(begin -not again)
Okay i agree with you.
Especially when dealing with paladins and slavery....
Logically you are correct.
But it is a minority view here on PF.
end -not again.
I agree with you as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oooooh, fun.
Biblically, slavery was not evil, and there were even biblical laws about when and how to free your slaves after an appropriate time period, how to treat and punish them during slavery, etc. So, arguably, not evil by biblical standards - which is not applicable to Golarion anyway, but it's an interesting precedent.
Socially, on earth, pretty much every modern and even most "third-world" nations have universally labeled slavery as "unlawful" and many people call it "evil". Our real-world morality, at least among most "civilized" people, seems to universally agree that slavery is evil. Also, not applicable to Golarion.
Which brings us to Golarion.
Pathfinder alignments are unrealistic. Even moreso when you have entire countries that have a specific alignment (e.g. saying Cheliax is LE is rather silly - even saying the government/legal system is LE is far-fetched). But, it's evolved (with very little actual evolution) from it's equally unrealistic predecessor, so it is what it is.
But that leads us to national alignments in which some accept slavery as being lawful while others accept it as being unlawful. And note that the countries in which slavery is lawful are all "evil" countries. From that we can draw the correlation that slavery is evil. This is confirmed by the Alignment guidelines in the core (and other) rulebooks.
Therefore, slavery is always evil, but not always unlawful.
As for cannibalism, there have been real-world cultures that practice cannibalism and were not labeled as evil. Killing someone to eat them entails murder (which is generally considered evil), but the actual eating part isn't usually labeled as evil. Real-world cultural cannibalism was usually ritually practiced as part of a funeral process - eating the dead after they died naturally. Not generally considered evil.
Also consider real world situations like the infamous Donner Party or the soccer team that crashed in the Andes. They ate humans to stay alive and while the rest of us find that to be somewhat disgusting, nobody called them evil.
Ergo, cannibalism might not even be considered evil by many people, although using evil practices to illegally kill people for a meal certainly would be.
Enslaving people isn't always evil. You can have bad slave owners but that doesn't make all of them bad. If a kingdom invades another, often people are taken as slaves. Would you rather them be killed? Which leads me into Pathfinder central pillar around what makes evil, evil: death. If it ends life it is evil. Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression. Going back to Sunday school a bit: Egypt's pharaoh turned a slave into the 2nd in command of his kingdom. Before that, Joseph was allowed a wide birth in his master's home. He was hardly oppressed. He couldn't leave, yes. But, he could worship his god, more or less roam freely, etc. In more recent history, in the USA, there were good slave owners and bad just the same. There were also methods by which one could volunteer for slavery in return for several benefits or it could be used as a way to pay back services which you owe to someone and are in severe default for. This was called indentured servitude and you were practically a slave all the same. Without such a system, the law had no way to handle debts. If history teaches anything, such gaps in law usually lead to vigilantism which often leads to needless death, which, by the way, is evil.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery is what happens to other people.
That's why people who don't consider slavery evil can justify it in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with you on this as well. Slavery, at least the modern definition of slavery, is undeniably evil. Sure, you can attmept to justify it to make yourself feel better, but that doesn't change the alignment. It is something that a neutral character would do, justify his actions as non-evil because so many other people do it.
Many people in real life live with delusions that are formed based on their own justifications of their actions. Why would a fantasy game be any different?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery is what happens to other people.
That's why people who don't consider slavery evil can justify it in any way.
While that is superficially true, not all slaves have always hated slavery.
For example, many Roman slaves refused to be set free when they were offered freedom. Freedom meant having to work for a living in an economy that often had no jobs, which meant starvation and squalor. On the other hand, living as a slave of a Dominus who isn't cruel meant regular food and clean clothes and a dry place to sleep and a comfortable place to live. In fact, very often Roman slaves lived much better and happier lives than Roman citizens. And Rome had laws to punish slave owners for being needlessly cruel to their slaves, so cruelty to slaves was considerably more rare than, say, cruelty to wives.
This is why there were, at times, estimated to be 10 slaves in Rome for every free citizen but there were few slave revolutions (usually small, localize, not city-wide). At 10-to-1 numerical superiority, they could easily have revolted and killed every Roman citizen and the survivors would all have their freedom, but they weren't really that unhappy as slaves. At least, not unhappy enough to fight for change.
