Post/Author/DateTime	Post
b5201 01-02-06, 01:25 PM	If a paladin captures a kobold can he use it as a slave for a good cause like charity or any other evil creature for that matter?
Temrek 01-02-06, 01:28 PM	I see nothing wrong with requiring the kobold to work off his crimes, but true slavery is a reciept for a fallen paladin.
DivineHammer 01-02-06, 01:30 PM	No. Slavery goes against a paladin's code of conduct. (or at least it should if your paladin is truly LG) If a paladin wishes the creature to be reformed it should be turned over to the church.
the burrfoot 01-02-06, 01:43 PM	If you stood there watching it and making sure it doesnt get uncomfortable in any way then it's ok. But dont kick it or anything he's only little. You should constantly ask it things like "dont you feel better after a good honest day of work?" and things like "are you hungry? or thirsty? here's a silver piece go to the nearest tavern and take a break" Be merciful and show the creature kindness. That is the path of true good :)
april151978 01-02-06, 01:44 PM	No, not a chance, unless you are talking about another version of the paladin that is not LG... The ends don't justify the means...
Bloodtide_the_Red 01-02-06, 01:45 PM	Slavery by it self is not evil. The same way you can't say that killing by itself is evil(because then your pally could never kill..ever). So you need to define slavery. If you put criminals in jail and force them to work off thier crime...is that slavery? How about someone who willing gives up there freedom('company x pays for your school and you have to work for them for five years' or 'bring me to America and all work for you for a year')? How about someone with 'no choice' but to work at a hard job? All of theas have been called slavery. A lawful society can easly take the good for the many stand. You have to give up some 'freedoms' and be a 'slave' for the greater good. Example:Everyone in town must help with the harvest or you must leave town. That's slavery, as your being forced to do what another wants you to do, even if it's for a 'greater good'. As for the kobold though. He is not quite a slave, per say. Maybe a little more like a servant or squire...but not a slave. Bt
Gopher 01-02-06, 01:45 PM	Yeah only kobolds are too powerful to be captured as slaves.
Lord Ian Stark 01-02-06, 01:59 PM	If a paladin captures a kobold can he use it as a slave for a good cause like charity or any other evil creature for that matter? Hmm first you start a thread about railroading, now a Paladin/slave question, what's next? What is evil? To stay on topic, It would be a very hard stretch to have a slave as a Paladin. And as far as the "any evil creature", no.
Adamant 01-02-06, 02:19 PM	I would think that, if hes using the kobold for a combat helper/religious aide, it would be okay. As long as hes trying to teach or improve the kobold's morality/utility, I would allow it. The second he whips it or hurts it though, thats a huge alignment violation.
b5201 01-02-06, 02:24 PM	I would think that, if hes using the kobold for a combat helper/religious aide, it would be okay. As long as hes trying to teach or improve the kobold's morality/utility, I would allow it. The second he whips it or hurts it though, thats a huge alignment violation. ummm... if its a combat helper that would be a cohort and in the phb it states 'a paladin may only accept a cohort of the l g alignment'.
b5201 01-02-06, 02:31 PM	Itposted above message 2 times ignore this.
Adamant 01-02-06, 02:42 PM	oohh, didn't know that. still, he should try and convert it or teach it to be LG. Thats what i would think a Paladin would try and do to such a wretch.
ChaotikLawful 01-02-06, 02:45 PM	I think it depends. If slavery is seen as acceptable and normal in your campaign world, then I'd allow it, along as he treats his slave reasonably and fairly. If slavery is taboo, however, he should at best make the kobold a reasonably treated servant who gets paid, even if his salary is a symbolic amount.
Fixxxer 01-02-06, 02:50 PM	If a paladin captures a kobold can he use it as a slave for a good cause like charity or any other evil creature for that matter? Where in the paladin's code does it even hint that it's alright to compromise one's faith by performing small evils for a greater good?
Fanatic-Templar 01-02-06, 02:53 PM	Call it what it really is - a hostage. Supposing the paladin is forcing the creature to work amends for his ways, it's acceptable. If the paladin is forcing the kobold to work to make his own life easier, then it's not. And if the paladin was walking through the roads and stumbled upon a sleeping kobold and declared "Your life is mine by virtue of the My-race-is-better-than-yours law." then the paladin should be whacked with a shovel. A Titan-sized shovel with said Titan wielding it. As for Bloodtide, none of your examples involve slavery. Communal service is not slavery, it's punishment. Your other examples simply involve making a deal where someone offers service for payment, and that payment is simply not money. Now, if you'd said "You will come with me, you will work for me, and I am not giving you any choice." that would be slavery. Your last example is simply of ordered society. Sacrifice of personal freedom for the betterment of society as a whole is not slavery, because in the end you benefit from it yourself.
kallisti23 01-02-06, 02:56 PM	I think it depends on what you define as evil in your campaign. In some campaigns, slavery is evil, and a paladin could never own a slave. In other campaigns, slavery is not inherently evil, and in such a campaign it is probably ok.
warderbrad 01-02-06, 03:01 PM	I agree with all that have said that slavery is not an evil or unlawful act. It would be dependant on the society and the treatment of the slave. To say otherwise would be to imply that all people of the south that had slaves were all evil or unlawful. This is not true, they simply were using the resources the society had in place. The most common genres to have slaves and not be unlawful or evil would be in an Arabian setting. Slaves were well treated and in fact mistreating of a slave was strongly discouraged.
Fanatic-Templar 01-02-06, 03:21 PM	To the above: One evil action or ignorance-based conduct does not make an evil person. It does, however, haunt Paladins until they atone ( and I'm not talking only about the spell. )
b5201 01-02-06, 03:38 PM	As for the forcing them to work and still pay them posts what if he gives it a choice, death or work for life
Talonz 01-02-06, 03:46 PM	Slavery by it self is not evil. Forced ownership of another sentient being for work or worse, without pay? Sounds evil to me. So you need to define slavery. If you put criminals in jail and force them to work off thier crime...is that slavery? How about someone who willing gives up there freedom('company x pays for your school and you have to work for them for five years' or 'bring me to America and all work for you for a year')? How about someone with 'no choice' but to work at a hard job? All of theas have been called slavery. No to all of the above. There is no ownership. Penance/justice, contractual obligations, or simple duty to provide for oneself, but not slavery. A lawful society can easly take the good for the many stand. You have to give up some 'freedoms' and be a 'slave' for the greater good. Example:Everyone in town must help with the harvest or you must leave town. That's slavery, as your being forced to do what another wants you to do, even if it's for a 'greater good'. Are you really this obtuse? I think a definition will be useful here; "The definition of slavery as a form of property and compulsive labor " Slavery:remarks and definitions (http://instruct.uwo.ca/anthro/211/slavery.htm)
Feriin 01-02-06, 03:57 PM	Where in the paladin's code does it even hint that it's alright to compromise one's faith by performing small evils for a greater good? Not sure where you are going with this. Slavery in of itself is not EVIL or UNLAWFUL. If you are drawwing that Slavery is evil from what happened in the US, then yes for the most part how the slaves were treated is concidered evil. Did you know that the American Indians used Slavery as well, the key difference here is that thier slaves could earn thier freedom back. Slavery for them lasted maybe 3 or 4 years. Did you also know that Tribes in Africa also used slavery in a simular manner as the American Indians? As I see it the Paladin could get a slave but he still has be restrictive on his actions with said slave.
Feriin 01-02-06, 04:01 PM	Forced ownership of another sentient being for work or worse, without pay? Sounds evil to me. No to all of the above. There is no ownership. Penance/justice, contractual obligations, or simple duty to provide for oneself, but not slavery. Are you really this obtuse? I think a definition will be useful here; "The definition of slavery as a form of property and compulsive labor " http://instruct.uwo.ca/anthro/211/slavery.htm (http://) Broken link for the win..
Rhomphaia 01-02-06, 04:10 PM	From the common perception of slavery, no, I would not allow a paladin to keep a slave for any purpose. However, there have been many instances in games I have played where a kobold or goblin or similar creature had been captured or enthralled or spared by a member of the party and had stuck around with the party. As long as the creature was treated well as a willing servant, I see no problem for a good or even an exalted character to have such a servant creature, especially when the intention of redemption. In short, slavery no, well-treated servant yes.
Jherid 01-02-06, 04:27 PM	I know that in FR a paladin from Mulhorand can own and use slaves as it is a strong part of their culture and it is a tradition the god's avatars began. However the required treatment of them is very good (can't remember where it is listed so I can't point out any specifics).
Arrowhen 01-02-06, 04:30 PM	To stay on topic, It would be a very hard stretch to have a slave as a Paladin. Not if the paladin is a member of a slave-owning culture. Rembember that a paladin must be both good and lawful. If the paladin lives in a society where law or tradition dictates that captured opponents become the property of their captor, then the paladin would be commiting a chaotic act by not taking the kobold as a slave. As far as good goes... "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. The paladin has demonstrated his respect for life by capturing the kobold instead of killing it. "Civilizing" a kobold slave will require time and effort, but the paladin will selflessly devote that time and effort in order to turn the kobold into a productive member of society. It's "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" that causes the most problems for our modern sensibilities, but we have to remember that "dignity" is largely a social construct. Modern western culture values individual liberty very strongly, so it's natural that to us the idea of being owned seems abhorrent and intolerable. But other cultures have felt differently; household slaves in ancient Greece were accorded far more dignity and respect than were "free" peasants in feudal Europe. Probably more than "free" 21st century fast-food workers, for that matter. And as far as the "any evil creature", no. It depends on how evil the "evil creature" is. Obviously a paladin isn't going to have a pit fiend polishing his armor or a mohrg fetching his boots, but who's to say an individual kobold (whose race is described as only "usually" lawful evil), patiently and respectfully instructed, couldn't see the light? The paladin would, of course, be responsible for any evil acts committed by his slave, which could conceivably lead to some far more interesting paladin moral dilemmas than the sorts of baby burning silliness that so frequently pops up on these boards.
Harold DeVor 01-02-06, 04:42 PM	"A slave is simply a tool, to say it is anything more or less is ascribing it attritubes the gods have not proscribed." Bonus points for the source.
Rolof 01-02-06, 05:50 PM	It depends on your take on slavery. While we can all agree that slavery in our modern era is not moral, in past cultures this was not always the case. In ancient Greece, and later in Rome as well, slaves had rights, and laws that protected them. There were even some cases where slaves in those times reached high positions of power. Not that there were not some horrible conditions as well, such as gladiators as slaves. In American history, slavery takes on a more sinister note, this is probably the context most people think of when they say a paladin couldn't possibly own a slave. Even so, there is room for debate on whether slave OWNERS are just as despicable as modern people find SLAVERY ITSELF. There were certainly people of that time who considered themself good, law-abiding, god-fearing people who owned slaves. Without getting into detail for fear of a flamewar, there are even passages in the bible related to treatment of slaves. To make a long story short and answer the OP's question, I think it could go either way, but is possible. The paladin in question could own a slave, but his treatment of that slave would have to be extremely ethical, and probably along the lines of an indentured servant more than an actual slave-so the slave would be free after a number of years, usually 7. A lot depends on the roleplaying and maturity of players as well...nuff said.
Nom 01-02-06, 05:54 PM	"A slave is simply a tool, to say it is anything more or less is ascribing it attritubes the gods have not proscribed." Bonus points for the source.I don't know the source, but the quote is nonsensical. "ascribing it attributes the gods have not forbidden"? Do you perhaps mean "prescribed" or "ascribed" rather than "proscribed"?
b5201 01-02-06, 05:57 PM	Well my players are 11 and once spent the entire first session attacking eachother so not so much on maturity.
Lord Ian Stark 01-02-06, 06:13 PM	Not if the paladin is a member of a slave-owning culture. Rembember that a paladin must be both good and lawful. If the paladin lives in a society where law or tradition dictates that captured opponents become the property of their captor, then the paladin would be commiting a chaotic act by not taking the kobold as a slave. Hmm. Just because I grew up in a time where doing something wrong was the norm, doesn't mean I should just follow suit when I get older. But it all depends on how you play it out in the gameworld. We can go tick for tack on assumptions but unless we were gaming there, it's all just opinion. The paladin has demonstrated his respect for life by capturing the kobold instead of killing it. "Civilizing" a kobold slave will require time and effort, but the paladin will selflessly devote that time and effort in order to turn the kobold into a productive member of society. It depends on how evil the "evil creature" is. Obviously a paladin isn't going to have a pit fiend polishing his armor or a mohrg fetching his boots, but who's to say an individual kobold (whose race is described as only "usually" lawful evil), patiently and respectfully instructed, couldn't see the light? The paladin would, of course, be responsible for any evil acts committed by his slave, which could conceivably lead to some far more interesting paladin moral dilemmas than the sorts of baby burning silliness that so frequently pops up on these boards. Depends on the Paladin IMO. I personally play Paladins more as the combat side of the faith. So I wouldn't have a band of evil creatures following me that I'm attempting to "make them see the light." To me, if the creature is evil I won't associate with them like my code states.
Loki_God'o'Chaos 01-02-06, 06:21 PM	Ok, here is the deal, it really is based upon the campaign world. There was a similar thread to this like 3 months ago, and I had Arrata look it up for me. So, this is totally true. If the game worlds society views it as "good" to own a certian race as a slave, then it is perfectly fine for a Paladin to own a slave. A Paladin really is the Quisential Knight, and thus, his Code of Conduct is the same almost to the letter. And, If you take a look at that, then you find your answer. Slave owning is perfectly fine and dandy for a paladin, if it is Legal and not Evil accourding to the culture in which he lives. However, he would most likely own a "redeeming" evil creature, and the reason of its slavery would be he is working for the paladin to pay his do to the greater good As an Example, In the late16th to early 17th century, slaves were activly captured from Africa and even from the nations of the captors, and put to work on sugar plantations and the like in Cuba and South America, and they were told that they were working off their debt to the King.
BW0222 01-02-06, 06:22 PM	b5201, >Can a paladin get a slave for a good cause ? Sure. First, in a lot of D&D societies and campaigns various forms of slavery are permitted. Apprenticeship, commoners renting land, indentured servants, prisoners serving sentances, debtor's prisons, honor debts, compulsery military service to a lord/king, etc. Then you have settings which allows outright slavery -- Romans, barbarian tribes, etc. A lawful person isn't going to break such laws. If someone in authority puts the kobold on trial and sentances them to 5 years of serving soup and the missionary or 10 years serving the paladin, fine. Personally, most lawful good folks are likely to think that the murdering kobold got off easy. Second, there is always the question of the greater good. In most cases, you put an evil kobold on trial in the village square and he'd be killed. Assuming such laws even apply to obviously evil non-humaniods? I'm sure the penalty for stealing the kings goats, ambushing merchants, and murdering folks is likely death in most societies. If the paladin sees some reason to spare the creature and is offered with the alternative of keeping this guy alive -- slavery is better than an executioners axe. Third, I'm not sure why any good person would want to risk having such a creature around. Would you risk having a mass murderer walking around with you? Would you want to be responsible for someone like this? I think that the paladin would need to see some signs that the kobold is worth saving.
Arrowhen 01-02-06, 06:37 PM	Hmm. Just because I grew up in a time where doing something wrong was the norm, doesn't mean I should just follow suit when I get older. This is precisely why I don't use alignments. To a paladin in a slave-based culture, slavery is not wrong, as long as the slaves are well-treated. To a paladin in a non slave-based culture, it is wrong. If these two cultures are close in proximity, and slavery leads to conflict between them (for example, a bunch of slaves revolt and seek asylum in a "free" country; the "slave" country views this as the "free" country stealing its resources and demands them back), you could have a situation arise where two armies clash, with paladins on either side. This, to me, is a good thing. More conflict = more adventures. Depends on the Paladin IMO. I personally play Paladins more as the combat side of the faith. So I wouldn't have a band of evil creatures following me that I'm attempting to "make them see the light." To me, if the creature is evil I won't associate with them like my code states. This is a perfectly acceptable way to play a paladin. However, a paladin like that probably wouldn't be taking a lot of prisoners in the first place, so the problem of whether or not to enslave prisoners wouldn't come up all that often.
Andrew_980 01-02-06, 06:43 PM	First define evil, slavery and the paladins code. Would a FR paladin of horus own a slave? you betcha. They have a system built into their religion to treat slaves well and if i remember right slavery was earned, not enslaving children for profit. Most paladins in most worlds? probably not, despite being lawful they are too concerned with the good of others to tolerate "conventional" slavery. Can a LG (including paladin) use forced labor as a punishment? Is that not slavery? well that is up to the people to decide, though I find forced labor a fine punishment.Not if the paladin is a member of a slave-owning culture. Rembember that a paladin must be both good and lawful. If the paladin lives in a society where law or tradition dictates that captured opponents become the property of their captor, then the paladin would be commiting a chaotic act by not taking the kobold as a slave. Your society does not dictate Lawfull/Chaotic. An orderly and honor obcessed elf is Lawfull even though that is against his CG culture. It would not be choatic for the paladin to refuse to own his enemies, but if he started fighting for thier freedom he might become CG, as chaotics are described as being freedom loving. No L character is forced to conform to the laws, they have a tendency to respect authority but nothing more.
allenchan 01-02-06, 06:47 PM	Here's the full thread on the paladin slave debate: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=501993 In the end, yes, it depends on campaign setting, status quo, and cultural history.
Palin the Wizard 01-02-06, 07:07 PM	Not if the paladin is a member of a slave-owning culture. Rembember that a paladin must be both good and lawful. If the paladin lives in a society where law or tradition dictates that captured opponents become the property of their captor, then the paladin would be commiting a chaotic act by not taking the kobold as a slave. Alignment is not defined by culture. Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are forces, and they do not change merely because you believe that what you are doing is one of these. This is precisely why I don't use alignments. To a paladin in a slave-based culture, slavery is not wrong, as long as the slaves are well-treated. To a paladin in a non slave-based culture, it is wrong. If these two cultures are close in proximity, and slavery leads to conflict between them (for example, a bunch of slaves revolt and seek asylum in a "free" country; the "slave" country views this as the "free" country stealing its resources and demands them back), you could have a situation arise where two armies clash, with paladins on either side. That's a logical fallacy. A paladin is of a specific alignment, and thus not affected by culture in this regard. If the paladin's culture accepts slavery, the paladin must object to this culture, otherwise it is not a paladin. Cultural changes exist, but only on matters that are acceptable under a LG alignment.
metamind 01-02-06, 07:15 PM	If a paladin captures a kobold can he use it as a slave for a good cause like charity or any other evil creature for that matter? no, hed most likely kill it. Although, I (L 33 LG cleric of Hironeus) would make him a laborer, and pay him by redeming himself in the eyes of god, or something like that.
allenchan 01-02-06, 07:18 PM	Alignment is not defined by culture. Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are forces, and they do not change merely because you believe that what you are doing is one of these. As already mentioned, there are LG dieties that have slaves and endorse slavery. Hence, why it depends on the campaign setting.
Arrowhen 01-02-06, 07:37 PM	Alignment is not defined by culture. Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are forces, and they do not change merely because you believe that what you are doing is one of these. You know, people make this argument a lot, but while many campaigns do handle them as forces, I don't see anything in the core alignment descriptions that says alignments are anything more than "personality types", "personal philosophies", or "attitudes[s] that one recognizes but does not choose." That's a logical fallacy. A paladin is of a specific alignment, and thus not affected by culture in this regard. If they're not affected by their culture, where does the "authority" they respect and the "tradition" they honor come from? Cultural changes exist, but only on matters that are acceptable under a LG alignment. And, assuming the slaves are well-treated, what specific language in the LG alignment description precludes the owning of slaves?
jagraham 01-02-06, 08:47 PM	No, a Paladin can't take slaves for any reason. The idea of having the fantasy paladins in ancient-style cultures is crossing genres is a bit much too, so I don't accept that either. Even if a paladin could take a kobald as a slave, they would be: 1- Bringing shame upon their religion through cruelty or just bad taste having a foul critter in their company that would cause fear to normal people on the street. 2- Wasting time that should be spent fighting evil, trying to train a unredeemable creature. Since you and your players are young, and haven't even studied slavery in school yet, you should keep it simple, and keep slavery as being purely evil (which it is anyhow). This way the players know it and fight it when they see it.
Lina_Inverse 01-02-06, 09:20 PM	Paladins are lawful good. Good creatures respect life and living things dignity. Nothing in here wrong with slavery if there well treated. Law...believes in organization and structure. its pinnacle eliminates the concept of freewill. Hmmmm whats this? Freewill is against the concept of order? So net result, if a paladin has every right keep "slaves" no matter what terms he uses. Forceing miscreants to become happy productive members of society is vastly better than killing them afterall. They shall surely thank him once they reform down the proper path(LG alingment)
Shini Neko Ni 01-02-06, 09:30 PM	Snip...That's a logical fallacy. A paladin is of a specific alignment, and thus not affected by culture in this regard. If the paladin's culture accepts slavery, the paladin must object to this culture, otherwise it is not a paladin. Cultural changes exist, but only on matters that are acceptable under a LG alignment. In the Forgotten Realms setting in the Kingdom of Mulhorand, slaves are owned by church, the L-G god Horus-Re who is the head of the Mulhorandi Pantheon has the largest number of slaves within his church. A large number of Paladins are part of the church of Horus-Re (or at least pray to Horus-Re), by what you said every paladin within the church and really any paladin that lives in Mulhorand is an ex-paladin? There is no recording of the Paladins of Mulhorand rising up against the kingdom, and yet if what you said was the case they would have too.
Fanatic-Templar 01-02-06, 09:52 PM	And if the paladin's society believes in cutting open pregnant women to eat unborn children, must the Paladin do so as well? Taking a less ridiculous example, many societies sacrificed men and women to the gods for various boons. Would a good Paladin be therefore compelled to find a virgin in every village and bleed her to bless the town?
revnk 01-02-06, 10:25 PM	You know, people make this argument a lot, but while many campaigns do handle them as forces, I don't see anything in the core alignment descriptions that says alignments are anything more than "personality types", "personal philosophies", or "attitudes[s] that one recognizes but does not choose." "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." -Players Handbook v3.5, p. 103 This has been the rule from AD&D on to the present. While I certainly have no problem with players and DMs house-ruling alignments out of existence or house-ruling them into something suiting their opinions and biases, I'd at least wish they recognized that they were using house rules. This is why alignment is something that is detectable, and why a spell like Protection From Evil can work in the D&D universe. A vampire can't bypass a Protection From Evil spell merely by informing the caster, "Well, that's just your opinion--as far as I'm concerned, I'm merely a necessary predator fulfilling a specialized environmental niche by preying on hominids and 'thining the herd' as it were; since I could be characterized as Lawful Neutral by that description--WA-BAM! Sucker!" I understand where all the players advocating moral relativism are coming from, although I respectfully think they're wrong. For one thing, the relativism cuts several ways. Consider: Not if the paladin is a member of a slave-owning culture. Rembember that a paladin must be both good and lawful. If the paladin lives in a society where law or tradition dictates that captured opponents become the property of their captor, then the paladin would be commiting a chaotic act by not taking the kobold as a slave. According to this rationale, one could argue that Quaker abolitionists in early 19th-century America--who passionately felt that God's laws against violence against humans trumped the civil laws of their states and nation as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution--were Chaotic in alignment; a conclusion that seems absurd if you know anything about devout Quakers. In other words, as Palin aptly pointed out, a very good case can be made that a Paladin in a slave-owning culture ought to be an active abolitionist trying to eliminate the institution. Consider this: if we were to contemplate a culture in which the ritual sacrifice of infants was a cultural norm, surely most would agree that moral relativism was irrelevant and that a paladin could not go around ritually murdering babies because that was a norm he grew up under. This is the problem with a strict moral relativist approach: you can rationalize any behavior, from extermination of the infirm to the abuse and murder of widows to the sacrifices of thousands of prisoners of war simply by saying, "This is their way, who am I to question it." Could one define slavery in a way that makes it inoffensive? Certainly. But doing so sets one on a slippery slope where the D&D game concept of alignment is irrelevant. Why not just say that and remove the alignment restriction from paladins as a house rule? Or allow an Aztec paladin to give his prisoner up for ritual slaughter? Or worse? For whatever that little rant was worth... I think my participation was probably useless and counterproductive, but there it is.
Lord Ian Stark 01-02-06, 10:33 PM	This is why alignment is something that is detectable, and why a spell like Protection From Evil can work in the D&D universe. A vampire can't bypass a Protection From Evil spell merely by informing the caster, "Well, that's just your opinion--as far as I'm concerned, I'm merely a necessary predator fulfilling a specialized environmental niche by preying on hominids and 'thining the herd' as it were; since I could be characterized as Lawful Neutral by that description--WA-BAM! Sucker!" LOL :clap: Well said. Heh, my sig used to be different but basically it was saying that if you detect as evil you have already been judged by me. I care not that mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention to you so you went evil or whathaveyou. Evil is Evil. Therefore you have been found wanting and will be neutralized as it is my duty. (FYI my use of neutralized doesn't always mean kill)
Pandaemoni 01-02-06, 10:42 PM	I agree with the people who say "it depends". The Bible itself does not condemn slavery, even chattel slavery. It does say that you must treat your slaves well, but it also exhorts "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." Ephesians 6:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:5-7;&version=31;) also Colossians 3:22. In the ancient world, slavery was not considered the moral issue that it is today. Usually the ancients considered that anyone in bondage was put there because it was God's will...though this was the same ancient world that invented "trial by fire" and "trial by combat" as a means of determining guilt or innocence of a crime. In short, the question is: how would the paladin's god view slavery? If it is devine punishment, then it is moral (or the paladin is following the wrong god). Almost certainly the paladin would also be held to the view: "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."Ephesians 6:9-10 One also has to consider group dynamics, of course. Slavery is morally repugnant to us, and if any player is made to feel uncomfortable with the ruling that slavery can be "moral", then they are not at all wrong to feel that way (especially if, say, one of your players were an Afican American and hence likely to have ancestors who were held as slaves). While importing our moral sensibilities back to a medieval setting is anachronistic, so are a great many other things in D&D. So look to your group and your world design to answer this question based on those factors.
braindead345 01-02-06, 10:47 PM	Terms and conditions of slavery may well apply. If the slave was convicted of a crime and sold into slavery as means of punishment or to make amends those the now-enslaved harmed; then yes. If the slave enters the agrement willingly in return for the payment of debts or for a service provided by the owner (think of indentured service) and a set period of time is agreed upon; then yes. If the slave was captured in battle by the paladin; then it is questionable. It depends upon the wilingnes of the enslaved and if a time period of service is stated before fredom is granted. Freedom of the enslave must be granted. If the slave was captured by surprise or sneak attack, or is otherwise an unwilling slave (unless under a condition stated above); then I would say that the paladin could not obtain the slave.
Nom 01-02-06, 11:31 PM	"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." -Players Handbook v3.5, p. 103That Good and Evil are absolute doesn't necessarily imply that your view of Good and Evil are the same ones that apply in game. Good and Evil are absolute. I believe slavery is repugnant. Therefore ... ? One is absolute. The other is your opinion. Which means that there is no logical connection between the two. Your opinion may be right. Your opinion may be wrong. Your opinion may even be purple. But it remains opinion, and thus has no impact on a discussion of absolutes.
mcmurphy510 01-03-06, 01:41 AM	Ultimately, It depends on the culture that the paladin is from and his church. Have to agree with Feriin and Bloodtide here. Slavery by itself is not necessarilly evil or unlawful. When a slave is mistreated or harmed it becomes evil. And when a cluture declares it unlawful, it becomes so. Slaves are also not unpaid. They get paid in the form of 3 square meals and a roof over their heads (at least if they are being treated ok). The real issue here is not weather slavery is evil, but weather denying someone their freedom, PERIOD, is evil. In Mulhorand, refrenced above, slavery is indeed legal. However, only the church of Osirus is premitted to own slaves. They are leased thru the church to private individuals and other churches. If those seeking slaves have any history of mistreating slaves, they are denied to right to use them. Slaves in Mulhorand must be treated very well. IIRC, slaves there do not go into battle or do dangerous work. Only paid (and trained) soldiers or laborers do that sort of thing. Slaves there are also encouraged to gain an education, and if they learn enough they can petition to for freedom (and citizenship in Mulhorand). The city of Gheldanar, in the south of Mulhorand has a long tradation of training slaves and making them into free citizens and prides themselves on the number of slaves that have gaind their freedom there. Most Mulhorandi's look down upon the way that other cultures treat their slaves (and do not even call it slavery - it is simple brutality in their minds). Most of this can be found in the old 1st edition FR book "Old Empires"
Dex 01-03-06, 02:23 AM	IMO what you're saying doesn't sound like 'slavery', more a type of punishment for wrongdoing. Paladins don't oppose punishment as atonement for wrongdoing, but anything beyond the punishment would be cruelty and therefore evil. Eg: The paladin captures a kobold. Takes it back to her church. The church makes a judgement on the kobolds wrongdoings (if any), and decides that if it serves the paladin for X period of time, it can go free. Exactly the same as a prison sentence or similar. If the paladin abused it beyond the mandate of the punishment, that would be evil. If the Kobold actually redeemed itself and willingly followed the paladin, that's a different story. If the paladin has to clamp it in irons and drag it around by the neck to keep it from running away, that's part of enforcing her church's ruling. $0.02
Fanatic-Templar 01-03-06, 02:41 AM	Since Paladins are supposed to work for the betterment of humanity ( or whatever races, faction or ideal they serve ) conformism to archaic concepts is no excuse. Treatment of slaves is irrelevant - shackles of gold are still shackles. Now, if the slave in question has been judged and sentenced to that state, the situation is not the same. The person is then repaying a debt, with the only means he has of doing so. Though I still feel he should be given the possibility of freedom - whether that freedom is a foreordained amount of time, or in case of a life sentence, death. I don't know enough about the Forgotten Realms to say anything on the subject, though I am confused as to who those slaves are? Prisoners of war? Strangers? Convicts? The quotes from the Bible mean even less - mainly because it's most recent chapters were written well over a milennia ago. Society has progressed since then. The crucial part of this argument is the exact status of slaves. Slavery is the possession of another human ( or in D&D, intelligent race ). Such a thing is of course evil. Now certain examples given to date state the possibility of obtaining freedom. The problem with this is that in many cases, the choice is left to the owner, as it was in ancient Rome. This means that through no means of his own can a slave ever gain freedom, and it is unnaceptable that it be the owner ( who, obviously has most to gain by keeping the slave ) who decides it's fate. This means that the slaves of good people are most likely to escape their fate, rather than good slaves. Finally, there is of course the question of what begets slavery. If it is punishment for a crime, then the possibility can be looked upon. If a victorious army simply takes any survivors for their own ( as was most commonly the acse in slavery ) then it is not. And of course, enslaving based on species, as the example "of another evil race" suggests, then it is of course unacceptable. So supposing that the slavery is in acceptable terms - that it is repayment for action taken, and an independant party judges when the debt has been repaid - why would an adventurer be given the slave? This would be most likely a second choice if unable to give the death sentence. It also offers too many chances of escape, as well as the impossibility for the aforementioned independent party to judge the slave's reform.
Derren S. 01-03-06, 03:15 AM	Yes, a paladin can get a slave and keep his status as long as he doesn't treat his slave in an evil way. Personal freedom is a chaotic concept and thus the paladin has no trouble with that.
