I'd point out that most real world slavery prior to the last few centuries was a very different affair. Not pleasant by any means, but not anywhere near the hellish conditions we humans took it to in the 1700s and beyond.
Humans do horrid things to each other when they start thinking of others as "things" rather than "people".
-j
|
It is very possible for massive numbers of people to be wrong, but I think it clear that many people think very differently about good and evil given context.
I absolutely love eating meat, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if in a thousand years people look at meat eaters with some level of disgust. Will they think we were evil?
To say all the good characters think slavery in any setting is evil is to condemn some pretty major groups of "good guys" in history, both religious and secular.
That's pretty much what one species (Homo sapiens) does IRL to a whole host of other species, and the vast majority of Homo sapiens have no problem with it, so why would it be wrong for Gnolls (Canis sapiens) to do the same?
By that logic cannibalism and slaughter aren't evil either.I mean hey, we eat veal, why not orphans?
mmmm.. orphan....
BNW, you may be trying to be sarcastic, but your logic really is sound. You just went in a different direction with it than Nefreet apparently intended.
Since the conversation is already started... (I really wasn't going to go there)
How exactly is gnolls enslaving and eating humans in Pathfinder any different from what humans do to cows and chickens in the real world? If imprisoning creatures that feel fear and pain, and want to be free, and using them for your own purposes is always evil, then isn't it evil for humans in the real world to do that to animals?
As Sitri pointed out, it would actually make sense for meat eating to be seen as evil a thousand years from now by a human population that doesn't do that any more. I can actually think of multiple examples of this sort of thing being included in science fiction about future human societies, Star Trek being the most famous.
If you're going to argue that certain actions are always evil in any context, and it doesn't matter if it's a different species that's the victims, then can I assume you're vegan?
|
That's pretty much what one species (Homo sapiens) does IRL to a whole host of other species
By that logic cannibalism and slaughter aren't evil either.I mean hey, we eat veal, why not orphans?
mmmm.. orphan....
If orphan is dead, and you're starving, eat up. If your slaughtering him like veal, not so much. Simularly, if you capture prisoners in a long war, is it better to enslave the prisoners or to slaughter them or send them home to fight you again? What if they are are of another species and breed faster? Are you justified in wiping them out to ensure your survival?
Basically, context matters in many cases, but not all. I can't think of a 'good' way to rape someone.
Good, involves respecting the dignity of your fellow creature, even if you have to kill him. Evil is looking at your fellow creature as something that exists only to be of use to you or an obstacle to be eliminated.
|
BNW, you may be trying to be sarcastic, but your logic really is sound. You just went in a different direction with it than Nefreet apparently intended.
Its sound but its not VALID: which is the entire point. The argument follows from faulty premises.
How exactly is gnolls enslaving and eating humans in Pathfinder any different from what humans do to cows and chickens in the real world?
IRL my answer is different, and it goes in a different forum. For D&D the answer is sentience: animals don't count (except for torture) because they're not sentient.
If you're going to argue that certain actions are always evil in any context, and it doesn't matter if it's a different species that's the victims, then can I assume you're vegan?
close.
|
|
It doesn't matter whether slavery is an evil act in the here and now real-world. It also doesn't matter what is defined as evil in a typical home game. Yes...in most cases slavery is evil and only evil characters keep slaves ("Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.").
However.....
What really matters is what is a defined evil with in the context of PFS. Within PFS slavery is NOT EVIL. Why can we draw this opinion? Because as pathfinders we can take the slave vanity and NOT have our character reported as dead due to alignment shift.
|
|
It doesn't matter whether slavery is an evil act in the here and now real-world. It also doesn't matter what is defined as evil in a typical home game. Yes...in most cases slavery is evil and only evil characters keep slaves ("Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.").
However.....
What really matters is what is a defined evil with in the context of PFS. Within PFS slavery is NOT EVIL. Why can we draw this opinion? Because as pathfinders we can take the slave vanity and NOT have our character reported as dead due to alignment shift.
That doesn't work, because neutral (or theoretically even good) characters can commit the occasional evil act without alignment slippage. There's a difference between "slavery is evil" and "every one thats ever owned a slave is evil".
|
|
It doesn't matter whether slavery is an evil act in the here and now real-world. It also doesn't matter what is defined as evil in a typical home game. Yes...in most cases slavery is evil and only evil characters keep slaves ("Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.").