Not all cultures were like that. Surely many slaves have been mistreated and brutalized and worked to death. Those slaves certainly had it very bad and they desperately wanted salvation and freedom.
But it's a logical fallacy to apply that perception to all slaves everywhere throughout history.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enslaving people isn't always evil. You can have bad slave owners but that doesn't make all of them bad. If a kingdom invades another, often people are taken as slaves. Would you rather them be killed?
Me, I'd rather that they just have to face ridiculous false dichotomies for the duration of the occupation.
Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression.
It is impossible to describe the absolute totality of how completely you are wrong about this.
Going back to Sunday school a bit...
Oh, the text which advocates slavery mentions a fictionalized account of how slaves were totally fine with slavery? Do tell!
In more recent history, in the USA, there were good slave owners and bad just the same. There were also methods by which one could volunteer for slavery in return for several benefits or it could be used as a way to pay back services which you owe to someone and are in severe default for. This was called indentured servitude and you were practically a slave all the same. Without such a system, the law had no way to handle debts. If history teaches anything, such gaps in law usually lead to vigilantism which often leads to needless death, which, by the way, is evil.
Oh FFS. There are so many unsupported conclusions, false suppositions and ridiculous rose-tinted historical revisions here it's not worth breaking down point by point. You were raised in South Carolina or Missouri or something, weren't you?
Cannibalism is definitely not evil. Lizardfolk practice cannibalism due to their harsh environs and eat their dead. They are neutral. Eating your dead through necessity isn't evil.
Enslaving people isn't always evil. You can have bad slave owners but that doesn't make all of them bad. If a kingdom invades another, often people are taken as slaves. Would you rather them be killed?
Me, I'd rather that they just have to face ridiculous false dichotomies for the duration of the occupation.
Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression.
It is impossible to describe the absolute totality of how completely you are wrong about this.
Going back to Sunday school a bit...
Oh, the text which advocates slavery mentions a fictionalized account of how slaves were totally fine with slavery? Do tell!
In more recent history, in the USA, there were good slave owners and bad just the same. There were also methods by which one could volunteer for slavery in return for several benefits or it could be used as a way to pay back services which you owe to someone and are in severe default for. This was called indentured servitude and you were practically a slave all the same. Without such a system, the law had no way to handle debts. If history teaches anything, such gaps in law usually lead to vigilantism which often leads to needless death, which, by the way, is evil.
Oh FFS. There are so many unsupported conclusions, false suppositions and ridiculous rose-tinted historical revisions here it's not worth breaking down point by point. You were raised in South Carolina or Missouri or something, weren't you?
Indiana. So, home of the KKK. MY GOD!!11!!1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery is what happens to other people.
That's why people who don't consider slavery evil can justify it in any way.
While that is superficially true, not all slaves have always hated slavery.
For example, many Roman slaves refused to be set free when they were offered freedom. Freedom meant having to work for a living in an economy that often had no jobs, which meant starvation and squalor. On the other hand, living as a slave of a Dominus who isn't cruel meant regular food and clean clothes and a dry place to sleep and a comfortable place to live. In fact, very often Roman slaves lived much better and happier lives than Roman citizens. And Rome had laws to punish slave owners for being needlessly cruel to their slaves, so cruelty to slaves was considerably more rare than, say, cruelty to wives.
This is why there were, at times, estimated to be 10 slaves in Rome for every free citizen but there were few slave revolutions (usually small, localize, not city-wide). At 10-to-1 numerical superiority, they could easily have revolted and killed every Roman citizen and the survivors would all have their freedom, but they weren't really that unhappy as slaves. At least, not unhappy enough to fight for change.
Not all cultures were like that. Surely many slaves have been mistreated and brutalized and worked to death. Those slaves certainly had it very bad and they desperately wanted salvation and freedom.
But it's a logical fallacy to apply that perception to all slaves everywhere throughout history.
Yes. I'm quite sure that if we looked hard enough that we can find exceptions to justify every evil act done by man to another man.
Fortunately, rational and empathic people don't build cases to justify evil acts using corner cases and exception.