Arrowhen 01-03-06, 03:18 AM	"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." -Players Handbook v3.5, p. 103 This has been the rule from AD&D on to the present. While I certainly have no problem with players and DMs house-ruling alignments out of existence or house-ruling them into something suiting their opinions and biases, I'd at least wish they recognized that they were using house rules. Ah, thanks for that. I figured it was in there somewhere. The problem is, on the rare occasions I allow myself to get drawn into an alignment discussion, I'm almost always at work and only have access to the SRD. Still it seems odd that alignments are described as both "not philosophical concepts" and "personal philosophies" at the same time. And as far as AD&D goes: The character's alignment is a guide to is basic moral and ethical attitudes toward othrs, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. That hardly sounds like "forces that define the cosmos" to me. This is why alignment is something that is detectable And the fact that it's so easily detectable is part of what's wrong with alignment in 3rd ed. At least in AD&D, you had to be pretty darn evil before a detect evil spell would notice you. Back then, I only had to minimize the effects of alignment through house-rules. In the current edition I have to house-rule them into oblivion. In other words, as Palin aptly pointed out, a very good case can be made that a Paladin in a slave-owning culture ought to be an active abolitionist trying to eliminate the institution. Yes, and when you toss out alignments you're free to have a genuine philosophical conflict between one paladin who believes that his slave-owning culture is wrong and another paladin who believes that the abolitionist paladin represents a dangerous threat to the established social order. With the current alignment system, all you have to do is wait and see who loses his powers and you know the other one is right. Consider this: if we were to contemplate a culture in which the ritual sacrifice of infants was a cultural norm, surely most would agree that moral relativism was irrelevant and that a paladin could not go around ritually murdering babies because that was a norm he grew up under. In the real world, of course, and to our modern sensibilities, such behavior is obviously abhorrent. But in a world where the babies must be sacrificed to prevent evil deities from destroying the world, those sacrifices would be the very epitome of lawful good. Such a world could lead to an interesting campaign scenario where a paladin PC discovers the possibility of a way to put an end to the sacrifices and ensure that the gods no longer threaten the world, placing him in conflict with his own order, which believes that the fate of the world depends on the continuation of the sacrifices. Why not just say that and remove the alignment restriction from paladins as a house rule? Well, if you remove alignments, like I have, you also remove the alignment restriction. ;) Paladins in my game (in theory; everyone in my group has had to deal with so many "what, I can't wreck your game by playing a kender? Ok, I'll wreck it by playing a paladin!" players in the past that you couldn't pay any of them to play a paladin) are still bound by their code and their conscience, though. Or allow an Aztec paladin to give his prisoner up for ritual slaughter? So long as the sacrifice was conducted with dignity and respect, sure. But if one of Charlemagne's paladins tried it, he's lose his paladinhood in a jiffy.
Pandaemoni 01-03-06, 03:47 AM	IMO what you're saying doesn't sound like 'slavery', more a type of punishment for wrongdoing. Paladins don't oppose punishment as atonement for wrongdoing, but anything beyond the punishment would be cruelty and therefore evil. That gets to the different kinds of slavery. Many cultures took prisoners of war or criminals as slaves...some made their children slaves as well, while others determined that the children were free. Judaism (and Roman culture) typically took the former view. The children of those who were true slaves (as opposed to hired servants or indentured servants) were bound by law to also be slaves until some master granted them their freedom (at which point they and all their progeny born thereafter would be free--progeny born before emancipation were still enslaved). In both cases the misdeed that caused their slavery was considered to work a corruption of blood that passed down their line. Again, the punishment was considered to be the will of God/the gods. There were also exceptions...Jews could not enslave other Jews, for example, because God forbade that (while expressly allowing Jews to take slaves from other peoples around them). In Roman society, the restrictions were fewer, as even Roman citizens could be sold into slavery for certain crimes. Further, a father (technically a "pater familias") could sell his sons and daughters into slavery for any reason or no reason at all (or simply kill them) because the pater familias's authority over his family members was considered to be absolute (until about the 2nd century AD, when this tradition waned). Selling your child for disobedience was considered "moral" by their standards as it protected the family hierarchy, and the family was their basic unit of societal organization. Slavery as "punishment" for a crime seems more easily defensible (as it kind of akin to "life in prison at hard labor, but in a prison without walls"). But Roman and Judeo-Christian morality condoned the enslavement of infants, and the treating of mothers, fathers and offspring in a manner no different than we treat horses or dogs (as in, if you want to sell the father and the children, each to a different owner, hey, go right ahead). Later on, in European culture there was also the notion that the enslavement of "savage" races was moral, both because (i) the Bible condoned it and because (ii) only through the stewardship of benevolent Europeans could the savages live of meaning. If the typical European life in a state of nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (to borrow from Hobbes), then how much worse would it be for the savage kobold, or the wretched Halfling. The Halfling was living in a hole in the ground and worshiping Olidammara before his master "rescued" him; for Heironeous's sake, you'd think he'd show more gratitude! Today we have a sense of moral, intellectual and physical equality that was unknown to medieval Europeans. A paladin certainly might feel he has a moral clarity that some neutral (let alone evil) creature might never possess. If that paladin ca get such a being to abandon its moral principles and its non-lawful-good deity, in favor of the paladin's (whether by persuasion or by forced enslavement) that could well be for the greater good of such a wretch. Sometimes you have to beat the fear of God into the unbelievers, and if you save a soul in the process, that might be a good thing. Or not. It all depends on how your culture looks at free will, slavery, human rights, equality and the value of spreading the word of your faith.
DrWorm 01-03-06, 04:50 AM	I find it interesting that all the arguments that advocate slavery as non-evil are all from the point of view of the slave owner. Put yourself in the place of the slave. Is there any instance when you would feel that another person literally owning you was not evil? I think not. All the dictates about slavery being okay if you treat the slave kindly are simply to ease the concious of the owner. Being owned by another is evil.
Gedrin 01-03-06, 05:29 AM	If it is acceptable (ie non-evil) for a person to deprive another of their free will and take ownership of another's life in whole, then sure...you can have slaveholding paladins. However, if it is not acceptable for a person (it is evil) to deprive another sentient of their free will without just cause and to own the life of another in whole, then no...slaveholding wouldn't be acceptable. Basically, if you think slavery is evil in your game world (novel concept), then no slaveholding paladins. Of course, if it's not evil, I suppose paladins paladins could own all sorts of slaves. :thinks:
NinjaE 01-03-06, 07:22 AM	Personally, I'd say yes, a paladin can hold a slave under certain conditions; A: The paladin treats the slave properly (feeds it at least two times a day, lets it rest when it's too sick or tired to work, doesn't force it to work from 8 morning to 12 twelve evening, tries to teach it properly, and so on and so forth). B: The slave has comitted some crime that would result in prison time or forced labour. C: The slave can regain freedom through his own actions (say, by working for the pally for a year and a day or by scrounging up enough money to buy itself back from the paladin).
Nani? 01-03-06, 08:06 AM	Even if a paladin could take a kobald as a slave, they would be: 1- Bringing shame upon their religion through cruelty or just bad taste having a foul critter in their company that would cause fear to normal people on the street. Actually, the shame would be on the religion, not on the paladin, who is standing up for the potential dignity of his fellow sentient and doing in a way that: A) Sends message to society that could probably use some reforming. B) Does not disrupt the society. C) Caring only about the "normal, respectable people" is a defineing difference between Lawful Good and lawful neutral/lawful evil. The rules, bluntly, to LG person are there in part, to protect the poor and powerless and if slavery can be used to do that, it's O.K., though not ideal. 2- Wasting time that should be spent fighting evil, trying to train a unredeemable creature. The Paladin is fighting evil, giving the unredeemable creature a shot at redemption and opening the eyes of those in his society who might have contributed to the creatures "savagry" through thier own cruelty and hatred and spreading compassion, and perhaps creating a place in society for a creature who has no place. I guess my personal CG bias is showing in the sense that I find the discussion of "civilizing" a kobold reminds me too much of the attempts to "civilise" indians, blacks or anyone not part of the mainstream, leaving a bad taste in my mouth. All the Best, Nani?
DaveReaves 01-03-06, 09:00 AM	The only judge of alignment we have is what we view as good and evil by today's norms. If we played D&D 150 years ago slaves would have probably been viewed as a fine and dandy tool for a paladin. As it stands, we live in 2006 where we know better. If we try to pick and choose what era we take our views from I bet we could justify, literally, anything.
High Octane 01-03-06, 09:22 AM	The problem with the term slavery is it is too broad a term. There are different versions of slavery in any culture. Slavery, in general, is a way of restricting freedoms and forcing labor without pay. In general, such a thing is evil. I should mention that willing slavery is not slavery at all. FORCED servitude is true slavery. Also, someone who has been paid and is working off that pay is not a slave, it is an indentured servant. A person who is working for shelter and food is not a slave by default. He is only a slave if he is placed unwillingly in such a situation where he is forced to do what a person says, is not free to not do it under pain of death or torture. Under pain of "not getting paid" is not slavery. Also, most slavery forms involved having legal power over life or death of the person in question. This doesnt have to be necessary, but tends to be. Also they tend to be treated as tradeable commodities instead of people. Assuming the best, you still are pressing the concept into a very evil looking area. Slavery is never a good action, and a paladin would never have a slave under normal circumstances. Circumstances CAN be convoluted enough to allow it, but those should be handled only in the extenuating circumstances that force it.
Feriin 01-03-06, 09:26 AM	The only judge of alignment we have is what we view as good and evil by today's norms. If we played D&D 150 years ago slaves would have probably been viewed as a fine and dandy tool for a paladin. As it stands, we live in 2006 where we know better. If we try to pick and choose what era we take our views from I bet we could justify, literally, anything. The last part of your arguement here is flawwed. People (as a whole) know when something is wrong. You take ANY point in history and take and example and you will find that the people find it wrong,immoral,evil even. Great example would be WWII most Nazi's had trouble with the orders they were given, the only reason they followed them was due to thier training/brainwashing they had.
High Octane 01-03-06, 09:45 AM	The last part of your arguement here is flawwed. People (as a whole) know when something is wrong. Not all of them. Heck you're lucky if more than half do. Fact is, most people have to be kicked in the teeth with an utter extreme to realize an evil. It took the US's version of whipped slavery to realize how bad slavery can be. It took the Holocaust to realize how bad racial hatred can be. It takes something that extreme to make it obvious enough to exact real change.
wrecan 01-03-06, 09:51 AM	People should not confuse their personal morality with the morality set forth in the rules. Goodness requires the protection of innocent life and good people must be willing to sacrifice themselves for others. Slavery is not necessarily non-good. If one enslaves those who are not innocent, for example, the good alignment is not implicated. If the system of slavery protects "innocent" slaves from harm and preserves their dignity, it is not non-good. Such a system of slavery is the indentured servitude available to Europeans in the 18th century. A bondsman sacrifices his freedom for many years, during which time he is to be sheltered, fed and taught a trade. At the end of this period, he is free and given a small stipend. It is a form of slavery. It is not evil, according to the rules. To the OP's specific request, the kobold in question is not an "innocent." As long as the paladin's specific code did not prohibit slavery, the paladin is not forbidden due to alignment from enslaving the kobold as long as he is treated humanely.
Feriin 01-03-06, 09:51 AM	Not all of them. Heck you're lucky if more than half do. Fact is, most people have to be kicked in the teeth with an utter extreme to realize an evil. It took the US's version of whipped slavery to realize how bad slavery can be. It took the Holocaust to realize how bad racial hatred can be. It takes something that extreme to make it obvious enough to exact real change. There is a difference between realizing something is wrong ( I.E. the Nazi's in my example) and acting on something that is known to be wrong ( I.E. the end of slavery in the US, the Wars to end the Nazi's controll over europe). You can't base the end of an event on when people realize that something is wrong.
DaveReaves 01-03-06, 10:10 AM	The last part of your arguement here is flawwed. People (as a whole) know when something is wrong. You take ANY point in history and take and example and you will find that the people find it wrong,immoral,evil even. This is my point exactly (only pointed at evil instead of good). Some culture, somewhere has called every action from sacrifice to rape to worse as a norm in the society- Then society changes and we abolosh those things knowing full well they are evil. Great example would be WWII most Nazi's had trouble with the orders they were given, the only reason they followed them was due to thier training/brainwashing they had.So we are in agreement that the society we live in is not a factor for what is good or evil. All in all I fail to see where you have a disagreement with what I have said. You can't base the end of an event on when people realize that something is wrong.But it ended at some point and thats whats important here. For all the fluff we add as far as good and evil being forces in the universe and being defined by the gods the rules were writen by a REAL person. A person who had to sit down and say "OK, what is 'good'". That person used a modern mindset. He was influenced by all the 'evil' that happened in the past and used it to form what the game calls good and evil.
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 10:19 AM	Fanatic-Templar: And if the paladin's society believes in cutting open pregnant women to eat unborn children, must the Paladin do so as well? No, but then again, killing people for profit, pleasure, convenience, or devotion to a specific cause is expressly stated as evil. Slavery is not. I don't know enough about the Forgotten Realms to say anything on the subject, though I am confused as to who those slaves are? Prisoners of war? Strangers? Convicts? Slaves form a large majority of the population in Mulhorand (probably because it was such a cushy job). Convicted criminals often became slaves. Captured foes also often became slaves. The people of Mulhorand view slave-taking from other societies as favorable for the taken individual, so they think that releasing the slave into his home culture would actually be more cruel. The crucial part of this argument is the exact status of slaves. Slavery is the possession of another human (or in D&D, intelligent race). Such a thing is of course evil. Now certain examples given to date state the possibility of obtaining freedom. Why exactly is possessing another human evil? Because you can perform all manner of cruelties to the slave? Whatever gave you that idea? Chattel slavery is not the most common form of slavery in history. Most forms of slavery were what Europeans called "open." mcmurphy510: In Mulhorand, refrenced above, slavery is indeed legal. However, only the church of Osirus is premitted to own slaves. They are leased thru the church to private individuals and other churches. If those seeking slaves have any history of mistreating slaves, they are denied to right to use them. Slaves in Mulhorand must be treated very well. IIRC, slaves there do not go into battle or do dangerous work. Only paid (and trained) soldiers or laborers do that sort of thing. Slaves there are also encouraged to gain an education, and if they learn enough they can petition to for freedom (and citizenship in Mulhorand). The city of Gheldanar, in the south of Mulhorand has a long tradation of training slaves and making them into free citizens and prides themselves on the number of slaves that have gaind their freedom there. According to Faiths and Pantheons, the Church of Horus owns most of the slaves in Mulhorand. The Church of Osiris renders judgement on cases involving slaves. Generally speaking, slaves in Mulhorand are treated well, even better than the usual way a freeman laborer could expect to be treated in most of Faerun, and much better than many serfs in Amn or Sembia. Slaves have a complex system of laws to protect them, and the penalties for mistreating a slave in Mulhorand are quite severe. Slaves are expected to accept the performance of dangerous work such as mining or construction, but the work of soldiers is left to trained individuals. Some of these are slaves who have earned enough trust and power to be allowed to hold weapons, but most are not. Slave soldiers tend to rank higher in terms of authority probably because they are usually trusted more than regular soldiers. Slaves in Mulhorand have their own paths of ascension, but they can choose to be a freeman and take that path instead (if they work for their freedoms). Slaves generally are cared for by the churches (who own practically every slave in Mulhorand) and each is given tasks that are suited to his natural inclinations and capabilities. Those who prove themselves great leaders and administrators can hold some of the most powerful positions in the Mulhorandi government. Dex: IMO what you're saying doesn't sound like 'slavery', more a type of punishment for wrongdoing. Slavery often was punishment for wrongdoing and little else. In many societies, prisons such as in the modern sense were untenable or impractical for many reasons. Slavery was a form of "incarceration" predating the modern sensbility of prison. You could say that the concept of reintroducing criminals into society in the supervision of a respected and powerful citizen was initiated by the concept of Slavery. DrWorm: I find it interesting that all the arguments that advocate slavery as non-evil are all from the point of view of the slave owner. Put yourself in the place of the slave. Is there any instance when you would feel that another person literally owning you was not evil? I think not. All the dictates about slavery being okay if you treat the slave kindly are simply to ease the concious of the owner. Being owned by another is evil. Many slaves in Mulhorand prefer to remain slaves even when they're absolutely capable of purchasing their own freedom. Freedom, after all, is a very frightening thing. As a slave, you never worried about where you would eat and how, you don't worry about your personal health, you don't worry about a place to stay. The LG Priests of Osiris saw to it that all slaves received the minimum treatment necessary to presever dignity and well-being. Your advancement options were well-laid out before you, and you don't have to pay for anything. You even got a little extra to spend for your luxuries. This is not at all dissimilar from what you could expect from a modern lifestyle involving people moving seamlessly from daycare to school to company careers. Freemen who do badly in Mulhorand freely sell themselves into slavery to avoid dying of starvation or cold in the streets. I daresay I would do the same if the only other option I had was a slow and lingering death from starvation. There are RL examples of similar systems, but why bother? High Octane: Slavery, in general, is a way of restricting freedoms and forcing labor without pay. In general, such a thing is evil. Absolutely not. In general slavery is an institution that prescribes the authority of certain classes of people over another. Payment is varied, but in almost all cases, minimum food and shelter to perform the necessary labor is the absolute lowest a slave can expect by way of compensation. In many cases, the payment is nothing short of princely. I should mention that willing slavery is not slavery at all. FORCED servitude is true slavery. What gives you the authority to define slavery? Also, someone who has been paid and is working off that pay is not a slave, it is an indentured servant. A person who is working for shelter and food is not a slave by default. In RL, a Janissary was the slave of his ruler and he obeyed his orders without question, his loyalty was legendary. He gets to have every equipment his ruler can afford for him to do his fighting duties, and he gets afforded authority and respect equal to few in his lifetime. Often, he was liveried richly in order to show off the power of his ruler. Of course, he also got to eat quite well (and got trained in his duties extensively). This is not under question. Janissaries are considered slaves. An aliping namamahay in Southeast Asia often sold himself into slavery to pay for a debt, but it was understood and enforced by the datu that he could choose to purchase his freedom, if he wanted. Again, no question here. These people were called slaves. Finally, in Mulhorand, slaves worked and were recompensated at least with food and shelter, and often with training and magical care they could not otherwise afford. Yet again, no questions, the book calls them slaves. So, by what measure are you defining slaves, and by what authority are you doing so? Also, most slavery forms involved having legal power over life or death of the person in question. This doesnt have to be necessary, but tends to be. Also they tend to be treated as tradeable commodities instead of people. Only true in the chattel forms of slavery most commonly known as the one practiced by European invaders to America. This form of slavery was not common at all.
mcmurphy510 01-03-06, 10:23 AM	I find it interesting that all the arguments that advocate slavery as non-evil are all from the point of view of the slave owner. Put yourself in the place of the slave. Is there any instance when you would feel that another person literally owning you was not evil? I think not. All the dictates about slavery being okay if you treat the slave kindly are simply to ease the concious of the owner. Being owned by another is evil. In the context of modern society (with all we know today - about history and modern morality and ethics) of course ownership of a human being by another human being is evil. Many of the arguements persented are not from the point of view of the slave owners but of society as a whole. In a modern society, of course no one would think that being owned was anything less than evil. But consider the ancient mindset. They had a choice between starving and freezing to death (because they owned no land to work - and thus no shelter or food) or working as a slave all their lives (12 hour days, but they got fed and a warm place to stay). Assuming they were well treated, who would not opt for the later? Now lets shift this around a bit. What hardened convict (complete with chip on sholder) feels any less than the 'man is opressing them'? They think that they are slaves to the modern system. Does that make it so? Fantastic Templer spoke about the betterment of humanity. The Mulhorandi (who had thousands of years of history, and where the gods ruled on the earth) considered all other cultures to be inferior at best, and usually quite savage. They consider even their slaves to be above the citizens of other lands. To them, to be a slave is to be in a place where you can be educated and be bettered. The Mulhorandi believed that slavery was one of the avenues toward the betterment of humanity - certantly for the slaves that they purchased from other lands. Of course such a concept is abhorant to us today, but to an ancient it makes perfect sense.
Epicweaver 01-03-06, 10:27 AM	Depends on the group really. The two ongoing perspectives in this thread are: #1 Yes - a Paladin can own a slave: The rationale for this theory is that in a culture where slavery is not considered Evil and is considered Lawful then it can be done. The Paladin isn't keeping the slave to abuse and work to death, but rather to enlightment and redeem it by teaching it the values of life, religion, and perhaps a skill. This view tends to be on the Realism-ist approach, but shouldn't overstep the common boundary of comfort you have with your players. #2 No - a Paladin can't own a slave: The rationale for this theory is based on our modern culture morality, that, in our perspective of Lawful Good, no creature can own the life of another and that at its core, slavery, is Evil and not-Lawful. A benevolent intent doesn't necessarily justify the means. Forcing your way upon someone else isn't ever Good, even if the end result is positive (in terms of your perspective). Either works depending on your group. Slavery is a distasteful subject in general, and the relatively grey area between creating fictious gameworld morales and our own modern cultural values.. that's really for your group to flesh out. I doubt you'll ever reach a consensus on this issue. Use what your group wants to, but everyone should be comfortable with it. When in doubt, #2 is probably a better stance to take if only to account for the comfort of modern values.
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 10:56 AM	mcmurphy510: Actually, nominal freedoms notwithstanding, many people in the world today are less free than people labelled as slaves in other places and times. There are many restrcitions on freedoms today that are considered "civilized" but are restrictions on freedom nonetheless. You can't copy someone else's ideas and not pay for them. You can't cross the road wherever you like (in many major cities). You can't run around naked (again, in many major cities). A lot of the restrictions on our freedoms that we do not notice and take for granted would have been seen as ridiculous and even oppressive in other places and times. It's just a matter of which values you prioritize. Sure, a slave in Mulhorand can't decide on which hairstyle to adopt, but is it really that important? Most companies have dress codes and hygenic codes anyway.
DrWorm 01-03-06, 11:22 AM	Personally, I'd say yes, a paladin can hold a slave under certain conditions; A: The paladin treats the slave properly (feeds it at least two times a day, lets it rest when it's too sick or tired to work, doesn't force it to work from 8 morning to 12 twelve evening, tries to teach it properly, and so on and so forth). So if you were owned by another person, who took away all your personal liberties; but by some twisted morality gave you a 10 hour workday out of the grace of their heart...would you consider that person good? B: The slave has comitted some crime that would result in prison time or forced labour. That is not a slave that is a prisoner. Even then, prisoners have rights as sentient beings. Slaves have none. C: The slave can regain freedom through his own actions (say, by working for the pally for a year and a day or by scrounging up enough money to buy itself back from the paladin). Working off your debt is not a slave, that is an indentured servant. Working to "buy" yourself back from a master is, however, evil. It implies that you are have no innate freedom or liberties unless granted by an owner.
High Octane 01-03-06, 11:25 AM	[ Only true in the chattel forms of slavery most commonly known as the one practiced by European invaders to America. This form of slavery was not common at all. Uh, yeah, but slavery had different names in those cultures. The reason we use the word SLAVERY is because its the closest equivelant in our language. The use of the word "slave" has a different connotation than what you are speaking about, many of these can and should instead be called "servants". By definition, a slave, is considered property. Check dictionary.com. If they are not property, they are not definitive slaves.
SureFoot 01-03-06, 11:30 AM	Definitions, people. Definitions. There's a lot of ridiculousness in this thread, partly because people are using grossly different definitions. Slavery, by definition, is owning another person (or, in the case of D&D, sentient being) as property. That person has no rights, because they are property. Indentured servitude (ideally) is a contract willingly agreed to by two parties and is NOT slavery. (again, ideally. Indentured servitude can become a form of slavery if there is no real way out of the servitude.) Slavery is utterly depriving a sentient being of their freedom and ability to choose their own destiny. The fact that slaves might be treated fairly/humanely is irrelevant (it's in the slaveowner's best interest to make his property last as long as possible). Further, the fallacy of societal norms to interpret evil acts is, well, a fallacy--at least in the D&D world (I'd argue the same is true in this world too, but that's beyond the scope of the original post). Good and evil are tangible forces in D&D and are not moral/societal interpretations. Slavery is an evil act, in this world and in the D&D world. A paladin who owns a slave cannot be a paladin. Have a nice day.
mcmurphy510 01-03-06, 11:33 AM	mcmurphy510: Actually, nominal freedoms notwithstanding, many people in the world today are less free than people labelled as slaves in other places and times. There are many restrcitions on freedoms today that are considered "civilized" but are restrictions on freedom nonetheless. You can't copy someone else's ideas and not pay for them. You can't cross the road wherever you like (in many major cities). You can't run around naked (again, in many major cities). A lot of the restrictions on our freedoms that we do not notice and take for granted would have been seen as ridiculous and even oppressive in other places and times. It's just a matter of which values you prioritize. Sure, a slave in Mulhorand can't decide on which hairstyle to adopt, but is it really that important? Most companies have dress codes and hygenic codes anyway. I couldn't agree more. I think were pretty much on the same page here... My main point is that our concept of freedom (and weather or not removal of some or all of those freedoms is evil) is largely a normative one. It is defined based on culture and on the time in which we live. The freedoms considered to have been granted by our own conssitution (here in the USA) 200 years ago are vastly different than what we consider to be granted by the same document today. And even today, we can't agree on percisely what freedoms that document grants. Ultimately weather a paladin keeps his paladinhood is up to his deity. If the deity deems that keeping a slave is ok, then the paladin is golden....
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 11:42 AM	High Octane: Uh, yeah, but slavery had different names in those cultures. The reason we use the word SLAVERY is because its the closest equivelant in our language. Regardless, these institutions are still labelled as slavery in the English language, and slavery in English specifically includes these institutions. The use of the word "slave" has a different connotation than what you are speaking about, many of these can and should instead be called "servants". That's only because you insist on defining Slavery your own way - that is, evil. If you can't agree with historical precedents and definitions of what slavery, then you might as well call marriage evil as well. For that matter, you can have your own definition of "eating" and call that evil, too. By definition, a slave, is considered property. Check dictionary.com. If they are not property, they are not definitive slaves. What are you talking about? Janissaries are the property of their rulers. Alipins were the proprety of their masters. Mulhorandi slaves are the property of the churches. Was it not made clear to you that in all instances, all these people were the property of others? What confuses you is that these people are property, but at the same time, have rights and protections. Masters in these societies are obligated to care for their slaves well, by law and tradition. The fact that they are property is not germane to the question of how they are treated. Surefoot: Slavery, by definition, is owning another person (or, in the case of D&D, sentient being) as property. That person has no rights, because they are property. Ah! More authoritative persons defining terms. Mulhorandi slaves are the property of the Churches of Mulhorand. They have rights and are protected by the Mulhorandi government. The Lawful Good Church of Osiris presides and makes judgements over cases that involve slaves. The Lawful Good Church of Horus owns most slaves in Mulhorand. Now, isn't this somewhat contradictory with your own definition. Obviously, what you mean by "slave" and what that means in D&D are two different things.
revnk 01-03-06, 11:44 AM	That Good and Evil are absolute doesn't necessarily imply that your view of Good and Evil are the same ones that apply in game. Good and Evil are absolute. I believe slavery is repugnant. Therefore ... ? One is absolute. The other is your opinion. Which means that there is no logical connection between the two. Your opinion may be right. Your opinion may be wrong. Your opinion may even be purple. But it remains opinion, and thus has no impact on a discussion of absolutes. ...except that the issue is how to run a game in which the Dungeon Master is the arbiter over cosmic forces, good and evil, etc. Thus, at my table, my opinion about good and evil is ultimately the only one that matters. This sounds dictatorial enough to offend some readers, I'm sure, but the same policy applies at your gaming table. If slavery offends your sensibilities and not mine, it's likely that the gods of your campaign will look upon matters rather differently from my campaign. Now, it may be at your table that culture affects alignment--that is to say, ritual sacrifice is Lawful Good in one culture and Chaotic Evil in another, and paladins accordingly may vary in your actions. That's not especially consistent with the idea that good and evil are absolutes in the D&D world, but you're perfectly entitled to your house rule. If I'm a player at your table I can either suck it up or I can walk. But I can't sit there at your table and argue that my opinion is as valid as yours, because at some point you, as DM, are going to be forced to decide if a spell or item that affects alignment works, and how. So, to address your aborted syllogism: Good and Evil are absolute (in my campaign du jour). I believe slavery is repugnant (and accordingly, evil). Therefore, in my campaign du jour paladins can't own slaves without violating their code. Of course, even with a personal belief that slavery is evil, I could certainly create a campaign without alignment, or where alignment is not absolute, or where slavery is not evil, or where a paladin does not have to follow a Lawful Good code, or whatever. But in such cases my opinion is not irrelevant so much as it's subjugated to other factors in my position as a judge.
DrWorm 01-03-06, 11:44 AM	Many of the arguements persented are not from the point of view of the slave owners but of society as a whole. In a modern society, of course no one would think that being owned was anything less than evil. But consider the ancient mindset. They had a choice between starving and freezing to death (because they owned no land to work - and thus no shelter or food) or working as a slave all their lives (12 hour days, but they got fed and a warm place to stay). Assuming they were well treated, who would not opt for the later? No, the point of view is from the owners, or at the very least the free. You find be one reliable source from the point of view of the slave (not indentured servant), that states that the slave felt it was a good act to have his innnate liberties removed, and I will look at the subject more closely. Even Serfdom, which has been mentioned, was repeatedly rebeled against as cruel by those forced to live the life. Fantastic Templer spoke about the betterment of humanity. The Mulhorandi (who had thousands of years of history, and where the gods ruled on the earth) considered all other cultures to be inferior at best, and usually quite savage. They consider even their slaves to be above the citizens of other lands. To them, to be a slave is to be in a place where you can be educated and be bettered. The Mulhorandi believed that slavery was one of the avenues toward the betterment of humanity - certantly for the slaves that they purchased from other lands. The Mulhorandi are a fanastical ideal created by an author. It has no validity as an argument, becuase it is a closed and ordered system in which the author controls all anthropologic and psychological aspects. The slaves do not "consider themselves" anything. The author "considers" for them. Of course such a concept is abhorant to us today, but to an ancient it makes perfect sense. If you want to create such fiction in your campaign, then who is to stop you. However realize it is a fiction and an idealization from the standpoint of one not being owned.
Millennium 01-03-06, 11:46 AM	True slavery -the keeping of other sentient beings as property- is a one-way ticket to Falling. Acquiring slaves is not, in and of itself, an Evil act, because there are ways to acquire slaves without acting at all. For example, if a paladin defeats a BBEG who kept slaves, then those slaves technically become the paladin's property. If acquiring slaves were an Evil act, then a paladin could Fall just by defeating slaveowners, and this clearly doesn't work. However, keeping or trading slaves is certainly Evil, and so if the paladin doesn't want to Fall, his only recourse is to immediately free any slaves he acquires. If the now ex-slaves are willing to work for the paladin as paid hirelings after they're freed, then the paladin can do this, but the important thing is that the slaves must be freed at the very first opportunity once they're acquired. But in any case, if the goal is to make the kobold do some kind of charity work, there are other ways to accomplish the goal. Prisoners and slaves are not the same thing, and so the paladin could keep the kobold as his prisoner, treat and pay him fairly, and never assert a claim on the kobold as his property, then this might be technically permissible. Exactly how much good this would do is debatable, though; what virtue is there in charity when it is forced?
jagraham 01-03-06, 11:51 AM	Actually, the shame would be on the religion, not on the paladin, who is standing up for the potential dignity of his fellow sentient and doing in a way that: A) Sends message to society that could probably use some reforming. B) Does not disrupt the society. C) Caring only about the "normal, respectable people" is a defineing difference between Lawful Good and lawful neutral/lawful evil. The rules, bluntly, to LG person are there in part, to protect the poor and powerless and if slavery can be used to do that, it's O.K., though not ideal. I don't agree here. The people will see the cruelty of slavery and think worse of the Paladin and his Faith for it. Think of what Abu Graib did for the US in Iraq. LG is an absolute. Once you try to achieve good ends by doing a little evil, you are in LN territory, heading for LE. The Paladin is fighting evil, giving the unredeemable creature a shot at redemption and opening the eyes of those in his society who might have contributed to the creatures "savagry" through thier own cruelty and hatred and spreading compassion, and perhaps creating a place in society for a creature who has no place. What I mean by unredeemable is just that, a kobald is clever, but still a vicious animal. It is like spending a lot of time training a wolf to be a dog and then leading him around town to the sheperds chagrin. Dispatching such creatures is a Paladins duty. Wasting time with the futile task of reforming a single kobald, is a waste of his gods resources and and thus sin. A Ranger might drag the kobald 30 miles away and tell him to keep going, since he is not LG and does not adhere to the same code. I guess my personal CG bias is showing in the sense that I find the discussion of "civilizing" a kobold reminds me too much of the attempts to "civilise" indians, blacks or anyone not part of the mainstream, leaving a bad taste in my mouth. This part I agree on 100%. In history, a lot of evil acts have been cloaked in rationalizations such as "civilizing" lesser peoples.