However.....
What really matters is what is a defined evil with in the context of PFS. Within PFS slavery is NOT EVIL. Why can we draw this opinion? Because as pathfinders we can take the slave vanity and NOT have our character reported as dead due to alignment shift.
Also the devs have stated this. I'm sure someone can get a linky for it.
Also labor camps which, we still use today in some states, could be easily seen as a form of slavery. It is sometimes temporary and sometimes for life, but whether the society "owns" prisoners or whether a person does is sort of an arbitrary distinction.
Oh, and whether a slave has rights or not depends on the society in Golarion.
|
|
I guess this is what strikes me as wrong...You're problem is not with paladins or other "do-gooders" its with the PLAYER/S who are taking these actions. In every single occurrence of potential PvP I have witnessed, it is due to one of the players violating the "don't be a jerk" rule. Some classes seem to be the cause, but its more because the players who are jerks build characters that will emphasize their behavior. Paladins are perhaps the easiest class to "jerkify," that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the class itself.
My problem is that there seems to be something of a person by situation interaction. In other words, players who are not normally jerks start acting like it when they play certain character concepts.
Paladins have a code of conduct that says they cannot tolerate behavior that violates their code of conduct. "A paladin avoids working with. . .anyone who consistently offends her moral code." So if you are a compulsive liar, or the party needs to lie or trick someone, then the paladin may refuse to go along and may impose themselves on the party. If someone uses poison, then the paladin may try to impose themselves.
Therefore some players that would not otherwise violate the "don't be a jerk rule" feel obligated to break it, or come very close, when they see something that violates their character's code.
This was the case I believe with the player in the example I gave before. He didn't appear to be a jerk in real life. I am sure he has a lot of other characters that would play with my witch just fine. However, he felt like he needed to try to impose his will on me to play his paladin correctly.
I've seen it myself. In a home game I once had a DM who forced my LG cleric to atone because I wasn't enough of a dick to my friend's rogue. It wasn't a pleasurable experience, but the DM, who otherwise was a good guy, wanted interparty conflict between our characters. It was part of the story he wanted told, so he literally made it a divine mandate.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And once again we see the human tendency to look at people as being either good or bad, instead of having some of both in them. Thus, if you've established someone is in the "good" category and they do something bad, it must be because of some outside influence (such as the paladin's code).
Just because most of the time someone isn't a jerk doesn't mean they can't be a jerk sometimes, nor does it mean that their instances (however rare) of jerkishness are not their own responsibility.
Good people do bad things that are their own fault, while still being good people.
Good players do jerkish things (like playing disruptive characters), and it's their own issue, and they're still good players.
Good GMs do petty and adversarial things, and it's their own issue, and they're still good GMs.
|
|
And once again we see the human tendency to look at people as being either good or bad, instead of having some of both in them. Thus, if you've established someone is in the "good" category and they do something bad, it must be because of some outside influence (such as the paladin's code).
You don't need a dichotomous variable to have an interaction.
Paladins have a code of conduct that says they cannot tolerate behavior that violates their code of conduct. "A paladin avoids working with. . .anyone who consistently offends her moral code." So if you are a compulsive liar, or the party needs to lie or trick someone, then the paladin may refuse to go along and may impose themselves on the party. If someone uses poison, then the paladin may try to impose themselves.
Therefore some players that would not otherwise violate the "don't be a jerk rule" feel obligated to break it, or come very close, when they see something that violates their character's code.
This was the case I believe with the player in the example I gave before. He didn't appear to be a jerk in real life. I am sure he has a lot of other characters that would play with my witch just fine. However, he felt like he needed to try to impose his will on me to play his paladin correctly.
One of my least favorite moments as a gamer was when our party's Inquisitor of Sarenrae's player started snatching people's character sheets, checking our "religion" section, and then would threaten us in character if we worshipped "heretical" non-Keleshite (and especially Taldan) gods like Asmodeus, Abadar or Cayden Cailean. We're talking Zone of Truth, activating his Bane special ability, the whole shebang. Ironically, he didn't harass the witch all that much, I guess because the witch's player was smart enough to put "Sarenrae" in his religion tab, even if he was worshipping a heretical view of Sarenrae as an imperfect goddess. The worst part was that the inquisitor player's character was terribly built, so any one of us could have killed his character in a one-on-one fight, but no one wanted to actually stoop so low as PC-on-PC violence when he pulled steel on our characters.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the character made the player a jerk. I think that the player was already a jerk. But I do think that the "moral authority" archtype made him feel that he had carte blanche to act on his jerkish instincts, even if the image of an Inquisitor of Sarenrae putting a scimitar to his allies' throats and yelling for them to renounce their worship of Abadar or die is patently absurd.