At least I HOPE that's not what rational and empathic people do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In no way was I justifying ALL slavery with a corner case.
I did the opposite - others were labeling ALL slavery as evil and I was injecting a corner case to show that it might not always be true.
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; there might be exceptions.
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; their might be exceptions.
Sorry but i fail the point of bring in a debate about slavery in the bible. Are you trying to start a religious discussion? In a RPG forum?
If so, i strongly suggest another forum for that kind of discussion.
I don't think the bible ever says slavery is 'ok'. Sure, they have laws that governed the practice. One would need laws such laws when surrounded by other countries that not only practiced slavery but revelled in it. The Israelites picked up a lot of 'bad' habits from their neighbors. Polygamy, slavery, the need to have a 'king', idol worshipping, etc.
But, let's leave that real-world stuff behind. It really doesn't matter so much in Pathfinder. Good and evil have been defined, whether or not one sees it as clearly. Good values life and reducing a person to an object, or something to be owed does not fit into its definition. Evil debased or has little value for life. Reducing a person's worth to that of something that can be owned, is right up that alley.
Sorry but i fail the point of bring in a debate about slavery in the bible. Are you trying to start a religious discussion? In a RPG forum?
If so, i strongly suggest another forum for that kind of discussion.
Nope, just making the case that real-world history, such as it is, has corner cases where slavery is legal and regulated by law, even if it's religious law (which for many cultures was and still is more binding than secular law). And since many people would (and do) argue that God is good, his Bible is good, therefore his laws in the Bible are good (I'm not advocating this one way or the other, just a neutral observer citing the viewpoint that some people take) - that argument is far bigger than any one religion, so this isn't an advocacy for or against any specific religion or even group of related religions.
All of which is ONLY to set a real-world precedent that not all people at all historic times have considered slavery to be evil. Any religious debates to come out of that should be held elsewhere.
Further, I clearly said that this stuff doesn't apply to Golarion. Nevertheless, as a precedent for how real humans thought and behaved, it does set the stage for applying such thoughts and behaviors to imaginary people in Golarion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; their might be exceptions.
I think the problem you're running into here is using the Bible as a "historical precedent".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem you're running into here is using the Bible as a "historical precedent".
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; their might be exceptions.
Maybe true, but that's verging on the religious debate grounds that I was looking to avoid.
In any case, most of it was written as much as 2600 years ago and reflects the thinking of the people who wrote it. Debating historicity of specific events is a whole different discussion, but evaluating the culture of the authors is relevant and historically accurate - as accurate as any other history that old.
Because Slavery is a rather loose term, how do you define it. Is a person a slave if they work against their will, what if the slaves were willingly purchases to get away from the current masters, are they no longer slaves?
Are they slaves because they are owned? what if the owner allows them to leave whenever they want, knowing that most of them will be in no condition financially or health wise to actually leave.
So what makes a Slave? whatever definition you give it someone is going to find a loop hole around.
What if someone is made a slave/servant in place of a punishment, say a death sentence. What if the slave themselves got to choose servitude or death.
Our view of slavery is heavily tinted by our experiences, mostly the slavery of black people thoughout America not to long ago but that is not the only way slavery has been dealt with thoughout history.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have the same setup today in the US credit system. The legal structuring is just what's different. If you take credit you have to pay that back. This means, directly, you either have to pony up cash or you have to work to pay off the debt. If you don't, you can be thrown in jail, have your property confiscated, etc. You can't be starved or beaten. If your freedom and possessions are at stake unless you do something, is that not the same as being a defacto slave?
Who says it isn't?
Admittedly, this is one of those completely subjective things that is going to vary based on people's individual perceptions and decisions, but I'll definitely say, in my games, slavery is evil. It's outlawed in every civilized nation, and most bad guys won't even cross that line.
Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression.
Wow. I sincerely hope this is your parents and your priest talking, not something you've actually thought through.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that definition, most slaves were volunteers.
Soldier: Hey, we just won the battle, killed your defenders, and invaded your lands. You now have a choice: I kill you right here, right now, or you submit to slavery.
Conquered Citizen: Death or slavery?
Soldier: Yep. Decide now!