Pandaemoni 01-03-06, 11:59 AM	The last part of your arguement here is flawwed. People (as a whole) know when something is wrong. You take ANY point in history and take and example and you will find that the people find it wrong,immoral,evil even. Slavery itself is never questioned in the Bible...and was pretty unquestioningly accepted in the ancient world. Think of it this way, is (i) torturing women until they confess to being witches and then (ii) burning them at the stake for witchcraft evil? In the middle ages people thought they were saving the witches souls (and if you weren't a witch then God would protect you from the torture). if you accept that premise (which we today tend not to) then the activity takes on a "good" air. Similarly, if God wants slavery to exist (and he suggests that he didn't mind it, at least, in the Bible), then who is the lowly Paladin to question the will of God? If Yahweh (the god of real peoplein the real world) accepted slavery and didn't condemn it as sin, then so might Heironeous or any LG deity in game. Who is the paladin to judge his own god's morality? I would think that a Chaotic Good god would find slavery abhorrent, as slavery constrains liberty; I can see the forces of lawful good deciding that it's better to seize control of savages rather than let them live their lives in the immoral manner they'd otherwise choose. If a Kobold would be neutral evil on his own, the paladin may well be saving him by forcing him to lead a good life in service to Hieroneous. Since the Kobold would never choose such a life willingly, enforced servitude (complete with punishment for disobedience) may be the only option the paladin has. A lawful good deity need not condone slavery, but it is not inconsistent with the alignment. I don't think it's a question of us "knowing better" now than they did in the past (we "know better" than the Bible?), I think it's simply that the moral relativists are right...good and evil depend on your culture and the assumptions you make. God cursed the descendeants of Cain and the sons of Ham...is it moral to condemn and curse innocent children for the sins of their father? If not, are we more moral than God or simply living in a different moral climate?
mcmurphy510 01-03-06, 12:15 PM	...The Mulhorandi are a fanastical ideal created by an author. It has no validity as an argument, becuase it is a closed and ordered system in which the author controls all anthropologic and psychological aspects. The slaves do not "consider themselves" anything. The author "considers" for them... It is completely valid. Do not forget that we are discussiong a fictional paladin who is considering ownership of a fictional kobold as a fictional slave in a fictional world. Ture, it's the author that is 'considering' it for them, but when you take it back into the game, there's this thing called 'suspension of disbelief.' For all intents and purposes it becomes (in the game world) what the author / DM intends. revnk: Well said. You've addressed several points I was going to make in way far better than I could have. I tell players in my game, when they start a debate about an action being good (when I say it's evil - or vise versa), that according to their PCs alignment or religion, that such an action goes against the core that they have been taught. You (the player) may be correct, and I (the DM) may agree with you, but that's not the way morality goes the way your PC was taught. I tell them that their PC can feel free to believe that any action is good, but doing so may put them in conflict with the tenants of their church or their stated alignment. Millennium: How would you handle deities? Do they own the souls of their devoted followers? One might argue that even if they do, it's not evil since said followers choose to follow. But what about the case of a child born in a long line of devoted followers? One who has no choice but to follow in his fathers, and grand father's footsteps? Or in a 'good' society where there is a tribal or state religion. You either follow, or you're not part of the tribe. And what about after death? It's been a while since I read any planescape, but as I recall, when a follower of deity X dies, they go to deity X's realm, where they serve deity X for eternity. I dont know if it's cannon, but I recall somewhere that said deity owns the soul of all beings native to their domain (which included their dead followers).
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 12:20 PM	DrWorm: The Mulhorandi are a fanastical ideal created by an author. It has no validity as an argument, becuase it is a closed and ordered system in which the author controls all anthropologic and psychological aspects. The slaves do not "consider themselves" anything. The author "considers" for them. I wholly disagree. We are not talking about just slavery. We're talking about slavery in D&D. Clearly, in D&D, owning a slave is not inconsistent with being a Paladin, by dint of a specific example. Can you refute that with anything so concrete?
revnk 01-03-06, 12:20 PM	What confuses you is that these people are property, but at the same time, have rights and protections. Masters in these societies are obligated to care for their slaves well, by law and tradition. The fact that they are property is not germane to the question of how they are treated. How they are treated is not germane to whether the a chattel slave's staus as property is inherently demeaning or dangerous to whatever inherent rights he might have as a human being. If we assume for the sake of an argument that slavery is inherently demeaning to the slave, or jeopardizes certain innate rights he might have by virtue of personhood, then it does not matter whether the master treats the slave well or not--slavery in and of itself is an injury. And there is good cause to assume that the presumption goes farther than merely the sake of an argument: the slave's "rights" exist entirely at the sufferance of the master (or as long as the local laws obligate the master to extend that treatment to the slave). The slave presumably does not have the right to quit his master's service in favor of better treatment, or to petition his government for the redress of maltreatment by the master. Presumably the slave cannot take his master to court to claim that his master ought to have allowed him a holiday or shouldn't have punished him so. The slave who has a master who is kind and generous is really no better off than the slave whose master beats him every day--only luckier, for the moment. It is to be admitted that some cultures in the real world--we may reasonably ignore fantasy cultures as being, well, fantastic--have had rules, laws or traditions mandating that a slave be well-treated. To the extent that those laws were enforced or enforceable, we might reasonably question whether slave was ever really the proper word. But even so, we also shouldn't deceive ourselves that just because it was traditional to treat a slave well, slaves were so treated. The existence of slave revolts in Ancient Rome or the accounts of castrated or maimed slaves in the Arabic courts of the 18th and 19th century should suggest to us that even slaves with benefits were often unhappy or suffered at the whims of their masters. I will agree that, for the purposes of a game, a DM might choose to create or use a fantastic world where slavery is not evil, perhaps because it is fun in those worlds to be a slave. But the facile conclusion that the "evilness" or "nonevilness" of slavery has anything to do with how a particular slave is treated or ought to be treated is, to be blunt, silly and thoughtless. It is reminiscent of those horrible arguments that liberated American slaves after the Civil War had it worse than when they had been slaves, because as slaves they were entitled to have gardens and sometimes dance on Sundays. Never mind that what master gives, he can take away, but that freedom in America is understood to be an inalienable right. Again, this is not to keep you from deciding that people in your campaign have no rights, or few rights, or that freedom and dignity are seperate from what "Good" means at your table. But there is no "confusion" here, unless one is confused enough to assume that because Master Thomas lets his chattels grow Tomatoes, Master Stephen will withhold the whip.
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 12:24 PM	revnk: Whatever led you to believe that I was talking about chattel slavery specifically? There are other forms of slavery, and these forms were more common. Chattel slavery is the exception, not the rule.
Sorbeth 01-03-06, 12:41 PM	Paladins (the Core standard anyhow) are supposed to be the 'goodest' mortals running around and to be extremely strong proponents of order and justice. The idealized 'knight in shining armor'. Slavery in the absolute best most benign circumstances *still* inherently declares that one person is 'less' of a person then another. The only thing a paladin should get if they try to enslave someone is a one way ticket to Blackgaurd.
revnk 01-03-06, 12:42 PM	DrWorm: I wholly disagree. We are not talking about just slavery. We're talking about slavery in D&D. Clearly, in D&D, owning a slave is not inconsistent with being a Paladin, by dint of a specific example. Can you refute that with anything so concrete? I have looked all over my homebrew campaign map and I don't see any "Mulhorandi" anywhere in the length and breadth of the world. Perhaps they are in Ravenloft, or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, or the Realms, or Eberron, or some other alien and exotic world. But seriously, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that pulling one author's contribution to D&D in is especially persuasive, any more than it would be persuasive to say "Flumphs have stats, therefore there must be a flumph around here somewhere." As to the chattel slavery versus any-other-kind-of-slavery issue: one of the issues that was raised by other posters is whether "slavery" was the best word for other forms of servitude. One can certainly use the word "slave" properly in English without meaning to say that someone truly has no rights. "I am a slave for her love," would not be taken to mean that she literally owns me. This may seem silly and beside the point, but the fact is that indentured servants (for instance) have been described as "slaves" in spite of the fact that an indentured servant retained rights against his master that a chattel slave did not have at all. The point being that imprecision in the English language is a relevant issue, and I added the qualifier in order to be somewhat more specific about several points. I think one issue I had with your post is that you are often doing what you accuse others of: using a specific kind of definition to further your point without being clear that you're doing it. Using "slave" to describe every form of servitude under the sun and then saying, "Well, some of these aren't so bad..." isn't any better than applying a very narrow definition, and in some respects it's arguably worse, since it seems to blind you to injuries inflicted under less-malefic-but-still-questionable forms of enforced servitude. As stated in my earlier post, the fact that "slaves" in some cultures had rights while "masters" had obligations does not mean that those rights and obligations were universal and enforceable within those cultures.
DaveReaves 01-03-06, 12:54 PM	What confuses you is that these people are property, but at the same time, have rights and protections. Masters in these societies are obligated to care for their slaves well, by law and tradition. The fact that they are property is not germane to the question of how they are treated. So I have one of those nine to five jobs where I sit in front of a computer. I must be there at nine and don't get to leave until five. I am not paid because I'm a tool owned by my boss to use as he sees fit. He provides me a comfy chair and a nice monitor that does not hurt my eyes. I am given a filling lunch at noon and dinner when I am done with work. I also have a nice cot in back with a fluffy pillow. By law, my boss has to give me these things according to Article Six, Section 5 (treatment of slaves) as written in the laws of the land. If he violates the laws I will be taken by the state. What rights do I have? None. I don't have the right to be treated well; my boss has the responsibility of treating me well (at the penalty of losing his property). And even in the situations where such laws for the treatment of slaves are in place, what do you suppose the penalty is for a slave who disobeys his master? I'm pretty sure no master ever had to give their slave a 'stern talking to' or send him to bed without dessert. "Flumphs have stats, therefore there must be a flumph around here somewhere."Taken out of context, this is pretty funny.
Arrowhen 01-03-06, 12:54 PM	This thread has gone on for almost three pages, discussing paladins, alignment, and freakin' slavery, and yet the conversation has never once degraded into namecalling or personal attacks. I'm very proud of us all. Shocked, but proud. :)
Palin the Wizard 01-03-06, 01:06 PM	As already mentioned, there are LG dieties that have slaves and endorse slavery. Hence, why it depends on the campaign setting. I'm talking RAW, not individual campaigns. According to RAW, slavery cannot be endorsed by a LG deity (see below). You know, people make this argument a lot, but while many campaigns do handle them as forces, I don't see anything in the core alignment descriptions that says alignments are anything more than "personality types", "personal philosophies", or "attitudes[s] that one recognizes but does not choose." The alignments are described in the PHB. Your personal beliefs do not change them. If they're not affected by their culture, where does the "authority" they respect and the "tradition" they honor come from? The authority they respect is legitimate authority, as is stated under their Code. They honor tradition, as long as it does not conflict with their Code. And, assuming the slaves are well-treated, what specific language in the LG alignment description precludes the owning of slaves? PHB, page 104, "Good vs. Evil": "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." I think it quite obvious that any form of slavery does not express this.
Pandaemoni 01-03-06, 06:04 PM	PHB, page 104, "Good vs. Evil": "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." I think it quite obvious that any form of slavery does not express this. It depends on the alternative. Suppose the Paladin comes across some save neutral evil barbarian ogre and takes it as a slave. He feeds it, cares for it, but demands fealty. Does the ogre have more "dignity as a sentient being" as the slave of the paladin or as a slovenly and evil barbarian living in filth? While the ogre may disagree, the paladin might well believe that the answer is the former. A mere concern for the dignity of sentient beings does not mean respecting their liberty. Parents have concern for the dignity of children, and husbands in the 16th century had respect for their wives, but they still ruled their lives, denied them the right to make decisions for themselves and, on occasion, beat them for "misbehavior." Not because they are evil, but because they believe they know what is best moreso than the persons they purport to "protect." If you think the ogre is no smarter than a child, apt to get itself into trouble, and evil when left to its own devices, the paladins choices are pretty limited. Slavery might be preferable to simply killing the beast, as then at least the ogre can contribute to the cause of good and may grow to see the error of its evil ways. I do not see that the RAW forbids paladins keeping slaves...certainly page 104 doesn't. You have read it in a particular way, but not the only possible way. There is nothing in the Good v. Evil description that answers this question. It is akin to noting that the specific description of "Lawful Good" says those of that alignment rail against injustice, and concluding (since slavery is unjust) slavery must not be permissible. The question is whether slavery is unjust or whether slavery is inherently demeaning to the dignity of sentient people...but it is always possible that a slave might live a "better" life by some subjective measure than they would were they free. While slavery is on impingement on their liberty or self-determination, it's only arguably an impingement on their "dignity," depending on the circumstances. Certainly as punishment for a crime it would seem that a Paladin could enslave another. That might be the merciful option when the alternative is execution.
Nom 01-03-06, 07:52 PM	Thus, at my table, my opinion about good and evil is ultimately the only one that matters.Exactly. However, that's a far cry from some of the arguments being put forward here:As it stands, we live in 2006 where we know better.This isn't a statement about what I do in my game or you do in your game, but a global claim. Trouble is, the fallacy of the statement is inherent in the statement itself. The people 500 years ago thought they knew better than their precursors. The people 500 years in the future will think they know better than us. The only way to have an absolute morality is to have a fixed reference point. "What I think" doesn't cut it. "What everybody thinks" is hardly better. A frame of reference outside both time and opinion is needed. Of course, there remains the problem of discerning what that frame of reference is. ;) Thus, the correct answer to most of these questions is: "If you need to ask, then you need to decide (in consultaion with your group). 3rd parties can tell you what they do and why, but their answers are in no way binding on you.".
revnk 01-03-06, 08:19 PM	Thus, the correct answer to most of these questions is: "If you need to ask, then you need to decide (in consultaion with your group). 3rd parties can tell you what they do and why, but their answers are in no way binding on you.". Indeed, and that is why I hesitated to jump into this thread at all. I do happen to believe that Reason and Empathy can lead us to absolute moral values even if the application of those values gets blindingly fuzzy in the real world. And I do tend to think that, generally speaking, human civilizations are improving over time. But I'm not sure that's really germane to the original post. The DM needs to make a decision--he can take or leave the opinions of fools like me under advisement, but he needs to make the decision. There is a second "correct" answer to most of these questions, in addition to what Nom writes, and the obviousness of it also has kept me out of these kinds of threads in the past: "If you need to ask, you probably already know the answer." It usually appears to me that the posters who raise these questions have misgivings: obviously there is something Not Quite Right, Jim about paladins making Baby Pot Pie or keeping their harems in line with the rack or whatever the issue was last session. (I like the sig--I can't remember who owns it--describing the seemingly inevitable future situation where a infant-devouring paladin will fall for poor table manners.) If it strikes you as wrong, it probably is, and what you really need to do as DM is think through the why and how and tell your player that--in this universe, at least--he can't do it, sorry. And if your player wants to argue the finer points of freshman Ethics 101, tell him that you have to make the final call, it's not intended to punish him, and he can do things differently in the games he DMs.
Nom 01-03-06, 10:07 PM	There is a second "correct" answer to most of these questions, in addition to what Nom writes, and the obviousness of it also has kept me out of these kinds of threads in the past: "If you need to ask, you probably already know the answer."Agreed. :) If it strikes you as wrong, it probably is, and what you really need to do as DM is think through the why and how and tell your player that--in this universe, at least--he can't do it, sorry. And if your player wants to argue the finer points of freshman Ethics 101, tell him that you have to make the final call, it's not intended to punish him, and he can do things differently in the games he DMs.But make sure that you actually aren't trying to punish him. Most players who play paladins find the "holy crusader" stereotype appealing, and aren't doing it so their DM can gleefully construct fiendish "no-win" moral problems in order to make them suffer for playing a mechanically average class. Similarly, the time to take moral issue with a particular action is when the player declares it (or thinks of it), not sometime down the track. "You just violated a previously undiscussed tenet of your faith that is taught to all initiates from the age of 6" is a complete failure by the DM to properly manage the metagame, not a PC error.
Roxlimn 01-03-06, 10:27 PM	revnk: But seriously, I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that pulling one author's contribution to D&D in is especially persuasive, any more than it would be persuasive to say "Flumphs have stats, therefore there must be a flumph around here somewhere." But that's not really the question, is it? The question is, "Is it possible for a Paladin to get a slave for a good cause?" Obviously, since it is exists in D&D, it's possible. Whether it's universally present is not what's at discussion. As to the chattel slavery versus any-other-kind-of-slavery issue: one of the issues that was raised by other posters is whether "slavery" was the best word for other forms of servitude. Again, not an educated argument. The very definition of "slavery" here is what's at question, and it's quite obvious to me that most people posting on the boards equate slavery with "chattel slavery," when anyone who does any research beyond American history will find that this is by no means what's normal when you say "slavery." Alipins in Southeast Asia are not indentured servants being called slaves. They are slaves, and that's that, I'm afraid. It's a definition thing. It's a fact, and therefore cannot be argued. You can't argue whether the sun is hot or not because that's a fact. You can only refute it with contradictory facts. I think one issue I had with your post is that you are often doing what you accuse others of: using a specific kind of definition to further your point without being clear that you're doing it. Using "slave" to describe every form of servitude under the sun and then saying, "Well, some of these aren't so bad..." isn't any better than applying a very narrow definition, and in some respects it's arguably worse, since it seems to blind you to injuries inflicted under less-malefic-but-still-questionable forms of enforced servitude. As stated in my earlier post, the fact that "slaves" in some cultures had rights while "masters" had obligations does not mean that those rights and obligations were universal and enforceable within those cultures. Reply With Quote 1. No, I have defined what I meant by "slavery" at least twice in this thread, and many more times in the past. I do not use "slave" to describe "every form of servitude under the sun." I only use the word "slave" inasmuch as it has been used for hundreds of years up to the present. The fact that many people simply don't know what they're talking about does not make what I say any less true. 2. I don't believe that I'm blinded to injuries inflicted under various forms of slavery. 3. I did not say that slave rights and master obligations were universal, nor did I say that enforcement was universal, either. I said that in some cultures, the institution of slavery was not necessarily evil. In the slave owning South parts of US of America, sometime during the 19th century, slaves supposedly had rights and masters supposedly had obligations. This did not preclude the fact that the practice was in fact chattel slavery in almost every practical way, and could be said to be Evil in the D&D sense. Even so, this is not the only model of slavery that exists, and as I said, was the exception rather than the rule. In Southeast Asia, captives taken by Visayan raiders during their raids were taken as slaves, but these slaves had strict rights by custom, tradition, and law, and the enforcement of these rights was very strict and practically universal in that time and place. In many ways, this culture viewed slaves as no less than the children that people had in their own households, who were also protected by law and tradition. It is not universality that's the question. It's the possibility. Is it possible for a slave institution to not be evil in D&D? Yes. Is it possible for a slave institution to not be described as Evil in D&D? Yes. And that's all there is to it. DaveReaves: So I have one of those nine to five jobs where I sit in front of a computer. I must be there at nine and don't get to leave until five. I am not paid because I'm a tool owned by my boss to use as he sees fit. He provides me a comfy chair and a nice monitor that does not hurt my eyes. I am given a filling lunch at noon and dinner when I am done with work. I also have a nice cot in back with a fluffy pillow. By law, my boss has to give me these things according to Article Six, Section 5 (treatment of slaves) as written in the laws of the land. If he violates the laws I will be taken by the state. What rights do I have? None. I don't have the right to be treated well; my boss has the responsibility of treating me well (at the penalty of losing his property). And even in the situations where such laws for the treatment of slaves are in place, what do you suppose the penalty is for a slave who disobeys his master? I'm pretty sure no master ever had to give their slave a 'stern talking to' or send him to bed without dessert. Slaves in many societies were paid. The fact that they were property does not preclude them from owning property, and many slaves had slaves of their own. In fact, a slave could demand renumeration from his master for services rendered, since it was assumed that the slave's word as far as his work was concerned was ironclad. Slaves were often housed in the homes of their masters and given treatment no less than were afforded the master's children. In some cases, the master was obligated to pay for such things as separate housing and/or wedding expenditures, should the slave get married. Your particular view of slavery assumes that all slaves do not have rights. This is not true. Many slave institutions gave slaves lots of rights. In fact, more rights than a freeman could expect. A slave had the right to work and get paid. A freeman had to look for work. He might be paid more, he might not, but looking for work was his own responsibility. There is a penalty for slaves who disobeyed their masters, but there are also penalties for masters abusing their slaves, and masters' words didn't necessarily carry the greater weight. Where slavery was an institutin not especially reserved for the ruler, a slave might be able demand punitive compensation for unjust injuries done to him in the course of servitude. This might strike you as "not-slavery," but bear in mind that you already equate slavery to chattel slavery, which was not the norm. If you would keep an open mind as to what "slavery" really means, you'd understand the point better.
jagraham 01-03-06, 10:40 PM	Ok, here's another way of looking at it. As DM's we are telling a story, and it needs to be good. Slavery being evil is a pretty common theme in movies take these for instance: - The Ten Commandments (Nominated Best Picture) - Ben Hur (Best Picture) - Spartacus - Braveheart (Best Picture) - Gladiator (Best Picture) Anybody got some examples of movies that glorify slavery?
Always-Late 01-03-06, 10:46 PM	Ok, here's another way of looking at it. As DM's we are telling a story, and it needs to be good. Slavery being evil is a pretty common theme in movies take these for instance: - The Ten Commandments (Nominated Best Picture) - Ben Hur (Best Picture) - Spartacus - Braveheart (Best Picture) - Gladiator (Best Picture) Anybody got some examples of movies that glorify slavery?This tells us three things: 1. Glorifying slavery is politically incorrect, 2. There's no market for such movies, 3. Slaves treated nicely does not make for conflict. Without conflict, there can't really be a plot.
Corinthians 01-03-06, 11:23 PM	Let the common sense portion of the brain boot up and I think you'll be able to answer this question yourself.
Herger 01-04-06, 12:57 AM	If a paladin captures a kobold can he use it as a slave for a good cause like charity or any other evil creature for that matter? Slavery goes against the LG cause because you are forcing someone to do your bidding, to serve you in a way the enslaved creature does not agree... As the Exalted Deeds book says, if a creature does surrender and begs for mercy then IT IS YOUR DUTY AS A PALADIN to tie the creature and take it to the church of your faith to face justice and decide how to atone for his crimes. If the church decides the creature will be in your charge to look for him and ensure he'll be a good fellow then, go ahead, adopt him but not enslave him. Adopting a creature and properly training him into the faith is one thing, enslaving him to do what you want no matter what the creature says or does is utterly evil. And the Book of Vile Darkness says so.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 01:09 AM	It depends on the alternative. Suppose the Paladin comes across some save neutral evil barbarian ogre and takes it as a slave. He feeds it, cares for it, but demands fealty. Does the ogre have more "dignity as a sentient being" as the slave of the paladin or as a slovenly and evil barbarian living in filth? While the ogre may disagree, the paladin might well believe that the answer is the former. No, it doesn't. Every person has the right to decide for themselves, no one else can do it for them. When the paladin decides the ogre needs "rehabilitation" (without any proof that it does), he is breaking one of the most important facts of good: Everyone has the right to exist. As such, everyone can make their own choices regarding how to behave. Including whether or not to break a law, for which there are repercussions (such as rehabilitation). This is what is meant by "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". A mere concern for the dignity of sentient beings does not mean respecting their liberty. Parents have concern for the dignity of children, and husbands in the 16th century had respect for their wives, but they still ruled their lives, denied them the right to make decisions for themselves and, on occasion, beat them for "misbehavior." Not because they are evil, but because they believe they know what is best moreso than the persons they purport to "protect." I never said this was evil--I said it wasn't good. And even good people can do things that are not good. No one is perfect, after all. If you think the ogre is no smarter than a child, apt to get itself into trouble, and evil when left to its own devices, the paladins choices are pretty limited. Slavery might be preferable to simply killing the beast, as then at least the ogre can contribute to the cause of good and may grow to see the error of its evil ways. As long as it has comitted no evil, it doesn't matter. As soon as it does, you can punish it, but you cannot act before you are certain that it will do evil. Assuming it has done evil, it would be a more kind act to rehabilitate it than killing it, yes. This is not slavery, however, but punishment. There's a difference. I do not see that the RAW forbids paladins keeping slaves...certainly page 104 doesn't. You have read it in a particular way, but not the only possible way. There is nothing in the Good v. Evil description that answers this question. It is akin to noting that the specific description of "Lawful Good" says those of that alignment rail against injustice, and concluding (since slavery is unjust) slavery must not be permissible. The question is whether slavery is unjust or whether slavery is inherently demeaning to the dignity of sentient people...but it is always possible that a slave might live a "better" life by some subjective measure than they would were they free. Even if they live a "better" life, you do not have the right to choose a better life for them. If they ask for it, that's different, but enslaving someone to ensure them a "better" life is an illusion--"the white man's burden", for example? It's nothing but an excuse for them to have slaves. It is not good to have slaves. It specifically is a breach of the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". While slavery is on impingement on their liberty or self-determination, it's only arguably an impingement on their "dignity," depending on the circumstances. Certainly as punishment for a crime it would seem that a Paladin could enslave another. That might be the merciful option when the alternative is execution. Imprisonment, rehabilitation and punishment are not the same as slavery. Slavery is forcing someone to obey you because you perceive yourself to be "better" than they are in some way. Rehabilitation is a response to a crime, and would be the more merciful option. I said that in some cultures, the institution of slavery was not necessarily evil. While this is true, the institution of slavery has never been good. As such, it is not possible for a paladin to hold slaves.
Always-Late 01-04-06, 01:40 AM	How about children? Do children have the rights to decide things for themselves?
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 01:57 AM	Palin the Wizard: No, it doesn't. Every person has the right to decide for themselves, no one else can do it for them. When the paladin decides the ogre needs "rehabilitation" (without any proof that it does), he is breaking one of the most important facts of good: Everyone has the right to exist. As such, everyone can make their own choices regarding how to behave. Including whether or not to break a law, for which there are repercussions (such as rehabilitation). This is what is meant by "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". You're confusing "liberty" with "dignity of sentient beings." Having to decide your own affairs for yourself is both a burden and a privilege. It is not a right inherent to being alive, and not granting this right to people is not synonymous with not respecting the dignity of that person as a sentient being. To make the point more clear, you're assuming that "freedom" is the same as "dignity of sentient beings." These values are not the same in D&D. In D&D, the value of liberty is mapped to the Chaotic alignment, not to the Good alignment. While this is true, the institution of slavery has never been good. As such, it is not possible for a paladin to hold slaves. Why so? Paladins are permitted to perform any number and kinds of nonevil acts they so choose. Eating is not an aligned act. Are Paladins prevented from doing so? What about sleeping? What about caring for their friends? is that not more Neutral than Good? Is doing that against the Paladin's code of ethics? You are confusing "not allowed to do" with "doesn't do as a mark of his class or beliefs." Holding slaves could be a nonevil act, and that means that a Paladin can do it without violating his alignment restriction. Moreover, you have not shown that the institution of slavery has never been good. In fact, the institution as it exists in Mulhorand can probably be said to be Good and even Lawful Good, as far as the alignment system can be said to apply to institutions at all.
Lina_Inverse 01-04-06, 02:26 AM	Ugh i find it hard to believe how many people fail to grasp this simple concept. One of the primary reasons society exists is to -restrict freewill-. If you believe that takeing away someones freedom is inherantly evil you are argueing the very concept of society is evil. Why arent you trying to dismantle the goverment right now? You do that. Me? I will trade some of my liberty to know that if someone breaks into my house, rape my mother, kill us and takes our stuff. They will be brought to justise. Good weve established irrefutably takeing away someones freewill is not evil, infact its covered by its own alingment access. Law/Chaos. Paladins are of LAWFUL alingment, thus they seek to build societys and bring things toward ultamite law. Were everyone exists without dissent and strife, where no one has freewill.
Herger 01-04-06, 02:40 AM	Ugh i find it hard to believe how many people fail to grasp this simple concept. One of the primary reasons society exists is to -restrict freewill-. If you believe that takeing away someones freedom is inherantly evil you are argueing the very concept of society is evil. Why arent you trying to dismantle the goverment right now? You do that. Me? I will trade some of my liberty to know that if someone breaks into my house, rape my mother, kill us and takes our stuff. They will be brought to justise. Good weve established irrefutably takeing away someones freewill is not evil, infact its covered by its own alingment access. Law/Chaos. Paladins are of LAWFUL alingment, thus they seek to build societys and bring things toward ultamite law. Were everyone exists without dissent and strife, where no one has freewill. The way you are defining the free will is chaotic, like Anarchy. No one in this society is denied his freewill to do what they want, only that masses need to be controled so everybody behaves correct, without falling into Chaos, so it is relatively simple to understand the fact why police exists. We don't want to live in a place where anybody can just take what they want or harm our loved ones, without go unpunished. Everyone is free to do what they want, you do not "trade" liberty. Consequences are another. Also the way you are defining Paladins is that they are Lawfull Neutral (Ultimate Law?) Paladins seek a society where everyone lives in a ordered society, where everyone has the right to live secure and oportunity to prosper by the ways of good, and by the edges of law.
Lina_Inverse 01-04-06, 02:53 AM	The way you are defining the free will is chaotic, like Anarchy. No one in this society is denied his freewill to do what they want, only that masses need to be controled so everybody behaves correct, without falling into Chaos, so it is relatively simple to understand the fact why police exists. We don't want to live in a place where anybody can just take what they want or harm our loved ones, without go unpunished. Everyone is free to do what they want, you do not "trade" liberty. Consequences are another. You are not free to violate the law, Even if you would not steal from someone that is an option taken from you. Even if you wouldnt murder, thats an option taken from you. That is the very basis of Lawful good, take away peoples option to do evil so everyone is happier. Also the way you are defining Paladins is that they are Lawfull Neutral (Ultimate Law?) Paladins seek a society where everyone lives in a ordered society, where everyone has the right to live secure and oportunity to prosper by the ways of good, and by the edges of law. Indeed, they do. But to achieve a utopian society a paladin would like(IE no chance for evil) Freedom is sacraficied.
