirely different reason, CE doesn't give a damn about the issues surrounding slavery. It's just meat bought and paid for instead of meat in the wilds. So: CG -- opposes slavery CN -- may or may not oppose slavery CE -- doesn't oppose slavery Three alignments with three different attitudes. They're all chaotic, so that must not be what accounts for their differences. It sure looks like the Good <=> Evil axis does the explaining in this case. (That's not to say that CG won't oppose slavery more vehemently than LG. The Law <=> Chaos axis also matters here.)
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 09:41 PM	The dignity of some sentients can be improved through slavery. You believe that? :rolleyes:
Fakegoatee 05-23-07, 09:47 PM	As much from rules as possible. Assumption: Dominate is worse than slavery. This seem reasonable that as in slavery the slave has some control (trying the escape, commit suicide or hunger strikes) a dominated person has NO control at all. Conclusion: Since dominate does not have an evil discriptor thus slavery is not evil. It's a mistake to use spell descriptors as a guide to alignment. Of the 27 SRD spells with the [Evil] descriptor, all but three either (i) directly apply and draw on the "power of evil," "the power of undeath," negative energy," or "unholy power," (ii) summon fiendish creatures (who, presumably, get some of their power from their connection to the power of evil), or (iii) work like "Protection from Good," directly blocking the power of good or targeting good or non-evil creatures. The three outliers are nightmare, symbol of pain, and contagion. One might say that the first two amount to torture, while the third amounts to biological warfare. If we used spell descriptors as our guide to alignment, we would have to conclude that the only things that are evil are torture, biological warfare, and, well, using the powers of evil against good. If you look at the spells with the [Good] descriptor, you'll find that they are all spells that either work against the powers of evil directly, or involve blessing and consecrating. So, good would then be mainly a matter of working against things that work against good. Judging solely on the basis of spell descriptors, good and evil start to look like just names of two teams, with no further content. It's more reasonable to suppose that spells could be put to good or evil uses. Some spells, like dominate, are hard to use consistently with good. But they don't draw on the power of Evil Itself, and it is possible to use them in ways that are good all things considered, even if they're inconsistent with good in themselves. So, they don't get the [Evil] descriptor.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 10:24 PM	Why can't it be both? Should CE clerics of Gruumsh (also CE) have to get atonements for participating in the Pomarj slave trade? This is one reason why I hesitate to call slavery [Lawful]. After reading the entry on Gruumsh in the Dieties document I don't see anything that is 'anti-slavery'. What I see is the Tyranny domain, something that fits the idea of [Evil] slavery well in my opinion. As I see it a CE Cleric wouldn't be concerned with the freedom of others, merely their own freedom, such a being would certainly be opposed to their own slavery I would think. I don't see how a cleric of Gruumsh would incur the wrath of his/her god by taking people as slaves. What good characters should object to in slavery is not that it involves unpaid labor. Rather, they should object to the fact that it involves one sentient being OWNING another sentient being. Thats just it, 'owning' is a matter of [Law], not a matter of [Good]. It is also a matter of perception in my opinion. Barring mitigating circumstances, that is inconsistent with altruism (putting others' interests ahead of one's own) This is where the perception comes into play. If participating in slavery in some fashion puts someone else's interests ahead of one's own (without messing with a 3rd party or any other circumstances) then the act is [Good], no mitigation involved. What is there to mitigate? and respect for the dignity of sentient beings (because owning a sentient being involves treating it as if it were not sentient, or at least had INT < 3). I don't know where you are getting the idea that owning a sentient involves anything like that by default. If the circumstances are such that the owner is not treating the slave with respect for the dignity of the slave, then yes, this would be non-[Good]. Being non-[Good] does not make it [Evil]. It takes something more to make it [Evil], something like "hurting, oppressing, [or] killing". The fact that mitigating circumstances might exist doesn't mean that there's nothing to mitigate. You call them 'mitigating' circumstances, I call them defining circumstances. It is circumstances that define if an act is [Evil] or [Good], barring ones that are laid out blatantly in the rules such as casting spells with alignment descriptors.
bitznarf 05-23-07, 10:39 PM	So: CG -- opposes slavery CN -- may or may not oppose slavery CE -- doesn't oppose slavery Three alignments with three different attitudes. They're all chaotic, so that must not be what accounts for their differences. It sure looks like the Good <=> Evil axis does the explaining in this case. (That's not to say that CG won't oppose slavery more vehemently than LG. The Law <=> Chaos axis also matters here.) Of course applying differing viewpoints to the same idea (freedom) gives different results. Painted in broad strokes CG opposes slavery because they feel that denial of freedom is wrong and thus anyone who is participating in it is not behaving in a way that implies "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". CN "values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom." Why? Because protecting others from things that he doesn't want done to himself is not something he is concerned about. CE does whatever CE feels like doing, or more directly "a chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do". It is his own personal freedom that he is concerned with the the utter unconcern (and perhaps even delight) in someone else's plight. You believe that? :rolleyes: Absolutely and without doubt. There are people who are simply incapable of taking care of themselves for whatever reason, people who crave rules, and boundaries. There are those who desire to be slaves, and in being so are able to function better and with more dignity.
Samwise 05-23-07, 11:47 PM	You think "take a prisoner" means the same a "make someone a slave"? Well there's really not much point in my arguing then. Actually, I now that "take someone prisoner" is absolutely identical to "make someone a slave" in any pre-modern socio-political system. (And quite a few modern and post-modern ones as well.) As I said before, the person opposed you (or your polity depending on your social standing), and lost. You have, at that point, an absolute right to kill the person. It is an act of absolute mercy to only enslave that person. That it is also an act of greater mercy to free them is irrelevant. Their life has been forfeited, you are being a decent upstanding fellow, of great mercy and moral quality, to only enslave him, his fellows, his family, and indeed whatever part of his nation that you see fit to so enslave. And even when those modern political theorists explained to us that no, being did (should) not in absolute fact and law of nature and man give the victor an absolute right to your servitude (despite having such to your life), they had to do so on the basis that such was the universal belief up to that point in time. So yes, as disturbing as that may be to contemplate, in historical context, taking someone prisoner is indeed functionally synonymous with enslaving them. Their life is now completely and totally in your hands. They live or die at your whim. They go or stay at your command. That act or rest as you direct. It is the nature of the beast of excercising such authority, and can not be escaped.
Samwise 05-24-07, 12:09 AM	and good is no longer defined in terms of utilitarianism. It wasn't in 1st ed either. It was simply an absolute, non-modern interpretation, which has not been categorically refuted. Do not confuse my mentioning utilitarianism to mean that is what the alignment system is. I could mention a dozen theories without getting anywhere close. You believe that? He believes it. I believe it. Bitznarf believes it Plato believed it. Many other political philosophers often thought essential defenders and definers of freedom have believed it. I was just as shocked the first time I read it in a book by H. Beam Piper, but as stunning as it may be to have to consider, it is, as Bitznarf explained, sadly true for too many people. They simply can not comprehend personal freedom, and would sink into a horrific spiral of personal and community degradation if left to themselves. And that is precisely why a Lawful Good nation will enslave the tribe of Chaotic Evil orcs. Left to themselves, those orcs will defile their dignity and the dignity of the people around them. Kept captive, even if never redeemed, they are at least kept from being thieves, murderers, and worse. To reject that is to do as I said. You denounce slavery as Evil, but embrace murder, indeed extermination, as Good as it is the only remaining option. There is in fact precedence for that, but as uncompromising as I prefer Good, I'd like to at least leave some room for an alternative.
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 05:26 AM	So: CG -- opposes slavery CN -- may or may not oppose slavery CE -- doesn't oppose slavery Three alignments with three different attitudes. They're all chaotic, so that must not be what accounts for their differences. It sure looks like the Good <=> Evil axis does the explaining in this case. (That's not to say that CG won't oppose slavery more vehemently than LG. The Law <=> Chaos axis also matters here.) Alignment is about attitudes, not results. CG opposes slavery on the basis of individual freedom, but is able to understand how it might be beneficial under certain exceptions. CN opposes slavery period, on the basis of the restriction of individual whim. CE opposes their own slavery, but is happy to screw over other people on the basis of their own personal need at any given time.
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 05:28 AM	You believe that? :rolleyes: You seek to confuse contemporary morality with absolute morality. Children are better off with parents overseeing their every activity. So are certain gamers....but let's just stick to insane people wandering the streets. Yes, definitely, some people are better off under conditions of slavery. Your viewpoint has been colored by the propaganda surrouding slavery vis-a-vis the US Civil War.
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 05:32 AM	I don't know where you are getting the idea that owning a sentient involves anything like that by default. If the circumstances are such that the owner is not treating the slave with respect for the dignity of the slave, then yes, this would be non-[Good]. Being non-[Good] does not make it [Evil]. It takes something more to make it [Evil], something like "hurting, oppressing, [or] killing". 150+ years of conditioning can lead people to conclude that slavery automatically and always entails abuse. I don't think there are any societies that have practiced slavery which have always or generally abused those slaves.
Ira_Dei 05-24-07, 06:51 AM	A little late to the party, but I had to jump in on this one. Zanzibax: I think you're making a mistake. Is slavery evil? No. It's a lawful institution...overly lawful for most. Does it matter who you sell? No. It's your action, not really dependent on the critter's alignment. So, if you're worried good vs. evil. It's safer to just kill something that is, or probably will become evil. If you're thinking about slavery, you're talking about the chaos <=> law axis, not the good <=> evil axis....in my opinion. Slavery is considered a grey area in morality, but invading someone's home and butchering them for their money is perfectly acceptible? If slavery is [evil], does that make adventuring [evil]? How about torture? I've played a local mod (Onnwal) in which our DM (triad member) said that torturing or allowing someone else to torture an enemy goblin soldier was an evil act, and yet there's been a core module where torture was encouraged (bonus to intimidate) and was not flagged as evil. And that wasn't in a war situation. And Bitznarf: That is merely semantics there Tim. The effect is the same. You have a person, you give the person to someone, you get money. Does this mean all police officers are evil? They catch and arrest the criminal, and they (and the court/ legal system) put them in prison "enslaving" them, and they pick up a pay cheque.
Madfox11 05-24-07, 07:04 AM	By the RAW torture is evil. Whether it is Evil is another discussion. Just remember that PCs can commit evil acts, they just cannot become evil.
Fakegoatee 05-24-07, 09:31 AM	Last try. 1. Zanzibax and Bitznarf are right in their explanation of the varying attitudes toward slavery among chaotics. 2. Altruism means putting the interests of others ahead of one's own. If I own someone, then that subordinates their interests to mine by default. That doesn't make it impossible to treat someone I own well, and it doesn't even make it impossible for me to put their interests ahead of mine. It does make those things very difficult, though. If I own you, then I am reserving for myself the right to override your interests for my own at any time. There is no point in reserving that right for myself unless I intend to exercise it. That's why, other things being equal, owning slaves is not consistent with altruism. Respecting the dignity of sentient beings is a little trickier, because the notion of dignity itself is vague. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to suppose that respecting the dignity of sentient beings means treating them in a manner that is appropriate to their sentience. To treat something with INT > 2 as if it had INT < 3 is, other things being equal, not treating them in a manner appropriate to their sentience. To own something is to treat it as if it had INT < 3 (that is, as if it were an animal or object). So, other things being equal, owning something with INT > 2 is not compatible with respecting its dignity. Other things being equal, slavery is inconsistent with altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings. So, it is inconsistent with [Good] by default. (I acknowledge that defaults can be overridden, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.) 3. It isn't my position that slavery is [Evil]. It's my position that slavery is more like killing: It is incompatible with [Good] unless you have a sufficiently [Good] reason for it. That sufficiently [Good] reason might take the form of considering the greater good, or it might not. Goodies will disagree with one another about that, and their disagreement should be roleplayed. What's a sufficiently [Good] reason? Luckily, we don't have to answer that. If a character isn't a cleric/paladin, etc., then the only requirement is that the reason be roleplayed in such a way as to make it clear that the character *believes* the reason is [Good] enough, or in a way that is consistent with the character's personality (since personality traits can and do run counter to a character's alignment, and even her own interpretation of her alignment). If a character is a cleric/paladin/etc., it should be roleplayed consistently with the flavor of the character's deity. If a paladin buys or sells slaves without a sufficiently [Good] reason, or takes ranks in Profession (Slaver) without a sufficiently [Good] reason, the response should be the same as when a paladin kills without a sufficiently [Good] reason. He should become a fighter without feats.
Samwise 05-24-07, 11:46 AM	Does this mean all police officers are evil? They catch and arrest the criminal, and they (and the court/ legal system) put them in prison "enslaving" them, and they pick up a pay cheque. No, because we don't have alignments in the real world. Then agan, listen to some of the more rabid rhetoric that goes around regularly. That's exactly what a lot of people do say.
Samwise 05-24-07, 11:55 AM	2. Altruism means putting the interests of others ahead of one's own. If I own someone, then that subordinates their interests to mine by default. That doesn't make it impossible to treat someone I own well, and it doesn't even make it impossible for me to put their interests ahead of mine. It does make those things very difficult, though. If I own you, then I am reserving for myself the right to override your interests for my own at any time. There is no point in reserving that right for myself unless I intend to exercise it. That's why, other things being equal, owning slaves is not consistent with altruism. A Lawful alignment in general is predicated on subordinating the interests of others to those of an individual, select group, or theoretical community. Everyone is required to obey the laws because someone else has decided it is "better" for them to do so. By denying that is compatible with altruism, and by making altruism essential for anything related to a Good alignment, you've made it near impossible for Lawful Good to exist. You've almost certainly made it impossible for a Lawful Good theocracy or feudal state to exist.