Conquered Citizen: OK, I guess I choose slavery.
By this definition, is slavery evil? The soldier spared their lives. Instead of slaughtering innocent people, instead they take them home, give them food and clothing and shelter in return for sparing their lives and making them work for their living. Many would argue that this isn't evil.
Also, many would argue that just leaving them alone, no death or slavery, just let them have their freedom and independence to stay in their homes and rebuild their own lands, could/would lead to raising their children up to be soldiers and building new armies to invade and pillage and plunder, maybe even killing/enslaving the descendants of the soldiers who let the conquered civilization have their freedom and independence. This would result in further bloodshed and death and, maybe, evil.
So, arguably, sparing them might be the greatest evil of all. Certainly, right or wrong, some leaders and generals have made this very argument.
Such a fun, wonderfully debatable gray area. (the debate is fun, not the reality of the subject matter)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, slavery in America was far worse than any form of slavery prior to that. In most of history previous to American slavery, slaves have rights, in most cases they are a class of people in a social structure, not commodities, nor property, per se. Most enslaved peoples during Ancient Greece and Rome were from 'nations' that permitted slavery as well (many Roman slaves were Celts, and Celts kept slaves). Most societies throughout history (before the modern age) maintained slavery in one form or another.
If you try to compare all slavery to American slavery its a very poor comparison, but in logical discussions on the concept, that's where most people seem to be getting their angst against it. Consider that the Dutch East India Company who were acquiring slaves from Africa 'bought' the slaves from tribal peoples that already captured and enslaved them, long before Europeans started purchasing them. It is just the Euro-American treatment of slaves were the worst in history.
In today's modern world and mindset slavery is definitely wrong (but it still practiced in one form or another within some cultures today.)
Maybe true, but that's verging on the religious debate grounds that I was looking to avoid.
If you were looking to avoid the religious debate, you shouldn't have brought it up.
In any case, most of it was written as much as 2600 years ago and reflects the thinking of the people who wrote it. Debating historicity of specific events is a whole different discussion, but evaluating the culture of the authors is relevant and historically accurate - as accurate as any other history that old.
Sure, but some people thinking slavery was okay doesn't imply that it actually is okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression.Slavery is, by its very definition, a form of oppression. By your argument, that would make it evil.
Let's not jump too quickly at buzzwords. Alignments in PF (as in D&D) adhere a certain degree of objectiveness based on the text in the Core Rulebook. But that objective definition is couched in some vagueness.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
It's not really a series of checkboxes to tick off to calculate "Yep, he's evil!" It's more a question of the general tendency and degree. You don't see the situation as oppressive and necessarily determine it to be evil. Martial law is oppressive, but is it evil? There may be regimes of slavery that are highly oppressive, and others in which the oppressiveness is very light. Are they both evil? Harder to tell.
And that's without even getting into whether or not participating in the practice actually makes a character evil - I'm inclined to think not since you could have a slave yet still respect his or her life and dignity which would imply good.
My recommendation is not to judge most things absolutely, particularly when dealing with a game that borrows some of its morality from current understandings yet is a world in which roving bands of mercenaries may adventure for loot and is, in many ways, patterned on a more medieval mindset in which life, dignity, and individual rights are a good deal cheaper than they are today.
By this definition, is slavery evil?
Absolutely. BOTH actions are evil.
In any case, most of it was written as much as 2600 years ago and reflects the thinking of the people who wrote it. Debating historicity of specific events is a whole different discussion, but evaluating the culture of the authors is relevant and historically accurate - as accurate as any other history that old.Sure, but some people thinking slavery was okay doesn't imply that it actually is okay.
I never said that it does.
I simply said that there is precedent for real historical people not viewing slavery as evil, which means, there is justification for applying the same mindset to imaginary people in Golarion (o any other made up world).
Oppression is evil as well but being a slave does not necessitate oppression.Wow. I sincerely hope this is your parents and your priest talking, not something you've actually thought through.
oppression
noun
1.prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
slave
noun
1.a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
One does not necessitate the other.
When you say things likeI never said that it does.
I simply said that there is precedent for real historical people not viewing slavery as evil, which means, there is justification for applying the same mindset to imaginary people in Golarion (o any other made up world).