BW0222 01-04-06, 02:58 AM	>Slavery goes against the LG cause because you are forcing someone to do >your bidding, to serve you in a way the enslaved creature does not agree... Nonsense. Every law denies someone some aspect of their personal freedom. Middle ages society had very different moral concepts -- as did many other cultures. Trying to put today's concepts of morality on such societies isn't workable. If someone apprentiships themselves to a craftsperson and then is forced to work off their debt, this was normal and accepted. If you couldn't pay off your debts, your children were expected to pay it off. Your debts could be paid for by someone else who would then expect service from you. In many cultures working off your debts was a good and lawful thing to do. A North American indian might give a child to his enemy who stole his horse. A fallen knight might agree to the lord who defeated him rather than have his family tossed off his lands. For the kobold, slavery has to be better than the alternative -- a short rope or an axe. He's twice lucky -- they didn't execute him and he has a paladin looking after him which likely makes his life ten times better than most of the peasent population. Most children working to near death on the farms, mines, factories, lumber camps, etc. would given their right arm for three meals a day, a bed, and some light duty polishing armor! >As the Exalted Deeds book says, if a creature does surrender and begs for >mercy then IT IS YOUR DUTY AS A PALADIN to tie the creature and take it >to the church of your faith to face justice and decide how to atone for his >crimes. And if they sentance the kobold to death, chopping off of a hand, blinding, working to death in the mines, or slavery, you are expected (as a lawful being) need to accept it. Slavery is a perfectly acceptable punishment for a crime. There is nothing inhuman about it -- especially if the paladin is overseeing it being carried out. >If the church decides the creature will be in your charge to look for him and >ensure he'll be a good fellow then, go ahead, adopt him but not enslave >him. But the church isn't going to say this. It is going to say... "For murdering people, stealing the king's deer, plotting against this good church, etc., etc. we sentance you to death by the axe. You may serve the paladin for life instead." Like all forms of slavery there is definitely coersion, but the kobold is guilty and it honestly has the choice of saying it would rather face the normal punishment -- the axe, burning at the stake, hanging, etc. >Adopting a creature and properly training him into the faith is one thing, >enslaving him to do what you want no matter what the creature says or >does is utterly evil. And the Book of Vile Darkness says so. Then everyone in the middle ages would be utterly evil. Apprentiships, work houses, criminals, honor debts, feudal service, arranged marriages, guild memberships, indentured servants, a nunery, etc., etc. were all forms of slavery. Sorry... I don't buy that any society of the period could be lawful good under that definition. The kobold's slavery is voluntary. He has a choice. It might not be a good one, but he isn't being enslaved because of something he didn't do. He is being enslaved as punishment for crimes. Both lawful and good.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 03:30 AM	How about children? Do children have the rights to decide things for themselves? Of course they do. That's how we teach them what is right and what is wrong. If they make wrong decisions, we discipline them, but we do not take away their right to make those decisions for themselves--as long as they do not hurt themselves or others because of them. Palin the Wizard: You're confusing "liberty" with "dignity of sentient beings." Having to decide your own affairs for yourself is both a burden and a privilege. It is not a right inherent to being alive, and not granting this right to people is not synonymous with not respecting the dignity of that person as a sentient being. To make the point more clear, you're assuming that "freedom" is the same as "dignity of sentient beings." These values are not the same in D&D. In D&D, the value of liberty is mapped to the Chaotic alignment, not to the Good alignment. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never spoke of freedom. There's a fundamental difference between "freedom" and "not being a slave". You can *not* be a slave, yet not possess freedom. And yes, the privilege to decide things for yourself is a right inherent to being alive--or rather, a right inherent to being sentient. That people have only in recent times recognized this does not make it any less true. This characteristic is far more prevalent in Chaotic creatures than in Lawful, but it is (almost) always present in a Good character. Altruism--selflessness--is a direct result of this. Neutral characters might believe in it, but they put themselves first. An Evil character will only very rarely believe in it (and for some reason, even these few have decided to ignore it). A Lawful Good character would believe that, for society to prosper, individuals should, of their own free will, subjugate themselves to society norms and traditions. They might believe that people should do this so strongly that they are willing to put their Good alignment at risk by forcing people to adhere to it. A Paladin, however, would not (while remaining a Paladin). Why so? Paladins are permitted to perform any number and kinds of nonevil acts they so choose. Eating is not an aligned act. Are Paladins prevented from doing so? What about sleeping? What about caring for their friends? is that not more Neutral than Good? Is doing that against the Paladin's code of ethics? Eating and sleeping are acts that have nothing to do with morality. As for caring about your friends, while it technically is a Neutral aligned act, it does not contradict any characteristic of a Good alignment. You are confusing "not allowed to do" with "doesn't do as a mark of his class or beliefs." Holding slaves could be a nonevil act, and that means that a Paladin can do it without violating his alignment restriction. No. For the act of holding slaves is directly contradictory to any good alignment. It is not evil--not in and of itself--but it is so far removed form good, that any paladin doing it would find himself out of a job within a week. And please stop making assumptions about whether or not I am confused. I am perfectly capable of differentiating between two subjects. Moreover, you have not shown that the institution of slavery has never been good. I must certainly have, you simply have not agreed with the evidence I put forth (as is your right). In fact, the institution as it exists in Mulhorand can probably be said to be Good and even Lawful Good, as far as the alignment system can be said to apply to institutions at all. Lawful, perhaps, but certainly not Good.
Herger 01-04-06, 03:42 AM	You are saying what a CHAOTIC GOOD character will do, but not a LAWFULL GOOD paladin. "Every law denies someone some aspect of their personal freedom" what? is that something that a Paladin would say? An elf Chaotic Good yes, but not a Lawfull Good Paladin. A paladin believes strongly in the laws of good, of right. He believes that Justice will certainly bring more safety and more comfort to the world he tries to protect. He does not think about "personal freedom" he thinks about "liberty to do what you want as long as you do that by the laws of good" maybe for a CG character that does not work, but for a Paladin that works. And it's a fantasy game, we are not putting Inquisition from Middle Ages, that's different, because D&D it's a fantasy world, where real Middle Ages rules cannot be necessary implied. Again. SLAVERY implies making a creature to do your bidding and no matter what the creature thinks or say, he must do that WITHOUT expecting anything in exchange (money, personal gain, GOOD FOOD). REDEEMING a creature is a completly different thing. If the church (not necesary a Medieval one, again, we are in D&D not in the year 989 A.C.) of the Paladin orders him to take care of the kobold (whatever words they use) beacuse the Faith decided he has a chance to atone for his sins, they are not requesting the paladin to enslave the creature, but to be a TEACHER AND A MENTOR, not a Slave master! And the Paladin will do that. You have serious problems separating real Middle Ages and the FANTASY world of D&D. I know, I know, Middle Ages sucked for many people in those times, as you say it very wisely, they were starving, living miserably... but remember what DM Guide II says: D&D does not need to be equal to the real Middle Ages, that's a DM decision. I'm just saying that slavery according to D&D is evil by nature. And paladins are not evil. We need to separate the terms "Slavery" and "Reedem". I know that the kobold is lucky to have a Paladin as a mentor... and who does not? after all the Paladin will ensure that the kobold understand what LG is... remember that many other faiths also care about poor populations, this is a case in a million. That's what we have in D&D, many good faiths, many good hearted people that cares about others. But in the real life people in Middle Ages was (mostly) bad people, think about it. But D&D can change that. That's why it's called Fantasy Game!
Pandaemoni 01-04-06, 04:20 AM	Ok, here's another way of looking at it. As DM's we are telling a story, and it needs to be good. Slavery being evil is a pretty common theme in movies take these for instance: - The Ten Commandments (Nominated Best Picture) - Ben Hur (Best Picture) - Spartacus - Braveheart (Best Picture) - Gladiator (Best Picture) Anybody got some examples of movies that glorify slavery? Unfortunately all of those movies were made post-Enlightenment, AFAIK. No one is arguing that slavery is considered good *today*; today we obviously consider it an evil, but the fact is that medieval Europeans and those who came before them, including: the ancient Jews supposedly depicted in the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, the Roman era citizens of the Mediterranean, supposedly depicted in Spartacus and Gladiator, and the Scots and British supposedly depicted in Braveheart (who were more correctly just "oppressed" rather than slaves) That there are movies that foist our cultural beliefs on people who lived in the past is not surprising, but it cannot be taken as proof that people in the past shared our moral intuition with respect to slavery. There really are no moral absolutes. If there were then slavery would always have been a fringe institution...but in fact it was "common" in most pre-modern cultures amongst those who could afford to buy slaves. So the question is, as I've said before, "What does the Paladin's god think of slavery?" By extension, one can ask: is the DM running a world based off of a Braveheart-like universe where our moral beliefs are accepted as immutable and "right," or is he running one based on the actual history, where slavery isn't challenged or considered morally questionable? Either one is right, as it is the DMs call. There are plenty of modern values that have anachronistically seeped into D&D (female knights in full plate were not so common outside of Jeanne d'Arc, and they burned her.) The point there is, rightly imo, that there is no need to offend women by confronting them with the ugly realities of the world white males once lived dominated. Still though, would anyone argue that men and women have identical strength scores? In the real world, not many would, as men have an obvious advantage in upper body strength. (On the other hand, there is good evidence that women have better Constitutions than men, in the real world.) Again, though we import a modern sense of equality into the game because it makes the players happier. As I said above, if your group has an African American player, he'd be very much justified in condemning slavery and might be annoyed or worse if a DM were to rule that it is not inherently evil. There's nothing wrong with that, and a DM would be wise to account for such sensibilities in making his rulings on the issue. That said, to claim there is no basis to conclude that a good man might own slaves is to ignore a basic fact: in the past, “good" men have owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison anyone? They were late- to post-Enlightenment men who owned slaves and gave defense to slavery as an institution in their writings. The wisdom of the Enlightenment was in large part what spurred the notion of men having equal rights and the belief that slavery was inherently evil. These men knew the arguments, but nonetheless concluded that slavery was not an inherently evil institution (though those men also generally treated their slaves well, so far as we know). Other founding fathers (Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin, most notably), argued against slavery, so the concept was one that each had confronted. Does the mere fact that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves make them evil? Finally, imagine real-world crusader knight in the service of God. Since God does not condemn slavery as sin in the Bible (and indeed endorses the ownership of slaves by the Israelites), on what basis are we to conclude that God thinks slavery is sin? Suppose God did grant magical powers to such knights. If that knight lived in accordance with the Bible and kept a (well-treated) slave, I think he'd be pretty surprised if God "cut him off" for acting in an evil fashion. If Yahweh thought/thinks slavery is okay (and our impressions of what a "paladin" is derived from our image of knights pledged in service to Him), then why is Heironeous or any other LG deity expected to have a different moral intuition than God? Are our fictional gods more moral than God?
Andrew_980 01-04-06, 04:27 AM	The problem is every debate seams to end with a Clinton moment. "I define" or "by this i mean that" or some such non-sense. Between fighting over (and warping the wording of) definitions and attaching too much baggage over insinuated meanings based on how things are generaly percieved, it is almost impossable to discuss the topic. If we can settle on a single, unbaised, definition and not drag out our own baggage, we may even reach something resembling an understanding. This applies to all morality discussions.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 04:42 AM	The problem is every debate seams to end with a Clinton moment. "I define" or "by this i mean that" or some such non-sense. Between fighting over (and warping the wording of) definitions and attaching too much baggage over insinuated meanings based on how things are generaly percieved, it is almost impossable to discuss the topic. If we can settle on a single, unbaised, definition and not drag out our own baggage, we may even reach something resembling an understanding. This applies to all morality discussions. It is a problem because we think we have a common foundation--but we end up arguing semantics.
Pandaemoni 01-04-06, 04:43 AM	No, it doesn't. Every person has the right to decide for themselves, no one else can do it for them. That's fine, but that is a modern, post-Enlightenment moral viewpoint, not one that would have been shared by a medieval European or an ancient Roman or Jew. If you want to play your game that way, there's nothing wrong with that, but that is not the RAW, that is you reading your modern moral intuition into the RAW. I suspect that majority of gamers play the game the way you do (I personally do), but I think you mistake your style of play for the RAW. It is not good to have slaves. It specifically is a breach of the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Same thing. The word "dignity" is not the same as "freedom," "equality" or "liberty." Taking liberty away from someone does not ipso facto mean depriving them of their "dignity as sentient beings." Prisoners are not free men and can be denied the right to vote (hence are not "equal" to the other members of society), but they have not necessarily had their dignity stripped from them. Again, I have nothing against your deciding that LG means never having to say you own a slave, but that reads a lot into the phrase "dignity as a sentient being" that does not *have to* be read into it. As such, I do not see that you are correct to say that the prohibition against slavery is built into the RAW, unless we accept that words mean whatever Palin_the_Wizard says they mean, dictionaries be damned. Imprisonment, rehabilitation and punishment are not the same as slavery. Slavery is forcing someone to obey you because you perceive yourself to be "better" than they are in some way. Rehabilitation is a response to a crime, and would be the more merciful option. What you are missing is: Cain. Cain *and all of his descendents* were punished for Cain's murder of Abel. In the medieval mindset you can be guilty of crimes committed by your ancient forebears, even crimes committed centuries or millennia ago. The so-called "corruption of blood" was not uncommon in European legal or moral philosophy before the Enlightenment. Also, in that same mindset, you can rightly "punish" people for sin, not just "crimes." So the evil ogre can be punished by forced enslavement merely for the "sin" of his being evil (just look at the Inquisition)...and his children can be punished for that same sin, even if those children themselves are good. Moreover, one may believe (as many Europeans did once upon a time) that an entire race has been condemned by one's god...and that that race may be rightly enslaved as a result. God judged them, God ordained that it is right to punish them, slavery is a more humane punishment than execution, and that same punishment extends to their children and their children’s children (at least until God comes down and lifts His condemnation). Today, we (rightly, imo) condemn such attitudes...but in part that's because we take the Bible to be largely allegory rather than literal truth. If the Bible is literal truth, then either our modern notion that slavery is evil is wrong, or God himself is immoral. There's no way around that, as our belief in the evil of slavery is not at all mirrored in the Bible. Again, if you *want* to import our moral sensibilities into the game, there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, I would rule that slavery is immoral in my own personal games); but the RAW does not require you to do so. While this is true, the institution of slavery has never been good. As such, it is not possible for a paladin to hold slaves. That's not in the RAW. If that's the way your world works, then great but the question of the thread is not "Can a paladin own slaves in Palin_the_Wizard's world?" It is: "Can a Paladin own slaves in any D&D world without violating the notion of "Good" used in the core rulebooks?" The answer is: yes, a paladin can own slaves under the core rules without that being an evil act under some circumstances. What circumstances? Mainly that the god of the paladin (and, by extension, the moral climate the DM's universe) not consider slave holding to be inherently evil. That requires a definite pre-modern sense of good and evil and even if slavery is not "evil" in and of itself, there would likely be requirements that slaves be well-treated and not left to suffer needlessly. Nothing in the RAW, however, requires that we foist our modern moral intuitions on the gods of the game world.
Leap_UK 01-04-06, 04:58 AM	How does slavery accord with "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"?
Pandaemoni 01-04-06, 05:34 AM	How does slavery accord with "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? If you honestly believe that life as your slave is better for the slave than life on his own would be. My example was the neutral evil ogre barbarian. Look at the beast from the paladin's perspective. Left to it's own devices, that creature has little chance at redemption and a great chance of inflicting its evil on others around it. As the slave of the paladin, its evil impulses could be constrained, it would not be left to live in filth in the wild, and perhaps it will learn from the paladin's example and shed its evil ways. The evil barbarian might even contribute some good to the world (albeit only because the paladin ordered it to do so), rather than just evil. From the paladin's perspective, the barbarian might seem to be better off spiritually, physically and emotionally because it is under the thumb of a benevolent master who "knows what's best" better than the slave himself does. There is noting in the RAW that says that LG creatures respect the choices of others and their right to make the choice. It is Chaotic Good that would respect individual liberty, Lawful Good expects you live life by their code regardless of your own moral intuitions. It just so happens that, during the Enlightenment, the right to self-determination rose in popularity. In so doing, the Enlightenment made the rights of liberty part of the standard western moral view of the world (in other words, if there is a "lawful good moral code", then the right to self-determination is now a part of it), but that simply was not the case in the European past, it's a relatively modern development. A paladin is not bound under the RAW to respect freedom in all its forms. If he were, he'd demand that kings (even good and benevolent kings) institute democratic reforms. If a paladin can smile warmly at the notion of a benevolent dictator in the form of a king, then he can smile warmly at the notion of a benevolent dictator in the form of a master. It is the same concept but on a smaller scale.' Edit: Or to put it another way. Someone invented the phrase "This is for your own good" for a reason. Suppose ogres are stupid and generally incapable of making good decisions (and I think there is a decent argument that they are that way). Under modern standards we could declare them to be "incompetent" and appoint guardians to make decisions for them...even if they disagreed with the decisions of the guardian or the decision to appoint a guardian. Suppose that some benevolent deity wants his followers to lead ogres to salvation (as any benevolent deity probably would)? Ogres are unlikely to reach it on their own, and unlikely to willingly accept such leadership. In that case, the followers of the benevolent deity might "have to" force the ogres in line "for their own good" as well as for the good of the people the ogres might otherwise hurt with their evil. The ogres are better off, the world is better off. It's win-win. What grants the ogres greater dignity? Letting them live "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" lives of unrepentant evil, or guiding them on the path to righteousness, directing them to do good works and providing them sustenance and proper clothing and housing? A paladin could be forgiven for not sentencing the ogres to the former for the sake of liberty. The only loss comes *if* you believe in some sort of inherent right to self-determination, which is a modern concept. The question is do the RAW require a DM to import that concept into the game. While I do and I think most do, the RAW read strictly do not suggest that is required.
BW0222 01-04-06, 05:52 AM	Herger, >You are saying what a CHAOTIC GOOD character will do, but not a LAWFULL >GOOD paladin. No. You are saying that. I never used the word chaotic in my post. >"Every law denies someone some aspect of their personal freedom" what? is >that something that a Paladin would say? Yes. A paladin is lawful. They belief in the laws, rules, and traditions of society. He has sworn oaths to uphold the laws of his noble, church, kingdom, etc. If the church has a law which says "Criminals found guilty of murder become slaves." then the paladin is swearing to uphold them. >A paladin believes strongly in the laws of good, of right. He believes that >Justice will certainly bring more safety and more comfort to the world he >tries to protect. Wrong. He believes in the a code of justice defined by his church, nation, noble, society, etc. who he swore loyalty to. He upholds these laws. That is lawful. Justice is an abstract concept. A person who believes that his definition of justice trumps everyone elses -- written laws, traditions, religion, society, etc. -- isn't lawful. That is chaotic. If a paladin's church says "Murdering kobolds are to be executed." then he is duty bound to uphold their laws. >And it's a fantasy game, we are not putting Inquisition from Middle Ages, >that's different, because D&D it's a fantasy world, where real Middle Ages >rules cannot be necessary implied. It's not just the Europe in the middle ages. Nearly every civilization had some form of slavery until fairly recently. From North American natives, South and Central America, Europe, Asia, etc. all had various forms of slavery. Many cultures still practice subtle forms of it. You are going to be hard pressed to find any setting in which apprenticeships, work houses for the poor, arranged marriages, swearing loyalty to a noble, prison work details, compulsery military service, etc. don't exist. >Again. SLAVERY implies making a creature to do your bidding and no matter >what the creature thinks or say, he must do that WITHOUT expecting >anything in exchange (money, personal gain, GOOD FOOD). Yes. Sounds like a definition of slavery. However "anything" is too vague. Slaves always get something in return. An arranged marriage gets one a house and husband. A work house gets you a place to sleep. A criminal gets to avoid prison. A defeated knight gets to see his family stay alive. An apprentice gets to learn a skilled trade. And a kobold gets to avoid being executed. >REDEEMING a creature is a completly different thing. If the church (not >necesary a Medieval one, again, we are in D&D not in the year 989 A.C.) of >the Paladin orders him to take care of the kobold (whatever words they >use) beacuse the Faith decided he has a chance to atone for his sins, they >are not requesting the paladin to enslave the creature, but to be a >TEACHER AND A MENTOR, not a Slave master! And the Paladin will do that. Semantics. And what if the kobold doesn't agree to this, tries to flee, or tries causing harm to someone again? The church isn't asking the kobold "Would you like to go with the paladin or return to your tribe so you can continue raiding?". It is telling the kobold "Go with the paladin or hang from a tree!" We assume that it that church has concluded that the kobold is guilty of some crime -- murder, assault, or merely being a kobold. It isn't going to let the kobold go. You can call it redemption, teaching, or mentoring if you wish, but it is as voluntary as any criminal, indentured servant, or any other form of slavery. It clearly meets your definition if you assume that the kobold would vote for returning home. >You have serious problems separating real Middle Ages and the FANTASY >world of D&D. I know, I know, Middle Ages sucked for many people in those >times, as you say it very wisely, they were starving, living miserably... but >remember what DM Guide II says: D&D does not need to be equal to the >real Middle Ages, that's a DM decision. It's not just the middle ages. Pick any culture in human history outside of modern times and some form of slavery exists. We have various forms of it today. From the draft, arranged marriages, apprenticeships, prisons, etc. all fall under your definition of slavery and yet are practiced today. >I'm just saying that slavery according to D&D is evil by nature. I'm saying it isn't. We put criminals in jail all the time. They are clearly slaves under your definition -- they certainly don't get anything in return and they certainly don't have the option of not going to jail. Making criminals do labor isn't evil. Making a kobold criminal travel with a paladin and work for him is no different morally than having him out on a rock-pile. >And paladins are not evil. We need to separate the terms "Slavery" >and "Reedem". You defined slavery. Let's go by your definition. The kobold isn't free to leave and is forced to do what the paladin says... right? The church didn't ask the kobold if he would rather return to the mountains to continue raiding villages... did they? >That's what we have in D&D, many good faiths, many good hearted people >that cares about others. But in the real life people in Middle Ages was >(mostly) bad people, think about it. But D&D can change that. That's why >it's called Fantasy Game! Most people in the middle ages weren't bad. You are mistaking slavery with evil. Someone in the middle ages who made people work for them in return for a skilled profession are not evil. Neither is a plains indian who give their child to a skilled warrior who stole their horse. Nor is someone today who marries their daughter off to a wealthy family. Nor is a society who makes criminals pick up garbage on the side of roads. All are forms of slavery. Like any action, it is the motive behind the why you are making someone a slave which determines alignment. In the case of the paladin, it is pretty clear that it is a punishment for the kobolds prior acts and he is upholding the laws of his land. However, if it bothers you so much, you can go back to the "less evil" solution of chopping the kobold's head off.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 07:42 AM	That's fine, but that is a modern, post-Enlightenment moral viewpoint, not one that would have been shared by a medieval European or an ancient Roman or Jew. If you want to play your game that way, there's nothing wrong with that, but that is not the RAW, that is you reading your modern moral intuition into the RAW. I suspect that majority of gamers play the game the way you do (I personally do), but I think you mistake your style of play for the RAW. Actually, it is the RAW--read the alignment section. And why, if I may ask, should we play according to the moral viewpoint of a medieval European or an ancient Roman? Same thing. The word "dignity" is not the same as "freedom," "equality" or "liberty." Taking liberty away from someone does not ipso facto mean depriving them of their "dignity as sentient beings." Prisoners are not free men and can be denied the right to vote (hence are not "equal" to the other members of society), but they have not necessarily had their dignity stripped from them. That is quite simply because they have chosen for themselves to break laws--or at least, they have been found guilty in having broken laws. Funny expression--"ipso facto". Never heard of it before. I ask that you point out where I have said that taking someone's liberty away means depriving them of their dignity, because I do not remember making such a blanket statement. Again, I have nothing against your deciding that LG means never having to say you own a slave, but that reads a lot into the phrase "dignity as a sentient being" that does not *have to* be read into it. As such, I do not see that you are correct to say that the prohibition against slavery is built into the RAW, unless we accept that words mean whatever Palin_the_Wizard says they mean, dictionaries be damned. Actually, I usually rely quite heavily on dictionaries. But in this case, I do not feel that there can be any room for dispute. Enslaving someone means that someone owns them. How can this, in any way, not deprive the victim of their dignity as a sentient being? Being forced against your will to serve someone on their whim? What you are missing is: Cain. Cain *and all of his descendents* were punished for Cain's murder of Abel. In the medieval mindset you can be guilty of crimes committed by your ancient forebears, even crimes committed centuries or millennia ago. The so-called "corruption of blood" was not uncommon in European legal or moral philosophy before the Enlightenment. Also, in that same mindset, you can rightly "punish" people for sin, not just "crimes." So the evil ogre can be punished by forced enslavement merely for the "sin" of his being evil (just look at the Inquisition)...and his children can be punished for that same sin, even if those children themselves are good. Moreover, one may believe (as many Europeans did once upon a time) that an entire race has been condemned by one's god...and that that race may be rightly enslaved as a result. God judged them, God ordained that it is right to punish them, slavery is a more humane punishment than execution, and that same punishment extends to their children and their children’s children (at least until God comes down and lifts His condemnation). Today, we (rightly, imo) condemn such attitudes...but in part that's because we take the Bible to be largely allegory rather than literal truth. If the Bible is literal truth, then either our modern notion that slavery is evil is wrong, or God himself is immoral. There's no way around that, as our belief in the evil of slavery is not at all mirrored in the Bible. Again, if you *want* to import our moral sensibilities into the game, there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, I would rule that slavery is immoral in my own personal games); but the RAW does not require you to do so. Just because the ancient Romans or the medieval European believed that things were put together a certain way doesn't make it true--even if you play a game set in that time period. In D&D, the alignments are fact. They are objective, they will not change because someone believes that what they are doing is "Good". Fact is, if it conflicts with the alignment description, it's not. That aside, the RAW never "requires" anything. That's not in the RAW. If that's the way your world works, then great but the question of the thread is not "Can a paladin own slaves in Palin_the_Wizard's world?" It is: "Can a Paladin own slaves in any D&D world without violating the notion of "Good" used in the core rulebooks?" The answer is: yes, a paladin can own slaves under the core rules without that being an evil act under some circumstances. What circumstances? Mainly that the god of the paladin (and, by extension, the moral climate the DM's universe) not consider slave holding to be inherently evil. That requires a definite pre-modern sense of good and evil and even if slavery is not "evil" in and of itself, there would likely be requirements that slaves be well-treated and not left to suffer needlessly. Nothing in the RAW, however, requires that we foist our modern moral intuitions on the gods of the game world. You are falling into the trap of thinking that alignment is subjective. Be warned: it is not. It merely appears to be. Slavery is not good, regardless of whether the culture accepts it or not. Even if entire civilizations believe that slavery is perfectly acceptable--and the slaves as well--does not mean it is Good concept. Good is predetermined, it is not influenced by what you or I believe. No, you're right. Nothing in the RAW wants us to put our own morality to the game world. That's because there is a definition of morality in the RAW: the nine alignments. So the answer is "no", according to the RAW. Simple fact.
Pandaemoni 01-04-06, 08:28 AM	Actually, it is the RAW--read the alignment section. I have read the Alignment section. Where in the RAW does it say LG means "no slaves"? It definitely isn't that "dignity as a sentient being" line. The very fact that we *are* debating the meaning of that line means that your interpretation of it is debatable. Looking at pages 106-109 I don't see any rule directly on point unless you do a whole lot of questionable interpretation. One thing I do see is that the "Law" description does say that lawful people are burdened by "close-mindedness, a reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness and a lack of adaptability," all of which might *support* the institution of slavery as against evil or those who might otherwise be easily led away from the "moral" path. Ownership does not imply a lack of "dignity." People own horses and yet still admire the dignity of those animals. I own two dogs and would not say that I have stripped them of their dignity by the mere fact of possessing them. Treating them in a cruel of demeaning manner would be demeaning to their dignity, not the mere fact of ownership unless you believe that the semantics of title and ownership are *inherently" demeaning. If so, most people would agree with you, but again that is a modern concept. A well treated and respected slave (which actually existed in the real world in the past) can have as much dignity as a free man. A well-treated slave, forced to act in the service of good, can even have more dignity than an immoral bandit terrorizing the countryside. So again, if a paladin believes his slave is morally inferior to himself (the evil ogre barbarian you have enslaved, for instance), then the paladin may believe that the ogre, as an evil monster, will have more dignity working towards good ends as a slave than it would have if left to its own devices. That is an entirely subjective matter, about which (divorced from a cultural context) two men could reasonably disagree. And why, if I may ask, should we play according to the moral viewpoint of a medieval European or an ancient Roman?*Nothing* says that we "should" play according to the moral viewpoints of medieval Europeans or of ancient Romans (even I didn't say that, please read my post). Nothing at all. As I did say in my post, if the DM wants to import modern sensibilities on the issue of slavery into his game world, that is absolutely fine. I do that myself. Where, if I may ask, does it say that we should play according to the moral viewpoint of a modern westerner rather than a medieval European? [Hint: It doesn't] That said, I see nothing on pages 103-106 that absolutely compels me to import modern moral concepts of free determination into the game...especially a game loosely based around a fictionalized medieval setting. The RAW leaves you free to use modern moral concepts, historical moral concepts, fictional/literary moral concepts, or any other moral concepts on this score. A DM is free to use slavery in his campaign to serve good ends without feeling he is violating the RAW. He is certainly violating your personal reading of the RAW, but you are hanging far too much interpretation on far too vague language in the rules. Good is predetermined, it is not influenced by what you or I believe. No, you're right. Nothing in the RAW wants us to put our own morality to the game world. That's because there is a definition of morality in the RAW: the nine alignments. So the answer is "no", according to the RAW. Simple fact. On that point I agree. In the real world, "good" and "evil" are totally subjective and different peoples through history have drawn very different conclusions on what is good and what is evil. In the game world, though, the gods serve as final arbiters of good and evil...and the gods can directly impart that wisdom to their followers. "Good" is determined by what the good gods believe. If the good gods think slavery is acceptable, then slavery is not evil. What those gods think of slavery is up to the DM, and the RAW offers no guidance on that question. The Bible thought slavery was peachy, modern society thinks it is not. The RAW themselves are silent, but could be read to support either interpretation so long as the slaves are well-treated. Which interpretation makes it into the game is the DM's choice under the RAW.
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 09:37 AM	Palin the Wizard: And yes, the privilege to decide things for yourself is a right inherent to being alive--or rather, a right inherent to being sentient. That people have only in recent times recognized this does not make it any less true. Refer please to the Good alignment in the PHB. It says "dignity of sentient beings." What part of that implies that dignity is concerned with right to choose? This characteristic is far more prevalent in Chaotic creatures than in Lawful, but it is (almost) always present in a Good character. You are projecting your own sensibilities into a game mechanical defintion. This is what I mean when I say you're confusing Chaotic with Good. You're assuming that liberty is Good, whereas in D&D, it's Chaotic. There is nothing in the Good alignment that calls for liberty. A Lawful Good character would believe that, for society to prosper, individuals should, of their own free will, subjugate themselves to society norms and traditions. Please refer to the rulebook. Which part of the Lawful Good alignment says that it values liberty and individualism? Eating and sleeping are acts that have nothing to do with morality. As for caring about your friends, while it technically is a Neutral aligned act, it does not contradict any characteristic of a Good alignment. Neither does owning slaves. Again, do not assume that slave-owning is not Good. Prove it with logic. No. For the act of holding slaves is directly contradictory to any good alignment. It is not evil--not in and of itself--but it is so far removed form good, that any paladin doing it would find himself out of a job within a week. And please stop making assumptions about whether or not I am confused. I am perfectly capable of differentiating between two subjects. I disagree. You cannot differentiate between RL values and D&D alignment, and you cannot differentiate between the Good D&D alignment and the Chaotic D&D alignment. I could say, with equal validity, that I think that killing people is part of the "dignity of being sentient," and I would then argue that Good alignments necessitate that you kill sentients whenever possible. I would not be right, but then again, it's exactly the same argument format. "Dignity of being sentient" implies many things, but right to choose is not one of them. Lawful, perhaps, but certainly not Good. Good, most certainly! The Churches of Mulhorand take in slaves for the slaves' own benefit, without regard for how productive that slave is. An old man who could hardly stand would receive all the magical care that he required, and not a grain less than he needed to live well. He would rest for as long as was necessary, and in general be more fortunate than if he were a freeholder living in Cormyr. No one in Mulhorand ever would die unhelped and alone if the Churches of Horus had their say. The institution is expressly altruistic and concerned with personal dignity. I would unhesitatingly call that institution Good. In fact, if you would ignore the nomenclature, and call these people "public servants," without changing one iota of the practices and implications, you would realize it, too. It is a problem because we think we have a common foundation--but we end up arguing semantics. Actually, you're not arguing anything, or not well, anyway. You're defining your own terms and then using those to prove your point. It's Begging the Question fallacy. I clarify that the real definition of slavery does not conform to that most commonly held by many posters here. Their lack of knowledge does not make my definitions my own nor are they arbitrary. I bring forth factual examples from both within and outside the game to substantiate my claims. Here, Palin, I confess that I'm very confused. You say this: And yes, the privilege to decide things for yourself is a right inherent to being alive--or rather, a right inherent to being sentient. but at the same time, you also say this: I ask that you point out where I have said that taking someone's liberty away means depriving them of their dignity, because I do not remember making such a blanket statement. So which is it? A slave asks a Paladin to give him food and shelter in return for his liberty. Of course, giving the slave food and shelter regardless would be Good, but I fail to see where taking the offer would be Evil or otherwise cause the Paladin conflict. Enslaving someone means that someone owns them. How can this, in any way, not deprive the victim of their dignity as a sentient being? Being forced against your will to serve someone on their whim? First of all, not all slaves were unwilling servants, so being forced to serve against your will is not something that's inherent to slavery. Nor is it unique to slavery, either. Secondly, I do not recognize where owning someone deprives them of their dignity as a sentient being. You assume this is true without providing supporting evidences or arugment. You are falling into the trap of thinking that alignment is subjective. Be warned: it is not. It merely appears to be. Slavery is not good, regardless of whether the culture accepts it or not. I agree. Alignment is not subjective. That is why your subjective determination that dignity of sentients involves right to decide is not valid. My saying that slavery does not conflict with the Good alignment is based on the notion that the rules say only what they say - I'm trying not to read anything into them. Valuing right to decide as Good is a modern Western subjective concept. It is not universal. It is subjective. Herger: Again. SLAVERY implies making a creature to do your bidding and no matter what the creature thinks or say, he must do that WITHOUT expecting anything in exchange (money, personal gain, GOOD FOOD). That only applies to chattel slavery, an uncommon form of slavery, generally not the norm. Slavery most commonly refers to an exchange of social contracts, service in exchange for food and shelter, or monies, or power, or some such commodity. Please refer to world history textbooks for more information. Pandaemoni: The only loss comes *if* you believe in some sort of inherent right to self-determination, which is a modern concept. The question is do the RAW require a DM to import that concept into the game. While I do and I think most do, the RAW read strictly do not suggest that is required. I wholly agree. In fact, it's not only a modern concept, it's also a Western concept. Not a value that's held as sacrosanct by the rest of the world. Many Americans and Europeans wonder that Singaporeans can live their lives so circumscribed by law and custom, but that's just the point. Singaporeans recognize that self-determination is not necessarily a desirable trait. Individualism is great for churning out thinkers, but it's lousy for managing administrative concerns. People in Asia have been living with like three to four times the population density of people from Europe and I think that because of that Asians recognize the value of the social contract over individualism. Westerners look on in horror at Indians and Thais living with extended families under one roof, but the truth here is, we wouldn't have it any other way. Even if a Thai had the land area, he would probably want to keep the company of his family so much so that he'd invite them to live with him anyway (and expect them to say yes). I'm not saying the believing in right to self-determination is bad in any way, or taken to any extent. I'm just saying that it's not universal. I think that's why I can recognize that the Good alignment in D&D doesn't necessarily include valuing liberty.