|
|
Oh WOW.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the character made the player a jerk. I think that the player was already a jerk. But I do think that the "moral authority" archtype made him feel that he had carte blanche to act on his jerkish instincts, even if the image of an Inquisitor of Sarenrae putting a scimitar to his allies' throats and yelling for them to renounce their worship of Abadar or die is patently absurd.
Doubly absurd when one considers that such an inquisitor is one of the sorts actual inquisitors of a Good-aligned goddess should be rooting out.
|
I have a local player who plays his Tengu rogue as something of a carrion crow, who tends to munch on body parts of fallen (humanoid) enemies, taking the odd limb to eat later. This is not played up, or used to intimidate other NPCs; it's just the tengu's natural eating habits. He's not encountered other tengu, but I imagine he wouldn't want to eat them, as it would be cannibalism.
I'm not aware of any canon that confirms or denies that some tengu might do this, and it hasn't caused any disruption at the table.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Wow. I poked my head back in here on a whim, and truly regret it. I am severely disturbed that some of us are defending not only slavery (in ANY form), but cannibalism. Please reflect on the people you find important in your life and see whether slavery or cannibalism has any place in your relations with them, then try to reevaluate your stance. I am honestly concerned for you.
Leaving now, and thanking the Paizo folks for the "hide thread" option...
Doubly absurd when one considers that such an inquisitor is one of the sorts actual inquisitors of a Good-aligned goddess should be rooting out.
I actually blame the GM a little bit for this. One of the villains of the early arc of the campaign was an Inquisitor of Sarenrae who was caught up in the war with Taldor, and whose convictions lead him to conflate "good for the church" with "good for the goddess." He was so sure that the Taldans who raided his settlements and killed his people were pure evil and deserving of death that he lost sight of the first tenet of his goddess: everyone deserves redemption.
Mind you, I say "villain." How the player decided that this was the appropriate de facto model for an Inquisitor to act escapes me.
What was the GM doing while this knobbery was happening?
Mostly banging his head on the table and chastising the Inquisitor's player for metagaming, and telling him that we didn't allow using intimidate on other player characters at the table. It wasn't egregious enough at that point to straight-up ostracize him, so instead most of the players just stuck it to him right back in character, including the one time he got hit by a Sepia Snake Sigil and we didn't remove the curse right away, instead opting to put him in silly poses and carry him around the dungeon we were delving like a sack of potatoes.
At the same time, we actually had the same player in a Shadowrun game, and he showed similar problems. He built characters terribly in both and, more importantly, seemed to understand all aspects of gaming etiquette except the avoidance of interparty conflict. Since he came from a freeform forum RP environment, I think that he thought that player conflict was par for the course, if not encouraged.
We currently have a player who is much better, but whom also came from freeform RP, and as his main gaming vice still occasionally tries to use social skills on other PCs. I'm inclined to believe it's a trend.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Those who imply that because some nations permit slavery, that it is a non-issue seem to imply that therefore no evil occurs with slavery. I think it does (opinion). Capturing a person and depriving them of their liberty for the purpose of making financial gain is committing and evil act in my book, and while that doesn't make everyone in a slave based country evil, it makes the slavers people who commit evil acts.
It's not opinion. Capturing people, putting them in shackles, depriving them of their liberty, and beating them until they work for you is evil.
So if a Paladin captures a bandit, puts them in shackles and deprives them of their liberty by imprisoning them, then he is committing an evil act? I guess we should all retire our paladins now.
There is no functional difference between depriving someone of their liberty by enslaving them and depriving them of their liberty by imprisoning them. The only reason imprisonment is acceptable in our current society and slavery is not is that when you deprive people of their liberty for reasons of profit rather than for reasons of social order, then the potential for abuse becomes unacceptably high.