Fakegoatee 05-24-07, 01:10 PM	A Lawful alignment in general is predicated on subordinating the interests of others to those of an individual, select group, or theoretical community. But not necessarily to one's own interests. Lawful good subordinates the interests of some to the good of all (or the good of most or something more amorphous, like "the greater good.") Giving your own interests more weight, just because they are yours, isn't altruistic and so isn't [Good] by the PHB definition.
Samwise 05-24-07, 01:45 PM	But not necessarily to one's own interests. Lawful good subordinates the interests of some to the good of all (or the good of most or something more amorphous, like "the greater good.") Giving your own interests more weight, just because they are yours, isn't altruistic and so isn't [Good] by the PHB definition. So like, wanting the greatest amount of good for the greatest number? I'm sure I read that somewhere . . . And who says an individual owning a slave isn't operating on that basis? The person may not really want the responsibility off owning a slave, but he subordinates his interests to those of the community by taking such personal responsibility. Indeed, who says the slave isn't operating on that basis? Surrendering his rights and desires and comforts, serving another person, for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 02:17 PM	Last try. 1. Zanzibax and Bitznarf are right in their explanation of the varying attitudes toward slavery among chaotics. 2. Altruism means putting the interests of others ahead of one's own. If I own someone, then that subordinates their interests to mine by default. That doesn't make it impossible to treat someone I own well, and it doesn't even make it impossible for me to put their interests ahead of mine. False. If you own someone, you are eminently in a position to put their interests ahead of yours, moreso, in fact, than if they were free to laugh in your face for your misguided altruism.
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 02:21 PM	3. It isn't my position that slavery is [Evil]. It's my position that slavery is more like killing: It is incompatible with [Good] unless you have a sufficiently [Good] reason for it. That sufficiently [Good] reason might take the form of considering the greater good, or it might not. Goodies will disagree with one another about that, and their disagreement should be roleplayed. It is only your position that slavery is [Evil]...as you've described in the paragraphs following your own post. The only reason someone or a soceity with [Good] alignment needs to enslave someone is the simple belief that this someone is "unenlightened". ((One of the vaguest of terms.)) You can only tell good from evil on the slavery issue by...as has been mentioned before...the treatment the slaves receive.
MatteBlack 05-24-07, 03:10 PM	OK, there are two ways to view it. 1) The creature is intrinsically evil and will always be evil. So, what possible good can come from selling it. You are perpetuating it's potential evil by not responsibly containing or disposing of it. Taking payment from a more powerful trustworthy authority who wants to make certain it is handled properly would be OK but, going out and selling it will likley lead you to a wealthy rather than worthy buyer. 2) The creature tends toward evil and can be redeemed. So, your selling someone which seems pretty evil (but, potentially legal). Again here, recieving a bounty or reward for it's collection and turning it over is probably OK but, actually pimping it out to the highest bidder would be evil. Either way, trading in such a creature would be wrong while recieving reward for its capture/disposal/imprisonment would be acceptable.
bitznarf 05-24-07, 10:00 PM	Does this mean all police officers are evil? They catch and arrest the criminal, and they (and the court/ legal system) put them in prison "enslaving" them, and they pick up a pay cheque. When did I *ever* say anything of this sort? You are putting words in my mouth that I have been speaking against. I have that slavery is not inherently [Evil], thus comparing lawful arrests by people in authority to slavery does not in any way make the arrest [Evil] in and of itself, it is merely [Lawful], as one would expect of a group that enforces the law.[/quote] Other things being equal, slavery is inconsistent with altruism and respect for the dignity of sentient beings. So, it is inconsistent with [Good] by default. (I acknowledge that defaults can be overridden, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.) Right, this puts it into the realm of 'neutralness', with the circumstances pushing the act into [Good] or [Evil] If a paladin buys or sells slaves without a sufficiently [Good] reason, or takes ranks in Profession (Slaver) without a sufficiently [Good] reason, the response should be the same as when a paladin kills without a sufficiently [Good] reason. He should become a fighter without feats. And this is where the disagreement lies. A paladin is not required to never do any neutral acts, he is only forbidden from doing [Evil] acts. You yourself have said you don't consider slavery to be [Evil] in and of itself, therefore without circumstances pushing this act of slavery into an act of [Evil] there is nothing in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that prevents this.
_metz_ 05-24-07, 10:32 PM	Anybody here who thinks that slavery is lawful and not evil should be enslaved for a little while. How does that sound? Better yet go find someone who had slave ancestors, or who knows a bit about the topic, and ask them. Arguing it is not evil - that is subjugation of another sentient for your own personal gain (that is slavery, subjugation for societal gain -eg: criminals- or their own is imprisonment) Frankly I have been experiencing difficulty in not getting angry at the ignorance expressed here, just because slavery was accepted up till the 19th century did not make it any less evil. Society itself was more evil, with those in power exploiting it. If you don't know that, go take a history course, and actually learn something about what slavery actually entails. Slavery and Imprisonment ARE NOT THE SAME. whoever argues that needs to learn about the legal system. One is state imposed on an individual in order to benefit the greater good - and the individual is usually looked after, and attempts made to teach said individual not to do bad things. (the concept of punishment through the legal system) Slavery is the ownership of another human being/or orc or whatever for the express person of making that creature an object that now BELONGS to someone. They are at that master's whim, they do not receive the benefits of a lawful society, they are considered a different class, and their lives are considered unimportant - with the exclusion of monetary value. If people keep arguing I guess I will fire up and start whipping out legal precedents and historical data to prove to those who frankly have been sheltered (I am going out on a limb and saying 'american - probably white' here) Sorry if I come off as angry, but not knowing what slavery is and why it is evil and arguing it is NOT evil is offensive to me.
bitznarf 05-24-07, 10:39 PM	Just because slavery and/or slaves were abused in the past does not make slavery evil. There are situations where slavery is far from [Evil]. It is the circumstances that make slavery [Good] or [Evil] not slavery itself. Arguing that slavery is 'bad' or 'wrong' because it denies personal freedom is an argument from [Chaos], not [Good]. I am not saying that arbitrarily taking a sentient being as a slave and abusing it is not [Evil] just so you know.
_metz_ 05-24-07, 11:46 PM	Personal freedom and law vs chaos seems to have you confused. Chaos doesn't equal "No rules at all" or that you will not accept them! It means that you do what suits YOU on a whim. Good implies that you care for others want the best possible for them, be this a benign law set or a chaotic one. Owning someone can be done by a chaotic person - as it suits their whims, and is as existent in chaotic societies as non chaotic ones. (Nomadic tribes of warriors etc) The US is Chaotic in mindset by the way, (with a lawful rules set to curb this) as it values personal freedom over anything else, and does so to the point that kids shoot each other at school cos they are allowed guns. It has laws, but they are for individual freedom. Singapore is Lawful as if you break the law you are punished and the needs of the state are supreme. (The people have a lawful rules set as well as a lawful mindset) That is with PHB alignments being used to describe them. Can you give me an example of good slavery? or non evil slavery? Something that is NOT imprisonment I might add. But actual ownership of another person? (Prisoners aren't owned by the state, they owe the state recompense for crimes committed) It appears you are arguing that imprisonment is not evil, which I agree with, but slavery is in itself an abusing of a person's life. You own them. OWN. If I owned you would that be [Lawful]? The opportunity for abuse is what makes the act evil, it removes the defense of the individual, and makes them beneath you. BY condoning said ownership you are taking the life of someone else out of their hands/or even the state's hands for no reason other than monetary gain (again, if it is punitive it is IMPRISONMENT) and giving that right to someone else. There was no law broken there, there is nothing but the subjugation of another by a person or person's. That is Lawful Evil I would argue that Slavery is an act with both the [Evil] and [Lawful] descriptors. (Chaotic Good Clerics watch out)
bitznarf 05-25-07, 12:12 AM	Personal freedom and law vs chaos seems to have you confused. Chaos doesn't equal "No rules at all" or that you will not accept them! It means that you do what suits YOU on a whim. That could be CN, yes. However, this is (part of) what the PHB has to say on the issue: "'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." The entry under Chaotic Neutral says this among other things: "a chaotic neutral character follows his whims." You seem to be confusing CN with [Chaos]. Can you give me an example of good slavery? or non evil slavery? Addressed in PM Something that is NOT imprisonment I might add. But actual ownership of another person? (Prisoners aren't owned by the state, they owe the state recompense for crimes committed) The net effect is the same as that of slavery. The rest is just semantics. The opportunity for abuse is what makes the act evil... There is opportunity for abuse virtually everywhere, does that make everything [Evil]? No. Just those acts that are actually abusive.
Samwise 05-25-07, 12:36 AM	Sorry if I come off as angry, but not knowing what slavery is and why it is evil and arguing it is NOT evil is offensive to me. That's fine. You've insulted my heritage, my nationality, and my faith in this post and the next one. I don't care how angry you are, your gratuitous assumptions and attempt classify me as though I were a piece of paper in a game is outrageously offensive to me. If you are determined to get this thread closed down by being offensive then just say so and be done with it. But do not try and justify your offensive behavior simply because you can not discuss this topic rationally.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 01:38 AM	Ethics is not a rational topic that can be reduced to a rules set.. A GM will rule based on their ethical standings. Anyone who is ok with Slavery and argues it is law vs chaos gets little respect from me (because they are inherently say it is not an evil act but one imposed by society) I have not insulted you Samwise, I have stated pretty clear fact regarding the arguments some people are stating here. I have not insulted your faith at all, and have commented on the stereotype without singling out a person. I assume you are Christian, guess what, so am I. I have even studied some theology. Pretty sure slavery is out in Christian morality. As for Heritage, how have I insulted that? Are you defending the slave trade and the people who were involved? My Heritage is Half British, so pretty 'white' as far as anything goes. I can believe that I may have insulted your nationality, but I am sorry, Americans did take far too long to eradicate Slavery and treat people as equals, and there is significant evidence to show that is still not happening. The world won't back down on that view, regardless of how many Americans it offends just because it is true. It is a fact of history. FACT: White Americans perpetuated Slavery for a very long time, whilst claiming their country was based on concepts of Human rights. Even Apartheid didn't claim it was protecting human rights, it claimed whites and blacks should be separated. There is an inherent difference and a reason stereotypes of the KKK (which still exist in staggering strength) and such people are still viewed as existing. <rational statement> My arguments have been rational, I merely mentioned a stereotype. And Bitznarf, the example you gave me is utterly voluntary, and isn't slavery by any stretch of the imagination, it is one person allowing themselves to be subjugated by choice. Regardless of coincidences with slavery it remains a choice not an imposition. Voluntary imprisonment is not the same as involuntary - there is a breakdown of A=B there. The opportunity of Abuse is the problem in slavery as the slave has no way of preventing said abuse. They are property, they are an object, they are less than a sentient person making their way in the world or society. (regardless of laws or anything else) There may be laws to protect slavery, and to ensure the master retains dominance, but law is not what facilitates slavery, that is the domination of another by choice. The fact that you are angry at attempts to classify you as per the game is my PRECISE point. That one cannot classify morality IN A GAME. by using that example I knew that there would be a response to that effect, which is exactly the same as arguing that due to a piece of paper, the DM cannot rule that the Paladin committed an evil act by subjugating someone to slavery. Thats the exact same thing I got offended at, and it took me doing the exact same thing for you to realize that. This is my rational arguement: One view: slavery is not evil because piece of paper says it isn't.- its law/chaos Other view: Slavery is evil because piece of paper is incorrect/does not properly codify it - GMs call and that ethically slavery is clearly evil. (Arguing slavery is not evil means you condone it if you are not using the piece of paper as your arguement - in any case if that is your argument then you have no place in modern society-) Example given: stereotypes using alignment system fail to codify societies and true ethics (US and Singapore examples) The fact that you got offended by my codification of a stereotype is why I got offended at the codification of slavery as non evil and acceptable in a lawful context based on the same rational. I notice that such codification of alignments is only "wrong" when its something that a person cares about...
LGMoses 05-25-07, 01:44 AM	it would depend on whether the creature was thought of as a sentient being or a creature. For instance, enslaving orcs would almost certainly be evil unless they were marauders or something in which case its like jail. However, selling say... sentient fish eggs with an innate evil philology to a rich collecter for her menagerie would not. Its like selling an evil animal. Also, i just want to comment on this "redeem it" crap. If a creature is innately evil then its innately evil.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 01:51 AM	it would depend on whether the creature was thought of as a sentient being or a creature. For instance, enslaving orcs would almost certainly be evil unless they were marauders or something in which case its like jail. However, selling say... sentient fish eggs with an innate evil philology to a rich collecter for her menagerie would not. Its like selling an evil animal. Also, i just want to comment on this "redeem it" crap. If a creature is innately evil then its innately evil. If its jail it's imprisonment - NOT slavery. State doesn't own them, its holding them to protect people. There is an inherent difference. And I aint going to wade into the issue of innately evil in the game, as to me it doesn't change the fact that slavery is evil in itself. there aren't mitigating circumstances based on who is being enslaved. One can imprison someone evil, to stop their evil, doesn't mean you OWN them. Its a punitive action for their choice to be evil. There was once the arguement that slavery was ok for non whites cos they weren't "real people" and hence not subject to the same morality... If you follow the logic its the same. Being good is about doing the "good" thing irrespective of other circumstances. I recently played a module where we bought all the slaves at an auction cos the characters were good. (some lawful) It cost us an awful lot of gold, but the PCs did it cos slavery was evil, even if some of the slaves were kobolds/bugbears, and happened to be evil.