DrWorm 01-04-06, 11:33 AM	If you honestly believe that life as your slave is better for the slave than life on his own would be. My example was the neutral evil ogre barbarian. Look at the beast from the paladin's perspective. Left to it's own devices, that creature has little chance at redemption and a great chance of inflicting its evil on others around it. As the slave of the paladin, its evil impulses could be constrained, it would not be left to live in filth in the wild, and perhaps it will learn from the paladin's example and shed its evil ways. The evil barbarian might even contribute some good to the world (albeit only because the paladin ordered it to do so), rather than just evil. That is the exact same arrogant logic that early conquerors used to destroy and exploit native cultures all over the world durring the Imperialist era. They believed they were doing god's work by "civilizing" savage cultures. What they did was murder and exploit millions of people who had been in the same place for thousands of years. Lawful (by their own standards) though they might be, their is nothing "good" about such an act. Evil, especially in D&D, is absolute.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 12:11 PM	Pandaemoni, Roxlimn, I think the main reason why we are disagreeing is because I assign certain qualities to the term "slavery" whereas you do not. I should not have done that, and as such, I admit that under your definition of slavery (as I have understood it, at least), I would be wrong. Mea culpa. Roxlimn, in the future, please, stop with the condescending tone. It's quite offensive. It's possible to prove that someone is wrong without offending them. There are a few matters I still disagree with you on, though. Ownership does not imply a lack of "dignity." People own horses and yet still admire the dignity of those animals. I own two dogs and would not say that I have stripped them of their dignity by the mere fact of possessing them. Treating them in a cruel of demeaning manner would be demeaning to their dignity, not the mere fact of ownership unless you believe that the semantics of title and ownership are *inherently" demeaning. There is quite a difference between animals and humans. Animals are not sentient. I do believe that ownership is inherently bemeaning, but that is my personal opinion. While I cannot understand that anyone would not believe this, I can respect their opinions. "Good" is determined by what the good gods believe. If the good gods think slavery is acceptable, then slavery is not evil. What those gods think of slavery is up to the DM, and the RAW offers no guidance on that question. The Bible thought slavery was peachy, modern society thinks it is not. The RAW themselves are silent, but could be read to support either interpretation so long as the slaves are well-treated. Which interpretation makes it into the game is the DM's choice under the RAW. Alignment is not determined by Gods. It is determined by the RAW in general, and by DMs in specific campaigns. A God in D&D does not say, "This is Good and that's not!" and even if they did, their personal beliefs do not change the actual alignment anymore than their followers' do. Alignment exists outside the confines of the game. Just as other game mechanics, even Gods are subject to alignment. Good, most certainly! The Churches of Mulhorand take in slaves for the slaves' own benefit, without regard for how productive that slave is. An old man who could hardly stand would receive all the magical care that he required, and not a grain less than he needed to live well. He would rest for as long as was necessary, and in general be more fortunate than if he were a freeholder living in Cormyr. No one in Mulhorand ever would die unhelped and alone if the Churches of Horus had their say. The institution is expressly altruistic and concerned with personal dignity. I would unhesitatingly call that institution Good. In fact, if you would ignore the nomenclature, and call these people "public servants," without changing one iota of the practices and implications, you would realize it, too. While this is all very admirable, I would hestiate to call these people "slaves". "Public servants" seems to be a better term. But, clarify something for me: If this hypothetical old man does not want the help of the Churches of Horus, would they force the help on him, regardless of his wishes? Secondly, I do not recognize where owning someone deprives them of their dignity as a sentient being. You assume this is true without providing supporting evidences or arugment. I assume it is true because I find it to be self-evident. Being called someone's property is something I am certain I would find extremely demeaning and humiliating. Obviously, you disagree.
wrecan 01-04-06, 12:21 PM	That is the exact same arrogant logic that early conquerors used to destroy and exploit native cultures all over the world durring the Imperialist era. They believed they were doing god's work by "civilizing" savage cultures. What they did was murder and exploit millions of people who had been in the same place for thousands of years. Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. The point is that D&D is written with a pre-Enlightenment medieval mindset. The alignment system incorporates such a mindset to a degree. That's why reference to modern morality is irrelevant. Not because medieval people had a different set, but because RAW, which is inspired by medieval morality, has (or allows) a different standard than modern morality. Lawful (by their own standards) though they might be, their is nothing "good" about such an act. Evil, especially in D&D, is absolute. Evil is absolute but I see nothing in RAW that makes all forms of slavery, and particularly the form of slavery in the OP (enslaving a kobold as punishment for his crimes) as part of that. As roxlimn, pandaemoni and others have pointed out, nothing in RAW requires that slavery be deemed an evil act. Palin and others may prefer that interpretation, but it is not required.
wrecan 01-04-06, 12:31 PM	Being called someone's property is something I am certain I would find extremely demeaning and humiliating. Obviously, you disagree. You know, if you're going to ask people not to be condescending to you, perhaps you try to avoid exchanges like the one above in which you are condescending to them. Those of us living post-enlightenment do find slavery demeaning. But that's because we live in a society that considers slavery demeaning. In many societies, slavery was not demeaning. In fact, it could offer many more opportunities to people than a free man was allowed. For example, in medieval Muslim societies, particularly medieval India and Egypt, slaves were the only people who could ascend to positions of nobility. The Delhi Sultanate was called the "Slave Dynasty" precisely because it was founded by a slave who was promoted ot noble, his court consisted of similarly emancipated slaves and its entire social structure revolved around the purchase of chattel slaves, their training to be knights, then nobleman, and the eventual selection of one of them to be Sultan upon the death of a prior Sultan. The Mameluk Dynasty in Egypt worked under similar principles. In such a society, being a slave was not demeaning. Your freedom was restricted, but you were one of the elite. Instead of being a common laborer, you were being trained to be a ruler, to be just and wise. You were taught to read and write (unlike commoners), taught to use weapons (unlike commoners), to ride a horse (unlike commoners), taught law, music, poetry and religion. Commoners did volunteer for slavery, but were often turned down. It was thought you had to be a slave from birth. Once your childhood was over training was too difficult. Do you know what this form of slavery reminds me of? Jedi training. Jedi are slaves. They are taken from their families from before the age of six (Anakin was ten and the Council thought he was too old to begin training) and taught the ways of a Jedi. Under your definition, the Jedi are an evil organization. Slavery is extremely lawful. In many of its forms it could also be evil, per RAW. But not always. You are free to interpret RAW otherwise.
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 12:34 PM	I confess that I'm not aware of how I'm projecting the condescending tone. I've been advised on it in the past, and where I endeavored to compensate, people simply assumed that I was being sarcastic, and I got worse replies. I like to think that I've improved in my tone of posting, but I really can't tell. It's one of my blind spots. While this is all very admirable, I would hestiate to call these people "slaves". "Public servants" seems to be a better term. But, clarify something for me: If this hypothetical old man does not want the help of the Churches of Horus, would they force the help on him, regardless of his wishes? Probably. Lawful Good people are notoriously difficult to dissuade that way. If they think you need help, they'll give it whether you like it or not. If the old man didn't want their help, they'd probably exert a lot of effort to determine why, but that wouldn't stop them from administering aid in the meantime. I suspect that it's extremely hard to try to take your own life as a slave in Mulhorand. I assume it is true because I find it to be self-evident. Being called someone's property is something I am certain I would find extremely demeaning and humiliating. Obviously, you disagree. I would find it demeaning and humiliating myself, but only because it's all too likely that anyone calling me their property would do so in the sense of modern Western sensibilities, which demeans inanimate objects, and property in general. Bear in mind that pre-Hispanic Philippine and even modern Japanese sensibilities attach a lot of respect to inanimate objects as repositories of spirits and worldly powers. Thus, owning an object bestows honor on you, but it also bestows honor on the object depending on who you are. Likewise, you can't mistreat your property just because they're your property. There are proper ways to treat property, and deviating from these norms, especially in ways insulting or demeaning to your property can have serious repercussions, not only socially but spiritually. There are all manner of appropriate punishments and distasteful ends for people who mistreat their property, human or otherwise. Even in the rather wild Visayan Islands, there were acceptable means for a slave to get back at his master for various injustices, and killing one's master (especially in self-defense) isn't necessarily unjustifiable. Let's take another RL example. The powerful courtiers of Imperial China and the Middle Eastern Empires were often slaves and were called the properties of their masters. These positions were sometimes forced, and sometimes voluntary, but they provide great power and prestige to the slave, who often acted as administrators and rulers in their own right. To be called the property of the Emperor of China is not a bad thing, and I probably wouldn't mind being called that, since it implied a great deal of respect. Indeed, people often vied for the positions of slaves in these particulars, and there were limitations - quotas - on how many could be taken. Bear in mind that in all instances, these are not "virtual" slaves or "people who might as well be called slaves." These people actually were slaves and the institution of slavery is historically most commonly held to this standard. It's unfortunate that the slave-owners of America were sometimes such evil minded people, and likewise unfortunate that the laws of the land did not take them to task, but these people are not representative of master in slave institutions, and American slavery is likewise not representative of the practice of slavery as a whole.
Palin the Wizard 01-04-06, 12:52 PM	You know, if you're going to ask people not to be condescending to you, perhaps you try to avoid exchanges like the one above in which you are condescending to them. I didn't mean for that passage to be condescending, and I apologize if it comes across that way.
SureFoot 01-04-06, 01:32 PM	Then the onus to end this thread falls upon the OP to define "slavery." There are many different definitions bandied about here, and each poster (self included) who has given at least one definition believes they are correct. But the context is crucial here, so the first poster must state what is "slavery." However, I will venture a new, more general statement. If by "slavery" the OP means forcing a sentient being into a life of servitude against their will, then I believe this to be an evil act. If by "slavery" the OP means a life of servitude wherein the being in question enters some form of contract willingly to devote his/herself to some cause and subsumes "ownership of themselves" of their own volition and in full mental faculties and not under duress, then I believe it's probably not an evil act (actual treatment of the "slave" notwithstanding).
revnk 01-04-06, 01:46 PM	revnk: But that's not really the question, is it? The question is, "Is it possible for a Paladin to get a slave for a good cause?" Obviously, since it is exists in D&D, it's possible. Whether it's universally present is not what's at discussion. I feel obligated to respond, although I shouldn't feel any such obligation, since I believe my prior exchange with Nom resolves the original posters issues: what is possible and permissable for a paladin in D&D is what the DM and player agree are permissable, with the DM making the final call. My point regarding the flumphs was merely to state that just because something exists somewhere in the thousands of official and unofficial pages published over the past thirty years in reference to D&D does not mean that it exists in any particular campaign or counts as final authority on the subject. As is expected when one discusses a body of work published over decades by literally hundreds of authors--any of them amateurs, fans and freelancers--there are false steps, bad calls, broken rules and foolish inventions galore. The fact is that anything is possible in D&D, so arguing that something is possible is irrelevant--a more productive concern is whether a particular possibility is a good idea. While I am not personally acquainted with this fantasy setting you keep citing as an authority, I can say that you have not offered anything to persuade me that it is useful, sensible or good. If it persuades the original poster or any other respondent to these boards, that is his or her affair. Again, not an educated argument. The very definition of "slavery" here is what's at question, and it's quite obvious to me that most people posting on the boards equate slavery with "chattel slavery," when anyone who does any research beyond American history will find that this is by no means what's normal when you say "slavery." Alipins in Southeast Asia are not indentured servants being called slaves. They are slaves, and that's that, I'm afraid. It's a definition thing. It's a fact, and therefore cannot be argued. You can't argue whether the sun is hot or not because that's a fact. You can only refute it with contradictory facts. Regrettably, you only proffer a pseudoeducated argument. I thought it was a given outside of the hard sciences that semantics and operational definitions inform and structure a debate. If you wish to use a definition of "slaves" that encompasses Alipins or any other group or caste in the history of the world, then I am afraid that I have lost to you before our discussion began and I bow to your skill in framing an issue so that it brooks no argument. You see, this is where you appear to be confused, Roxlimn: several posters on this board have made it plain that they are not using the definition of slavery you are, or have tried to appease you by framing the debate to cover specific subtypes of a more generalized definition (this is what I tried to do by focusing comments on "chattel slavery"). Rather than concede that you and they are apparently discussing different things relevant to the same debate, you instead cast aspersions on their educations and insist that you are correct--which, insofar as you have defined the conversation, you are. 1. No, I have defined what I meant by "slavery" at least twice in this thread, and many more times in the past. I do not use "slave" to describe "every form of servitude under the sun." I only use the word "slave" inasmuch as it has been used for hundreds of years up to the present. The fact that many people simply don't know what they're talking about does not make what I say any less true. I don't think anyone has disputed the truth of what you've written. They have disputed the relevance, the significance, the applicability--but I've missed the post where they disputed the truth of it. Indeed, I am perfectly willing to concede that you seem to know a great deal more about the Alipins than I do, despite possessing a dusty and disused minor in Asian Studies. There has been some disagreement with your definition of the word "slavery," and that disagreement hardly reflects ignorance--indeed, your imputation that it does so hardly does a service to your well-written but thus-far unpersuasive posts. Since I have not been clear about a definition of slavery--out of an apparently misplaced willingness to try to be fair to many definitions at once--I will now state for the purposes of this thread that I will now be using these definitions unless otherwise noted: Slave. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Slavery. The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. To the extent that the definition I am referring to excludes or is not applicable to any example of "slavery" offered by any other poster in this thread, that example is clearly wrong. 2. I don't believe that I'm blinded to injuries inflicted under various forms of slavery. 3. I did not say that slave rights and master obligations were universal, nor did I say that enforcement was universal, either. I said that in some cultures, the institution of slavery was not necessarily evil. In the slave owning South parts of US of America, sometime during the 19th century, slaves supposedly had rights and masters supposedly had obligations. This did not preclude the fact that the practice was in fact chattel slavery in almost every practical way, and could be said to be Evil in the D&D sense. Even so, this is not the only model of slavery that exists, and as I said, was the exception rather than the rule. In Southeast Asia, captives taken by Visayan raiders during their raids were taken as slaves, but these slaves had strict rights by custom, tradition, and law, and the enforcement of these rights was very strict and practically universal in that time and place. In many ways, this culture viewed slaves as no less than the children that people had in their own households, who were also protected by law and tradition. It is not universality that's the question. It's the possibility. Is it possible for a slave institution to not be evil in D&D? Yes. Is it possible for a slave institution to not be described as Evil in D&D? Yes. And that's all there is to it. I understand what you have written. Indeed, I understood much of it well enough when you first wrote it. I disagreed, and repetition has not driven the point any deeper into my noggin, which is not a board into which a nail may be driven by simple repeated application of the same stroke over and over again. Since I have now clarified that I am using a legal definition of slavery as expressed in an authoritative legal reference, I will now re-clarify that my own personal opinion is that slavery is not consistent with a respect for individual dignity encompassed by the word "good." No one is expected to take my opinion as the final authority; to the extent it is persuasive authority to anyone without an entrenched opinion, you're welcome. If that were all there was to it, this thread would have died before reaching 4+ pages in length. Slaves in many societies were paid. The fact that they were property does not preclude them from owning property, and many slaves had slaves of their own. In fact, a slave could demand renumeration from his master for services rendered, since it was assumed that the slave's word as far as his work was concerned was ironclad. Using the definition of slavery, supra, this is clearly untrue. A slave is unable to "have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master." Slaves were often housed in the homes of their masters and given treatment no less than were afforded the master's children. In some cases, the master was obligated to pay for such things as separate housing and/or wedding expenditures, should the slave get married. Your particular view of slavery assumes that all slaves do not have rights. This is not true. Many slave institutions gave slaves lots of rights. In fact, more rights than a freeman could expect. A slave had the right to work and get paid. A freeman had to look for work. He might be paid more, he might not, but looking for work was his own responsibility. There is a penalty for slaves who disobeyed their masters, but there are also penalties for masters abusing their slaves, and masters' words didn't necessarily carry the greater weight. Where slavery was an institutin not especially reserved for the ruler, a slave might be able demand punitive compensation for unjust injuries done to him in the course of servitude. This might strike you as "not-slavery," but bear in mind that you already equate slavery to chattel slavery, which was not the norm. If you would keep an open mind as to what "slavery" really means, you'd understand the point better. I don't think that Mr. Reeves misunderstands your point, Roxlimn, nor did I. There was never any real argument that "slavery" defined in one fashion encompassed different institutions than "slavery" defined as another. There was some dispute over what might properly be called "slavery," and some dispute over the claim that a "slave," even broadly defined, might have enforceable rights. Mr. Reeves noted that many of the rights you alleged belonged to the sovereign, not the slave--i.e., the obligations of the master were imposed by government as a matter of public order, not as special protections the enslaved could claim recourse for. You have rebutted this with several generalizations, citing "some cases" and "[m]any slave institutions" (interesting that you are no longer as specific in your examples). Mr. Reeves and I also questioned whether the slave was able to press those rights even if he had them: I would point out to you that the fact that historians and contemporary records reflect that certain laws and norms were in effect does not mean those laws and norms were acted upon in a manner we'd assume. Let me illustrate: a future, post-apocalyptic historian might look upon early 20th century American polling taxes, literacy laws and grandfather clauses and assume they were fair and impartial: such laws, on their face, make sure that voters are serious, informed citizens. The context that this historian would be missing--and that we are privvy to--is that these laws were in fact discriminatory in that they were actually tailored to keep blacks from voting, and were deliberately written in a "fair-sounding" manner to pass judicial scrutiny. My point is that the fact that a stone tablet somewhere says "slaves may sue their masters for abuse" does not mean that a slave ever had access to the courts or could press his case with impunity; an ancient historian claiming that "custom decreed a master should pay his slave a wage" does not, in fact, mean that a slave ever received a wage. Of course, this prior paragraph is using your definitions for the sake of an argument. My operational definition means that the people you're describing, whomever they were, either weren't slaves or had no rights. One last thought before I end this overly long post: for those who continue to reference pre-Enlightenment versus post-Enlightenment modes of thought, D&D assumes a thoroughly contemporary attitude when it comes to gender, social class, and race/species. Judging slavery through contemporary eyes is, as far as I'm concerned, no different from allowing females to advance in any class or setting up adventures so that a character whose parents were "poor peasants" can ride side-by-side with nobles and advance as far socially as his wits carry him.
Pandaemoni 01-04-06, 01:47 PM	That is the exact same arrogant logic that early conquerors used to destroy and exploit native cultures all over the world durring the Imperialist era. They believed they were doing god's work by "civilizing" savage cultures. What they did was murder and exploit millions of people who had been in the same place for thousands of years. Lawful (by their own standards) though they might be, their is nothing "good" about such an act. Evil, especially in D&D, is absolute. EXACTLY!!! That the logic of "moral superiority" is smug doesn't make it "evil" so long as the slaves are well treated. In fact, in a world were good and evil are "absolutes" and not merely subjective (as the PHB asserts they are) then "moral superiority" is also a "fact" and not a subjective opinion. If God spoke to you, personally, and gave you spells, you likely would feel comfortably superior to people who fail to live up to your God's moral code. Lawful good people are the kings of feeling smugly superior to those around them. In our own world look at all the folks who want to ban homosexual marriage and criminalize sodomy...they are not "evil" people, they just believe (based on their interpretation of the Bible) that they have a certain moral truth that they know, and they want to foist it on others (against the wills of those others, no less). Add to that the fact that a LG Paladin *probably is* morally and intellectually superior to a evil ogre, by virtually any human understanding of morality. Sometimes Lawful people want to control and constrain the actions of everyone...that is part of what being "lawful" means. The most extreme form of that is slavery, where the master literally can control all the slave's actions . So long as you treat your slaves with great benevolence and kindess, it is not more inherently "evil" than an absolute monarchy where the king is just and good. By the logic of some in this thread, a just and good king is an oxymoron. Unless he institutes immediate democracy (or even anarchy), he's inherently evil because he tells others what to do by force of law.
wrecan 01-04-06, 02:23 PM	One last thought before I end this overly long post: for those who continue to reference pre-Enlightenment versus post-Enlightenment modes of thought, D&D assumes a thoroughly contemporary attitude when it comes to gender, social class, and race/species. First, I disagree with the race/species idea. D&D has clearly defined some races -- goblins, orcs, ogres, et al., as either predominantly or almost exclusively evil. That is clearly a pre-Enlightenment notion. Post-Enlightenment, all races should be listed as having "Any" alignment simply by dint of having free will. D&D rejects that very Lockeian concept in favor of what is essentially 17th century racism. Second, alignment does not comport with Enightenment. The Good alignment allows one to engage in feudalism and to kill evildoers without a trial, and to invade another sentient being's residence in pursuit of treasure based on their identification as "evil," all of which would be considered evil. Good, per RAW, also forbids engaging in sadomasochism because it specifically defines the infliction of physical pain on others for your own enjoyment to be an evil act. In short, while the game does not contain pre-Enlightenment sexism or classism, it most certainly enshrines pre-Enlightenment racism and moralism. Judging slavery through contemporary eyes is, as far as I'm concerned, no different from allowing females to advance in any class or setting up adventures so that a character whose parents were "poor peasants" can ride side-by-side with nobles and advance as far socially as his wits carry him. That's your perogative. But RAW doesn't preclude a campaign in which paladins own chattel slaves, providing they are treated with respect and dignity. Nor does it prevent the lawful imposition of servitude in response to the commission of a crime, which is what the OP was asking about.
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 02:50 PM	revnk: Please allow me to commend your clarity and conciseness. Despite the length of your response, it did contain much material and was short for what it conveyed. Please allow me to respond in kind, if not in the same quality. I feel obligated to respond, although I shouldn't feel any such obligation, since I believe my prior exchange with Nom resolves the original posters issues: what is possible and permissable for a paladin in D&D is what the DM and player agree are permissable, with the DM making the final call. My point regarding the flumphs was merely to state that just because something exists somewhere in the thousands of official and unofficial pages published over the past thirty years in reference to D&D does not mean that it exists in any particular campaign or counts as final authority on the subject. I don't believe that this is applicable. Insamuch as the question of possibility is concerned, yes, I believe that it was necessary to present an example. It is self-evident that anything is possible in a world limited only by imagination, but that limitation is in itself limited by information. If the DM cannot imagine a situation in which slavery can be good, then he cannot create a world in which it is. Whether it is a good idea is subjective in totality so I cannot say whether or not the poster in question will adopt it. Nevertheless, it does exist in print, so in that much more, at least, the example is valuable. Even though anything is possible in the imagination, not all of it sees print in high-profile products. Rather than concede that you and they are apparently discussing different things relevant to the same debate, you instead cast aspersions on their educations and insist that you are correct--which, insofar as you have defined the conversation, you are. You must be mistaken revnk. In no instance was I aware that these people were acknowledging that they were speaking of chattel slavery, which is an altogether different form of slavery from the usual, and to which I will readily agree can be classified as Evil by the PHB. These posters were insisting that their definitions of slavery were the correct or the only ones, without supplying sources or evidences outside pop culture or even merely their own impressions. These impressions are wholly inconsistent with how slavery is viewed in a general way, and in that sense I believe I am justified in saying that their knowledge base appears to be too limited to be taken seriously. I do not miss that they are supplying their own definitions, and if you like, I will readily admit that in some way I am crusading on these boards for a broader and more informed mindset as to what slavery actually is on the stage or world history. If a backcountry hick tells me that homosexuals are evil people who you persecute, then I will just as readily take up the cudgels to correct the misinformation. It's not that I miss the defintions, it's that I wholly reject them on several different levels. They have disputed the relevance, the significance, the applicability--but I've missed the post where they disputed the truth of it. Moreso. Since the definition I use is more culture sensitive to the world as a whole, it seems to me that what I'm saying is more relevant, more applicable, and more informative than culturally limited definitions of a term that has a broader general meaning. These people define and believe slavery only to be a limited practice in the American South sometime during the last 200 years. Indeed, I have heard it erroneously said that this self-same practice is representative of slavery in all places and times, probably exactly because posters who believe in American ethnocentrism couldn't be bothered to clarify their limitations to the less informed. The bucks stops here. If people want to talk about chattel slavery and its evils, I will not stop them. I'll even post my agreement. But to say all slavery is evil and to condemn other socieites that practiced nothing of the excesses of American slavery - that I will not abide, and this thread right here is one of the places where I stand my ground. There has been some disagreement with your definition of the word "slavery," and that disagreement hardly reflects ignorance--indeed, your imputation that it does so hardly does a service to your well-written but thus-far unpersuasive posts. I beg to differ. In the cases where people disagree with me on this thread, their case saying that my examples were not examples of slavery obviously reflect a lack of knowledge. They do not place conditionals on "slavery" as in "chattel slavery," or even "slavery as I have defined it." No. Therefore, the only conclusion I can derive is that they did not know about these other institutions of slavery (as you did not of the Alipins), and therefore defined slavery itself in an inaccurate way. To the extent that the definition I am referring to excludes or is not applicable to any example of "slavery" offered by any other poster in this thread, that example is clearly wrong. And again I must reject your defintion because it is a definition made for the function of the American Justice System, and therefore is sensitive only to such usages. When we speak of slavery as a whole, in the world, and even in World Studies within the US, that definition is completely untenable. Since I have now clarified that I am using a legal definition of slavery as expressed in an authoritative legal reference, I will now re-clarify that my own personal opinion is that slavery is not consistent with a respect for individual dignity encompassed by the word "good." In that you will need to clarify this defintion at every point, perhaps we should shorten the reference to American Legal Slavery, no? It is a very narrow and very specialized word and cannot be used normally in conversation or in debate in the sense it is used in court any more than many other legal terms or definitions. Using the definition of slavery, supra, this is clearly untrue. A slave is unable to "have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master." American Slavery, agree. Slavery in general, disagree. I don't think that Mr. Reeves misunderstands your point, Roxlimn, nor did I. There was never any real argument that "slavery" defined in one fashion encompassed different institutions than "slavery" defined as another. There was some dispute over what might properly be called "slavery," and some dispute over the claim that a "slave," even broadly defined, might have enforceable rights. Mr. Reeves noted that many of the rights you alleged belonged to the sovereign, not the slave--i.e., the obligations of the master were imposed by government as a matter of public order, not as special protections the enslaved could claim recourse for. You have rebutted this with several generalizations, citing "some cases" and "[m]any slave institutions" (interesting that you are no longer as specific in your examples). Mr. Reeves and I also questioned whether the slave was able to press those rights even if he had them: I would point out to you that the fact that historians and contemporary records reflect that certain laws and norms were in effect does not mean those laws and norms were acted upon in a manner we'd assume. Let me illustrate: a future, post-apocalyptic historian might look upon early 20th century American polling taxes, literacy laws and grandfather clauses and assume they were fair and impartial: such laws, on their face, make sure that voters are serious, informed citizens. The context that this historian would be missing--and that we are privvy to--is that these laws were in fact discriminatory in that they were actually tailored to keep blacks from voting, and were deliberately written in a "fair-sounding" manner to pass judicial scrutiny. My point is that the fact that a stone tablet somewhere says "slaves may sue their masters for abuse" does not mean that a slave ever had access to the courts or could press his case with impunity; an ancient historian claiming that "custom decreed a master should pay his slave a wage" does not, in fact, mean that a slave ever received a wage. 1. The dispute over what might properly be called "slavery" is central to my allegation that anyone who does so has a limited fund of information, at least as far as world history is concerned. It is clear from world-sensitive defintions of the word that chattel slavery is uncommon and brutish. The only dispute that can arise is if you are unfamiliar with world history and as such know no other forms except those which are closest to you. 2. Mr. Reeves is mistaken. The instution of slavery as described by William Henry Scott in his books "Cracks in the Parchment Curtain" and "Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino" clearly illustrate rights that were inherent to the system and to the slave. That the sovereign insisted on this as a matter of law is secondary to the rights that the slave naturally received as a matter of tradition and custom. These were special protections that the slave could claim readily, and in many cases, his obligations to serve were relaxed should the master prove delinquent in his obligations. I could cite specific examples. Many of the details of Philippine slave systems in prehispanic times were preserved through spoken lore through the cultural purge of the Spaniards, but there were also the written accounts of Spaniards taken from Spanish expeditions as slaves by Filipinos in open war who later on resurfaced in various functions, even as valiant soldiers in local kingdoms. I could cite several of these for further substantiation, but I did not wish people to snooze at my posts anymore than they already were. The fact of these records as experiences of the slaves rather than records of the masters gives them great credibility as to the actual practices of the time period, rather than merely idealizations and written law. Moreover, casting aspersion on historical accounts does not give us much to work on to prove the contrary, and casts aspersion on history as a whole, in toto. A Slave may or may not have received a wage in much the same way as a datu may or may not have ruled or that American slaves may or may not have been mistreated. If you start impugning the veracity of one account without substantiating evidence, then you reject the whole of it. Judging slavery through contemporary eyes is, as far as I'm concerned, no different from allowing females to advance in any class or setting up adventures so that a character whose parents were "poor peasants" can ride side-by-side with nobles and advance as far socially as his wits carry him. It's not the contemporary I'm riled about. Slaves just as I have defined them are a contemporary view, in the first place. You can be sure that in the 1800s, the view of slavery in the world was much different. What I'm riled about is that this view of slavery and the related view of liberties is almost certainly an Euroamerican view only. I don't think that banning littering absolutely is a terrible law. I don't think that being called property is, in itself, demeaning. Judging slavery as evil because it was evil in one instance in American history ignores the history of the rest of the world, and ignores contemporary views on social responsibity and social contracts in the rest of the world. It's just the same as saying that females advancing in the world as the co-equal of males is a contemporary view. In the US, it undoubtedly is, but it has been so in many past places and times in other parts of the world. Women in Japan, for example, were known to also take up the arts of the Samurai, whereas female European knights were almost unheard of. Female wuxia fighters often existed alongside their counterparts. In Filipino history, women did not fight as a matter of course, but could not be said to be less powerful as a gender in society, nor could they be said to be oppressed. In fact, in modern Filipino society women are the defacto masters of the house, managing family finances, deciding when and where the children go to school, and what curfew the husbands can and cannot observe without consequence. This cannot be said to be completely contemporary because of precedent in historical accounts. I'll stop now.
revnk 01-04-06, 03:10 PM	In short, while the game does not contain pre-Enlightenment sexism or classism, it most certainly enshrines pre-Enlightenment racism and moralism. Fair enough; I over-reached while trying to make a point. It would seem we do agree, however, that D&D (by the RAW) enshrines contemporary as well as classical views. That's your perogative. But RAW doesn't preclude a campaign in which paladins own chattel slaves, providing they are treated with respect and dignity. Nor does it prevent the lawful imposition of servitude in response to the commission of a crime, which is what the OP was asking about. I think the exchange of posts I had with Nom in this thread settled this part of the matter from my point-of-view: as far as I'm concerned, a DM can handle his or her campaign however he or she wants and a DM would have final say over whether a paladin was precluded from owning any kind of slave or how that slave would need to be treated. This might or might not comport with the RAW, perhaps depending on your interpretation of "good." If one interprets "good" as encompassing a contemporary notion of human dignity, the treatment of the slave is incidental to the insult upon his humanity engendered by being made property, and so slavery would inherently be defined as non-good or even "evil" under such an interpretation. (Obviously, that interpretation is itself controversial, and one could certainly define "good" without using modern norms--hence much of the debate in this thread.) The lawful imposition of servitude might be another issue entirely, depending on how "slavery" is defined as a concept. It is worth noting that in the American legal system, the imposition of penalties and loss of freedoms and rights is highly selective; a prisoner does not become a "slave" for the purposes of Amend. XIII and continues to enjoy many basic rights (such as habeas corpus and due process) even when his freedom is restricted. "Hard labor" as such no longer exists, although I don't know offhand if it's specifically been deemed a Constitutional violation. Yet again, however, this is something that is up to the original poster (and any other DM) to rule upon themselves--whether by RAW or house rule or both.
