|
There is a world of difference between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. One of the most important is the ability to own property as well as the ability to leave a life of slavery depending on financial and legal situations. Trying to compare-with-steps-towards-conflate chattel slavery with other forms is ignorant at best and something I would rather not accuse someone of on these forums at worst.
So then I would have to ask, which forms of slavery would you be okay with being brought back into legality? Or simply not opposed to?
We think that slavery is evil, but only because we value so much of individualism and freedom....And? That is correct. We view certain things as being evil when they are diametrically opposed to our values.
True, we think so, but opposite values aren't necessary evil. You should look at Schwartz' circle of values, how different virtues oppose each other.
In other words, Lawful Good people would not support slavery, because slavery violates all those things. It is unjust, it causes unnecessary suffering, it disturbs harmony, and lawful good person's worldview generally does not have a place for slavery (especially in the form of chattel slavery).Lawful Good could fully support slavery if
- It won't bring injustice
- It won't bring unnecessary suffering
- It wont disturb harmony
- It support his/her view of world
And being in prison is any better? In reality, you had to share a small room with 20-50 criminal. If someone was sick or dying, they had to wait for morning. Surviving prisoners had even to pay rent of their cell and their upkeep.
Here is example of little harsher experience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta- Being slave can be result of debt or judged for crime, which then brings justice.
- It releases the subject of suffering from prison.
- It keep the slaves out from stealing or making troubles, which brings harmony.
- The slaves have to pay for their crimes in this or in their previous lives, which makes them better persons.
Someone could ask if adventurer can be Lawful Good, as it leaves his place in civil society to kill people, who look or think differently than himself and steal their property.
If you think that slavery is never righteous, what do you think property of cattle or pets? Do you accept conditions of Cows, Dogs or Delphins? Would you accept same for Criminals or Orcs?You know, I am not one who believes most animals are "people" as human beings are, or should be afforded the same number of rights as human beings. Not all living things deserve the same levels of same treatment simply by virtue of living.
But you know the funny thing? Well, not so funny, really: Many slave owners and slavery proponents throughout history, most infamously in the American South, justified slavery for the reason that they believed black Africans to be little better...
The power of prejudices is owerwhelming and demonizing opponents is normal. There is lot of people, who have thinked that black people aren't human. But same accusations have been told of Asian people, nazis, member of al-qaida, etc. If we think that alignment of Good don't have any prejudices against any kind of people, then I could ask if that kind of person really exists?
This one is easy. For young offenders (low risk) that commit property crimes against businesses, they have to to indentured work to pay off their damages which is responsible for supporting them. This teaches them employable skills and ties them back into society though social networks.
This would be more properly referred to as penal servitude than slavery. It lacks one of the great distinguishing characteristics of slavery; that is, that the slave is property to be bought and sold.
syn: slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by law: penal servitude.
Now, that's not to say that prison systems aren't necessarily oppressive (many, or even most, are). There are different types of oppression, and not all oppressive practices need correspond to all of slavery's peculiar characteristics. That said, penal systems that fail to translate the distinction between penal servitude and slavery into their actual practices do tend to be more oppressive in that regard.
This one is easy. For young offenders (low risk) that commit property crimes against businesses, they have to to indentured work to pay off their damages which is responsible for supporting them. This teaches them employable skills and ties them back into society though social networks.This would be more properly referred to as penal servitude than slavery. It lacks one of the great distinguishing characteristics of slavery; that is, that the slave is property to be bought and sold.
.... and showing that the dictionary is a lousy historian.
Slavery-by-verdict was one of the major sources of slaves in the Roman empire. A criminal could (and would, routinely) be reduced to the status of a slave; the process was known as "capitis deminutio." Depending upon the laws in effect at the time, this might be for life, or it might be something like a 25-year lease, after which your former status would be restored.
Legally speaking, the difference between this sort of a slave ("servus poenae," slave by penalty) and a slave-by-birth was negligible, either were property to be bought and sold. The rights of the slave were identical.
However, a key difference, and something that makes Roman slavery potentially less than evil, is that slaves, though property, did have (legally enforceable) rights (most notably with respect to freedom to practice religion freely). Under Sharia law, slaves have a variety of economic rights -- for example, the right to be fed and clothed at the same standard as their masters.
I wouldn't have any trouble putting together a hypothetical system of slavery, essentially by taking the best attributes of the various forms of historical slavery and putting them together, that would meet my criteria for "good," and that would, in fact, be a substantial improvement over living conditions for the vast majority of humanity today.
This one is easy. For young offenders (low risk) that commit property crimes against businesses, they have to to indentured work to pay off their damages which is responsible for supporting them. This teaches them employable skills and ties them back into society though social networks.This would be more properly referred to as penal servitude than slavery. It lacks one of the great distinguishing characteristics of slavery; that is, that the slave is property to be bought and sold.
.... and showing that the dictionary is a lousy historian.
Slavery-by-verdict was one of the major sources of slaves in the Roman empire. A criminal could (and would, routinely) be reduced to the status of a slave; the process was known as "capitis deminutio." Depending upon the laws in effect at the time, this might be for life, or it might be something like a 25-year lease, after which your former status would be restored.
Legally speaking, the difference between this sort of a slave ("servus poenae," slave by penalty) and a slave-by-birth was negligible, either were property to be bought and sold. The rights of the slave were identical.
However, a key difference, and something that makes Roman slavery potentially less than evil, is that slaves, though property, did have (legally enforceable) rights (most notably with respect to freedom to practice religion freely). Under Sharia law, slaves have a variety of economic rights -- for example, the right to be fed and clothed at the same standard as their masters. Athenian slaves were guaranteed housing, wages, and could not be beaten by their masters.