LGMoses 05-25-07, 01:54 AM	Slavery and Imprisonment ARE NOT THE SAME. whoever argues that needs to learn about the legal system. One is state imposed on an individual in order to benefit the greater good - and the individual is usually looked after, and attempts made to teach said individual not to do bad things. (the concept of punishment through the legal system) Slavery is the ownership of another human being/or orc or whatever for the express person of making that creature an object that now BELONGS to someone. They are at that master's whim, they do not receive the benefits of a lawful society, they are considered a different class, and their lives are considered unimportant - with the exclusion of monetary value. Sorry if I come off as angry, but not knowing what slavery is and why it is evil and arguing it is NOT evil is offensive to me. Sounds like someone got riled up :Devil: but back on topic but what we are talking about here is the enslavement of an evil being. The enslavement of evil can be good. As I said, if you enslaved a bunch of orcs that had been acting as bandits in your homeland, would that be evil?
LGMoses 05-25-07, 02:00 AM	I recently played a module where we bought all the slaves at an auction cos the characters were good. (some lawful) It cost us an awful lot of gold, but the PCs did it cos slavery was evil, even if some of the slaves were kobolds/bugbears, and happened to be evil. OMFG*LAFFING* "Be free, be free bugbears" Bugbears: run off into woods next day outlying villages are raided and peple are killed and the Lord of the land can pay ur "heroes" to round up the bugbears again. Man thats a neat scam. I wish I'd thought of it! Great idea.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 02:15 AM	No, we found out if they were guilty of any crimes and then sent them to the relevant authorities. (they were taken by slavers acting out of the law). These slaves were not imprisoned for any crimes, they were simply captured to be sold as objects for a profit. Said orcs marauding your lands would not be enslaved they would be IMPRISONED. doesn't mean you own them, again, a punitive measure taken for defense. Slavery does NOT = Imprisonment. I am all for imprisoning those who have done wrong, but in exercising their choice to do wrong, they receive the punishment of good. There is NO choice in slavery. It is the involuntary ownership by another. Aforementioned orcs aren't now the property of the state, but they are repaying the state for damages. The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Note that this condition must also be INVOLUNTARY to be considered slavery. IN the case of the evil creature mentioned, I would, if LG, take it to a a LG church or organization where it can be imprisoned for its crimes, and given the opportunity to repent. Of course this entails a situation where there is the time and resources to make a decision, in War the cost of choosing the other side is death, so I am not saying Paladins can only deal sub dual damage to try and save anyone or anything. Just Paladins should be imprisoning evildoers, not selling them into slavery. Its the Cost of Being LG and being as stubborn as a Paladin.
Samwise 05-25-07, 02:20 AM	Anyone who is ok with Slavery and argues it is law vs chaos gets little respect from me (because they are inherently say it is not an evil act but one imposed by society) No one here has said they are "OK" with slavery. Anyone who can not comprehend the difference between a game discussion and a real life discussion gets no respect from me. I have not insulted you Samwise, I have stated pretty clear fact regarding the arguments some people are stating here. You have stated your perceptions of people, driven by a rather blatant and obvious bias, fueled by ignorance, both of individuals and history. I have not insulted your faith at all, and have commented on the stereotype without singling out a person. I assume you are Christian, guess what, so am I. I have even studied some theology. Pretty sure slavery is out in Christian morality. And your assumption is wrong. I am Jewish. My people have been enslaved. Our faith includes a holiday that remembers and celebrates the end of our slavery. As for Heritage, how have I insulted that? Are you defending the slave trade and the people who were involved? My Heritage is Half British, so pretty 'white' as far as anything goes. See the previous. I can believe that I may have insulted your nationality, but I am sorry, Americans did take far too long to eradicate Slavery and treat people as equals, and there is significant evidence to show that is still not happening. The world won't back down on that view, regardless of how many Americans it offends just because it is true. It is a fact of history. This shows just how casual your incivility was. The insult is in your assumption that as an American I am "sheltered." That is just as casually obnoxious as your assumption that I must go out and find someone whose ancestors were enslaved to "properly" understand slavery before I presume to declare it not against a particular alignment in a game system, since I am someone whose ancestors were enslaved and oppressed. And you should be sorry for the additional insults to my country that you offer here. It is obvious that you are ignorant of a great many facts of history, and current events, in making such statements. My arguments have been rational, I merely mentioned a stereotype. FACT: Stereotypes are bigotry, and as insulting as assumptions from ignorance. The fact that you are angry at attempts to classify you as per the game is my PRECISE point. That one cannot classify morality IN A GAME. by using that example I knew that there would be a response to that effect, which is exactly the same as arguing that due to a piece of paper, the DM cannot rule that the Paladin committed an evil act by subjugating someone to slavery. Nonsense. The game has a definition of alignment and morality. YOU are incapable of classifying acts within that game system without exclusive recourse to your own personal morality, and are further incapable of discussing the boundaries without making personal attacks. That has nothing to do with what can be done within the game system. Thats the exact same thing I got offended at, and it took me doing the exact same thing for you to realize that. Except all you have done is insult me in an effort to prove your point. You have done nothing to support your argument, or demonstrate an understanding of the opposing views being presented. This is my rational arguement: Your argument is irrational because it confuses the discussion of an act within a game with a quantifiable alignment system with the beliefs of individuals in regards to the real world. You have decided that anyone who says slavery in D&D is not Evil are supporters of slavery in the real world, and want to go out and buy some people because they are ignorant of what it really means. You have decided, based on ignorance of other people involved in the discussion that you can throw around statements based on bigoted stereotypes and general assumptions, with a stated intent to insult (outrage) those people. You are wrong in your argument, and in your justification for your rudeness.
LGMoses 05-25-07, 02:25 AM	more likely those orcs would be executed. being more frugal, id' put them in chains and work them to death. Same difference. :devil: hey, thats rite, thats so funny. By buying the slaves, u paid the slavers. Good job buddy. Sure am glad you heroes wre there. Those slavers mite have never been paid.
gomeztoo 05-25-07, 02:25 AM	I recently played a module where we bought all the slaves at an auction cos the characters were good. (some lawful) It cost us an awful lot of gold, but the PCs did it cos slavery was evil, even if some of the slaves were kobolds/bugbears, and happened to be evil. My char did that once. she bougth someone free. she got VERY depressed when she was told that, this way, she actually adided slavery. Btw, none of my good PCs support slavery. The only PC that doesn't care one way or another could be seen as borderline evil. Slavery as we know it is an evil act. Maybe the greeks were nice about it, but the slavery that goes on in the world today, where young women are sold as prostitutes or children as cheap labor or for the porn industry, is evil. THAT is what slavery is, in our world. Owning a person for personal gain is evil, imo, regardless of whether the creature is evil. It could, theoretically, be the best solution in a very awkard (as in: we can't send it to jail) situation, but it is still evil.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 02:48 AM	NO, I said that a GM is in there power to say it is evil and I would. Others than told me it wasn't evil. How am I not valid in citing morality in GM decisions? I stated in my original posts that Oh Samwise, guess what my other half is. Indian. They weren't subjugated at all. No. Indians have been around as a culture as long as the Jews (not as one unified religious group, but as a culture, yes) I have had lengthy exposure to Islam, Sikhism (The religion of my Family), Christianity, The Bahai faith, and Confucianism. Morality is not a construct of DnD, it is a construct of human concepts of ethics. Are you saying good and evil in DnD don't mean the same thing as they do in the real world? cos if that is the case, then my CG character is going to go enslave a bunch of evil orc tribes cos it protects what is good and his own personal liberty. FACT: Stereotypes are bigotry, and as insulting as assumptions from ignorance. Stereotypes are a psychological imperative to codify what is around us. By using a stereotype to illustrate my point I was not justifying that stereotype, was not stating it was true, I was merely using a perception to highlight the issue. Quantifiable alignment doesn't change the meaning of the term slavery. Saying its ok cos in the game slavery is a different concept is NOT what people were saying is it? They were arguing on a definitional case, and then applying it to DnD alignment guidelines. The issue wasn't with DnD alignments, it was with the definition of Slavery. I said their definition was wrong, irrespective of what DnD CN, CG etc has to say about it. If you want to roleplay characters that go around enslaving people, then thats fine, but you have got what slavery is WRONG and that is what offended me. Stating it isn't evil is not accepting what slavery is. I said that people who beleive slavery is not evil need to learn what slavery is, and if they find the real definition and still believe it isn't evil then they are condoning it within the game - fine if you are an evil character (hey some people need escapism). When it comes to the DMs call - it is their real life morality that is being questioned. By the very definition of the term, many are confusing what slavery is, and that angers me as it is not a term that should be used incorrectly, there is enough ignorance of such things in the world. And if people will use the descriptions of alignment in a game to change the meanings of such important things as slavery I will use the same logic to describe other concepts, and if people get offended, then you will see why I did. Samwise, you wrote: Indeed, who says the slave isn't operating on that basis? Surrendering his rights and desires and comforts, serving another person, for the benefit of the society as a whole. THAT IS NOT SLAVERY. go look it up. I got annoyed at the cheapening of the term, and if it meant as much to you as you claim, then you would be as well. Slavery is ALWAYS involuntary. By definition. How am I being ignorant of history or not presenting a rational arguement? by allowing your emotions to flow over my comments on US culture etc utilizing the same alignment system and arguments you were using with slavery you are showing the holes in your arguement. You have not disproved me at all, perhaps I could have been more tactful, I will agree to that, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a willful ignoring of what slavery actually is, and by refusing to actually bother to find out what it is - I will say things like "you are condoning it" if they won't go find out what it is. You are allowing you patriotism/personal feelings to cloud the issue of stereotypes and how they are INVALID. which is Exactly my point, in morality, the DM has only the definitions of acts to go off, and by RAW the definition of slavery cannot be construed as non evil. Arguing it could be voluntary etc is incorrect, as you are arguing something other than slavery. Perhaps you should take it up with a professor of ethics, I know one. I could introduce you. either that or a supreme court judge, I know one of them too. (not an American one, but just as versed on legal precedent regarding slavery)
_metz_ 05-25-07, 02:49 AM	more likely those orcs would be executed. being more frugal, id' put them in chains and work them to death. Same difference. :devil: hey, thats rite, thats so funny. By buying the slaves, u paid the slavers. Good job buddy. Sure am glad you heroes wre there. Those slavers mite have never been paid. We then eliminated the slavers, but the module couldn't give us our money back by its very nature. The gold had already been 'spent apparently.
Samwise 05-25-07, 05:11 AM	Oh Samwise, guess what my other half is. Indian. They weren't subjugated at all. No. Indians have been around as a culture as long as the Jews (not as one unified religious group, but as a culture, yes) Interesting, but of what relevance is that to your presumptions of my faith and need to locate someone to tell me of a history of slavery? And I'm well aware of the history of slavery and oppression in India, despite your presumption otherwise. Morality is not a construct of DnD, it is a construct of human concepts of ethics. I never suggested otherwise. What you continue to ignore is that those concepts of ethics change, and the baseline for those of the alignment system in D&D are not the same as those of the 21st century. Are you saying good and evil in DnD don't mean the same thing as they do in the real world? For the last time: The alignment system of the D&D game is not useful for describing people in the real world. We do not have alignments! [U]Stereotypes are a psychological imperative to codify what is around us. By using a stereotype to illustrate my point I was not justifying that stereotype, was not stating it was true, I was merely using a perception to highlight the issue. You just propogate and empower that stereotype. How nice. If you want to roleplay characters that go around enslaving people, then thats fine, but you have got what slavery is WRONG and that is what offended me. Stating it isn't evil is not accepting what slavery is. I am well aware of what slavery is. You however have you to demonstrate you have the least clue as to what is contained within the full scope of the term. At best a simplistic, limited, viewpoint, that will inevitably allow for the reduction of people to serfdom because you can not recognize anything but the most brutal forms of chattel slavery as being "properly" slavery. THAT IS NOT SLAVERY. go look it up. I got annoyed at the cheapening of the term, and if it meant as much to you as you claim, then you would be as well. Slavery is ALWAYS involuntary. By definition. I have "looked it up." By definition, you don't know what you are talking about. You are cheapening the degradation of millions of people simply because their might exist some vague excuse or justification to not call their servitude "slavery" because their victims might make the least pretense of voluntary acquiescence. By your limited definition, anyone who does not constantly attempt to escape a situation they have been placed is not a slave. Anyone who does not resist every minute is not a slave. Anyone who is sold by a parent and believes they must remain for the sake of their family is not a slave. By definition, you excuse some of the worst forms of oppression and abuse that exist today, and cheapen the suffering of millions simply because they agree, to some extent or other, to remain in their position. It may not be slavery to you, but some of us have higher standards, and don't cheapen the human condition so casually. How am I being ignorant of history or not presenting a rational arguement? by allowing your emotions to flow over my comments on US culture etc utilizing the same alignment system and arguments you were using with slavery you are showing the holes in your arguement. What was the first nation in the Americas to have slaves? What was the last nation in the Americas to free its slaves? You have not disproved me at all, That is because what you are asserting is not suitable to be disproved here. But see above, and you can disprove it yourself. but it doesn't change the fact that there is a willful ignoring of what slavery actually is, Yes there is - on your part. and by refusing to actually bother to find out what it is - I will say things like "you are condoning it" if they won't go find out what it is. Except I've never condoned it. Or suggested that I condone it. You have though, with your insistence that slavery must always be involuntary, and your denial of the existence of any form of servitude other than chattel slavery. You are allowing you patriotism/personal feelings to cloud the issue of stereotypes and how they are INVALID. And yet you remain the only one to use bigoted attacks on nationality that you seek to justify by your personal feelings. I agree, that makes your claims quite invalid, aside from the historical, ethical, and functional inaccuracies. Perhaps you should take it up with a professor of ethics, I know one. I could introduce you. either that or a supreme court judge, I know one of them too. (not an American one, but just as versed on legal precedent regarding slavery) Perhaps you should take it up with John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and others. Perhaps you should introduce yourself to them, and actually discuss with either of the people you know whether slavery must always be involuntary to "really" be slavery.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 05:41 AM	By definition, you don't know what you are talking about. You are cheapening the degradation of millions of people simply because their might exist some vague excuse or justification to not call their servitude "slavery" because their victims might make the least pretense of voluntary acquiescence. By your limited definition, anyone who does not constantly attempt to escape a situation they have been placed is not a slave. Anyone who does not resist every minute is not a slave. Anyone who is sold by a parent and believes they must remain for the sake of their family is not a slave. By definition, you excuse some of the worst forms of oppression and abuse that exist today, and cheapen the suffering of millions simply because they agree, to some extent or other, to remain in their position. It may not be slavery to you, but some of us have higher standards, and don't cheapen the human condition so casually. You are describing involuntary situations. acquiescence because you have no options doesn't make the act voluntary, your choice has been removed. I feel we should discuss this in private as we have both veered off the topic and will probably start irritating others/stoking larger fires. Slavery is not defined in DnD. ergo, we must use our real world views on it. Maybe we should be asking for a DnD definition of Slavery. That would be nice and black and white, wouldn't it.
gomeztoo 05-25-07, 06:33 AM	We then eliminated the slavers, but the module couldn't give us our money back by its very nature. The gold had already been 'spent apparently. Darn those slavers, spending all that gold on lousy, though apparently very expensive, beer.