DrWorm 01-04-06, 03:14 PM	You know what...I am done with this. If you all want to go play Slave Master as part of your fantasy, nothing I say will change that. You can morally evade the issue all you want, but in the end you are still engaging in what I would call a "repugnant fantasy". I would never allow rape, pedaphelia, or torture in my games to be defined as good or even non-evil. Most reasonable people know these are wrong, regardless of context. The same goes for slavery, and to argue otherwise is moral evasion.
wrecan 01-04-06, 04:03 PM	Revnk, We certainly seek like we understand each other's viewpoint. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree and I think you and others on that thread who have handled a delicate topic with aplomb and consideration. Unlike... You know what...I am done with this. If you all want to go play Slave Master as part of your fantasy, nothing I say will change that. You're not even reading what we write, are you? The issue isn't what we as players might want of what we as DMs might right. The issue is what RAW allows. RAW dies not disallow slavery in a good society, although it can certainly be interpreted that way. Talking about what the rules conteplate is not moral evasion. Trying to make moral judgments about people discussing rules in a role-playing game is, however, a fairly infantile form of ad hominem attack. If you are unable to engage in a rules discussion about a fake game without comparing them to people who fantasize about rape, child molestation and torture, perhaps you should actually be "done with this." Although it's been my experience that people who are actually done with a topic don't post an entire message dedicated to that concept.
revnk 01-04-06, 04:05 PM	[snip] There is little I'd add to my prior comments, but I did wish to acknowledge an extremely thoughtful and well-argued post. It seems to me that, insofar as you and I recognize that we have been using the word "slavery" in different applications, we might agree to disagree. I readily acknowledge--it this isn't clear--that the appellation "slavery" has been used to describe different institutions in different cultures, and that some of those institutions are far less heinous than others. The imprecision of the English language is such that it might be submitted that another term might be more apt, but we work with what we have. I will note that, just as you are willing to take a stand on certain matters, I must also take a stand and say that I must condemn anything that deprives a human being of certain dignities that I believe to be inherent in personhood. I do not believe that being the property of another is consistent with my personal belief in the equality of persons. I would contend that being called property is in and of itself demeaning, not out of a euro or americentric view but by Reason. (I am a fan of Rawls' thought experiment in which one infers human rights by contemplating what kind of "perfect society" would one invent if you didn't know what place you would hold in that society. I cannot create a role I would not want to hold myself, can I? Of course, I am a product of American culture, and cannot exclude the possibility of bias, but I believe my dislike of slavery in all its forms is reasonable nonetheless.) I regret that this may sound arrogant; but to tolerate injustice is to perpetrate it. Finally, let me add--as someone who took a college major in history, many moons ago--that my comment on historical sources was less about casting aspersion than it was intended to remind readers to use caution and critical thought in reviewing them. History is less like looking back over a stone-paved road than it is like looking back on a river which has travelled in different channels before and may travel in different channels again; certain hard facts and contentions may remain as they are, but interpretations have and will change. You know what...I am done with this. If you all want to go play Slave Master as part of your fantasy, nothing I say will change that. You can morally evade the issue all you want, but in the end you are still engaging in what I would call a "repugnant fantasy". I would never allow rape, pedaphelia, or torture in my games to be defined as good or even non-evil. Most reasonable people know these are wrong, regardless of context. The same goes for slavery, and to argue otherwise is moral evasion. Not helping at all. Equating those who disagree with you as "engaging in... pedaphelia" [sic] is neither persuasive or productive--find a better use for that anger.
Andrew_980 01-04-06, 04:19 PM	Sorry, but saying "I'm right and your evil if you disagree" is moral evasion. Hell thats ostrich style head in sand and hoping that everything you cannot see goes away. The bueaty of morality is that it grows mostly from frank discussion and theoretic exercises to push the bounderies of thought. For the record i wanted to sacrifice my freedom and "belong" to the U.S. for a decade or 2(military) . It is preferable to being poor, even if it means sacrificing my freedom. I know that is not slavery but the closest equivelent in modern america. and i wanted it because that is better than being homeless, better than not eating. It is doing what your told with no choice, but better than having nothing.
Leap_UK 01-04-06, 06:24 PM	There is noting in the RAW that says that LG creatures respect the choices of others and their right to make the choice. It is Chaotic Good that would respect individual liberty, Lawful Good expects you live life by their code regardless of your own moral intuitions. Which is part of why I consider CG to be the “real” good and LG to be “tainted”. :) It just so happens that, during the Enlightenment, the right to self-determination rose in popularity. In so doing, the Enlightenment made the rights of liberty part of the standard western moral view of the world (in other words, if there is a "lawful good moral code", then the right to self-determination is now a part of it), but that simply was not the case in the European past, it's a relatively modern development. I think you will find liberty is a part of the Saxon moral code to :) The only loss comes *if* you believe in some sort of inherent right to self-determination, which is a modern concept. I think you will find people have long valued self-determination but kept oppressed by “lords” and their struggles relegated to “the scum are rebelling” in history kind of distorts it :) The question is do the RAW require a DM to import that concept into the game. While I do and I think most do, the RAW read strictly do not suggest that is required. A fair point, but that means that, like I said, CG is the truest account of “Good”.
Rolof 01-04-06, 07:33 PM	I don't think it much matters anymore, the original poster probably fled after page 2 or 3. For what it matters, I still hold that it WOULD be possible, however-the OP said back on like the first page that the gamers involved were young kids, 11 or 13 I believe was stated, who in their first game session spent more time attacking each other to establish a pecking order than they did anything else. In such a case, then no, I would not allow such young kids to deal with an issue like slavery on that basis-unless perhaps I was some way related to them and felt responsible for explaining the whole thing to them in a seperate out of game talk as well. Probably not then either. DrWorm: I will probably screw this quote up, but here goes anyway- "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy". While it is commendable that you have such an avid anti-slavery stance in real life, I think you need to seperate the game from it. And using the practice of pedophiles as an example was a poor choice as well... I may get flamed for this, and would find it ugly and disgusting if faced with it today, but there are examples of this being practiced in ancient societies as well. As example in ancient Greece and feudal Japan, man-boy relationships were accepted and considered within normal parameters.
Crust 01-04-06, 08:40 PM	Interesting. In a society where slavery is accepted, would a paladin even exist? What is the source of morals in a fantasy setting? Society or divinity? I suppose those questions would have to be discussed at the table to determine what everyone can agree on for overall believability.
Roxlimn 01-06-06, 03:52 AM	revnk: Well said. While I may disagree with you on values, I cannot say that you have not presented your point of view with competence and eloquence. I will note that, just as you are willing to take a stand on certain matters, I must also take a stand and say that I must condemn anything that deprives a human being of certain dignities that I believe to be inherent in personhood. I do not believe that being the property of another is consistent with my personal belief in the equality of persons. I would contend that being called property is in and of itself demeaning, not out of a euro or americentric view but by Reason. (I am a fan of Rawls' thought experiment in which one infers human rights by contemplating what kind of "perfect society" would one invent if you didn't know what place you would hold in that society. I cannot create a role I would not want to hold myself, can I? Of course, I am a product of American culture, and cannot exclude the possibility of bias, but I believe my dislike of slavery in all its forms is reasonable nonetheless.) I regret that this may sound arrogant; but to tolerate injustice is to perpetrate it. I actually touched on this in a previous post. The entire difference is in point of view rather than on dignity or the lack thereof. The Americentric and even Eurocentric view of Reason is wholly humanistic and centers on the utter superiority of Reason and Man in the universe, IMO. It places Man and not the Divine in the center of the world. By that philosophy, Man is equal to other Men, but not to everything else, and the notion of equality runs into many problems related to the role of soceity and the structure of it - from the family right on to social norms and working conditions and such. Is an employer equal to an employee? How and whyso? Is a father equal to his son? How does a father holding a son's rights for "his own good" considering them as equals? It's quite problematic and all these problems stem from the view of Reason not being practical or practice-based, as they call it nowadays, but from being theoretical or ideal. Not that that's not a valid point of view to have, if you're inclined to that. However, as I have said before, since the ancient times, the philosophers of the East have differed from the philisophers of the Utter West in that they placed society before and not after the individual, and even Reason and Wisdom serve society, not the other way around. More than that, Eastern philosophies, as a result of greater continuity and greater prosperity, IMO, have had the occasion to carry out humanism to its logical conclusions in the form of Buddhism and other such philosophies. Make no mistake, Buddhism does place Man as the ultimate designer of the destiny of himself and the world, and does so in more absolute a manner than even Sophists have ever done. Combined with surviving tenets of animism, concepts of reincarnation and the presence of Man and the Divine in everything means that everything, not just all Men, are equal. Naturally, this means that a Samurai's Sword had just as much rights, and sometimes more than a Samurai himself. While the Sword is "owned" the Samurai, the Samurai is, in a way, also "owned" by the sword. The concept of property is thus in the nature of a symbiotic and mutually respectful relationship, rather than one of oppression on the part of Man on everything else, of which he was Master. The evil nature of American Slavery is thus traced to the oppressive nature of the philosophy of Reason as opposed to more encompassing philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Confucianism (the last to a much, much lesser extent). Even supposedly primitive animist beliefs of the Prehispanic Filipinos held all things to be possessed of spiritis, man, beast, or object, so to "own" anything does not imply the harshness that "owning" something implied in post-Enlightenment Europe. If you had a house, a chair, a wife, and a friend, you treated all of them with the proper respect accorded to them by tradition, and in that sense, treated them all the same way. This meant that while a Master and a Slave performed different tasks, and were believed to supposed to be suited to different tasks, each was also respected in his or her role, and they each carried themselves with the full dignity that belonging to the universal order accorded them. Thus, it was not right to mistreat your Slave because it violated universal order. If the anito of a banana tree can cause you great misfortune and death, what more the spirit of a man? Surely a man was at least the equal of a small brook, and thus should be accorded at least the minimum respect you give to all things under creation? This concept of equivalence, not exacting equality underlied these philosophies, and that meant that everyone was afforded dignity as long as they performed their duties. A woman ruler in Tondo was not supposed to fight (as far as I can tell). She was supposed to manage the kingdom and the royal household and see to the well being of the nation in general. Likewise, a man does not shirk from his duty of defending his own and ensuring the order of the kingdom. They were not considered superior one to the other, but they weren't seen as equal either. Certain tasks belonged to the woman, and certain tasks belonged to the man. For a man to take on womanly prerogatives was just as bad as a woman taking on male responsibilities. It is indicative that in the Filipino story of creation, woman was not created from man. Instead, they were each the half of a bamboo shoot. They complemented each other and were equally valuable and powerful. The same equivalence is seen in master-slave and owner-property relationships. Thus, I would not particularly prefer to be either the master or the slave in a Filipino society per se. In some ways, being a slave is preferrable. I don't have to worry about where to sleep or eat, and I don't have to worry about my plans for the future. It's all laid out for me. In fact, I have literally nothing to worry about, as long as my master did well. My fortunes are tied up with his. As a master, I have self-determination and ruled over others, but I have more obligations and responsibilties as well., and these could not easily be handwaved or ignored. In fact, as I said, it was not uncommon for a slave to be master of other slaves, in a sort of horizontal heirarchy. In this sense, I do not see how being called "property" is inherently demeaning, because ultimately everyone and everything is "property." The only difference is to whom and for what.
Pandaemoni 01-06-06, 10:57 AM	I am a fan of Rawls' thought experiment in which one infers human rights by contemplating what kind of "perfect society" would one invent if you didn't know what place you would hold in that society. I cannot create a role I would not want to hold myself, can I? Whereas I believe that even in a Rawlsian universe, slavery might exist. Imagine that were looking down on the world and that you had no idea who you were to become or what your station in life would be. You might be a paladin or you might be an ogre. Also imagine that, while thus looking down on the world, you were yourself lawful good. Assuming that you couldn't alter the fundamental nature of who you were to become (i.e., making all ogres "good"), how would you shape the world if you could? It seems to me, assuming you were Lawful Good at this initial, world-shaping, stage you might very well want to limit the risks of your becoming a chaotic evil ogre and inflicting that evil on society. You know, in advance, that if you are to become the ogre, you very likely would be evil. Preventing your doing harm to others would not, in that circumstance, be a matter of merely exercising self-control. One easy option is to alter society so that the paladins of the world have dominion over the ogres, the right to control their actions and to forbid their doing evil (despite the inherently evil nature of the ogre or the ogre's wishes at the time). Indeed, under a Rawlsian construction, a Paladin might them conclude that, on a deeper spiritual level, the ogres of the world *want* to be enslaved--because who wants to be evil? The evil of the species in that regard begins to look almost like a mental illness. (A Rawlsian spirit would generally understand the need to appoint a guardian to make decisions on behalf of the severely mentally ill, because they are not capable of making optimal choices.) The Rawlsian spirit that shapes the world would want the poor "deranged" ogre to be well treated, of course, but it also would want the ogre's ability to select evil courses of action to be sharply limited. Slavery is not an unreasonable means to that end. While one could look at such an arrangement as a mere "guardianship", it would be one imposed on the ogres against their wills that restricts their freedom in a way, one imagines, the typical ogre would likely find unacceptable. I don't think the Rawlsian theory of justice precludes paladins from owning slaves.
revnk 01-06-06, 11:22 AM	Roxlimn An eloquent post; again, we may differ on values. I'm happy that you qualified much of what you said as personal opinion--there are, I think, some humanistic differences between Enlightenment Reason and its humanist descendents that I believe mitigate or negate some of your critique (e.g. the "oppressiveness" created by Western concepts of ownership and property versus non-Western ideals). I think that the difference between ideals and practice is by no means a Western "problem"; you yourself mentioned the deficiencies of Confucianism as reltated to, say, Budhism; I would submit that the "lesser extent" of Confucian success in dealing with humanist problems stemmed greatly from the inevitable disparity between philosophical ideals and the actual needs of a burgeoning society of millions of individuals and families, leading eventually to China's vulnerability to Western tyrants and eventually collapse into what was for all practical purposes a forty-year civil war. A culture may well be judged by differences between its ideals and accomplishments, and Western culture has failed in many respects by this yardstick; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that Western ideals have become a common (if not dominant) global meme solely by dint of colonialism and invasion. Those ideas of equality seem to have some benefit when looking at gender roles and caste. For whatever it's worth, many would say that Japanese women are better off under westernized values than under Shinto, or that the Hindu caste system is something that would be better relegated to history books. It might be worth noting that much of the opinion against these assertions appears to come from those with the most to lose from them. I hesitate to mention these points because this could become an endless and off-topic discourse. I'm not sure that your lack of preference in Filipino culture isn't a kind of pass--and I mean this in a non-accusatory way; Rawls' thought experiment is meant to be subjective in a way that denies the thinker the luxury of being an outside observer. If roles are split in this way, would you be happier as a slave or a master--the choice must be made--and would you be happy if you couldn't be what you preferred? Is this the society you would make if you started from the ground up--would you even have slaves and masters in some abstract perfect world? This is really all rhetorical in the most literal sense--a response isn't really in order, since the point is to think about all the permutations of possible answers and responses. As for the uselessness of the abstraction--the point is to set the goal, knowing it might not be achievable but is nonetheless worth working towards. I need to wean myself from this thread! I'll be happy to read any further responses, although I may not post again. It's been provocative and interesting, and my sincere thanks to you for the conversation.
revnk 01-06-06, 11:31 AM	Pandaemoni Well put, although I'm not convinced that the distinction between "slavery" and "guardianship" is meaningless. Whether it alters the ogre's relationship to the paladin or not, it does alter the paladin's relationship to the ogre. I think all of us have been around and back and forth on the semantics of the word "slavery." Those semantics are especially vital to your argument, since they tend to define the limits of what the paladin can do with the ogre. Put another way, is the Rawlsian ideal better suited by "enslaving" the ogre, or by "institutionalizing" or "imprisoning" the ogre? It might be that the same ends could be better achieved by "containing" all the ogres without requiring the service presumed within most uses of the word "slavery." (And this all assumes ogres cannot be corrected or re-educated, a stricture that I think is probably very non-Rawlsian but consistent with the D&D alignments.) Now I'm out--I'll read, but I don't plan on posting, it's just too time consuming! Thank you all for your insights and conversation!
High Octane 01-06-06, 11:50 AM	One thing I have to take a stand on is this: Slavery is when you legally own someone. If someone does not OWN the other person, than slavery is the wrong word. Dictionary.com has slavery defined as such: 1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household. 2. 1. The practice of owning slaves. 2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force. 3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence. 4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery. The first one is slavery as we are referring to it. The other terms are more metaphorical. You can say you are a slave to your boss, or wife, or your television, but you are not LITERALLY a slave. The literal definition of a slave is someone who is legally the property of someone else. If the person is something else, they are not a SLAVE. They are perhaps a prisoner, hostage, vassal, servant, apprentice, follower, or thrall. These are separate issues (though similar) The question is, is it okay for a paladin to legally own someone in order to promote good. In my OPINION, no. The ends do not justify the means. If the paladin is forcing the evil kobold who caused mass mischief to help build the church is not having him as a slave, he has him as a prisoner and forcing him to do service as atonement. I would find that fine, as long as he treated the kobold with some basic dignities and needs such as food and a humane amount of rest.
Pandaemoni 01-06-06, 12:53 PM	The question is, is it okay for a paladin to legally own someone in order to promote good. In my OPINION, no. In my view the difference between being the "property" of another and the "subject" of another who must follow that other's every order on pain of punishment, is semantics. The only difference is that perhaps an owner can "sell" you whereas some other sort of master may not have the legal right to transfer his control over you to others. If such a master can transfer his control...the there would seem to be absolutely no difference between the two states other than words. "Ownership" really just means that (i) you have dominion and control over a thing (or person in this case) and (ii) the state or other authority is willing to enforce your right to that control through its legal processes. The difference between a "slave" and a "subject" in that regard is a question of degree. A slave does what his master commands, and the master's tasks typically take up most of the slave's waking time. A "subject" of an absolute ruler is usually left to his own devices until such time as the king, lord or other ruler intervenes. Typically, a "subject" is free to control his own affairs (choose to train in a profession, decide whom to marry, decide what to plant, etc.) except in unusual circumstances. Subjects sometimes lose those rights too, in some cases (restrictions on marriage are not uncommon, lords may have sometimes retained the right to deflower all virgins under their dominion (Braveheart's right of jus primae noctis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_primae_noctis)), in time of war any subject can generally be conscripted into military service, etc.). If you have dominion over a person, exercise that right in such a way that it pre-empts most of the decisions that being might otherwise make, and the state is willing to back you up on that, then whether you call the slave "property," a "subject" or a "ward" is immaterial.
Roxlimn 01-08-06, 08:15 AM	revnk: An excellent post! I would have to say that I would miss your further input, but I wholly understand - I have time limitations as well, and I did lurk for a long while before replying. I might lurk as you have as well. I agree that there are differences between Enlightenment Reason and its derivatives, but I submit that the pure Enlightenment version of Reason isn't practicably applicable anyway, and so it's quite moot as a real or even as a semi-real fantasy idea. Of course, in terms of possibility in a campaign world, you could have something that's the complete reality of Enlightenment, and that wouldn't be a bad thing, either. As far as the decline of China as a world power during the latter half of the last century, I would not be so forward as to claim that this is because of the influence of Confucianism or because of its problems in application. As with everything, Confucianism could be interpreted in any of a number of ways. Even though it was conservative at heart, it also recognized the value of innovation and reaching out to the world. In fact, whereas Confucianism was present in China for a very long time, it was only the isolationist Ming dynasty that interpreted it quite so deplorably. The Ming dynasty could be said to be the least powerful and vibrant of China's dynasties as far as extending its power is concerned. It's true that the great Treasure Fleet set out in its heyday, but it's also true that the flourishing trade China had with the world was established in earlier periods of rule, and the Ming ignominously reversed most that had been gained with its ill-advised policies. China's political and military setbacks against Western powers occured relatively late for all that, and even now it is reasserting its influence powerfully on the world stage. In a very real way, China never actually lost its status as a world power - it just slept for a bit. This is less a function of Confucianism per se than Ming dynasty conservativism. You are mistaken if you believe that Western ideals have become common. Western terminology for certain ideals have become popular, but by and large, Western values only hold water in lands dominated by white people. In most of the rest of the world, people behave much as they have for thousands of years, and the cultural inertia is simply too strong to be deflected by the influence of a few hundred millions. The free market structure, for example, is widely believed by Westerners to be a Western concept, but the similar trade regulations essentially occurred all along the Silk Road. Of course, modern free market structures aren't really free markets. That would be bad. You must realize that the traders of Chinese origins and SE Asian origins also managed mostly unregulated trade all along the archipelagos of the SE Asian region, long before Magellan came along. Indeed, with the influx of Indian, Chinese, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Confucian, Taoist, and even SE Asian values into popular Western culture at large, it's becoming increasingly difficult to determine which value came from what and where. With the disintegration of Western social fabric during the Middle Ages, it seems more probable that even if some values originated in European lands (Greek interest in natural phenomenon and astrology), most of what makes up Western culture today were derived in great part from the localization of values and ideas imported from Asia. You would be hard pressed to find Western inventions and ways of thought being used by a Chinaman, saving only Western developments during the very last two centuries. In contrast, Western culture is fundamentally peppered with Indian and Chinese influences, both in the material and philosophical. The concept of the equality of the sexes is itself alien to Western thinking. This kind of thinking is most exemplified by small SE Asian and Chinese kingdoms, and eventually adopted and popularized by Muhammad. The late introduction of "chivalry" into the West as a philosophy of actually treating women like they were people, is believed to have been imported to the West by Crusaders. So, too, the idea of the "equality of all people." Note the strong Bhuddist influence there. I'm not sure that your lack of preference in Filipino culture isn't a kind of pass--and I mean this in a non-accusatory way; Rawls' thought experiment is meant to be subjective in a way that denies the thinker the luxury of being an outside observer. If roles are split in this way, would you be happier as a slave or a master--the choice must be made--and would you be happy if you couldn't be what you preferred? Is this the society you would make if you started from the ground up--would you even have slaves and masters in some abstract perfect world? This is really all rhetorical in the most literal sense--a response isn't really in order, since the point is to think about all the permutations of possible answers and responses. As for the uselessness of the abstraction--the point is to set the goal, knowing it might not be achievable but is nonetheless worth working towards. It's actually a copout. You don't have to be content with your lot in Filipino culture if you don't like it. There were multiple avenues for advancement, even for the lowliest kinds of slaves, so you didn't have to remain a slave if you didn't want to. You could even jump from slave to ruler quite instantly, without that great a stroke of good fortune at the instance of social movement. There were also many voluntary avenues for downward movement, if you so desired it. In short, it was a practical and working mobile social order rather than a theoretical one. I don't know that I would be happier either way. I mean that in the truest sense. There are solid advantages and disadvantages either way. The obligation to house, clothe, and feed your slave and his wife and his family in a minimally acceptable manner was not something you could shirk at all. You could easily be forced to impoverish yourself caring for slaves. In terms of advancement, there were also gradations. You could be half-slave or 3/4s slave, with varying obligatory times of service. Some slaves were only obligated to work 5 days out of a month for their master. Keeping chattel slaves (yes, chattel slaves existed in the system) was not considered desireable or profitable after they got married. The usual practice was to upgrade the slave's social station and give him a house and time off just so you weren't obligated to have to support his family for him. So the analogous question here is, would you rather live at home with your parents in their basement in exchange for legal powers over you, or would you rather move out and possibly starve to death (no social services, remember)? Of course, your parents would claim a certain percentage of your wages in the way of "rent." Some people prefer to live in their parent's basements. Some people are forced to it by way of financial misfortune. Most people prefer to support themselves and forge their own destinies by way of social station and pride, but there's nothing inherently humanly demeaning about living with your parents, despite the social stigma. Hey, sometimes you just roll snake eyes, right? An account of Miguel Loarca that attempts to describe the slave system in the Philippines approvingly notes: "...(they) are not a cruel people." This supposedly referred to the fact that none of the slave conditions in the Philippines could be understood to be nearly as oppressive as those Europeans were used to at that time. Indeed, it is noted that the legal capability to sell slaves was incidental to the station, not essential. Your master could sell you if he wanted to, but he hardly ever did. Sometimes, slaves were transferred from one master to the other in the manner of modern orphans, as a means of settling debts, sometimes to the detriment of the slave, so people often strove to enslave themselves to relatives and friends. In practice, it was quite difficult to note who was who's slave unless you were intimately familiar with the social mores. A man who became a slave to his brother on account of his brother paying his punitive fines probably would only merit a slight change in their work schedules. I'm not a very adventurous man by nature. I dislike having to settle finances and violence and households and such. I would probably not mind being a slave (and indeed, in many ways, I'm not so different these days). On the other hand, I am possessed of above average mental faculty and I often accomplish what I set out to do. I would at least want a woman and a family so I would probably be at the least a namamahay slave, and I could probably gather enough prestige to get to timawa (freeman/noble) status eventually, despite myself. Being of such stature, I would probably be socially obligated to take on at least a few slaves, even if I didn't want to, by way of charity or social contribution. I know I would prefer to look after the incompetent rather than the malicious, so I would probably take on a few charity cases just so I wouldn't be assigned one of the criminals. I wouldn't expect you to understand how this works. You're not Filipino. Being a slave or alipin in Filipino culture is more like being part of the household rather than being an owned machine. It's like you're adopting the slave rather than owning him in the Western sense of the word. You have legal rights and custody of the slave, but you're responsible for him or her as well. If the slave dies under your household, you will have a lot to answer for. You could sell the slave, but that was considered remarkably tyrannical - hardly ever acceptable. It was also common practice to give even the lowliest chattel slaves portions of their wages and/or occasional gifts on important occasions. It was believed that doing so improved their overall mood well being and thus improved work performance. At the very least, you didn't have to live around people who moped around all day. As I told you, slave systems outside Europe did not necessarily involve the cruelty and injustices common in that region of the world. High Octane: The literal definition of a slave is someone who is legally the property of someone else. If the person is something else, they are not a SLAVE. They are perhaps a prisoner, hostage, vassal, servant, apprentice, follower, or thrall. These are separate issues (though similar) Yes, quite literally, Filipino slaves were owned by their masters, in whichever part was prescribed. They were the property of their masters. On the other hand, as I said, you didn't treat property like dirt in Phlippine traditions. You paid respect to your house, and your sword, and your chair, and your boat, and of course, your slave. The fact that a master had complete and total legal rights over the slave does not imply that he did not also have various obligations and social restrictions. The Filipino practice was quite baffling to European observers because despite all the trappings of slavery they were familiar with, it did not seem particularly harsh, or even all that bad. In fact, it seemed pretty much acceptable and commendable in their eyes in many ways. The slave isn't a hostage because there were no demands against him, not a prisoner because he was not really confined. He owed no fealty so he was not a vassal, he is not legally waged so he is not a tenant nor a servant. He is not legally held to learn a trade so he is not an apprentice, and he does not necessarily follow because of similar goals or beliefs, so he is not a follower. He is a slave in every European sense of it except in the ways that were harsh or oppressive. Observers often categorized their notes: "slaves, but not like ours," or "unnatural slavery," as if the oppressive European kind were the more natural one. Some historians, like William Henry Scott, object to the slave nomenclature on the basis of complexity of the relationship system or even on account of the lack of oppression, but other example of nonoppressive slave systems exist elsewhere. European defintions of slavery do not necessitate harsh treatment of the slave. It is implied as a matter of social norms, rather than part of what the term "slave" means. Thus, outside of European standards, where people do not practice oppressive social norms, the term "slave" may lose much of the European connotation of what the term means. Nevetheless, the dennotation is accurate and precise. The slaves in the slave systems I have presented are owned property. If the paladin in question legally owned the slave, but treated him like his own wayward son or squire (a manner in which you can always treat the slave), then I see no reason why the Paladin should see anything wrong with the arrangement.
Pandaemoni 01-08-06, 08:49 AM	<snip> Fascinating post. I think your insights are valuable. I think that most people who have reflexively come down on the side that slavery is absolutely prohibited to all good creatures are confusing the concept of being a slave with being regarded as "expendable" or as a "disposable human" based on the fact that that is the way European chattel slavery tended to be and cannot enbrace the notion that sometimes a person *could* be better off as a slave than under his own control. In terms of material well-being, I think that is obvious enough that a slave might be better off. In spiritual terms, in light of the "objective" standards of good and evil the game uses (rather than the only subjective ones that exist in real life), I think that's also true.