But Golarion is not our current real world society and the Pathfinder universe works on a 4-axis alignment system. Depriving someone of their liberties is the antithesis of the Chaotic alignment, which on a 4-axis alignment system means that it is an inherently Lawful act, not an inherently Evil one. How people treat their slaves is what usually makes them evil. Not the mere act of owning one.
|
|
There is no functional difference between depriving someone of their liberty by enslaving them and depriving them of their liberty by imprisoning them.
Excepting what the captor would have to do if he did not imprison them. A slaver would have to pay for the work he gets from his slave. A paladin would have to kill the bandit to prevent him from committing crimes.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
There is no functional difference between depriving someone of their liberty by enslaving them and depriving them of their liberty by imprisoning them.Excepting what the captor would have to do if he did not imprison them. A slaver would have to pay for the work he gets from his slave. A paladin would have to kill the bandit to prevent him from committing crimes.
That doesn't change the fact that both equally deprive someone of their liberties. Which was one of the main conditions that was put forth for slavery being inherently 'evil.' How you treat someone after they have been deprived of their liberties is what makes for Good or Evil, not the deprivation itself.
|
|
It's a bit silly trying to apply our modern day morality to Golarion. It is also silly to try to stick all complexity of morality into nine narrow categories.
I think anyone who says that taking slaves in the game isn't an evil act is pretty sure not an advocate of real life slavery. It's a different world, and if done properly and lawfully keeping slaves is no more evil than employing people on wages who have no choice but to keep working anyway if they want to eat, and who can be worked to uselessness and replaced at the whim of their employer. At least a slave, as an investment, has some manner of social security.
Also through media we are mostly only exposed to the brutal side of slavery - galley rowers, miners on chain gangs, whipped plantation workers, etc. But historically many slaves lived much more comfortable lives. I am sure this was not the case only in historic societies of antiquity, but also in places like Cheliax. Important people's skilled slaves probably hold more power and influence than most free people.
Either way, i don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate slavery. But thinking we've moved on so much as a society just because we have abolished *one* form of human exploitation (while severely boosting many others) is a little self-important and hypocritical.
Usually in Society we have to choose between execution and slavery. So what is a good character to do? Only thing i can think of is, allow the person in question to make the choice.
|
As the owner of the Slaver character and having had this forum pointed out to me tonight i feel it fair i way in. (first hi Glariofun i know who you are as i only have one evil citation, strangely enough not for slavery.)
Now the character is a Slaver whos ship is named "The spirit of Freedom" (maybe a bit on the nose but meh). he is of a N alignment he deals in slaves with contracts takes slaves were it is legal to do so(not Absalom as while slaver is legal there people cannot be enslaved). If on a table with say a Andoran he views his new stock as any other piece of loot and is fine with them taking there share to do what ever they want with. (4 Pc's catch 4 "new slaves" he takes his 1 the andoran lets his 1 go free, then he offers to sell the other 2 on behalf of the other PC's for a cut).
he is a merchant first and foremost if every were outlawed Slaves he would move to another form of merchandise.
(as a side note this character was made because i got sick of andoran players throwing there no slavery views around in a world were most nations allow it).
(oh and he is now my favorite character,also with pvp i am fine if you choose not to help him, because fact is if he thinks he is going to die he will leave you all for dead.)
player of Ulzef the Slaver and proud of it
|
|
As the owner of the Slaver character and having had this forum pointed out to me tonight i feel it fair i way in. (first hi Glariofun i know who you are as i only have one evil citation, strangely enough not for slavery.)
So just out of curiosity, what was the evil citation for then for this slaver character?
|
It's a bit silly trying to apply our modern day morality to Golarion. It is also silly to try to stick all complexity of morality into nine narrow categories.
I think anyone who says that taking slaves in the game isn't an evil act is pretty sure not an advocate of real life slavery. It's a different world, and if done properly and lawfully keeping slaves is no more evil than employing people on wages who have no choice but to keep working anyway if they want to eat, and who can be worked to uselessness and replaced at the whim of their employer. At least a slave, as an investment, has some manner of social security.
Also through media we are mostly only exposed to the brutal side of slavery - galley rowers, miners on chain gangs, whipped plantation workers, etc. But historically many slaves lived much more comfortable lives. I am sure this was not the case only in historic societies of antiquity, but also in places like Cheliax. Important people's skilled slaves probably hold more power and influence than most free people.
Either way, i don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate slavery. But thinking we've moved on so much as a society just because we have abolished *one* form of human exploitation (while severely boosting many others) is a little self-important and hypocritical.