Haro 05-25-07, 09:38 AM	Metz, once again you have displayed the uncanny ability to view any disagreement with your opinion as an intensely personal affront. Samwise, once again you manage to take pedantry to new and imaginative heights. If the two of you want to throw handbags over each other's heritage, religious beliefs and have a contest over which of you is better qualified to make comment, do everyone else a favour and take it off list please. Of course, the both of you could choose to stay on topic and contribute to the discussion without the hyperbole and righteous indignation... Perhaps I expect two obviously intelligent adults to act in a more mature and respectful fashion, if that is unrealistic, then I unreservedly apologise.
Mocoso 05-25-07, 10:24 AM	Perhaps you should take it up with John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and others. I remember when he was gonna shoot jack, and jack had that radio and wanted to get off the island. that was cool. can someone just please invoke godwin's law so we can move on? thx
_metz_ 05-25-07, 10:31 AM	We have taken it off topic Haro, lets leave it at that. Back onto the original topic, I would still argue it is a matter of Law and Evil as owning someone/making them cater to your every whim can express itself in both chaotic and lawful forms, but always involves the life of a sentient out of the hands of itself or even society, and places it in the hands of someone else. Lawful societies facilitate slavery better than chaotic ones as they protect property rights therefore enforce the slavery or track ownership. I would still consider it an evil act. I think there is some confusion between what is slavery and what is imprisonment. they are two different things. One involves owning someone and having total control, the other is restricting someone. I wouldn't say a paladin was evil for imprisoning a marauding bunch of orcs for the rest of their lives, harsh maybe, but not an evil act - as its the crime and punishment set out in the campaign setting, but slavery as a punitive measure would be an evil act as it inherently means the paladin condones slavery itself, which is the trafficking of sentients for profit.
MatteBlack 05-25-07, 10:48 AM	Imprisonment could swing alot of ways. 1) Lawful - as a consequence for breaking a law 2) Good - as a consequnce for a misdeed to bring a subjects behavior around and make them a better person. 2) Evil - because it is fun to do. 3) Neutral(?) - To hold someone as some sort of bargaining chip where another party or the subject can't get away and lessen there value. (I'd consider this evil in most cases but, there could be some mitigating circumstances) 5) Chaotic - Is there a chaotic reason for imprisoning someone?
Samwise 05-25-07, 11:39 AM	Samwise, once again you manage to take pedantry to new and imaginative heights. If the two of you want to throw handbags over each other's heritage, religious beliefs and have a contest over which of you is better qualified to make comment, do everyone else a favour and take it off list please. Of course, the both of you could choose to stay on topic and contribute to the discussion without the hyperbole and righteous indignation... Perhaps I expect two obviously intelligent adults to act in a more mature and respectful fashion, if that is unrealistic, then I unreservedly apologise. You should apologize. I have yet to say a single thing about anyone's heritage or religious beliefs, or to require some standard before commenting. (Though I do charge _metz_ fails to meet his own standards for being able to comment.) So I'll thank you to read my posts more carefully before making such charges against me.
_metz_ 05-25-07, 12:14 PM	Samwise, again, I haven't attacked anyone's Religious beliefs or heritage. I mentioned a US stereotype, that is all. A STEREOTYPE. And I was using it to reinforce a point on how alignments Did I single you out? I admit I said this: (I am going out on a limb and saying 'American - probably 'white' here) when referring to a stereotype of someone who is sheltered. This was in fact probably offensive and I shouldn't have said it. However how is it insulting your religious beliefs and heritage? Don't claim you have not been inflammatory, as you have accused me of something I have not done. I am happy to admit I was out of line saying this, but I did not say what you accused me of saying. read through my posts. they have not been edited. You even sent me PMs attacking Australia, or The United Kingdom, but thats fine, and I will continue to discuss it, but you have made something I said into something it wasn't. And by attacking me <accusing me of a direct insult racially and religiously> I will respond in full. If I accused you of that Haro, I imagine you would fire up as well.
MatteBlack 05-25-07, 12:53 PM	Leave the flame war for another place. Sounds like you guys are already beating eachother up in emails so at this point why not report each other or start another thread to squabble in. I know the forums can be a wonderful place for attention-seeking hot-heads but, this one is beginning to stink of too much dirty laundry.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-07, 12:55 PM	Not hard to distinguish imprisonment from slavery. Imprisonment is keeping someone locked up. Generally because you don't want to do whatever it is you are afraid they would do if they got out. Slavery is the reduction of a person to a object. It's not about whether they've got a chain around their neck, it's whether they are anything more than an object to be used and abused by their owners. Slaves may be imprisoned, prisoners may be enslaved, but the two are quite seperate. I also don't think it's hard to label slavery as [evil]. Greyhawk presently has a major plotline surrounding the slavers operating in the Pomarj, and it's hard to argue that this practice is intended to be regarded as anything other than inherently [evil]. Whether slavery is always [evil] or whether it might sometimes be good is perhaps less a matter of trading examples and counter-examples, but more a matter of whether you consider it to be an evil only because of the effect it has, or whether it is an evil in and of itself. A parallel question that is often raised is whether dictatorship is bad because it's not a 'safe' a system, or whether it is bad in and of itself, even if many of the results are benign. One commonly quoted opinion is that the ideal form of government is a benign dictatorship - clearly expressing the idea that dictatorship isn't bad in itself, merely unsafe because it puts one person in such a position of power over another, that some form of abuse is commonplace. I don't happen to agree, and just as I see dictatorship as an evil in and of itself, so too I see slavery as an evil in and of itself, without reference to the treatment of the populace, or the treatment of the slave. I suspect that this approach fits much better into the 'black and white' morality of the AD&D alignment system.
bitznarf 05-25-07, 01:06 PM	I don't happen to agree, and just as I see dictatorship as an evil in and of itself, so too I see slavery as an evil in and of itself, without reference to the treatment of the populace, or the treatment of the slave. I suspect that this approach fits much better into the 'black and white' morality of the AD&D alignment system. But the question is *why* do you consider it to be 'wrong'? If it is because it infringes on personal freedom, that is an argument from [Chaos]: "'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside..." Note that in D&D 'wrong' is not always [Evil]. 'Right' and 'wrong' are matters of opinion while [Evil] is not a matter of opinion in D&D.
Samwise 05-25-07, 01:12 PM	Slavery is the reduction of a person to a object. It's not about whether they've got a chain around their neck, it's whether they are anything more than an object to be used and abused by their owners. No, that is chattel slavery. And a particularly low form of it at that. There are other forms of slavery recognized as being "slavery," and not let off with some milder term. A discussion should not be limited solely to that form of slavery. A parallel question that is often raised The parallel questions that should be raised are: 1. Are we discussion how slavery is viewed within the context of another culture, or within ours? However evil anyone thinks slavery is, it is utterly incorrect to assert that the Greeks or Romans thought slavery was evil, when they very obviously did not. 2. Within the bounds of the WOTC/RPGA guidelines, slavery is (I believe) one of the things that should not be "glamorized" or presented in a favorable manner in a product. So does anyone who has encountered slavery, particularly in the adventure in question, think it was portrayed as something the PCs should casually engage in? I would say: very definitely no. Slavery is portrayed as something to oppose, no matter what the PCs alignment might be. This leads to two simple statements: 1. Slavery is not default Evil or non-Good within the D&D alignment system. 2. Slavery should not be portrayed as a pleasant thing within adventures, or engaged in casually by PCs. These statements are not incompatible. Aside to MatteBlack: You are correct, it has gone private, and I don't intend to address any of that here again.
mlund 05-25-07, 02:21 PM	Key point. Imprisonment merely means that someone is confined. Slavery usually means one of two things: 1.) A person is reduced to the status of property. (chattel slavery) 2.) A person is forced into servitude without their say in the matter. (generic slavery) The first could certainly be argued as opposed to the principles of [GOOD] as outlined in the PHB. It degrades sentient life. The second can not be argued as [EVIL] unto itself. It would require an abusive context. It can encompass involuntary servitude included Penal Labor, Bonded Labor, and Conscription. They are all technically slavery. Forcing an offender who has committed a grave transgression against innocents to work as both punishment and reparations is slavery, but it is distinctly not an "Evil Act" under Living Greyhawk standards. - Marty Lund
bitznarf 05-25-07, 02:33 PM	Thank you Marty! :)
Fakegoatee 05-25-07, 02:46 PM	Indeed, thank you Marty. You've said concisely what I've been trying to say with little success. Slavery may not be [Evil], but that's far from meaing that it's consistent with [Good], as the PHB defines them.
mlund 05-25-07, 03:12 PM	Indeed, thank you Marty. You've said concisely what I've been trying to say with little success. Slavery may not be [Evil], but that's far from meaing that it's consistent with [Good], as the PHB defines them. There is a strong argument that Chattel Slavery is [EVIL]. Generic Slavery requires greater context to see whether it has alignment implications. As noted various forms of slavery (involuntary servitude) can be references that are not [EVIL] under D&D rules unto themselves (Conscription, Penal Labor, Indentured Labor). Penal Labor, incidentally, if often used in [GOOD] societies as part of Restorative Justice - forcing wrong-doers to make reparations to those they have injured. - Marty Lund
Zanzibax 05-25-07, 05:56 PM	Ethics is not a rational topic that can be reduced to a rules set.. A GM will rule based on their ethical standings. Anyone who is ok with Slavery and argues it is law vs chaos gets little respect from me (because they are inherently say it is not an evil act but one imposed by society) You've politicized the issue based on contemporary propaganda. For that reason, I'm out of this thread and will no longer participate.
jstorrie 05-25-07, 10:17 PM	Social authority may be a [Law]/[Chaos] issue, but I don't believe that means personal freedom is not a [Good] issue. Rather, an LG society seeks to guarantee the freedoms of its people through the rule of law, while the CG society prefers to be hands-off. This is debatable enough of an issue that it will realistically always be up to GMs to interpret. Just don't get angry at your DM (say, me) if he warns you that participating in slavery is [Evil]. Since WOTC guidelines already require that slavery not be cast in a positive light in LG modules, I doubt there will be many mods where enslaving sentients is the 'right' or only option.
bitznarf 05-26-07, 12:17 AM	Social authority may be a [Law]/[Chaos] issue, but I don't believe that means personal freedom is not a [Good] issue. Rather, an LG society seeks to guarantee the freedoms of its people through the rule of law, I don't see anything like this in the PHB, can you point me to something that leads you to believe this?
LGMoses 05-26-07, 12:34 AM	i believe its the Greyhawk Gazeteer that gives the best descriptions of how society's of each alignment are.
jstorrie 05-26-07, 05:18 AM	I don't see anything like this in the PHB, can you point me to something that leads you to believe this? The Gazetteer and DMG pg. 138 lead me to believe this, though they're open to interpretation. While I do agree that real-world morals don't have direct bearing on D&D alignment, I would try to describe the situation this way: All societies will have people whose interests are in competition. Thus person A, by achieving their personal goal, may reduce the freedoms of person B. Good societies value the dignity of sentient life, and the key determinant of sentience is free will. So good societies seek, among other things, to preserve free will. A Chaotic Good society would generally allow A and B to figure out their grievances together, and only step in if A was tyrannically oppressing B. A Lawful Good society believes that a strong system of enlightened laws, though they may somewhat restrict the freedoms of A and B, will prevent anyone from infringing too much on anyone else and thus maximize freedom across the board. A Neutral Good society sees value in laws but does not necessarily believe that the rule of law is the absolute paramount. But none of the *G societies, on any degree of the Law-Chaos spectrum, would accept devaluation of free will. In each case they are acting to preserve it, but they are doing so in accordance with what they believe is most effective. An analogy might be fiscal conservatives versus fiscal liberals–neither wants to bankrupt the state and they both value prosperity, but they differ on how they believe we can ensure that most prosperity across the board and on how that prosperity should be distributed. So no Lawful Good society would propose, for example, that everyone be enslaved and indoctrinated into the teachings of Heironeus. A LN or LE society (well, the LE guys might be interpretting Heironeus a little loosely...) might. A Chaotic Good society would likely not suggest that might should make right, just that generally speaking, individuals should deal with individuals. Having prisoners work off their sentences is indentured servitude, but it is not as severe a restriction of personal freedom as slavery. In general. Yes, there are well-treated slaves, in history and in fantasy, who are given a lot of leeway, and conversely there are certainly abused prisoners (perhaps even more in reality than in fantasy.) But in general, the concept of slavery rests on the ownership of another person and the complete subordination of their will to yours. Conceptually speaking this is not [Good.] The concept of having your prisoners work is not as dicey; they are still guaranteed some rights and freedoms. They have the terms of their sentences to work out, but they are still citizens and generally still protected by the laws of the land–and, most importantly, they are not defined as owned by or subordinate to anyone else. As a concrete game example, consider slavery in some of the Baklunish nations, like Ket and Zeif. Many criminals in Ket or Zeif are sent to work off their sentences. There also exist a number of illicit slaving cartels that simply enslave people by force. There is enough of a difference here that I would call the prison work generally [Neutral] and the slavery generally [Evil.] In some cases, the prison work may even tread up to [Good]–or down to [Evil] when the system is corrupted. But there are no times at all that I would ever think that violent enslavement of innocent people would ever be [Good.] anyway, tl;dr. Sorry guys!