Roxlimn 01-08-06, 09:36 AM	Pandaemoni: I think that's partially the explanation. People of American education also cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that liberty is not universally desirable. Sometimes, people don't want to determine their own destinies. Some people want a nice, predetermined, morally and socially acceptable path that doesn't necessitate a whole lot of decision making on their part. I can understand that, and I totally sympathize with it. In fact, many people need some kind of guidance in their lives for their own good. I think that Americans desperately seek direction in every which way they can, in most parts of their lives. The value that American society places on freedom has ironically led present day America into a situation in which large parts of their population don't know what the heck it is they're doing, or even what it is that they really want. Instead of sheep being led down a well worn path, they're wandering every which way. Sheep who like to make new paths can always strike out on their own. What's the point of obliterating the path for the sake of "freedom?" Let's just take the disaster that's the dating scene. How exactly do you meet a woman in American society? What do you say when you meet her? What's the socially acceptable way to signal that you like or don't like her? Who the heck is supposed to teach you all this, and what age is acceptable for the teaching? To a large extent, these values are taught within the family (in Filipino culture anyway), and I think that Americans who are fortunate enough to have strong cultural backgrounds largely depend on their parent cultures (Irish, German, Chinese, Indian, what not) to tell them what to do. Their cultural inheritance gives them "suggestions" on how to go about this problematic thing, whether or not they choose to ultimately go that way. Unfortunately, multiple generation Americans can lose their parent culture. Without a parent culture to guide them, they are cast adrift and forced to clumsily grope their way into what was otherwise well charted territory. An American anthropologist notes, with some envy, that particular New Guinea small tribe cultures widely regarded as primitive often had clearer mating rituals and thus, far less traumatic adolescent lives. So what's wrong with a little bit of guidance, anyway? Out here in the Philippines, you have Catholic Schools and nonCatholic schools. If your school was Catholic, they taught you that Intelligent Design was the correct theory. They still taught Darwin, of course, but only as a quaint scientific factoid. If your school was nonCatholic, they taught you Darwin, but no religious teaching. You could form religious study groups on your own, they won't stop you, but you won't get help from the school funding more than was acceptable for such extracurricular activities. You were no more nor less important than the Chess Club. In any case, both kinds of schools taught both theories, and they allowed you to choose which one you liked. I've heard that American public schools now taught neither. What the heck is up with that? That you're freer to choose if you're ignorant? I understand that not all American schools do not go this way, and I want to make it clear that this is not an indictment on American public education. It is only to illustrate my point that leaving people out without knowledge or guidance of any kind is not the same as setting them free. It seems a lot more like abandonment, if you ask me. I contend that freedom to choose is a complex issue, not at all simply determined by the absence of nominal "masters." A Master can be oppressive, but whatever else he is, he's a guide. He tells you what to do. That's not all bad. PS: I know that many Americans browse this thread and I chose American examples in a bid to facilitate communication. My comments are not at all meant to be derogatory in any way. If anyone is offended by parts of my post, please PM me particulars and I will ammend as necessary.
jagraham 01-08-06, 10:24 AM	Fascinating post. I think your insights are valuable. I think that most people who have reflexively come down on the side that slavery is absolutely prohibited to all good creatures are confusing the concept of being a slave with being regarded as "expendable" or as a "disposable human" based on the fact that that is the way European chattel slavery tended to be and cannot enbrace the notion that sometimes a person *could* be better off as a slave than under his own control. In terms of material well-being, I think that is obvious enough that a slave might be better off. In spiritual terms, in light of the "objective" standards of good and evil the game uses (rather than the only subjective ones that exist in real life), I think that's also true. I don't think there is any reflex to thinking slavery is universally bad. Any system of slavery that we have any credible record of is quite bad, whether it is the slavery in America or WWII sexual slavery of Korean women by the Japanese Army, or Soviet Gulags, etc. It goes on and on. No examples where people where better off as slaves. Our records of ancient times are pretty weak for anybody to make a case that slaves were well treated in such a system. Slaves were often the spoils of war and not taken for their own good. Slavery is simply a system in which a freewill is removed because it is less expensive to do so. It is easier to build pyramids for the Pharoh for the pharoh's afterlife with slave labor than paying people who would rather be farming or raise goats. WOTC, Ed Greenwood, or whomever made a mistake in allowing modeling Mulhorand after ancient Egypt and then including some nonsense about slaves being well treated.
Pandaemoni 01-08-06, 10:40 AM	I don't think there is any reflex to thinking slavery is universally bad. Any system of slavery that we have any credible record of is quite bad, whether it is the slavery in America or WWII sexual slavery of Korean women by the Japanese Army, or Soviet Gulags, etc. It goes on and on. No examples where people where better off as slaves. Our records of ancient times are pretty weak for anybody to make a case that slaves were well treated in such a system. Slaves were often the spoils of war and not taken for their own good. Slavery is simply a system in which a freewill is removed because it is less expensive to do so. It is easier to build pyramids for the Pharoh for the pharoh's afterlife with slave labor than paying people who would rather be farming or raise goats. WOTC, Ed Greenwood, or whomever made a mistake in allowing modeling Mulhorand after ancient Egypt and then including some nonsense about slaves being well treated. The difference is that here in the real world we don't have "objective" evil either, let alone entire races that tend to embrace such objective evil. Suppose a race of Hitlers existed? Would Hitler himself not have been better off, spiritually, as the slave of some lawful good person than he was left to his own free will? The reason we here in the real world didn't enslave or kill Hitler early in his life, is just that we had no inkling of the evil within him. Had we known or if we could travel back in time, many people would be prepared to shoot him in the head as an infant. On the other hand, a paladin knows just how evil his little kobold charge is, and slavery is just a humane alternative to running a sword through its gut. Materially, on the other hand, there is no question that slaves might be better off in a system of compassionate slavery than they'd be if left to fend for themselves. If Hitlerian evil were a common and persistent characteristic of a particular race or nationality, rather than a (thankfully) rare and (not-so-thankfully) widely-distributed trait, my guess is that we, as a society, would place some pretty harsh restrictions on anyone who had a likelihood of developing the trait. What's more we'd be doing so "for their own good" as well as for the good of those they might harm. One of those restrictions might well be "you must obery every order given to you by this civic leader". We can choose to say that that is somehow "not slavery", but that's semantics. So long as your life and your decisions are largely directed by someone other than yourself, you're no different than a slave in practical effect. [Edit: Finally, read Roxlimn's post. He seems to be describing a real-world example of non-evil slavery. Why dismiss his experiences?]
Roxlimn 01-08-06, 10:57 AM	jagraham: Our records of ancient times are pretty weak for anybody to make a case that slaves were well treated in such a system. Slaves were often the spoils of war and not taken for their own good. Slavery is simply a system in which a freewill is removed because it is less expensive to do so. It is easier to build pyramids for the Pharoh for the pharoh's afterlife with slave labor than paying people who would rather be farming or raise goats. WOTC, Ed Greenwood, or whomever made a mistake in allowing modeling Mulhorand after ancient Egypt and then including some nonsense about slaves being well treated. On what basis are you questioning the strength of the evidence? Please present the "weak" evidence and your objections. What about Filipino slave systems? We have written accounts of those, from many observers, from Filipino records, and from personal diaries. What of those? Slavery does not necessarily remove free will, and it was not necessarily cheaper or more expedient. People in SE Asia found out in prehispanic periods that certain people performed better when under direct guidance and some performed better under their own motivation. The slave system allowed people an out if they were sufficiently self-motivated, and an in if they needed the security. Most Filipino slaves were acquired through debt payments, inheritance, extreme penury, and punitive fines. Captives were also slaves, but they were the exception, not the rule. How is the evidence for this "weak" and what corroborating documents can you provide to substantiate your claims?
wrecan 01-08-06, 12:11 PM	Any system of slavery that we have any credible record of is quite bad, whether it is the slavery in America or WWII sexual slavery of Korean women by the Japanese Army, or Soviet Gulags, etc. And both Roxlimn and myself have given examples of slavery that were quite good. Her example of Filipino slavery is, in fact, well-documented and accurate. The slavery of the Mameluks in 13th century Egypt is also well-documented. Those slaves were indisputably well treated and many of them rose to high positions in Northern African politics, all while still being chattel slaves! The slavery of 13th century India is almost identical to the experience of the Mameluks. In fact, for a hundred years, the dynasty was known as the "Slave Dynasty" precisely because of their practice of raising slaves (chattel slaves, no less) to the positions of Sultan, Amir and Malik (equivalent to King, Duke and Count in European society of the same time). This is not to say that Filipino, Indian or Egyptian slavery is preferable to the freedom available in Western Democracies. In my opinion (subjective though it may be), Western democracies provide benefits above any other system yet devised (even with all their acknowledged flaws). But it is equally clear that the lives of the lowest echelons of society were much better treated in Filipino, Indian and Egyptian slave societies than were the peasantry of medieval Europe. The only difference is that the peasant's lack of freedom was called "vassallage" and not "slavery". At least in Russia they were honest enough to call them "serfs", which is to say, slaves to the land. If slavery is inherently evil, then feudalism itself should be deemed evil, making it virtually impossible to play D&D in a medieval setting, which is exactly the type of setting contemplated by the game!!
revnk 01-08-06, 02:19 PM	Weaning isn't the same as cold turkey, so a few thoughts here and there.... As far as the decline of China as a world power during the latter half of the last century, I would not be so forward as to claim that this is because of the influence of Confucianism or because of its problems in application. As with everything, Confucianism could be interpreted in any of a number of ways. Even though it was conservative at heart, it also recognized the value of innovation and reaching out to the world. In fact, whereas Confucianism was present in China for a very long time, it was only the isolationist Ming dynasty that interpreted it quite so deplorably. The Ming dynasty could be said to be the least powerful and vibrant of China's dynasties as far as extending its power is concerned. It's true that the great Treasure Fleet set out in its heyday, but it's also true that the flourishing trade China had with the world was established in earlier periods of rule, and the Ming ignominously reversed most that had been gained with its ill-advised policies. I think the point I was really trying to make is that Confucianism as practiced and implemented by the Ming dynasty had become an inefficient, rather corrupt and self-cannibalizing institution that left China vulnerable to infestation and invasion by the West in much the same way that poor diet can leave a human vulnerable to a nasty cold. And the point of that observation--which I'm not quite sure you've ever addressed except to deflect, is that there is often a disparity between how a system works on paper, how it works in practice, and how it could work in potential. E.g., you mention in a later post that Filipino slave owners could sell their slaves but rarely did and it wasn't encouraged. While you conclude from this that Filipino slavery wasn't so bad, I continue to see potential for abuse and wonder how often it occurred. Perhaps it never did, and through some combination of luck and historical accident Filipino slavery was never especially evil or heinous, but in a discussion of morals it seems that one must consider the possibility of abuse; it further seems that one must judge any system harshly by its worst cases, not its best cases. We do not judge American chattel slavery by the few incidences by the manner in which Thomas Jefferson treated his mistress, Sally Hemmings--we judge it more rightly by the deaths, tortures and abuses that occurred, even if the excesses may represent as small a tail on the bell as the "best" treatment that occurred on the other end of the tail. If Filipino slavery permitted even one slave to be badly treated and bounced around as property, despite the owner's neighbors frowning at him and not inviting him over to dinner--I personally can't conclude it wasn't such a bad institution. Hence-- Finally, read Roxlimn's post. He seems to be describing a real-world example of non-evil slavery. Why dismiss his experiences? ...I'm not dismissing Roxlimn's posts, which I take very seriously. I do, however, continue to be skeptical. This may largely be do to my bias as an American civil libertarian, but then I also see signs in Roxlimn's posts of apologetics that raise tiny little yellow flags as I read them. I am not in a position to question the accuracy of the posts--the demands of work and personal life make it frankly unlikely that I will sit down and thouroughly research Filipino slavery. And yet, while I have certainly been educated, I remain unpersuaded. And after reading this post, I may be unpersuadable (my own reactions are inserted): I think that's partially the explanation. People of American education also cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that liberty is not universally desirable. Sometimes, people don't want to determine their own destinies. Some people want a nice, predetermined, morally and socially acceptable path that doesn't necessitate a whole lot of decision making on their part. I can understand that, and I totally sympathize with it. In fact, many people need some kind of guidance in their lives for their own good. I think that Americans desperately seek direction in every which way they can, in most parts of their lives. The value that American society places on freedom has ironically led present day America into a situation in which large parts of their population don't know what the heck it is they're doing, or even what it is that they really want. Instead of sheep being led down a well worn path, they're wandering every which way. Sheep who like to make new paths can always strike out on their own. What's the point of obliterating the path for the sake of "freedom?" Although eloquent, this is little more than an apologetic for tyranny. Please. First, the fact that many people "need some kind of guidance" is hardly a justification for depriving them of freedom, even if it's the freedom to totally screw up. Liberty is not universally desirable? It's more desirable than the alternative--who would you be nominating as my master? Or perhaps you would like some other percentage of the population to be led around while I may be part of some elite class? Perhaps I can wear an armband, or have something tattooed to my forehead if I'm not quite right for leadership? Sheep are indeed led down well-worn paths--paths to the slaughterhouse, paths to be shorn. Their owners know what's good for them, and sometimes what's good for them is to be made mutton. Humans are neither food nor clothing, and while we may indeed wander down the wrong path and tear things up, I do insist on the right to choose that path for myself, thank you, and wander off the cliff or lame myself in a hole to a life where I live to be eaten or worn. Let's just take the disaster that's the dating scene. How exactly do you meet a woman in American society? What do you say when you meet her? What's the socially acceptable way to signal that you like or don't like her? Who the heck is supposed to teach you all this, and what age is acceptable for the teaching? To a large extent, these values are taught within the family (in Filipino culture anyway), and I think that Americans who are fortunate enough to have strong cultural backgrounds largely depend on their parent cultures (Irish, German, Chinese, Indian, what not) to tell them what to do. Their cultural inheritance gives them "suggestions" on how to go about this problematic thing, whether or not they choose to ultimately go that way. Being an unsuccessful bachelor who has withdrawn from that dating scene (slavery to nightclubs in sixty seconds, what the--?), I'm not sure I'm best positioned to answer this. Perhaps family, or the government, or someone else could tell me who is genetically most fit for reproduction, so that if I don't preserve the family caste I can at least have offspring with appropriately glossy coats or fat-marbled sides for roasting. Or have we abandoned sheep, now, as it was an ill-choice of metaphor anyway? Why do these things need to be taught? Is America in a population crisis, since people cannot figure out who to date or marry? Or are we doing fine with a smattering of eclectic individual choice, social structures like churches and places of employment, and in some cases those family influences? If I sound defensive, I've failed and apologize for it. I meant to sound bewildered and confused. Unfortunately, multiple generation Americans can lose their parent culture. Without a parent culture to guide them, they are cast adrift and forced to clumsily grope their way into what was otherwise well charted territory. An American anthropologist notes, with some envy, that particular New Guinea small tribe cultures widely regarded as primitive often had clearer mating rituals and thus, far less traumatic adolescent lives. Well, except that what has happened as sub-populations have assimilated into America is that they have adopted other cultures and that weird-and-not-quite-oxymoronic thing called American culture as a substitute culture. Which means that fewer Americans are cast adrift than Roxlimn seems to assume, however this strange patchwork of cultures and differences might appear to an outsider reading about it in the papers. That is not to say that the resulting map of parent subcultures are all equally adaptive--some subcultures are prone to maladaptive solutions; but that's the beauty of free will and diversity, not to mention the inelegant beauty of cultural natural selection: with every generation, maladaptive strategies fail, new strategies are tried, and with any luck, people do a little better than their parents did. Does it always work, always leading forward? Well, no, of course not. Don't be silly. But in the big picture, small setbacks aren't a bad thing, and on the whole there is a larger trend towards more fairness, more equality, less bias; if America is still a racist society, it's at least a society without segregated lunch counters. If Americans are still ignorant, at least college attendance continues to improve. If Americans are still religious bigots, at least the clashes between religious groups tend to be verbal and lines continue to dissolve. Perfect? Hell no. Getting better all the time? As easy as it would be for a liberal atheist intellectual like myself to point out the bad, I have to admit (singing along with The Beatles) "it's getting so much better all the time." As for what an American anthropologist envied, I'll risk Godwin's law to point out that Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh envied ruthless German efficiency. Thanks to that aimlessness Roxlimn likes to point to, some Americans happen to be asshats. They don't necessarily speak for us. So what's wrong with a little bit of guidance, anyway? Out here in the Philippines, you have Catholic Schools and nonCatholic schools. If your school was Catholic, they taught you that Intelligent Design was the correct theory. They still taught Darwin, of course, but only as a quaint scientific factoid. If your school was nonCatholic, they taught you Darwin, but no religious teaching. You could form religious study groups on your own, they won't stop you, but you won't get help from the school funding more than was acceptable for such extracurricular activities. You were no more nor less important than the Chess Club. In any case, both kinds of schools taught both theories, and they allowed you to choose which one you liked. I've heard that American public schools now taught neither. What the heck is up with that? That you're freer to choose if you're ignorant? I understand that not all American schools do not go this way, and I want to make it clear that this is not an indictment on American public education. It is only to illustrate my point that leaving people out without knowledge or guidance of any kind is not the same as setting them free. It seems a lot more like abandonment, if you ask me. Let's start by pointing out that Intelligent Design is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense accepted by scientists from all four corners of the globe. It is a critique of Darwinian theory, and a poor one at that (based on a rather old and intellectually impoverished 19th century British theological argument). Frankly, if Intelligent Design is the option du jour at your school, yes, you're better off being taught nothing at all, since at least nothing would not be intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect. Secondly, Roxlimn, you've managed to completely misinterpret a cultural debate in America between several groups of thought in this country. At issue is a legal debate over the meaning of the First Amendment to the American constitution, not a matter of guidance or a lack thereof. The American political system means that people of certain persuasions can debate over how and what gets funded in the educational system. This isn't lack of guidance, this is a spirited political debate that is occurring at the polls and inside the courthouses. It's not something I can sum up in a few words, because a fair treatment of both sides could take (and has taken) reams of print. But your interpretation of it is wrong in almost every particular, it appears. Spend a few hours with some American papers and newsmagazines online, and read the American First Amendment and the text of the recent court opinion re: the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board decision (googling everything after the "re:" should take you right to a copy). I contend that freedom to choose is a complex issue, not at all simply determined by the absence of nominal "masters." A Master can be oppressive, but whatever else he is, he's a guide. He tells you what to do. That's not all bad. PS: I know that many Americans browse this thread and I chose American examples in a bid to facilitate communication. My comments are not at all meant to be derogatory in any way. If anyone is offended by parts of my post, please PM me particulars and I will ammend as necessary. No offense in the sense you mean--offense as someone who does think liberty is a sacrosanct virtue and does not agree that "whatever else [a Master] is, he's a guide." Please. A guide certainly sounds nice. Pleasant. But a Master is not necessarily a guide, and an oppressive guide is, to some minds at least, worse than no guide at all. If slavery is inherently evil, then feudalism itself should be deemed evil, making it virtually impossible to play D&D in a medieval setting, which is exactly the type of setting contemplated by the game!! Real feudalism was evil. Fantasy feudalism might not be. There is a possibilty, which I have conceded, that a fantasy institution can be defined however a DM sees fit. Slavery could be defined as non-evil, indeed a DM could define any other act as non-evil as he sees fit. Most D&D campaigns, I suspect, don't deal with a real feudal setting, however. Most D&D settings seem to have people with enlightened 20th Century values running around--freemen adventurers who are (in their minds, at least) the equal of any king in the world. Adventurers who serve no master but by choice. Indeed, campaigns in which players must play the roles of servants or soldiers under obligation raise questions of railroading in some quarters. I am now overdue to my own gaming group, and I did say I was quitting this thread. After the last few posts, if my own irate response doesn't get the thing locked or whatever, I think I shall quit reading, as well. It is clear to me that there are posters here who are intelligent and articulate and well-informed--but who have a tolerance for subservience and obedience that takes issue with my upbringing, my education, my career, my values, my lifestyle, my morals, my intellect, and my heart. I do thank you for challenging me and provoking me, but I doubt there is any common ground we share on this subject. Good luck to you.
wrecan 01-08-06, 03:19 PM	Let's start by pointing out that Intelligent Design is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense accepted by scientists from all four corners of the globe. It is a critique of Darwinian theory, and a poor one at that (based on a rather old and intellectually impoverished 19th century British theological argument). Frankly, if Intelligent Design is the option du jour at your school, yes, you're better off being taught nothing at all, since at least nothing would not be intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect. QFT. Real feudalism was evil. Fantasy feudalism might not be. Whereas the rules clearly think that a campaign set in a realistic medieval world is not inconsistent in any manner whatsoever. That's why I think the colloquial definitio of evil that you or I share is not the same that definition of evil used by the game. Most D&D campaigns, I suspect, don't deal with a real feudal setting, however. Most D&D settings seem to have people with enlightened 20th Century values running around--freemen adventurers who are (in their minds, at least) the equal of any king in the world. Adventurers who serve no master but by choice. Indeed, campaigns in which players must play the roles of servants or soldiers under obligation raise questions of railroading in some quarters. Yes, I think "railroading" is an insult often miapplied. That's a topic for another thread, however. I, personally, have run many a campaign using historically accurate political systems. The game is ideally suited for it. My current campaign is based on ancient Sumer, in fact, which had its own form of slavery very similar to that set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But the fact that individual games might have 20th century action heroes in the Six Flags equivalent of medieval Europe has no bearing on whether an accurate portrayal of medieval Europe precludes Good (as defined by RAW) people who aren't rebels. I see no reason why it should. It is clear to me that there are posters here who are intelligent and articulate and well-informed--but who have a tolerance for subservience and obedience that takes issue with my upbringing, my education, my career, my values, my lifestyle, my morals, my intellect, and my heart. I hope you're not replying to me. I personally would not want to live among the Indian Slave Dynasty, or Mameluk Egypt or even in medieval France. I would find the lack of democracy oppressive. But that doesn't mean I lack the ability to distinguish between what is "Evil" in D&D from what is "evil" in my own personal system of morality. Assuming that I have a "tolerance for subservience" because I advocate an interpretation of a game definition is beneath you, particularly since our conversation has been entirely civil to this point.
Pandaemoni 01-08-06, 03:32 PM	...I'm not dismissing Roxlimn's posts, which I take very seriously. My post was in response to jagraham's post, in which he asserted (after Roxlimn's lomg post) Any system of slavery that we have any credible record of is quite bad, whether it is the slavery in America or WWII sexual slavery of Korean women by the Japanese Army, or Soviet Gulags, etc. It goes on and on. No examples where people where better off as slaves. My post was not meant to be directly at you, just at that particular comment.
Pandaemoni 01-08-06, 03:33 PM	Hmm...no idea what's going on today, except that my computer froze and seemingly multi-posted. Virus-scannin' time.
Pandaemoni 01-08-06, 03:34 PM	How the heck did i double post? Anyway, whoops.
danzig138 01-08-06, 04:07 PM	You are not free to violate the law, Even if you would not steal from someone that is an option taken from you. Even if you wouldnt murder, thats an option taken from you. That is the very basis of Lawful good, take away peoples option to do evil so everyone is happier.Yep. Exactly correct. That's why in America, there's no crime at all. But here in 138onia, the only thing stopping me from popping a cap in someone's behind is me. I'm perfectly free to do so. There would be consequences, but my freedom to do so isn't removed.
jagraham 01-08-06, 08:24 PM	jagraham: On what basis are you questioning the strength of the evidence? Please present the "weak" evidence and your objections. What about Filipino slave systems? We have written accounts of those, from many observers, from Filipino records, and from personal diaries. What of those? Slavery does not necessarily remove free will, and it was not necessarily cheaper or more expedient. People in SE Asia found out in prehispanic periods that certain people performed better when under direct guidance and some performed better under their own motivation. The slave system allowed people an out if they were sufficiently self-motivated, and an in if they needed the security. Most Filipino slaves were acquired through debt payments, inheritance, extreme penury, and punitive fines. Captives were also slaves, but they were the exception, not the rule. How is the evidence for this "weak" and what corroborating documents can you provide to substantiate your claims? I am saying as weak as in I think you are postulating that since there was a system of slavery and there is evidence there were rules, that is was somehow fair and a system of social welfare. I find it hard to believe Filipino historians would agree with your assessment on slavery there, but you could provide me some links since I don't know any. Now I've tried looking online for some more information online about slavery in the Phillippines. A Google search on "philippines slavery" returns a mountain of bad stuff about slavery that goes on today illegally, and slavery under American rule, and Spanish rule. The precolonial references I see are about inter-tribal warfare to take slaves (and worse). Help me find some positive references out there.
wrecan 01-09-06, 02:15 PM	Well, I don't know why you're ignoring my posts, but go to amazon.com and get yourself a few history books on the Mameluks of Egypt or the Slave Dynasty of India (both existed circa 13th century) for a system of chattel slavery in which the slaves were usually more powerful than the commoners, accorded more respect and attained positions of considerable power, including that of King.
jagraham 01-09-06, 08:32 PM	Well, I don't know why you're ignoring my posts, but go to amazon.com and get yourself a few history books on the Mameluks of Egypt or the Slave Dynasty of India (both existed circa 13th century) for a system of chattel slavery in which the slaves were usually more powerful than the commoners, accorded more respect and attained positions of considerable power, including that of King. Sorry to ignore your posts, there have been some extremly long ones, so its hard to keep track. Let's start on the Mamluks. I'm glad you pointed them out. I see story of survival, but I don't see a silver lining. Mamluks were racial outsiders and feared enforcers, which should be construed as being equals to commoners. There were other slaves that were not Mamluks in the same system. The fact that some rose to positions of power does not mean they were treated justly, they were expendable. The Mamluks came to power by coup d'etat not by anyone's respect, which I think shows they would rather be free of enslavement. Here's the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia definition of Mamluk: "The first Mamluks worked for Abbasid caliphs in 9th century Baghdad. The Abbasids recruited them from enslaved mainly Turkic non-Muslim families captured in areas including modern Turkey, Eastern Europe, the steppes around modern Volgograd and the Caucasus. Using non-Muslims as soldiers helped partially overcome Islamic prohibitions on Muslims fighting each other. The rulers also desired troops with no link to the established power structure. The local warriors were often more loyal to their tribal sheiks, their families or nobles other than the sultan or caliph. If some commander conspired against the ruler, it was often not possible to deal with him without causing unrest among the nobility. The slave-troops were strangers of the lowest possible status who could not conspire against the ruler and who could easily be punished if they caused trouble. After being converted to Islam, they were trained as cavalry soldiers. While technically after training they were no longer slaves, they were still obliged to serve the Sultan. They were kept by the Sultan as an outsider force, under their direct command, to use in the event of local tribal frictions. Many Mamluks rose to high positions throughout the empire, including commanderships. Status remained non-hereditary at first and children were strictly prevented from following their fathers. The intensive and rigorous training given to each new recruit helped ensure a great deal of continuity in Mamluk practices. The Mamluks who seized power in Egypt were the most famous. They were about 1250 mostly Turkic, along with some Georgians, Circassians, a few Russians and some Mongols from the regions ruled by the Juchi branch of the Mongol family sold into slavery for various reasons such as bankruptcy. The Turkic element then was dominant, and most of them were from the Russian Steppe, in the lands alloted by Genghis Khan to his son Juchi and Juchi's heirs. The Mamluks were often sold into slavery by impoverished steppe families.