I did the opposite - others were labeling ALL slavery as evil and I was injecting a corner case to show that it might not always be true.
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; there might be exceptions.
it makes it look like you are being apologetic for slavery. Which colors your other statements. If you aren't trying to argue that slavery is okay, then you should avoid arguing that slavery is okay.
When you say things likeI never said that it does.
I simply said that there is precedent for real historical people not viewing slavery as evil, which means, there is justification for applying the same mindset to imaginary people in Golarion (o any other made up world).
it makes it look like you are being apologetic for slavery. Which colors your other statements. If you aren't arguing that slavery isn't okay, then you should avoid arguing that slavery is okay.I did the opposite - others were labeling ALL slavery as evil and I was injecting a corner case to show that it might not always be true.
And, as per my first post, the Bible very clearly makes it's case for slavery not being evil. Again, another corner case, but I think the historical precedent exists to say that the statement "All slavery is always evil" might be untrue; there might be exceptions.
Well, hopefully I've cleared it up. I'm rarely, if ever, an apologist for anything. But I am more than willing to provide counterpoint against blanket statements (e.g. "slavery is evil, period, full-stop"), especially if I can easily point out that not everybody agrees, even if the counterpoint comes from a viewpoint I don't personally share.
Note that I didn't "argue that slavery is OK"; I merely pointed out that some cultures in the real world clearly felt that way. This is in no way an expression of my personal viewpoint on the subject.
Well, hopefully I've cleared it up. I'm rarely, if ever, and apologist for anything. But I am more than willing to provide counterpoint against blanket statements (e.g. "slavery is evil, period, full-stop"), especially if I can easily point out that not everybody agrees, even if the counterpoint comes from a viewpoint I don't personally share.
But you just agreed that some people thinking that slavery is okay doesn't mean that it's actually okay. So you should know that pointing out that some people thought slavery is okay isn't a counterpoint to the argument that slavery is never okay.
Well, hopefully I've cleared it up. I'm rarely, if ever, and apologist for anything. But I am more than willing to provide counterpoint against blanket statements (e.g. "slavery is evil, period, full-stop"), especially if I can easily point out that not everybody agrees, even if the counterpoint comes from a viewpoint I don't personally share.But you just agreed that some people thinking that slavery is okay doesn't mean that it's actually okay. So you should know that pointing out that some people thought slavery is okay isn't a counterpoint to the argument that slavery is not okay.
I like how you think, but you're extrapolating.
"okay" is highly subjective. What isn't "okay" for me might be very much "okay" for someone else. And vice-versa.
My not sharing the viewpoint that slavery is "okay" doesn't invalidate the point that some people historically felt that way. The fact that some people historically felt that way justifies applying that viewpoint to some people in Golarion. All of which is independent of my own feelings or personal viewpoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, slavery in America was far worse than any form of slavery prior to that.
...but not necessarily since. Slavery is alive and well in the world today, and that's (part of) what makes slavery apologia so incredibly vile. Slavery apologia from white men from the southern US, that's just...beyond what this board will allow me to say.
Honestly, slavery in America was far worse than any form of slavery prior to that....but not necessarily since. Slavery is alive and well in the world today, and that's (part of) what makes slavery apologia so incredibly vile. Slavery apologia from white men from the southern US, that's just...beyond what this board will allow me to say.
That's a racist comment.
|
My recommendation is not to judge most things absolutely, particularly when dealing with a game that borrows some of its morality from current understandings yet is a world in which roving bands of mercenaries may adventure for loot and is, in many ways, patterned on a more medieval mindset in which life, dignity, and individual rights are a good deal cheaper than they are today.
Finally someone in this discussion broaches the difference between player context and character context. whilst Golarion is required to draw from certain moral outlooks in order to survive in politically correct modern society it is for the most part a medieval setting. take for example common player actions: if they come across goblins they will kill them, the same can be said for followers of Urgathoa. now in context of the game these make sense in relation to the nature of urgathoa's faith and the Goblin general behaviour however if we look objectively it's a bunch of well-armed mercenaries slaughtering people based on their race or religion, remind me how that makes the players heroes?
NVm... looks like other people area already asking my question (only better informed).