_metz_ 05-26-07, 05:31 AM	The Gazetteer and DMG pg. 138 lead me to believe this, though they're open to interpretation. While I do agree that real-world morals don't have direct bearing on D&D alignment, I would try to describe the situation this way: All societies will have people whose interests are in competition. Thus person A, by achieving their personal goal, may reduce the freedoms of person B. Good societies value the dignity of sentient life, and the key determinant of sentience is free will. So good societies seek, among other things, to preserve free will. A Chaotic Good society would generally allow A and B to figure out their grievances together, and only step in if A was tyrannically oppressing B. A Lawful Good society believes that a strong system of enlightened laws, though they may somewhat restrict the freedoms of A and B, will prevent anyone from infringing too much on anyone else and thus maximize freedom across the board. A Neutral Good society sees value in laws but does not necessarily believe that the rule of law is the absolute paramount. But none of the *G societies, on any degree of the Law-Chaos spectrum, would accept devaluation of free will. In each case they are acting to preserve it, but they are doing so in accordance with what they believe is most effective. An analogy might be fiscal conservatives versus fiscal liberals–neither wants to bankrupt the state and they both value prosperity, but they differ on how they believe we can ensure that most prosperity across the board and on how that prosperity should be distributed. So no Lawful Good society would propose, for example, that everyone be enslaved and indoctrinated into the teachings of Heironeus. A LN or LE society (well, the LE guys might be interpretting Heironeus a little loosely...) might. A Chaotic Good society would likely not suggest that might should make right, just that generally speaking, individuals should deal with individuals. Having prisoners work off their sentences is indentured servitude, but it is not as severe a restriction of personal freedom as slavery. In general. Yes, there are well-treated slaves, in history and in fantasy, who are given a lot of leeway, and conversely there are certainly abused prisoners (perhaps even more in reality than in fantasy.) But in general, the concept of slavery rests on the ownership of another person and the complete subordination of their will to yours. Conceptually speaking this is not [Good.] The concept of having your prisoners work is not as dicey; they are still guaranteed some rights and freedoms. They have the terms of their sentences to work out, but they are still citizens and generally still protected by the laws of the land–and, most importantly, they are not defined as owned by or subordinate to anyone else. As a concrete game example, consider slavery in some of the Baklunish nations, like Ket and Zeif. Many criminals in Ket or Zeif are sent to work off their sentences. There also exist a number of illicit slaving cartels that simply enslave people by force. There is enough of a difference here that I would call the prison work generally [Neutral] and the slavery generally [Evil.] In some cases, the prison work may even tread up to [Good]–or down to [Evil] when the system is corrupted. But there are no times at all that I would ever think that violent enslavement of innocent people would ever be [Good.] anyway, tl;dr. Sorry guys! I totally agree, there is an inherent confusion of imprisonment vs slavery here. I view imprisonment as variable, can be evil good or neutral, as is usually an expression of Law vs Chaos. Slavery on the other hand cannot exist in a "good" society, lawful or chaotic. I cannot think of any examples where it can. Plenty of examples of 'imprisonment' but not 'slavery'. As in DnD alignment neutral acts are permitted in good societies, but evil acts are not, would that not seem to gravitate in the campaign Slavery towards 'evil' Rather than 'lawful'? Any good society would not impose ownership of a sentient onto another for the purpose of gain alone. (slavery). Imposing restrictions on someone for an act they have committed isn't slavery mind you, as there was cause and effect. Slaves are property. "2.) A person is forced into servitude without their say in the matter. (generic slavery)" That isn't slavery. that is servitude. there is a difference. You are forced to do something, but you are still a person, not an object. Its like conscription vs slavery, one is forced service for the state, but you have not been reduced to an object and denied the rights of everyone else... Hence servitude/imprisonment can be non evil (neutral, evil, or in the case of punitive measures, even have good intent) Slavery is evil.
Samwise 05-26-07, 12:20 PM	So no Lawful Good society would propose, for example, that everyone be enslaved and indoctrinated into the teachings of Heironeus. Except we have a clear example from D&D materials of the Harmonium doing nearly that. (Not everyone was enslaved, and it wasn't Heironeus.) So either that must be retconned into oblivion, which it hasn't been yet, or there is a flaw in your analysis and conclusion. Forcible subdual and re-education of non-Lawful Good types can be Lawful Good. You are also placing too much emphasis on "dignity of sentient life" being tied up in free will, and too little emphasis on said dignity being tied up in life. So I ask, yet again, is it truly "more" Good to you to execute 10,000 orc prisoners than it is to enslave them until they learn to be Lawful Good? Granted, that's definitely Chaotic Good because of personal freedom, and is likely Neutral Good because of raw quality of life, but is it Lawful Good as well? Context and contrast. Otherwise you eliminate any difference between the three Good alignments, and inevitably the three Evil alignments as well.
jstorrie 05-26-07, 04:39 PM	I think that the forced subdual and re-education of non-LG types was LN at best. The Harmonium was Lawful Good overall, but that doesn't mean each and every one of its activities was LG. In the D&D cosmology it may often be better to execute someone than enslave them, especially given that those orcs are probably not ever going to become lawful good. As a PC in a module you would generally turn those orcs over to the regional authorities, unless your regional authority was Old Wicked or such. Personal freedom is not a [Law]/[Chaos] issue. Authority is. A good society is concerned with personal freedom, and their place on the [Law]/[Chaos] axis determines how they try to maintain the greatest freedom for all–strong authority or decentralized individualism. Paladins care about someone's free will just as much as Holy Liberators do, they just believe it's best protected in different ways.
Samwise 05-26-07, 05:11 PM	I think that the forced subdual and re-education of non-LG types was LN at best. The Harmonium was Lawful Good overall, but that doesn't mean each and every one of its activities was LG. But it does mean that some of the people involved in the program, as well as some of the people who designed and approved it, were and remained Lawful Good. In the D&D cosmology it may often be better to execute someone than enslave them, especially given that those orcs are probably not ever going to become lawful good. As a PC in a module you would generally turn those orcs over to the regional authorities, unless your regional authority was Old Wicked or such. Yes it might. Especially if you have 10,000 of them hanging around. Of course, then you are just executing them on a generic charge of being orcs who are presumably Chaotic Evil. It is not like you can give each and everyone of them a fair trial, fully investigating their past activities, and proving that they are in fact guilty of specific crimes. I would think some Good types would at least want to make an effort at converting them, even if it requires the orcs to endure a lifetime of slavery. Personal freedom is not a [Law]/[Chaos] issue. Authority is. Yes, that is a much more accurate generalization than basing it on free will. A good society is concerned with personal freedom, Actually, every society is concerned with personal freedom, Good, Evil, and Cordant (Neutral). It is how they are concerned with it, and how their other alignment aspect regards it that produces the final result. and their place on the [Law]/[Chaos] axis determines how they try to maintain the greatest freedom for all–strong authority There's that "greatest good for the greatest number" element again. or decentralized individualism. Paladins care about someone's free will just as much as Holy Liberators do, they just believe it's best protected in different ways. Free will is not absolutely synonymous with personal freedom. There are many relevant similarities, but they are not absolutely identical within the alignment structure. Taking the paladin "without mercy," you are allowed full free will - to choose between being Lawful Good and being smited by said paladin. And you certainly have personal freedom - within limits. Archons aren't modrons (or formians) after all! Every microsecond isn't regulated. You have lots of free time to pursue your personal agenda, provided it is Lawful Good of course. And that extends to Holy Liberators as well. I doubt any such really regards people as having the free will to subjugate themselves to a Lawful society, no matter how Good it might be. There's no "personal freedom" in such subordination. That whole Lawful government must be stopped!
bitznarf 05-27-07, 02:40 AM	I totally agree, there is an inherent confusion of imprisonment vs slavery here. And this is where we disagree. I consider something like imprisonment to be a form of slavery, with semantics separating it in some ways from that which you are calling slavery. Its not a concept that either of us will move on I think, and I also don't think either position is one that can be backed up by any D&D texts anywhere. As such, what I call non-[Evil] slavery at my table could be much the same as what metz calls imprisonment or indentured servitude, at which point the difference is merely one of semantics, with each of us calling the act non-[Evil]. I think that is an accurate summation of sorts, and I hope one that metz can agree with.
_metz_ 05-27-07, 03:33 AM	And this is where we disagree. I consider something like imprisonment to be a form of slavery, with semantics separating it in some ways from that which you are calling slavery. Its not a concept that either of us will move on I think, and I also don't think either position is one that can be backed up by any D&D texts anywhere. As such, what I call non-[Evil] slavery at my table could be much the same as what metz calls imprisonment or indentured servitude, at which point the difference is merely one of semantics, with each of us calling the act non-[Evil]. I think that is an accurate summation of sorts, and I hope one that metz can agree with. I'll agree with that :) I will just say that if something is referred to as 'slavery' in a module, I will treat it as an evil act and warn any Paladin that sells someone into it.
katrick 05-27-07, 01:33 PM	Wasn't the question about a Black Dragon Egg? They aren't sentient. One will assume that Press Gangs were in a Good society and are Slavery. Not imprisonment or indentured servitude. Wake up son your in the navy now. I don't really think that Communism is a government that seeks personal freedoms. And under the earlier definition, wouldn't Democracy that puts its power in the hands of one person be a dictatorship? The CE Cleric of Gruumsh is already a slave to his god. Just a small footnote about the prolific use of named philosophers, the majority of them were able to philosophise about such things because they had slaves to do all their work. I think elves would dislike slavery most as they live forever Examples of Good slavery; Taxes Compulsory Super Substance Abuse katrick oh yeah and if you bought the slaves in that mod then you commited an evil act.
gomeztoo 05-27-07, 04:00 PM	Wasn't the question about a Black Dragon Egg? They aren't sentient. An unhatched egg is basically an unborn baby. You can get ten different threads on alignment questiosn delaing with that... I don't think 'selling' and egg is inherently evil, but it depends who you sell it too. Selling it to the highest bidder? Sounds slightly evil to me, sufficently dubious that I'd let a paladin go liiking for atonement. Selling it to someone you trust will raise it with love and teach it to be good (like Nes, who is making a hobby out of it). Neutral-to-good, depending on how much trust you have in that person doing a good job. Selling it knowingly to someone who wants to enslave it (in the negative sense of the word)? Evil. It is, imo, not different from selling any living creature. It's all about what you think the consequences for the creature will be.
bitznarf 05-27-07, 04:03 PM	Also note that it is possible to buy Pegasus eggs, and Pegasai themselves at that; I haven't seen a hint of that being evil in and of itself anywhere. So that could be used as precedent for the act not being evil without other circumstances affecting it as gomeztoo said.
_metz_ 05-27-07, 08:40 PM	oh yeah and if you bought the slaves in that mod then you committed an evil act. Not if you were CG and you wanted to free them, and you had no other means. (e.g: far too many slavers, and you value the life of sentients over your coin) Altruism is never evil.
jstorrie 05-28-07, 12:19 AM	Yep, I agree with metz on that point. Buying and freeing a slave isn't the best way to 'stick it to the slavers,' but you still freed someone from slavery. That's not to say that bashing some slaver heads and freeing the guy by force wouldn't be more [Good] in my eyes... doesn't every Greyhawk PC carry a collection of saps?
Samwise 05-28-07, 12:39 AM	That's not to say that bashing some slaver heads and freeing the guy by force wouldn't be more [Good] in my eyes... doesn't every Greyhawk PC carry a collection of saps? And what would you do with the unconscious slavers? Have the slaves carry them several hundred miles back home so they can be executed or imprisoned? The only reason to use a sap on a slaver is to get information from him later, preferably by giving him a choice of death at your hands or that hands of his former "stock."
jstorrie 05-28-07, 04:27 AM	The saps are an expedient out if the slavers are sanctioned by the authorities, I suppose, or if someone in the party doesn't want to kill them all. I certainly wouldn't fault a party for putting a gang of slavers to the blade in order to free their captives.
katrick 05-28-07, 01:19 PM	oh yeah and if you bought the slaves in that mod then you committed an evil act. Not if you were CG and you wanted to free them, and you had no other means. (e.g: far too many slavers, and you value the life of sentients over your coin) Altruism is never evil. we all got evil acts marked down for it katrick
Genghis Cohen 05-28-07, 04:09 PM	we all got evil acts marked down for it katrickYou kept the slaves?