Usually in Society we have to choose between execution and slavery. So what is a good character to do? Only thing i can think of is, allow the person in question to make the choice.
Then again some of us can condone slavery, i think every criminal in jail should be working for the better of society. Enslaving families, races, etc no of course not. but the chain gang of criminals is still a form of slavery that is absolutely not evil.
I guess this is what strikes me as wrong. People think it's reasonable for paladins to make the party risk failing missions or make the party fail missions, but it's not reasonable for other classes to do so. I mean to sit and want to fight another party member during a stealth mission where innocent lives were at stake because that party member was throwing sleeping enemy pirates overboard right before they woke up.
To put this another way, the party would have failed the mission if I listened to the paladin. If the paladin could have, he would have tied me up/fought me for my attempts to save innocent lives, which would have led to the deaths of innocents.
If the paladin was prepared with manacles and gags and such, then sure whatever. He wasn't. He was prepared to cut them in two, but only if they were conscious. My witch wasn't even certain that throwing the sleeping pirates overboard (with 6 seconds left to sleep) would kill them, but it would remove them from the fight and make it much harder to alert the crew.
Seriously, if the Paladin in question had implemented his plan, I would seriously be considering that he should Fall, based on his actions (presuming he didn't get him and/or all of the party killed, along with the hostages).
Sure, he thought he was being zealous about good and evil, right and wrong. Turns out, it was a horribly stupid idea. Especially when he knew that any alerting of the enemy would result in hostage exectution. He may not have LIKED his allies' approach, but taking into account the danger to the innocent prisoners, the danger to the party as a whole, and the fact that he otherwise accepted the party's motivations and plan for aggression against the enemy, his proposed actions could have only helped Evil triumph.
That is Fall material, even if it came with the best intentions. Hubris is also a sin, that every self righteous Paladin should come face to face with... the refusal to look outside the narrow confines of how THEY see the situation can EASILY pave the path for Evil. Sure, some actions can have unforseeable consequences that several steps down the path may lead to Evil triumphing, and those don't all need to be Evil (sell a pastry to Mr Evil, before he went to murder 10,000 babies? AH! now you're Evil yourself!) but in this case the obvious and direct consequences of his actions would lead to a high likelyhood of Evil happening. If the over-all mission wasn't one he agreed with, he shouldn't have been there to begin with.
If you don't want an evil label you don't put in an objective force of good into the mechanics and the system.Here in lies the problem. I think an objective force of good is a phenomenological construct (a bit ironic) that breaks down under close scrutiny.
Perhaps you shouldn't play D&D/Pathfinder then?
Good and Evil in Pathfinder are Cosmological facts, independent of what any one culture feels about a certain thing.So discussion of what this or that historical culture felt about a certain thing, vs. modern day America, is irrelevant.
I think that active slaving is certainly an Evil act IN PATHFINDER, and active participation with that as well.
I suppose that if there is 'legal penalties' for certain crimes, or prisoners of war, that allow for limited slavery, those may not be evil in themselves.
But AFAIK, the OP's case was a player who stated they were going around capturing NPCs to enslave.
'Because the NPCs deserve it' or acted hostiley to the PC in question isn't really a good enough reason to avoid Evilness IMHO, especially when the PC in question is knowingly seeking out these situations, and knows that their above average capabilities make such situations much less dangerous than for the average NPC, so the looting of slaves isn't much different than the looting of gold for them.
As mentioned, one Evil act doesn't necessarily shift your Alignment to Evil, and PFS includes many opportunities for Evil acts including faction missions... it one's character concept involves doing those Evil acts at every turn, then you will sooner or later become Evil. That isn't a conflict with the PFS rules, that they allow you the opportunity to commit Evil acts and disqualify your character (by doing act that many in-game cultures may not even disapprove of) just means you are being given the freedom to play your character, but that consequences for your actions still apply.
Is there any source for the idea that slavery (of the capturing, not legal limited punishment for specific crimes, type) is NOT an evil act, in the PFS context? I've seen people mention opportunities to do so/game features that reference it, but those don't seem to actually say it is not Evil, they just don't mention that fact...? The game also also allows/includes other clearly Evil acts, so inclusion of slavery does not mean it isn't Evil or that the consequences for that don't apply - not every game feature has to spell out every consequence.