Roxlimn 01-10-06, 08:39 AM	revnk: Hey, let's drag you back in some more! :) First of all, I would like to clarify that I am not an American and that I cannot presume to speak from an American perspective or experience. Thus, not only is what I've posted not supposed to be an indictment (since I would be stupid to indict something I don't understand) nor a generalization, even if it appeared to be so. If what I posted applies only to a few American cases, then those are the example cases I refer to. And the point of that observation--which I'm not quite sure you've ever addressed except to deflect, is that there is often a disparity between how a system works on paper, how it works in practice, and how it could work in potential. I didn't deflect because I don't disagree with it. I only clarified some small minor points of significance. E.g., you mention in a later post that Filipino slave owners could sell their slaves but rarely did and it wasn't encouraged. While you conclude from this that Filipino slavery wasn't so bad, I continue to see potential for abuse and wonder how often it occurred. Perhaps it never did, and through some combination of luck and historical accident Filipino slavery was never especially evil or heinous, but in a discussion of morals it seems that one must consider the possibility of abuse; it further seems that one must judge any system harshly by its worst cases, not its best cases. We do not judge American chattel slavery by the few incidences by the manner in which Thomas Jefferson treated his mistress, Sally Hemmings--we judge it more rightly by the deaths, tortures and abuses that occurred, even if the excesses may represent as small a tail on the bell as the "best" treatment that occurred on the other end of the tail. If Filipino slavery permitted even one slave to be badly treated and bounced around as property, despite the owner's neighbors frowning at him and not inviting him over to dinner--I personally can't conclude it wasn't such a bad institution. Those are not the only factors to consider, of course. If we must pass judgement on a system, then we must not take only into account the worst possible abuses that you can find in the system, but also compare it to contemporary systems, and to historical precedents and modern systems, and the extent to which the worst cases are known to be prevalent. For example, the Abu Ghraib incidents place a pretty low benchmark for the treatment of prisoners in American hands, but unless we can show that this was the usual manner in which the American military handles its prisoners, we cannot indict the entirety of the American Military as a D&D Evil entity. As per what many American authorities have publicly announced, this was an aberration, not the rule. Of course, there was the potential for abuse in Filipino slavery as well, but this was generally done only by people who were cruel to begin with, and thus liable to act cruelly whether the subject in question was a slave or a servant. Even then, there were many law and tradition based checks to the master's cruelty. For example, Filipino rulers do not (and probably can not) demand fealty from their timawa subjects. The primary distinction between a freeman/noble and a high echelon slave was not their financial status nor their social influence. A slave could very well be nearly as wealthy as a datu (ruler). The primary difference was that a timawa could choose to give his fealty to whichever datu he chose, based on his unalienable right to own land. You see, in prehispanic Philippines, freedom was not an unalienable right, but the right to own land was. Unless you were born to a landless hearth slave, or else got a commuted death penalty, or were captured in battle, you owned land and no one could take it away from you. If at any point you ascended above the status of hearth slave (if you married, for instance), your land rights were instantly reinstated. How is this a check on a master's cruelty? Well, the way in which people attracted power and fealty in those days was through respect and social influence. If people perceived you to be cruel or tyrannical, they tended to want to have nothing to do with you. People saw the way you treated your slave as a microcosm of how you would treat them, should you be placed in any position of power or obligation over them. Thus, if you treated even your slaves badly, you tended to lose significant social, financial, and political power. That's a pretty powerful incentive to be at least civil to your slave. Moreover, if people saw you treated your slaves badly, they tended also not to be interested in enslaving themselves to you, if ever they needed it. By this mechanism, people who treated their slaves badly tended to lose manpower as their slaves ascended in social caste, whereas their kinder neighbors could take slaves for additional field hands if and when the need arose. There are more systems of control. Suffice it to say that the system of control was so adequate that cruelty was by far the aberration in Filipino prehispanic slavery, such that invading Christian missionaries willingly took it upon themselves to enter certain states of slavery in order to spread their mission goals to Filipinos. In their own words, they explained their status to their lieges as "guests," probably to preempt ransom orders. Being tyrannical to your slaves doesn't just get you not invited to dinner - you became a social and financial pariah. Bear in mind that prehispanic Filipino settlements were trade-based, not war-based as European Middle Ages settlements tended to be, and you'll see how a bad reputation can damage you greatly. Although eloquent, this is little more than an apologetic for tyranny. Please. First, the fact that many people "need some kind of guidance" is hardly a justification for depriving them of freedom, even if it's the freedom to totally screw up. Liberty is not universally desirable? It's more desirable than the alternative--who would you be nominating as my master? Or perhaps you would like some other percentage of the population to be led around while I may be part of some elite class? Perhaps I can wear an armband, or have something tattooed to my forehead if I'm not quite right for leadership? That's just begging the question. You're assuming that strict social order is by definition tyrannical, and thus evil. Society itself is formed from the sacrifice of certain freedoms in exchange for social returns. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If my face is quite near to your fist, you might not be able to swing that fist very much at all. All this rhetoric is very nice, but since it assumes the truth that certain levels of social order is evil, I cannot take it seriously. Sheep are indeed led down well-worn paths--paths to the slaughterhouse, paths to be shorn. Their owners know what's good for them, and sometimes what's good for them is to be made mutton. Humans are neither food nor clothing, and while we may indeed wander down the wrong path and tear things up, I do insist on the right to choose that path for myself, thank you, and wander off the cliff or lame myself in a hole to a life where I live to be eaten or worn. Note that I never said that the sheep are supposed to be led down a path, all and sundry. In my metaphor, I said that there was no point to obliterating a sheep path just to allow the sheep "freedom to choose." If you just lead them lightly along the path, those who choose to follow the path are free to do that, and those who don't are free to do that as well. Ironically, in that strict social order allows you certain options as possibilities, it allows you greater freedom to choose than otherwise. You certainly can't choose to walk down a path that doesn't exist. I don't advocate tyranny. I'm just trying to explain to you why not all forms of high level social order are not tyranny. Being an unsuccessful bachelor who has withdrawn from that dating scene (slavery to nightclubs in sixty seconds, what the--?), I'm not sure I'm best positioned to answer this. Perhaps family, or the government, or someone else could tell me who is genetically most fit for reproduction, so that if I don't preserve the family caste I can at least have offspring with appropriately glossy coats or fat-marbled sides for roasting. Or have we abandoned sheep, now, as it was an ill-choice of metaphor anyway? Why do these things need to be taught? Is America in a population crisis, since people cannot figure out who to date or marry? Or are we doing fine with a smattering of eclectic individual choice, social structures like churches and places of employment, and in some cases those family influences? If I sound defensive, I've failed and apologize for it. I meant to sound bewildered and confused. Many American anthropologists and social analysts would agree with that assessment: America is in some ways, in a crisis. Not a reproductive crisis, but a social crisis. The disintegration of the nucelar family and the dramatic increase in the rates of divorce are not seen as victories for the liberties of Americans. As incredible as this may sound to you, a confessed libertarian, few people want to be free to be miserable. Given a choice, people will invariably prefer to be happy but not free as opposed to miserable and free. I never necessarily advocated absolute rule over who you are to marry, although in some cases this isn't particularly objectionable either. I only said that social conventions and mores need to be taught in order for younger generations to avoid the miserable barbarism of ignorance. I could give you a computer and leave you alone to be "free" to assemble it any way you want, but wouldn't you much prefer that I gave you the manual? I wouldn't necessarily force you to adhere to the manual, but I would suggest that you should probably at least give it the once over. Is that so bad? As according to American literature, adolescence in the US is increasingly filled with social traps and miserable voids of ignorance. Is the US "doing fine" as it is? Well, as far as the population is concerned, probably yes. That's not the point. Are many Americans growing up with miserable teen experiences? Apparently, yes. I could point to your own lack of satisfaction with your bachelorhood as a weathervane for this problem, but that might be construed as a cheap shot, and single case reports aren't that strong as evidence, anyway. I'm saying here that if you had something standardized to say to a woman so as to signal that you liked her and will consider (but not necessarily commit to) dating her, woudn't that be great? You don't have to come up with great one-liners to introduce yourself. Just follow the script and you're on the radar. You can always introduce yourself your own way, after all, and you don't have to risk being called a jerk just for introducing yourself, if you're not inclined to risk it. Further, wouldn't it also be great if women could say no without having to insult you? I mean, I have enough women friends and past dates to know that women frequently call men all sorts of things just to discourage unwanted attention, even if they didn't particularly despise the guy. Sometimes, a woman just wants to enjoy her drink, is that too much to ask? You say your standardized hello, she says she's not interested in you at this time, and you part introduced and perfectly neutral. End result: extremely long lists for booty call for everyone. That means that no one is doomed to spend Christmas or New Year alone if they're willing to compromise enough (or are high enough on other people's booty list) to make a compatible match. Spending New Year with someone low on your priority list is pretty mediocre, but for many people, it beats spending New Year lonely. I believe that you're confused and bewildered because you don't know any better. You don't think that organized social matches are any good because you haven't seen or experienced a functional one. A functional organized social match scheme doesn't always deprive you of choices. Some schemes present you with choices you might not otherwise have had. Secondly, Roxlimn, you've managed to completely misinterpret a cultural debate in America between several groups of thought in this country. At issue is a legal debate over the meaning of the First Amendment to the American constitution, not a matter of guidance or a lack thereof. The American political system means that people of certain persuasions can debate over how and what gets funded in the educational system. This isn't lack of guidance, this is a spirited political debate that is occurring at the polls and inside the courthouses. It's not something I can sum up in a few words, because a fair treatment of both sides could take (and has taken) reams of print. But your interpretation of it is wrong in almost every particular, it appears. Spend a few hours with some American papers and newsmagazines online, and read the American First Amendment and the text of the recent court opinion re: the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board decision (googling everything after the "re:" should take you right to a copy). My mistake. As I said, I'm not an American. However, I have read American articles on the issue at hand, and I do comprehend that it's a politcal debate involving the First Amendment. What I don't understand is why there's a debate in the first place. Unfortunately for me, the particulars of how and wherefore fail to answer the question "why." Why do people want this bit of education in the system? Why are others opposed to it? Why is a compromise unattainable? I prefer to focus on these questions because IMO at least, if you answer these questions to the satisfaction of all, the law then becomes mutable. No offense in the sense you mean--offense as someone who does think liberty is a sacrosanct virtue and does not agree that "whatever else [a Master] is, he's a guide." Please. A guide certainly sounds nice. Pleasant. But a Master is not necessarily a guide, and an oppressive guide is, to some minds at least, worse than no guide at all. In other minds, an oppressive guide as long as he remains a guide, is preferrable to having none at all. If someone offerred to guide me safely through a minefield I happened to find myself in the middle of, I wouldn't particularly mind if he beat me and insulted me and even abused me all the way through it. I wouldn't like him, of course, but I could always opt to die. The fact that I'm in the minefield is central to the metaphor. The guide didn't place me in it, he had nothing to do with it. He's just offering to let me live in exchange for abuses. In the absence of any other offer, I'll take it! Most D&D settings seem to have people with enlightened 20th Century values running around--freemen adventurers who are (in their minds, at least) the equal of any king in the world. Adventurers who serve no master but by choice. Indeed, campaigns in which players must play the roles of servants or soldiers under obligation raise questions of railroading in some quarters. Well, here are two examples of D&D settings and adventurers in them. Very few settings deceive PCs into thinking that they are modern citizens of Western nations. Forgotten Realms: adventurers are seen as heroes and troubleshooters. A little like the Old West with swords. In civilized nations like Sembia, Cormyr, Amn, and the Silver Marches, you have to apply for licenses to do whichever activity you like. You can't loot tombs and such without the proper writs. You normally aren't allowed to carry lethal weaponry every which way. You could apply to become royal deputies, but that means that you become soldiers and vassals of crowns like Cormyr and Silverymoon, liable for calls to service and other such responsibilities. In wilder places like the Sword Coast, you don't need these things, but these places are barely civilized and you can carry your sword around because everybody else can. If someone steals your stuff or kills your wife, tough. Neither cirsumtance seems very "freeman." Eberron: Very similar to above, but both more restricted and less restricted depending on the kingdom you find yourself in. You'll need letters of marque to keep anything you plunder from anywhere in the Five Nations, and few kingdoms allow adventurers to carry around lethal weaponry in capitals without licensing. In Karrn, adventurers are viewed as troublemakers and will probably have a hard time moving around unless they're allied to the king's forces. Major PC incentives for joining organizations like the Royal Eyes and the King's Lantern as vassals and agents. I think that in many cases, the desire to "belong" strongly exceeds the desire to be free. Indeed, in teen years, the desire to belong is so strong that teenagers routinely subjugate their own free wills and sometimes their better judgement to peer groups. After the last few posts, if my own irate response doesn't get the thing locked or whatever, I think I shall quit reading, as well. It is clear to me that there are posters here who are intelligent and articulate and well-informed--but who have a tolerance for subservience and obedience that takes issue with my upbringing, my education, my career, my values, my lifestyle, my morals, my intellect, and my heart. I do thank you for challenging me and provoking me, but I doubt there is any common ground we share on this subject. Good luck to you. Best of luck to you as well, if you are still reading this. I am well aware that Asian tolerance for social order far exceeds the norms in Euroamerican society. I believe that the reason for this is that our social orders did not disintegrate in a Dark Age, and also that we have been forced to deal with much higher concentrations of population for centuries. Our dedication to our families, clans, provinces, and governments is not due to mindless sbuservience but due to a real feeling of empowerment and participation in them. We don't see a government decree to ban vandalism as an oppressive action by "The Man," but as an expression of the will of the community. At the same time, we also hold our leaders liable to their actions for representation above and beyond that called upon by law. If a leader takes an action that his followers find repugnant, it goes without saying that he has lost the mandate of the people, and that his orders will never be followed, the law be damned! Our chains of command exist primarily within our sense of community, not within the boundaries of law. Marcos ordered his men to shoot innocent people. He lost. Even the infamous Tianenmen Square incident, probably unbeknowsnt to most Westerners, cost Bejing a great deal of prestige within the Chinese community. One does not lightly order actions that go against the common opinion so greatly. It is not subservience to a group of people that I'm talking about. It's about acting as part of a community. jagraham: I am saying as weak as in I think you are postulating that since there was a system of slavery and there is evidence there were rules, that is was somehow fair and a system of social welfare. I find it hard to believe Filipino historians would agree with your assessment on slavery there, but you could provide me some links since I don't know any. No. You misunderstand. I am not extrapolating that since there was a system of slavery that it was a fair system of social wefare. I am referring to accounts from outsiders who viewed the system as such, regardless of what the actual laws and traditions were. Filipino historians actually agree with much of what I said. I referred to William Henry Scott because Westerners are notorious for prejudice against Asians. I believed that a Western author would appeal to you as more authoritative. You will not find the sources on the internet because there is little appeal on the international community on such topics, and most Filipinos aren't that interested in history, either. If you want a Filipino historian to refer to, I believe you could try to look for stuff by Agoncillo or F. Landa Jocano. Be warned, though. Most Filipino historians are very much like Italian historians in the Renaissance in that they're often concerned with forwarding their own faction's interests. They may present the same facts, but they will put different spins on the same topic. If you read enough Filipino historical textbooks, you may begin to notice a decidedly pro-Caucasian spin on most Euroamerican texts that you might find disillusioning, so don't say I didn't warn you. A modern American historian of my acquaintance went into a long depression after he wrote a Philippine history book. Unless you're prepared to face some unpleasant truths (or are already acquainted with them), I would not advise it. Finally, you can't trust much of what you see on the 'net about prehispanic Filipinos (and actually most information about Filipinos) unless it's from a reputable Filipino historian or from a reputable "Filipinized" Westerner. Most sources are staggering inaccurate on even the most elementally simple details. If it's not from a Filipino or a reputable Westerner, it's probably better to completely disregard it. Many foreign authors spin their tales wholesale out of thin air.
wrecan 01-10-06, 08:00 PM	Sorry to ignore your posts, there have been some extremly long ones, so its hard to keep track. I'm not sure why you think the boldfaced portions support your point. Nothing in the post contradict what I wrote I see story of survival, but I don't see a silver lining. Mamluks were racial outsiders and feared enforcers, which should be construed as being equals to commoners. There were other slaves that were not Mamluks in the same system. The fact that some rose to positions of power does not mean they were treated justly, they were expendable. Nor does it mean they weren't treated justly. You're projecting your prejudices onto what you have read. You're assuming unjust treatment unless stated otherwise, which is not appropriate. The Mamluks came to power by coup d'etat not by anyone's respect Wrong. They created their own dynasty when the prior dynasty became corrupt and evil. But as the Wikipedia article says, before the coup d'etat they were routinely promoted to "cavalry positions". That's a European term. There is no "cavalry" per se in Muslim armed forces. Rather the horsemen of the medieval Muslim armies were entry-level nobility. And that comports with what I wrote about the Mamluks being routinely promoted to noble status. Yes, at some point they overthrew a corrupt government. So what? I think shows they would rather be free of enslavement. You think wrong. Many of them were already free of enslavement when they initiated the coup. As stated before the Mamluks could become cavalry officers and thus freemen (more specifically, nobles) The Wikipedia entry is written for people with a Western background, so it tries in artfully to describe Mamluk progress n European terms. The fact of the matter is that the Mamluks were slaves taken from conquered peoples. They were trained in military artistry, as well as taught literacy and arts. Those who proved competent were made officers and freemen and were considered more loyal to the upper echelons because they had no tribal loyalties. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that indicates they did not have dignity, except possibly the following: The local warriors were often more loyal to their tribal sheiks, their families or nobles other than the sultan or caliph. If some commander conspired against the ruler, it was often not possible to deal with him without causing unrest among the nobility. The slave-troops were strangers of the lowest possible status who could not conspire against the ruler and who could easily be punished if they caused trouble. All this is saying is that the commoners and tribal folks thought of them as lowly because they were followers. But elsewhere it makes plain that the nobles valued them for their loyalty and their service. A coup d'etat by Mamluks, who were a combination of slaves and freemen, does not indicate dissatisfaction with their slave status, particularly because the Mameluk dynasty did not end the practice of using Mamluk slaves and trainign them for eventual emancipation. If the Mameluks so despised that system, wy didn't they end it after their coup?! Clearly, because that's not what teh coup concerned.
Darkuwa 01-10-06, 09:14 PM	In D&D good and evil are subjective, not to your own personal morals but the morals of the god your character worships. If I have a paladin of Jahova (Thats your "God" for all you christians out there) His moral code says that slavery is OK. It says right in the Bible that "God is good." and we'll just assume that hes lawful as laws and society's have sprung up around his worship base. Therefore a paladin of Jahova is allowed to own slaves, and since one of the rules or the paladins religion is "Thou shalt not kill" it is better that he make somone a slave rather than kill them. A paladins powers are given to him by his god, a paladins code and morals are given to him by his god. Therefore, if his god says its ok then its ok for him to have a slave, if his god says its not ok then its not ok. If one LG god says its ok to own slaves and another LG god says its not, then you will have paladins that may fight each other over this. They will meet on the field of battle over something one considers evil and the other considers good. Is it evil? Doesn't matter in the slightest. If the Paladins god says its ok, then he won't take away his powers and the other LG god can't do anything about it. Is slavery good in the real world? no Is slavery good in the D&D world? depends on which god you follow. Is slavery lawful in the real world? not any more but it was. Is slavery lawful in the D&D world? depends on which god you follow. Therefore it matters not what you think, it only matters what the paladins god thinks. If the god's description doesn't say anything about it, then it is up to the DM. Stop putting your real world modern day morals into a fantasy game.
Rolof 01-11-06, 01:03 AM	Darkuwa's got a point, in fact, due to all the back and forth of this thread, I have decided to create an interesting little situation in my campaign world. Two Neighboring kingdoms where one thinks slavery is ok, and the other doesn't. Both have paladins in the thick of the debate, which went to the brink of war between the two kingdoms, until cooler, wiser heads calmed the situation down (and perhaps a few of the paladins fell from grace for killing other paladins). However, since that time there has existed a state kind of like a cold war, and out of a combination of fear/hate, and to prevent possible random outbreaks of renewed fighting, a giant wall was built between the two nations, similar to the Great Wall of China.
Palin the Wizard 01-11-06, 04:39 AM	In D&D good and evil are subjective, not to your own personal morals but the morals of the god your character worships. Incorrect. In D&D, good and evil are forces of cosmos, and are objective. Even Gods do not decide what is good and what is evil--that's defined by the RAW (and DMs in subjective settings). A god can say, "I am good!" That, however, doesn't make him good unless he follows the Good alignment set out by the RAW.
Darkuwa 01-11-06, 03:12 PM	Ok, but not all good gods believe in the same thing. As they are the one's that give the paladins their power, it doesnt matter if the paladin follows the overall path of good, it only matters if he does what his god believes. So once again, if his god says its OK to own slaves, then he won't take away the paladins powers for owning slaves. It is therefore irrelevent if slavery is Good or lawful in the cosmic sense.
wrecan 01-11-06, 08:44 PM	it doesnt matter if the paladin follows the overall path of good, it only matters if he does what his god believes. That's not true either. The rules state that a paladin loses all of his class abilities if he commits an evil act, if his alignment changes from lawful good to anything else, or if he violates his paladin code (which is presumably set by his god). A paladin who follows his code but also commits an evil act loses his paladin abilities. A paladin who acts LG at all times, but violates his paladin code, also loses his paladin abilities. In my opinion, it works as follows: A god with LG worshippers can give some of those LG worshippers access to power from the LG planes with which to do the god's bidding. If the worshipper ceases to be LG (but still worships the god), the plane is no longer accessible, despite the god's desire otherwise. If the worshipper ceases to follow the god, the god can cut off the conduit, even if he otherwise qualifies. But that's just my interpretation.
Darkuwa 01-11-06, 09:04 PM	"Divine power protects the paladin and grants her special powers" Divine, as in from their god. "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good," You can be good and have one or two flaws, my druid is addicted to smokeing a pipe, but hes still nuetral good. "who willfully commits an evil act," If I kill somone because I was told they are evil, but their not, that is not a willful evil act. If I get a slave, because my LG god says its ok, that is not a willful evil act. "or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities." The code of conducts that I've seen never mention slavery.
wrecan 01-11-06, 10:01 PM	"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good," You can be good and have one or two flaws, my druid is addicted to smokeing a pipe, but hes still nuetral good. Why would smoking have any bearing on someone's alignment? I don't get your analogy at all. "who willfully commits an evil act," If I kill somone because I was told they are evil, but their not, that is not a willful evil act. Yes it is. That's why atonement specifically atones for unintentional evil acts. If I get a slave, because my LG god says its ok, that is not a willful evil act. Yes it is. Otherwise you could have paladins of CE gods saying "Orcus told me to throw the virgin into the volcano, so it's not an evil act." "Following orders" is insufficient justification. "or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities." The code of conducts that I've seen never mention slavery. That's fine, but what does that have to do with whether alignment is objective or subjective?
jagraham 01-11-06, 10:04 PM	Most sources are staggering inaccurate on even the most elementally simple details. If it's not from a Filipino or a reputable Westerner, it's probably better to completely disregard it. Many foreign authors spin their tales wholesale out of thin air. OK, there's one thing we do agree on, is that history usually has a spin or is made up. Since this thread is frustrating, but at the same time really interesting, I have spent quite a few hours looking up the Filipino history and references to Scott, Agoncillo, and Jocano. Their efforts to correct centuries of nonsense history is very interesting. Do you agree that in addition to slavery initiated by debts, slaves were also taken in raids? Was this practice Good (i.e. a paladin could do it, respected life and dignity)?
High Octane 01-11-06, 10:08 PM	Ive said it before, "Morality is in the eyes of the DM." As far as game rules and mechanics go, it does fall on the DM to rule if slavery is evil or not. I would rule that a paladin cant own a slave.
Roxlimn 01-11-06, 10:38 PM	jagraham: Do you agree that in addition to slavery initiated by debts, slaves were also taken in raids? Was this practice Good (i.e. a paladin could do it, respected life and dignity)? Slaves were taken in raids by the fierce warrior-kings of the Visayan islands. Those kingdoms were based on raiding and piracy just as much from whatever trading and agriculture they could manage. The trade based settlements of Luzon did no such thing. Raiders from Visayas regularly raided the people of Luzon for produce and slaves, and also seasonally ventured forth to mainland China for more raiding. In that raiding was their way of life, I can't say whether the taking of slaves was good or not. These slaves were often segregated from the normal social order in that they were openly sold or rather, openly available for ransom. It's not unlike how feudal princes treated each other in Western Europe during war. Taking the slave didn't necessarily demean him, but then again, it wasn't done for the sake of altruism and such. It would be a hard case to show that this particular part of the practice was Good, but it's also not necessarily Evil, if you can accept that raiding tribes are not necessarily Evil. This would not only include Visayan raiders who attacked settlements for a living, but also various nomadic Central Asian tribes and Vikings. I think it's preferrable for me to be attacked by a Visayan raider rather than a Viking one. The Visayan raiders will try not to kill me, because I was worth ransom money, and they weren't especially cruel to their captives, either. Captives who turn out to not be saleable eventually enter mainstream social order and have the same opporunities as everyone else. Are the Slave raids Good? That's a hard thing to sell. I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that. On the other hand, Visayan oripuns (Visayan slaves) tended to have more power and influence in their society (they need every hand they can get) than the lowest of Luzon alipins. It's complicated. I would say raiding was Neutral.
allencon 01-12-06, 03:37 AM	I am particularly interested for the poster's opinion on this matter. Would you allow a white paladin take slave possession of other people when you also had a black person playing in your group? The moral relativists are all dancing on swords on this issue and reading some portions of this, it is interesting to watch people philosophically dance at two weddings at once. True, not every permutation of salvery was the same as that of the US and Colonial Era North America or Western Europe. And to appease the Bible thumpers, it does say to treat slaves well. I propose this hypothesis. Everyone or most of us have had a favorite toy as a child. One that we took especially good care of. It held a place of high esteem in our minds and hearts, and may very well still carry some level of sentimental attatchment. Supposse you took very good care of this toy, and it still exists today, years perhaps even decades in almost mint condition. Now even in a culture where slaves are given privelege, rights, and protection, suppose they are liken to these treasured and respected objects. Ultimately you are prized because of what you are not who you are. This miguided sort of thinking is the antithesis of the concept of dignity for the whole person. If people could only be appreciated on what they were, and the possition they served, and not on the basis of intrinsic human universal dignity, the justification for many of the horrible abuses of humans at the hand of other humans by nations, socities, religions, ecconomic systems, or other organizations has been made. Therefore compulsory slavery, no matter how well the slave is treated, is at some level an inherent evil as it treats the slave in question as a "What," and not as a person. Even the romanticized slavery practices spoken of by some posters in here in the Middle East, Asia, and of Biblical cultures, still fall into this same epistemological error. It would interesting to see how many of the people advocating relative justifications for slavery would do so if they were on the other side of the celophane cassing of the master's "new toy," or if it was their back on the other side of a cruel master's whip. Societies within in a fantasy campaign setting that practice such beliefs by extension cannot justify such cultural traditions, even if the slaves are treated well. One component of DND is that it revolves around heroic action in a high fantasy setting. Part of being heroic for a paladin given said circumstances may involve rejecting a culture where individuals are treated as "what's" and not as "who's." Imagine if you were only loved because of how well you did in school, or what job you worked at, or how well you performed certain tasks. Love and dignity for the whole person must be unconditional and universal if such an act is to merrit heroic standards. It is often unpopular and outright difficult to abide by absolute standards of morality, ethics, values, and epistemology in a world that from time to time seems adrift in endless flux. But it is when, even when arguing over arbitrary items as this in a fantasy setting, when the current of relativism, and fear to confront wrong, that as a global human race we stop evolving socially, intellectually, spiritually, and succomb to the blackness of an already too dark, too long night sky. "... when the Nazi's came for the Communists, I did nothing for I was not a Communist. When the Nazi's came for the Trade Unionists, I did nothing for I was not a Trade Unionist. When the Nazi's came for the Jews, I did nothing for I was not a Jew. When the Nazi's came for the Gypsies, I did nothing for I was not a Gypsy. When the Nazi's came for the Jehowah Whitnesses, I did nothing for I was not a Jehowah Whtiness. When the Nazi's came for the Catholics, I did nothing for I was not a Catholic. When the Nazi's came for me, there was nothing I could do, for there was no one left to defend or aide me..."
konrad_the_tall 01-12-06, 05:38 AM	THats true. I heartily agree. Uncinditional love is the way to go. Slavery is wrong for a palidin. LN, N and evil characters can just about get away with it. and even then they are pushing it.
Roxlimn 01-12-06, 08:33 AM	allencon: Now even in a culture where slaves are given privelege, rights, and protection, suppose they are liken to these treasured and respected objects. Ultimately you are prized because of what you are not who you are. This miguided sort of thinking is the antithesis of the concept of dignity for the whole person. Even the romanticized slavery practices spoken of by some posters in here in the Middle East, Asia, and of Biblical cultures, still fall into this same epistemological error. It would interesting to see how many of the people advocating relative justifications for slavery would do so if they were on the other side of the celophane cassing of the master's "new toy," or if it was their back on the other side of a cruel master's whip. You fail to understand the underlying principles of the social structure that underlies the Filipino slave system. In fact, you are still assigning European style cruelty based on your way of thinking, a basic harshness of universal philosophy that I told revnk about not too many pages back. You see, you're assuming that the system I outlined prized the slave because of what he was. The Filipino slave system makes no such claim. It is inherently practical and socially-based, not philosophically based. Your "sale" value no more reflected your worth as a person there than your current salary reflects your worth as a person now. It was merely a parctical social structure that allowed the people to function using financial standards. It was by no means a judgement on the person itself. Indeed, your toy analogy would only make sense in describing the Filipino slave system if that toy could graduate from ownership of the child (as the slaves therein could) and then have the possiblity of owning the child right back, should the child ever prove to be unfortunate enough to need it. You need to get away from looking at objects as objects in the European sense, and even as slavery in the European sense in order to understand what I'm trying to say, and I don't doubt that most Europeans and Americans have a limited understanding of the Asian way of thinking. There is a fundamental difference there that's incredibly difficult for many Westerners to comprehend, let alone bridge. Being a slave in the Filipino sense makes no value judgement on the cosmic worth of the slave, nor is it closed, nor is it generally oppressive. It is no more oppressive than servant and vassal relationships, and indeed, very similar to the most basic of social orders elsewhere in the world. Your insistence on looking at an Asian social structure from a European viewpoint necessarily limits your understanding of the dynamics involved, and thus you cannot be said to have understood what's really going on. There's no lack of love or dignity there, and even more love and dignity exchanged than what the Spaniards themselves practiced on the Filipinos and between themselves. As noted from an account of a noble/freeman timawa during the course of Spanish occupation of mainland Luzon, a great many of Filipinos outwardly admired what the missionaries said, but were outright frightened and amazed that the Spanish people could excercise such cruelty, violence, and malicious hate even as they preached dignity and love. Of course, no offense to the Spanish people as a whole. For one thing, it's in their past, and for another, they often sent abroad their most desperate and evil criminals and outlaws. Bear in mind, however, that many Spanish observers did indeed called the social order slavery, since it resembled the same institution in Spain in many particulars, yet often qualified their statements exactly because of how well the system worked in terms of respecting the slaves, giving them opportunities for advancement, and in general preserving their dignity as people. I could say the same for the system in Mulhorand, I believe. You must completely abandon your perception of slavery in many places in Western Europe and Colonial Era America in order to properly understand what is generally meant by slavery elsewhere. The fundamentals you believe are true are not. The basics you believe apply do not. PS: The Filipino slave system as I have described it is not romanticized in the least. I can understand how it may seem that way based on the inhuman and horrifying treatment slaves and people received at the hands of Western Europeans. However, my presentation is verifiable and accurate historical fact based on records by many observers of many different allegiances and agendas. I have placed some few historical references in the thread if you have become interested in Filipino history.
wrecan 01-12-06, 09:23 AM	Would you allow a white paladin take slave possession of other people when you also had a black person playing in your group? Why not, if the system of slavery is Good as defined by RAW and my game? Now, if the player in question said he had a personal problem with that, then I would avoid the subject in my games out of respect for him. Just as if I had a player with a fear of spiders who asked me not to send any driders after the party. A good DM respects his players' concerns even if they don't have in-game justification. Your argument is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Now even in a culture where slaves are given privelege, rights, and protection, suppose they are liken to these treasured and respected objects. This is a straw man, as the systems that Roxlimn and I have described do not treat slaves in that manner. In the Mameluk and Indian slave societies a slave is treated as an individual and is promoted based on his individual acheivements, not based on his race or birth. For example, the Indian slavery system had not only Turkic (white) slaves, but Hindi (Indian) slaves, Ethiopian (black) slaves and Mongol (yellow) slaves. There are not uncommon instances of each of these races being promoted to positions of nobility and power, regardless of race, because of their devotion to Allah, to the Caliph or Sultan and due to their individual achievement. Therefore compulsory slavery, no matter how well the slave is treated, is at some level an inherent evil as it treats the slave in question as a "What," and not as a person. Now you are merely restating your initial assumption as a conclusion. It would interesting to see how many of the people advocating relative justifications for slavery would do so if they were on the other side of the celophane cassing of the master's "new toy," or if it was their back on the other side of a cruel master's whip. First off, you're revealing your prejudices and erroneous assumptions. There was no whipping of slaves in Mameluk or Indian slavery. Second, I would much rather be a slave in medieval Muslim India than one of the Untouchables of the HIndi caste system at the same time. Third, you are making the same mistake that everybody else makes. The colloquial definition of "good" and the rules definition of "Good" are not co-terminus. Personally, I would not want to be a slave. So what? I wouldn't want to be a Dwarf either. But I don't live in a D&D world with actual objective alignments fueled by the Outer Planes. Part of being heroic for a paladin given said circumstances may involve rejecting a culture where individuals are treated as "what's" and not as "who's." It may. It may also involve roleplaying a lawful good paladin in a morally ambiguous campaign setting. Who are you to tell people that they can't do something that isn't barred by the rules. I'm not telling you that you must allow paladins to own slaves. I'm telling you that the rules as written do not forbid paladins to own slaves. Imagine if you were only loved because of how well you did in school Imagine if your were able to separate your personal feelings about slavery from what the rules said about them. But it is when, even when arguing over arbitrary items as this in a fantasy setting, when the current of relativism I submit that it is you who are succumbing to relativism by advocating your personal opinions on morality should trump the rules. as a global human race we stop evolving socially, intellectually, spiritually, and succomb to the blackness of an already too dark, too long night sky. I wish people would stop accusing me of condoning slavery in the real world. Not only is it intellectually dishonest and a horrible insult, it indicates that you have an utter inability to understand that I'm talking about a game world. I don't advocate the invasion of abandoned ruins and the slaughter of any creatures that live within in order to salvage treasure, but that's a staple of D&D, even for Lawful Good paladins. If you are unable to separate your personal feelings from the game, perhaps you need to take a step back.
Pandaemoni 01-12-06, 05:23 PM	The moral relativists are all dancing on swords on this issue and reading some portions of this, it is interesting to watch people philosophically dance at two weddings at once. Like it or not, morality in the real world *is* relative. It's up to the DM to take a particular moral system and insert it into his or her game universe and declare that to be the fixed standard. If morality were not relative in the real world and (i) were indeed a fixed immutable standard, *and* (ii) if all slave systems utterly ignored the humanity of slaves (as you simply hypothesize they do) then your conclusions would be correct. If moral absolutists are right about point (i) then from where does that fixed morality come? Obviously, we mere humans have been unable to agree on what that fixed standard is so I would have to assume that the standard comes from a source outside humanity and outside humanity's link to Reason. The biblical God obviously is not the source of it, as that God condoned the very slavery you deem evil. Our western moral standards come from a combination of Biblical morality, Greek and Roman ethical philosophy and Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment moral philosophy. The latter two sources are entirely human-derived and more or less without parallel in the rest of the world. The belief that slavery is an evil comes largely from western Enlightenment philosophy as expanded upon by post-enlightenment (and moral relativist) thinkers. It was the cultural relativists who first declared that African, Asian and American cultures were, if not superior, at least "as good" as western culture. It is from that cultural relativism that the belief arose that no person in those cultures was the inferior of westerners, nor was any western peasant the inferior of western nobles. From cultural relativism, moral relativism is a short step, albeit a controversial one. In the end, the notion that slavery is "evil" is a modern one. The history of that line of moral thought extends back only a few centuries in 5,000-7,000 years of recorded history. That such a pervasive moral principle can spring into being after such a delay is powerful evidence that morality is relative to the culture in which you live. There is nothing wrong with importing the precept into the game, but it is not something the RAW compel. You can interpret the RAW to permit it, but you cannot interpret them to absolutely prohibit it, because the RAW are simply not that explicit on the point. There are plenty of modern moral precepts I personally have no problem importing into my own games, including prohibitions on slavery. For example, man-child erotic relationships were deemed beneficial to children in both ancient Greece and Rome...I deem them evil. In the ancient world (including medieval Europe and ancient biblical Judea), 11 or 12 years old was "marriageable age," and most girls had given birth to children before their 12th or 13th birthdays...I choose in my games to respect more modern sensibilities regarding age of marriage and childbirth. The question as I interpreted it, though, was what can be done under the rules, not what we each might choose personally in designing our own game worlds.
Callista 01-12-06, 07:52 PM	Just pay the kobold and give him food and a place to sleep. That he can't leave, as he's evil and you'd better watch the little bugger to make sure he doesn't slit someone's throat, just makes him a prisoner--not a slave.
The_Desecrator 02-01-06, 05:05 AM	How I see it is that the paladin is doing a "good" thing by enslaving a kobold to perform labor fom him/her because it gives the paladin more time to kill evil things because he/she doesn't have to worry about things like cooking and cleaning and pitching camp. Also.... killing the kobold after it is captured is the only other thing the paladin can do. killing a capture intelligent being is evil releasing it would let it perform more evil in the world