_metz_ 05-28-07, 11:24 PM	we all got evil acts marked down for it katrick Either you said to your DM that you were going to keep the slaves, or there was a mistake at GM level. (or mod level maybe).
mlund 05-29-07, 01:16 PM	"2.) A person is forced into servitude without their say in the matter. (generic slavery)" That isn't slavery. that is servitude. there is a difference. You are forced to do something, but you are still a person, not an object. Its like conscription vs slavery, one is forced service for the state, but you have not been reduced to an object and denied the rights of everyone else... Slavery denotes a state of involuntary subservience and servitude. Chattel Slavery is a very specific form of Slavery - perhaps the most common form practiced in human history. It is often referred to plainly as "slavery" due to common context, but it is not the only form of Slavery that exists. Conscription, Indentured Servitude, and Bonded Labor are all forms of Slavery. None of those categories fit under even the most loose definition of "imprisonment." If you wish to use "Involuntary Servitude" as a line for the more general category under which these and Chattel Slavery fall I can understand the impetus, but it is in no way any more reasonable than using Slavery as the general category and Chattel Slavery for the form that makes people into property. Just because one can not be bought and sold as a form of commerce does not mean one is not enslaved. All that is necessary to be enslaved is to be held in a state of servitude against one's will. Chattel Slavery is just one of the most vile forms of slavery that exists as it denigrates a human being to the level of mere property. - Marty Lund
gomeztoo 05-29-07, 02:28 PM	SChattel Slavery is a very specific form of Slavery - perhaps the most common form practiced in human history. It is often referred to plainly as "slavery" due to common context. But that's the point isn't it? When people talk of slavery, 90% will talk off what you call 'chattel slavery'. If we can set aside the linguistic distinction that (afaik) hardly anyone uses, I think most of us DO agree that 'slavery' as most people know it, is of an evil, or at least non-good, nature?
mlund 05-29-07, 02:41 PM	But that's the point isn't it? When people talk of slavery, 90% will talk off what you call 'chattel slavery'. First of all, it isn't what I call 'chattel slavery.' That's the academic and technical definition - not my own. Yes, and 90% of those people will talk exclusively of people taken from Africa by Europeans and Colonists to work on plantations too. That doesn't change the instances of slavery that are less talked about in common culture - Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Perisan, etc. Ignorance is not strength. When we start talking about something more broad that our common context and history we have to start talking in precise and accurate terms - not context-dependent shortcuts. Those don't translate well when you take the concepts out of the Real World and start moving them into Living Greyhawk. If we can set aside the linguistic distinction that (afaik) hardly anyone uses, I think most of us DO agree that 'slavery' as most people know it, is of an evil, or at least non-good, nature? We'd be hard pressed to find anyone here arguing that Chattel Slavery (persons reduced to property) is much short of [EVIL] by D&D Standards. The problem is that there are a lot of other forms of Slavery that are not Chattel Slavery and can come up in Living Greyhawk. These are not automatically [EVIL] or even non-[GOOD]. Making a clear distinction between the two concepts is especially important to keep people from blurring the lines and going around inferring half-cocked arguments about what is and is not [EVIL]. When you get right down to it, you have to ask the question "What makes a man a slave?" The answer is a deprivation of his liberties to the point of being forced to work for the benefit of others against his will - not his status as property. A man can still be a slave even if he can't be sold. - Marty Lund
Timlagor 05-29-07, 05:28 PM	When you mean 90% of Americans you should say so.
Samwise 05-29-07, 06:53 PM	But that's the point isn't it? When people talk of slavery, 90% will talk off what you call 'chattel slavery'. If we can set aside the linguistic distinction that (afaik) hardly anyone uses, I think most of us DO agree that 'slavery' as most people know it, is of an evil, or at least non-good, nature? That doesn't mean you can just look at that and limit the entire discussion to that one version. What if we got into "Is killing a helpless person Evil?" "Sure, because 90% of the time you mean murder and not anything else!" Well . . . What about manslaughter? What about execution for crimes? What about the mass execution of orc prisoners so you don't have to let them run around causing trouble or enslave them? So no, you should not just assume that because most people default to thinking about the most abusive forms of chattel slavery they can think of when you use the word "slavery" that only that can reasonably be considered when deciding if it is Evil. You must consider that it covers other things, most particularly including buying slaves to free them, before slapping an absolute term on it. Indeed, even for that, considering the original question: Is it Evil to sell an Evil creature to a Good creature? Is it Evil to sell an Evil creature to an Evil creature? Is it Evil to not free an Evil creature from slavery? Consider especially that last. A Good PC can't enslave an Evil creature, but he can casually leave one enslaved to another Evil creature because . . . it deserves it? It is only Evil for another creature to engage in slavery, it isn't for you to let them do it? Is it also not Evil for you to let the Evil cleric sacrifice helpless people to his Evil deity? Or create undead whenever he feels like it? If not, then that's a nice double standard going on there. So if you want to attach an alignment tag to something, you must consider all aspects, and label only the appropriate ones with the relevant alignment tags.
bitznarf 05-29-07, 06:57 PM	Yay Sam!
katrick 05-30-07, 09:25 AM	Either you said to your DM that you were going to keep the slaves, or there was a mistake at GM level. (or mod level maybe). no he just decreed that participating in slavery was an evil act. I did release her but she decided to stay at the orphanage i built.(after the mod) I have found that generally speaking, you qualify for the evil deed by agreeing to do it, even if you are agreeing to double cross the dealer at some later point ala Doraaka katrick Does this ownership question make Clone an Evil act?
Cardinal Teplin 05-30-07, 09:54 AM	So no, you should not just assume that because most people default to thinking about the most abusive forms of chattel slavery they can think of when you use the word "slavery" that only that can reasonably be considered when deciding if it is Evil. No, you should assume it because it's default for Greyhawk. While it's not technically impossible to arrange for alternative forms of slavery within the game, the limits of the game structure pretty much dictate that we can only involve ourselves in forms of slavery that already exist in the campaign world. I'll not claim to be an expert on Greyhawk cultures, particularly not compared to others whom I know haunt the list, but I'm not personally familiar with any good aligned slave-owning cultures in the campaign world. Can anyone suggest some? If not, is that not a fairly hefty hint as to whether slavery is evil? So if you want to attach an alignment tag to something, you must consider all aspects, and label only the appropriate ones with the relevant alignment tags. I think there is danger of getting confused here. Some people understand an alignment tag to be something that makes an act elementally evil, such as the [evil] descriptor on certain spells. Cf the whole channeling negative energy debate. I don't think it is very difficult to justify this mechanic, but it shouldn't be confused with the basic alignment system. Fireballing an orphanage is evil, even if fireball isn't an [evil] spell. Others are claiming that slavery is, in and of itself, an evil act. Like killing innocents. Even if the end result is good, it's still evil, in the whole paladin-peril way that we all know and love. Now we're all smart people and can probably think of situations in which murder, rape, torture, slavery, are, at least arguably, justified. You take any definition and stretch far enough, and you'll find edge cases where it's possible to argue that the standard definition no longer applies. AD&D however, features a system of absolute morality, whereby good is good, bad is bad, and an evil act committed for a good reason is still evil. Because of this, we are committed to some things being evil, and others good, irrespective of whether we can find edge cases or not. Mlund has labelled my definition for slavery as 'chattel slavery', which as has been pointed out, is overwhelmingly what people are referring to. Obviously there are, at least historically if not in Greyhawk, many graduations on this, depending on which historical periods you choose, and how widely you spread the net. Rather than go through endless historical cultural examples of what was called slavery, let's go with Greyhawk examples, real or imagined, and see where we go from there. My contention is that once you reach a point whereby slavery is no longer evil, you've also reached a point whereby your example of slavery is no longer recognisably enslavement, or whereby enslavement is no longer the best descriptor of the relationship. Sure it might still be slavery from a technical definition, depending on which of the many, many technical definitions out there you choose to use, but it's likely to be sufficiently different from chattel slavery as to require a revaluation of it's evilness in any case. Because of this, it is safe to say that slavery is evil in AD&D Greyhawk terms. Yes, you can come up with arguable exceptions, but if we're using a system of absolute morality, that doesn't actually change the basic definition. Feudal serfdom is a nifty borderline case that comes up in actual play. Should we start there?
Samwise 05-30-07, 10:52 AM	No, you should assume it because it's default for Greyhawk. I'll not claim to be an expert on Greyhawk cultures, particularly not compared to others whom I know haunt the list, but I'm not personally familiar with any good aligned slave-owning cultures in the campaign world. Can anyone suggest some? If not, is that not a fairly hefty hint as to whether slavery is evil? And if it isn't true, would that not be a fairly hefty hint that other forms of slavery do in fact exist? A lot of such material must be "read between the lines" as it is not said outright, but it is there. First, note that the Yeomanry's hatred of slavery is noted so prominently. This would not matter if slavery were a rare thing. Second, read the history of the Gran March and how they organized the survivors of their conquest into labor battalions. The word slavery might not be used, but I'm not sure what else you'd call that. Third, note that nothing is particularly said about any Good nation not having slaves or serfs or what not. You would expect such a thing to be noted if so important. Why doesn't it go to an effort to proclaim it is not done? I could also diverge on a major rant here about just how impossible the large scale slave trade would be in Greyhawk to begin with. There are no easy markets. There is no easy source. There is no economic necessity. There is no way anyone is shipping 40,000 people a year (an average for the real world height of the Atlantic slave trade) around the Flanaess, or even 4,000 people a year all that easily. (Why? The domain of Greyhawk has a population of 160,000. If they were being sold off at 4,000 people a year, the domain would have long since been totally depopulated.) So a better question would be "What slave trade?!?!?!" I think there is danger of getting confused here. Some people understand an alignment tag to be something that makes an act elementally evil, such as the [evil] descriptor on certain spells. Cf the whole channeling negative energy debate. I don't think it is very difficult to justify this mechanic, but it shouldn't be confused with the basic alignment system. Fireballing an orphanage is evil, even if fireball isn't an [evil] spell. Others are claiming that slavery is, in and of itself, an evil act. Like killing innocents. Even if the end result is good, it's still evil, in the whole paladin-peril way that we all know and love. Well actually, that is the problem. Tagging it like that means it is worse than a spell with an alignment descriptor. It means there is no way it can possibly be anything but an act of that type, and you get a warning for it, and paladins get hosed, and similar consequences. Rather than go through endless historical cultural examples of what was called slavery, let's go with Greyhawk examples, real or imagined, and see where we go from there. My contention is that once you reach a point whereby slavery is no longer evil, you've also reached a point whereby your example of slavery is no longer recognisably enslavement, or whereby enslavement is no longer the best descriptor of the relationship. The problem is, there are too few direct references to be of any use. The Hold of the Sea Princes - Generally Evil, but the (former) ruling Prince supported abolition. The Pomarj/Slave Lords - Majorly Evil, but no real source for large scale operations, or market unless you assume they sell to the drow, Scarlet Brotherhood, or have a hideous attrition rate in their mines. The Scarlet Brotherhood - Overwhelmingly Evil, but not suppliers to any but themselves. Iuz/Horned Society - Overwhelmingly Evil, but again only supplying themselves. The Thillronian Barbarians - Obviously they have thralls, but they are described as predominantly Chaotic Neutral. The Baklunish - They definitely have slaves, but they are Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good. The Great Kingdom - Slaves or serfs? Mostly Evil, but no mention of large scale chattle slavery. Everyone Else - Except for the Yeomanry and later Keoland, no real mention is ever made. Serfs are generally presumed to exist. Feudal serfdom is a nifty borderline case that comes up in actual play. Should we start there? If it comes to it, economically speaking, serfdom should be irrelevant as well. There is way too much open land for serfdom to be economically feasible. Low population density is much more favorable to free farmers and large scale grazing. So if it comes to it, neither should be present in any of the main nations of the central Flanaess. (I'd have to do a population density check for the Baklunish nations to know if it would work for them.)
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 11:07 AM	..
_metz_ 05-30-07, 11:08 AM	no he just decreed that participating in slavery was an evil act. I did release her but she decided to stay at the orphanage i built.(after the mod) I have found that generally speaking, you qualify for the evil deed by agreeing to do it, even if you are agreeing to double cross the dealer at some later point ala Doraaka katrick Does this ownership question make Clone an Evil act? Definitely wrong GMing. If necessary get triad to remove the evil mark. You were not participating in slavery. You were doing what was in your power to rescue and free a person. How that can be interpreted as evil is beyond me. Some may argue that this facilitates the slave trade, but if it is your only option, such an altruistic act is not evil. Especially if slavery was the law of the land, or it was the most feasible way of rescuing her. Its like negotiating with a criminal to release hostages isn't evil, you aren't encouraging such activities, just trying to save people. Same logic. You would like to put a bullet through the head of the criminal or arrest them, but cannot risk the lives of the hostages - ergo you assure their safety first.
katrick 05-30-07, 11:24 AM	Definitely wrong GMing. If necessary get triad to remove the evil mark. it was triad katrick samwise: the Pax Mercuri is already sending 40,000 mercenaries around the flaness per year
_metz_ 05-30-07, 11:30 AM	Well I am utterly shocked. I would post it to Britt or Circle, that seems beyond me quite frankly. Can you give me (if necessary in private) a full contextual rundown of the situation? (Assuming its a mod I cannot play - I assume its not Ratik Regional or NMR or core) There is the case that you didn't tell the GM that you were intending on releasing the slave... But if the intent to free the slave was stated, i just CANNOT see how it is an evil act. Maybe foolish cos you paid the slavers, but DEFINITELY altruistic. By DnD or any alignment arguement.
bitznarf 05-30-07, 11:45 AM	Well I am utterly shocked. You're shocked that someone has a different view of slavery and any [Evil] involved than your own?
Genghis Cohen 05-30-07, 11:54 AM	You're shocked that someone has a different view of slavery and any [Evil] involved than your own?In this specific instance, I agree with Metz. Buying slaves to free them should not be construed as evil, unless there is an extreme situation that doing so would facilitate a greater evil. I don't recall the mod ever suggesting that doing so would facilitate any greater evil.
bitznarf 05-30-07, 12:01 PM	In this specific instance, I agree with Metz. Buying slaves to free them should not be construed as evil, unless there is an extreme situation that doing so would facilitate a greater evil. I don't recall the mod ever suggesting that doing so would facilitate any greater evil. Oh, I wouldn't have called it evil either, but that was not the point of the comment at all.
_metz_ 05-30-07, 12:16 PM	You're shocked that someone has a different view of slavery and any [Evil] involved than your own? That is why I asked for a contextual private message BEFORE judging the Triad in question. Please read all my post before commenting like that. After the blue I had with some other people I am attempting to NOT do that anymore, I can only ask the same courtesy. BTW the view that slavery might be evil is irrelevant to this point. the act was altruistic, and there is atm, no evidence to suggest otherwise. Whether slavery is evil or not is irrelevant - he was freeing the person.The arguement was whether HIS act of freeing someone was evil I cannot see based on current information how it could be.
katrick 05-30-07, 12:27 PM	Well I am utterly shocked. I would post it to Britt or Circle, that seems beyond me quite frankly. Can you give me (if necessary in private) a full contextual rundown of the situation? (Assuming its a mod I cannot play - I assume its not Ratik Regional or NMR or core) There is the case that you didn't tell the GM that you were intending on releasing the slave... But if the intent to free the slave was stated, i just CANNOT see how it is an evil act. Maybe foolish cos you paid the slavers, but DEFINITELY altruistic. By DnD or any alignment arguement. core, it may have been my lay on hands with the elf, after i bought her she was in a terrible state.....but it's only one evil act and there weren't any Pallies, perhaps we earned it?? Probably aiding and abetting the slavers
pedr 05-30-07, 12:50 PM	Were you warned by the GM before you confirmed your action that it was an evil act? If you were not warned, the GM failed to follow the campaign rules regarding evil acts and, triad or not, this should not be held against your character. If you were, then you made a conscious decision to do something which was evil, the module and GM being authoritative on that question for the purposes of that moment in time. I'm not saying that the GM couldn't have been mistaken in his categorisation of the act as evil, but once he has declared that it would be evil then that is the reality of it. The real problem comes when a GM doesn't follow the rules, which require him to declare that something is evil before it is done. (from LGCS 7.5, page 14: "As a GM, if you deem that a PC is about to commit an evil act, warn them as such.")
_metz_ 05-30-07, 12:52 PM	core, it may have been my lay on hands with the elf, after i bought her she was in a terrible state.....but it's only one evil act and there weren't any Pallies, perhaps we earned it?? Probably aiding and abetting the slavers Well its a core so I will stop discussing it, but I still don't understand why you got the evil act. Seems like an altruistic action to me. Definitely no Mens Rea involved in that act that was evil either. The Act wasn't evil (freeing someone through the only means possible for altruistic purposes - removing them from 'chattel slavery') The intent wasn't evil (trying to free someone I don't see any precedent of protecting personal freedom as an evil act) Not seeing how you earned it. There may be contextual issues to this, I might add. But not having any can only go off this. If you are ok with it then thats fine, :) but I would personally have issue if such a decision was labeled out to my character in a module. Its up to you to pursue it further, I'll stop stirring ;)
pedr 05-30-07, 01:32 PM	Definitely no Mens Rea involved in that act that was evil either.Just a word of caution when you start using such terms: if the prohibited (in this case, evil) act was 'doing business in slaves with slave-traders' then there was mens rea. It wasn't a case of being tricked into buying slaves when you thought you were negotiating a wages deal with their agent, or agreeing to buy a shipment of 10 work-horses and discovering that you are delivered 10 humans instead. There was intent to perform the transaction which was performed. The question we need to be asking is whether the act was evil - essentially a question of properly defining the actus reus - or whether the act was 'guilty', rather than one of intent. In general, though, I agree with you - it seems, from the limited information we have, that the act ought not to be deemed evil.
Cardinal Teplin 05-30-07, 01:40 PM	I could also diverge on a major rant here about just how impossible the large scale slave trade would be in Greyhawk to begin with. Yes... the economics of the Flanaess, or indeed of most fantasy worlds, has never been a strongpoint. The Drow, for example, move fantastic amounts of metal around the place for no obvious reason, and have a tiny agricultural base to feed a large population plus plentiful slaves. The economy of the whole slavers series in particular has always been the targe of skepitcism, even in 1st ed. Even the Lankemar supplements made more sense, economically speaking. (Why? The domain of Greyhawk has a population of 160,000. If they were being sold off at 4,000 people a year, the domain would have long since been totally depopulated.) So a better question would be "What slave trade?!?!?!" Hmm.. I have less of a problem with that. I see slave ships as carrying off maybe 20 or 30 people at a time, with the rest scattering, only to regroup later on. Much Core and regional material has dealt with depopulated areas caused by the slave trade, so it seems clear that not everything is coming from the domian of Greyhawk itself. I think, in general, the Flanaess is assumed to have large areas of unpopulated monster-infested wilderness in a way that simply doesn't happen in the same way in medieval Europe. Certainly population density is far higher in areas where people are found than can be accounted for by the population and the area of land, so there must be wilderness areas full of critters taking up at least some of the slack. Tagging it like that means it is worse than a spell with an alignment descriptor. It means there is no way it can possibly be anything but an act of that type, and you get a warning for it, and paladins get hosed, and similar consequences. That's kinda ineveitable with a system of absolute morality. If you don't have things tagged in that way, morality isn't really absolute, and by AD&D cosmology, it really has to be. Hextor is the evil god of tyranny, full stop. He's not the more evil than not god of a pattern of governance, which, on balance, has a negative long-term effect on the majority of peasantry. It may not fit with real-world ethics, but its what we have to play with.
_metz_ 05-30-07, 01:44 PM	Yes, but the mens rea wasn't to 'facilitate the slave trade' or 'purchase a slave' It was 'free someone by paying their captor what is necessary'. The Actus Reus seems to be the issue, as it could be construed as 'facilitating the slave trade'. Hence it is the Actus Reus that is in question imo. And I felt that the Mens Rea should have been a mitigating circumstance that the GM should have taken into account as a non evil act. Just like duress is taken into account, etc. The fact that it wasn't concerns me, as if the intent of PC's actions aren't taken into account there is no point in roleplaying :)
bitznarf 05-30-07, 01:53 PM	As I understand it metz, the circumstances and intent are among those things that are supposed to be written down on the AR as well as sent into the triad. Thus while the act in and of itself may be evil (not a point I am currently debating); I don't think this is going to cause a problem for the PC in any fashion. A single evil act notation is not cause for pulling a character, doubly so for one with circumstances such as these.
Samwise 05-30-07, 02:08 PM	Hmm.. I have less of a problem with that. I see slave ships as carrying off maybe 20 or 30 people at a time, with the rest scattering, only to regroup later on. Much Core and regional material has dealt with depopulated areas caused by the slave trade, so it seems clear that not everything is coming from the domian of Greyhawk itself. 20-30 at a time, but how many times per day/week/month? And what material has dealt with an area caused by the slave trade? Tenh by the ethers, and any area around Iuz by brutal slaughter, but just by the slave trade? I'd like to see citations of that. I think, in general, the Flanaess is assumed to have large areas of unpopulated monster-infested wilderness in a way that simply doesn't happen in the same way in medieval Europe. Certainly population density is far higher in areas where people are found than can be accounted for by the population and the area of land, so there must be wilderness areas full of critters taking up at least some of the slack. It does? There must? I did an analysis of population of the Flanaess once, assuming certain numbers for the migrations. Barring significant undercounting (over a million Suel and Oeridians showed up), or a massive starting population of Flan (a million or more), the Flanaess is not underpopulated compared to the growth of human population in Europe between the fall of Rome and the plagues and wars before the beginning of the Renaissance. Strange, but people mistake post-medical revolution population growth rates for medieval growth rates. They were quite different. So no, the Flanaess was just a lightly populated Bronze Age area that suffered extreme depopulation when invaded by refugees of two Iron Age groups (one civilized refugees, the other migrating nomads), that has since built up more or less on average without any major Malthusian plague or war. So there is really no way that slavery is more than very incidental. There's no population to support it. That's kinda ineveitable with a system of absolute morality. If you don't have things tagged in that way, morality isn't really absolute, and by AD&D cosmology, it really has to be. Hextor is the evil god of tyranny, full stop. He's not the more evil than not god of a pattern of governance, which, on balance, has a negative long-term effect on the majority of peasantry. It may not fit with real-world ethics, but its what we have to play with. Not at all. Morality is very absolute, it is just also very specific. That specific act involving slavery is Evil. That other specific act involving slavery is Good. And that specific act over yonder involving slavery is neither. That there are a large number of subcases doesn't change the absolute nature of each of them individually. In this sense, alignment and morality in D&D are excruciatingly Lawful.
katrick 05-30-07, 02:36 PM	we were warned, effectively we owned them for a while,we also only bought the ones we thought we needed,we chose the lesser of two evils and thats still an evil act.it's a great mod and we had a lot of fun. I don't see the problem, there's a lot of acts i would consider evil which others wouldn't and a lot of acts that i wouldn't consider evil that others will. there is often a lot of things at non PG tables which may be considered evil acts but aren't. katrick
mlund 05-30-07, 02:58 PM	The biggest problem with confusing the category of Slavery with the specific instance of Chattel Slavery is that it lends itself to concluding that various other forms of Slavery "aren't really slavery" because they don't involve property transactions. Case in point - any Totalitarian Regime (of which Living Greyhawk has many). If a government (say the old Great Kingdom) conquers a people and puts them in bondage to that same government rather than allowing them to be bought and sold as private property it is not Chattel Slavery, but it can still certainly be an abusive and vile form of Slavery - using the women as "camp followers," using children to carry baggage, and men as fodder in front of the army to set off traps and draw arrows. Those people are most definitely Slaves and conduct of the government is most certainly [EVIL], even if they are not property to be bought and sold. - Marty Lund
Timlagor 05-30-07, 03:07 PM	Why would you insist on comparing it to the height of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade? Saying something couldn't happen because it can't measure up to the absolute greatest real-world similar example is patently ridiculous. Viking raiders (? or broadly similar raiders at least if not the actual Vikings themselves) took slaves too and in decidedly small numbers (not sure if they traded in them). Africans were taking and selling slaves for centuries before the Europeans turned up. The Roman slave trade was probably pretty big but nothing like the scale you are reffering to. A trade does not have to be particularly large scale to be economically viable (and saying that the population is small just means that the absolute number of slaves is relatively small without giving any information about the proportion of the population that is enslaved). [which is not to say that economies in D&D are in any way reasonable]
jstorrie 05-30-07, 05:58 PM	The economy of the whole slavers series in particular has always been the targe of skepitcism, even in 1st ed. Even the Lankemar supplements made more sense, economically speaking. A few Year 6 Zeif regionals give some alternative explanations for who's actually buying chattel slaves from Oerth... and suffice it to say that there may be demand for slaves from forces more sinister than Great Kingdom road-building crews.
Cardinal Teplin 05-30-07, 06:20 PM	20-30 at a time, but how many times per day/week/month? And what material has dealt with an area caused by the slave trade? Tenh by the ethers, and any area around Iuz by brutal slaughter, but just by the slave trade? I'd like to see citations of that. Most of the recent Onnwal stuff, and some of the recent Splintered Suns material. There have also been references in recent Core mods. Almost all of the these are still current though, so I don't want to get into specifics. [QUOTE=Samwise;12551327]It does? There must?. Well yes, there must. The villages towns and cities described in the game all assume a lot of people in one place. To balance that there must logically be lots of places with almost no population at all. Unless you have another idea? Not that you can really make the assumptions you have about a medieval growth rates, since it's hardly clear, in a land stuffed with magic and historical anarchronisms, what rate would apply. You could make a stab at justifying almost anything. Not at all. Morality is very absolute, it is just also very specific. That specific act involving slavery is Evil. That other specific act involving slavery is Good. And that specific act over yonder involving slavery is neither. That there are a large number of subcases doesn't change the absolute nature of each of them individually. Hard to justify one particular apprioach over another. Does a highly specified interpreation have any meriit over a more general principals-based approaxch, or even a more traditional absolutist approach? I'm not sure that approach works in practice though. Good and evil have to be knowable to the PCs or else what's the point of the whole system? Make each case specific and you can't easily communicate between player and DM what is and isn't regarded as good and evil within your game. No system is perfect, but I not sure that one is particularly workable for the purposes of the game.
Samwise 05-30-07, 07:13 PM	Why would you insist on comparing it to the height of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade? Saying something couldn't happen because it can't measure up to the absolute greatest real-world similar example is patently ridiculous. Because people insist on restricting any discussion of slavery to chattel slavery. Viking raiders (? or broadly similar raiders at least if not the actual Vikings themselves) took slaves too and in decidedly small numbers (not sure if they traded in them). And didn't practice chattel slavery. So they would be a great example of the kind of slavery I am talking about. Africans were taking and selling slaves for centuries before the Europeans turned up. Which varied in form and type. The Roman slave trade was probably pretty big but nothing like the scale you are reffering to. The Roman slave trade was intermittent. When they conquered another country or tribe, they took tens of thousands of slaves, to the point of causing massive economic upheavel as a result. Between conquests, it was much lower scale. Also, while Roman slavery was chattel slavery, the impact differed significantly depending on the location the slave lived, so you functionally had both Good and Evil chattel slavery at the same time. A trade does not have to be particularly large scale to be economically viable (and saying that the population is small just means that the absolute number of slaves is relatively small without giving any information about the proportion of the population that is enslaved). It does if you are talking solely about massive scale chattel slavery, which is what people want to restrict the discussion to. Hence, why you shouldn't so limit it.
Samwise 05-30-07, 07:20 PM	Most of the recent Onnwal stuff, and some of the recent Splintered Suns material. There have also been references in recent Core mods. Almost all of the these are still current though, so I don't want to get into specifics. With completely depopulated regions? A village wiped out, yes. But thousands of people missing? Well yes, there must. The villages towns and cities described in the game all assume a lot of people in one place. To balance that there must logically be lots of places with almost no population at all. Unless you have another idea? I suppose that depends on what you consider massive amounts of "empty" space. 10-20 people per square mile is a low population density for very fertile land, but it doesn't mean you have great waste areas, just a lot more forest space than might be assumed. Remember the 51% Rule for the maps. Not that you can really make the assumptions you have about a medieval growth rates, since it's hardly clear, in a land stuffed with magic and historical anarchronisms, what rate would apply. You could make a stab at justifying almost anything. Why can't you? Is there some suggestion that humans breed that much faster in the Flanaess? If not, then why suggest they do? Hard to justify one particular apprioach over another. Does a highly specified interpreation have any meriit over a more general principals-based approaxch, or even a more traditional absolutist approach? I'm not sure that approach works in practice though. Good and evil have to be knowable to the PCs or else what's the point of the whole system? Make each case specific and you can't easily communicate between player and DM what is and isn't regarded as good and evil within your game. No system is perfect, but I not sure that one is particularly workable for the purposes of the game. It is not hard to justify at all. And yes, a highly specified interpretation does have more merit. Example in progress - the Evil act katrick mentioned. And actually, by making each specific you make it easier to communicate to both players and DMs as you have actual, established examples to provide.
Timlagor 05-31-07, 10:00 AM	Infant Mortality could be a lot lower very easily.
Cardinal Teplin 05-31-07, 10:32 AM	The biggest problem with confusing the category of Slavery with the specific instance of Chattel Slavery is that it lends itself to concluding that various other forms of Slavery "aren't really slavery" because they don't involve property transactions. Case in point - any Totalitarian Regime (of which Living Greyhawk has many). If a government (say the old Great Kingdom) conquers a people and puts them in bondage to that same government rather than allowing them to be bought and sold as private property it is not Chattel Slavery, but it can still certainly be an abusive and vile form of Slavery - using the women as "camp followers," using children to carry baggage, and men as fodder in front of the army to set off traps and draw arrows. Those people are most definitely Slaves and conduct of the government is most certainly [EVIL], even if they are not property to be bought and sold. Hm.. arguably they're state property that happens not to be for sale. Is there anything inherent in the relationship that would stop the state from lending them to private citzens, or selling them off? More importantly, the same conduct would be evil even if they weren't put to work, but simply imprisoned and abused. The same conduct would be evil if you cooked up some kind of contract they couldn't wriggle out of by which they were abused, even if they were also paid for their 'work'. The same conduct would be evil if they were forcibly married to people who then abused them in the context of family relations. The abuse is evil in and of itself, irrespective of whether they are enslaved or not. To borrow your phraseology, the problem with confusing abuse and maltreatment of someone with slavery is that it lends itself to concluding that various other forms of slavery "aren't really evil" because they don't involve abuse. I suspect we may be arguing broadly similar end positions from very different starting premises. If we're considering slavery as a whole, it might be worth looking at a non-abusive form of slavery, where the slave is well-treated, possiby even cherished, and see if that is still regarded as evil. If it isn't, clearly slavery isn't regarded as evil in and of itself. I suspect we'll end up in the same sort of territory as you do with mind control, mindbenders etc, which tends towards acts being classed as neutral or evil, but not good.
Samwise 05-31-07, 10:47 AM	Infant Mortality could be a lot lower very easily. And gestation could be only 3 months. And maturity could be at 5 years. And reproduction could end at 95. And a whole bunch of other casual modifications with no justification made. Of course, then we'd have to factor back in all the wars we know have been fought, and all the monsters rampaging about that everyone keeps talking about, and still wind up with the same rate of growth.
mlund 05-31-07, 01:14 PM	To borrow your phraseology, the problem with confusing abuse and maltreatment of someone with slavery is that it lends itself to concluding that various other forms of slavery "aren't really evil" because they don't involve abuse. That is in fact the problem - but not something I have a problem with, rather a problem I pose to the "Slavery = [EVIL]" side of the argument. The maltreatment and abuse is [EVIL]. Debasing a person to the point of being property is [EVIL]. Not all forms of Slavery or cases of Enslavement are maltreatment, abusive, or reduce someone to the state of property. Not all forms of Slavery are [EVIL]. Chattel Slavery is always [EVIL] because it debases a person to the point of property. Conscription and Bonded Labor are forms of Slavery, but are not necessarily [Evil] - though they can be when abusive. If we're considering slavery as a whole, it might be worth looking at a non-abusive form of slavery, where the slave is well-treated, possiby even cherished, and see if that is still regarded as evil. If it isn't, clearly slavery isn't regarded as evil in and of itself. I suspect we'll end up in the same sort of territory as you do with mind control, mindbenders etc, which tends towards acts being classed as neutral or evil, but not good. I agree. Conscription is not [EVIL] unto itself, but is Slavery. Bonded Labor is not [EVIL] unto itself, but is Slavery. Quest / Geas is a form of Slavery, but does not carry the [EVIL] descriptor. While [GOOD] prefers to have people choose to do the right thing and cooperate for motivations of altruism it certainly isn't above invoking enlightened self-interest or even stooping to compulsion and force in dealing with the most despicable sorts of villains. [EVIL] often enjoys skipping right to the compulsion and force because it sees no value in altruism, the interests of others, and enjoys the limitless potential for abuse and debasement it presents one with. - Marty Lund
Cardinal Teplin 05-31-07, 06:31 PM	And gestation could be only 3 months. And maturity could be at 5 years. And reproduction could end at 95. And a whole bunch of other casual modifications with no justification made. Of course, then we'd have to factor back in all the wars we know have been fought, and all the monsters rampaging about that everyone keeps talking about, and still wind up with the same rate of growth. Or a totally different rate. Hence my comment that you could justify almost any rate. Growth wasn't even consistent across different regions within Europe, so changing the distribution of different landscape types from Europe to Flanaess could do it all by itself.
Samwise 05-31-07, 06:40 PM	Or a totally different rate. Hence my comment that you could justify almost any rate. Growth wasn't even consistent across different regions within Europe, so changing the distribution of different landscape types from Europe to Flanaess could do it all by itself. Growth rate was very consistent, with differences of less than 1%. Don't presume migration as changing the actual growth rate of the population as a whole. So no, you can't really justify almost any rate unless you want to start pulling casual factors out of nowhere, and destroying any semblance of common ground in discussion.
Cardinal Teplin 06-01-07, 08:01 PM	I agree. Conscription is not [EVIL] unto itself, but is Slavery. Bonded Labor is not [EVIL] unto itself, but is Slavery. Quest / Geas is a form of Slavery, but does not carry the [EVIL] descriptor. Ah, but I don't. I would regard all of the above as being evil in and of themselves, but not necessarily slavery. Can anyone think of a way of actually resolving these issues, or are we in purely subjective territory here? Growth rate was very consistent, with differences of less than 1%. Don't presume migration as changing the actual growth rate of the population as a whole. My figures contradict what you are saying. PM me off list, and we can compare sources. No point getting into an academic bun-fight on list...
Samwise 06-01-07, 09:39 PM	My figures contradict what you are saying. PM me off list, and we can compare sources. No point getting into an academic bun-fight on list... Sent. (Yes, that sounds like a much better idea. :) )
Maurog 06-04-07, 06:08 PM	This whole thread caused me to enact the following scenario in my head... LG Paladin: So this old lamp is my share of the loot? *rubs lamp* Genie: *appears in a puff of smoke* Genie: I am a genie, slave of the lamp, you have three wishes, foolish mortal. LG Paladin: Great, for my first wish... wait, did you just say you're a slave? Genie: Yes, I am forced to grant the wishes of others for all eternity! LG Paladin: My beliefs cannot allow that. Genie, I wish you were free. Genie: What?! LG Paladin: You're free, now go do... whatever it is free genies do. Genie: *shackles fall off* Genie: Free will at last! Genie: And now to cast my revenge on all mortals. I've had it up to here with their pathetic wishing! Eat ten thousand years of pent hate, useless worms! Genie: *levels the city* LG Paladin: Whoops!
Timlagor 06-04-07, 06:39 PM	That would be a classic example of "Lawful Stupid"
Lupo 06-04-07, 07:24 PM	That would be a classic example of "Lawful Stupid" isn't that the condensed description of paladins anyway :D ciao martin m.
Zanzibax 06-05-07, 07:25 AM	isn't that the condensed description of paladins anyway :D ciao martin m. The DM's Paladin strikes again!
Cardinal Teplin 06-05-07, 09:11 AM	It's a bit harsh to expect the paladin to anticipate that. Djinni are generally chaotic good, and don't engage in mass slaughter. Now an efreet... but then letting bound evil creatures go is one of those old chestnuts that gets dicussed endlessly. Lawful good, not lawful stupid.
catsclaw 06-05-07, 11:32 AM	The alignment debate in D&D isn't going to get anywhere, because alignment is specifically left vague in both D&D and Living Greyhawk. I'd appreciate it if the Circle would give us a couple guidelines (or at least enforce a single standard) but they're reluctant to do so, for obvious reasons. Until then, I just keep hoping that mod authors would try and stay away from inflammatory topics, but for some reason they just won't do it. I'm looking right now at a mod which says a major good-aligned NPC "believing all werecreatures evil, attempted genocide -- a practice which continues to this day". I'd mention it to the Triad, but alas, two of them wrote the mod.
bitznarf 06-05-07, 11:44 AM	I'm looking right now at a mod which says a major good-aligned NPC "believing all werecreatures evil, attempted genocide -- a practice which continues to this day". I'd mention it to the Triad, but alas, two of them wrote the mod.Personally I don't see much of a problem with what you have told me about that mod, so long as it has a tag on it warning parents that the material might not be suitable for their children. In some respects this would be very much similar to how TV and movies operate, with people choosing to go watch/play if they don't want to deal with the material within. I would expect that part of the mod would be centered around various good aligned (N)PCs trying to figure out what the 'right' thing is to do in this situation.
catsclaw 06-05-07, 11:55 AM	Personally I don't see much of a problem with what you have told me about that mod, so long as it has a tag on it warning parents that the material might not be suitable for their children.No, no. You're thinking of the special, where the characters were asked to commit genocide. This is an entirely different, unrelated mod. Based on the Triad's posts in that thread and on the mailing list, they seem believe "if you think it's a good act, it's a good act". I think this reflects a deep misunderstanding of the alignment system, and is directly contradicted by the BoED. But they know my position, and they aren't going to change.
bitznarf 06-05-07, 12:30 PM	No, no. You're thinking of the special, where the characters were asked to commit genocide. This is an entirely different, unrelated mod. I wasn't intentionally referring to that mod, and is a topic that is best left alone. I was actually trying to go only by what you posted in this thread. Based on the Triad's posts in that thread and on the mailing list, they seem believe "if you think it's a good act, it's a good act". I think this reflects a deep misunderstanding of the alignment system, and is directly contradicted by the BoED. But they know my position, and they aren't going to change.Well, in my opinion the BoED and BoVD are not very good books to put it politely. That being said, I do think that if if you are accurately portraying that Triad's opinion, said Triad is dead wrong. Otherwise a Paladin who believes all his acts are non-[Evil] will *never* lose his abilities (dominate and the like not-withstanding).
catsclaw 06-05-07, 01:42 PM	I wasn't intentionally referring to that mod, and is a topic that is best left alone. I was actually trying to go only by what you posted in this thread.Oh, sorry. In this case, a "mature players only" warning wouldn't help, because this plot line makes up a major component of the plot arc of the last two years. The ongoing genocide against the lycanthropes only affects the plot of that mod as backstory. I was just using it as an example of how different Triads can impose different, even contradictory, alignment systems into mods. I can understand an NPC that believed in exterminating all lycanthropes, whether good or evil. But I can't imagine a good-aligned one.That being said, I do think that if if you are accurately portraying that Triad's opinion, said Triad is dead wrong. Otherwise a Paladin who believes all his acts are non-[Evil] will *never* lose his abilities (dominate and the like not-withstanding).To quote directly from the Triad:In fact to the dwarves, their people and (from our opinion) their god Moradin, the killing of all Duergar is an right and noble act. So while in the real world such a thing would be vulgar, horrific and immoral, the fantasy world affords far different views.I think what it comes down to is that I believe there can not be a situation in D&D where one Paladin can believe a given act is good, and another Paladin can believe the same act is evil, and both of them are right. My Triad does.
Vamroc 06-05-07, 02:01 PM	An interesting question popped up in a mod last night. After a bit of discussion I declared it irrelevant and pushed on with the mod. But I'm curious as to what people think. Would you consider it an evil act to sell an evil creature? What if it was not yet fully developed? I for one can't really think of any activity that would involve live evil creatures that would not be evil itself; then again I just may not be thinking creatively enough. Someone made the comment that you could redeem the creature - turn it to the path of good. I'm not so convinced. I'll agree redemption is possible for things that are 'usually evil', but what about things that are 'always evil'. And would anyone that would be willing to try redeeming a creature be willing to pay for it? Let's just say it was a black dragon egg. Would it be evil to sell it? What if it was a wyrmling? Say it was a half-fiendish kobold toddler that tries to bite you every time it gets the chance? I've been there and done that already. The official position is the selling of one creature by another is an evil act. Owning a creature is a perpetually evil act regardless of the alignment of the creature being owned. I wanted to keep a bugbear I legally obtained via a mod where such a practice was legal. This is what I was told either set it free or prepare to have you alignment changed to evil. Now their is one more bugbear to be killed by adventures in the world. LOL
bitznarf 06-05-07, 02:20 PM	I've been there and done that already. The official position is the selling of one creature by another is an evil act. Owning a creature is a perpetually evil act regardless of the alignment of the creature being owned. I wanted to keep a bugbear I legally obtained via a mod where such a practice was legal. This is what I was told either set it free or prepare to have you alignment changed to evil. Now their is one more bugbear to be killed by adventures in the world. LOL Unless you were told this by the Circle or an otherwise binding sourcebook, then it is not binding upon all DMs in the campaign. Note that Pegasai can be bought in [Good] aligned regions by [Good] aligned PCs (such as Paladins) without it being an [Evil] act at many tables.