I wouldn't have any trouble putting together a hypothetical system of slavery that would meet my criteria for "good," and that would, in fact, be a substantial improvement over living conditions for the vast majority of humanity today.
|
|
I wouldn't have any trouble putting together a hypothetical system of slavery, essentially by taking the best attributes of the various forms of historical slavery and putting them together, that would meet my criteria for "good," and that would, in fact, be a substantial improvement over living conditions for the vast majority of humanity today.
Would you be happy living under those conditions? Being stripped of your agency and forced to work for the rest of your life in exchange for nominally decent room and board, unfree to leave?
Yes, Roman and Muslim slaves supposedly had all these wonderful rights for which they could petition the government for redress...on paper. Perhaps you can bring forth the cases in which slaves complained about abuses by their masters in which the masters were punished. I doubt you will find all that many.
This one is easy. For young offenders (low risk) that commit property crimes against businesses, they have to to indentured work to pay off their damages which is responsible for supporting them. This teaches them employable skills and ties them back into society though social networks.This would be more properly referred to as penal servitude than slavery. It lacks one of the great distinguishing characteristics of slavery; that is, that the slave is property to be bought and sold..... and showing that the dictionary is a lousy historian.
Slavery-by-verdict was one of the major sources of slaves in the Roman empire.
No, I know the second point. Being sentenced to outright slavery as a punishment (as wielded historically) is not really the same thing as being sentenced to say, prison which will include penal servitude, though. In that regard, the dictionary is more or less correct, albeit some (oppressive) systems break down the distinction.
Being sentenced to slavery did exist, but as something different and harsher than that which is penal servitude per se, and as such to what is described in the post I was responding to.
However, a key difference, and something that makes Roman slavery potentially less than evil, is that slaves, though property, did have (legally enforceable) rights (most notably with respect to freedom to practice religion freely).
A Roman slave's ability (such as it was) to practice his own religion likely had more to do with the Roman government's syncretic approach to religion as a whole than it did with the government's approach to slavery. It's not a particular privilege given to slaves, more that the state typically preferred to assimilate local religions into the broader Roman pantheon rather than to outright convert their adherents (either slave or free). When they did see a point to restricting religious practices more broadly in society (the obvious example is the Christian persecutions), slaves were likely to feel the pinch harder than anyone else.
|
|
True, we think so, but opposite values aren't necessary evil. You should look at Schwartz' circle of values, how different virtues oppose each other.
I would argue that anyone who values power so much that they feel justified treating other people as their property cannot be morally good people. They can be neutral at best.
And being in prison is any better? In reality, you had to share a small room with 20-50 criminal. If someone was sick or dying, they had to wait for morning. Surviving prisoners had even to pay rent of their cell and their upkeep.
Here is example of little harsher experience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta
...And? A lawful good person would not support inhumane, crowded disease-ridden prisons any more than they would support slavery, and would work to change them.
This is a false dilemma. The choice isn't "They can either by slaves or they can be forced to rot in a horrible prison," any more than it's "they can be slaves or we can cannibalize them." We are arguing whether a good person could reasonably justify slavery. I argue that he could not and still be considered a good person, either under the objective morality system in Pathfinder, or in real life for that matter.
- Being slave can be result of debt or judged for crime, which then brings justice.
Being turned into a piece of property for a debt is not justice.
- It releases the subject of suffering from prison.
False dilemma. A slave is not ensured the suffering of prison if they are not a slave. In fact, not all slaves are criminals. We were talking about slaves in general.
- It keep the slaves out from stealing or making troubles, which brings harmony.
Slaves don't make trouble? Huh. Perhaps you should watch the movie "Spartacus."
- The slaves have to pay for their crimes in this or in their previous lives, which makes them better persons.
What? Why should people be enslaved and punished for crimes they themselves never committed? That is the absolute definition of injustice, and no sane lawful good person would put forth such an inane justification.
Someone could ask if adventurer can be Lawful Good, as it leaves his place in civil society to kill people, who look or think differently than himself and steal their property.
If a Lawful Good adventurer went around killing and robbing people SOLELY for looking or thinking differently than himself, he would quickly become evil. But in the context of adventures, that is not the whole story.
The power of prejudices is owerwhelming and demonizing opponents is normal. There is lot of people, who have thinked that black people aren't human. But same accusations have been told of Asian people, nazis, member of al-qaida, etc. If we think that alignment of Good don't have any prejudices against any kind of people, then I could ask if that kind of person really exists?
We are not talking about prejudice. We are talking about slavery and whether a Lawful Good person can tolerate slavery.
For the record, I find it perfectly acceptable to pre-judge people who espouse horrendous and evil beliefs, such as the Nazis and al Qaeda.
I agree that in modern world, there is no justification for slavery, but this is medieval fantasy, what we talk about.
In medieval, it was common that masters abuse their slaves, but their servants and workers don't have any easier. Senior worker could freely abuse his junior for education and discipline. Starting work might be voluntary, but nobody could leave without agreement of his master, no matter how bad conditions. Even if someone died, there was usually many willing to take his place as it was better than being farmer or beggar.
It was not matter, how free you was; you was still property of someone, who was your master, senior, father, leader or king. It is easy to see, when slave is sold to another, but land and titles were traded too and it includes people living inside the borders. Any other way was unthinkable, pagan and rebellious. In these conditions, I don't see that being free from pricetag is much of relief.
If Lawful Good can't support slavery as slave is abused property of master, how about these institutions?
- In marriage, wife is abused property of husband.
- In kingdom, population is abused property of king.
- In school, students are abused property of teachers.
- In family, childrens are abused property of their parents.
While all opinions I mentioned previous post are not mine or right, I said them to point how Lawful Good person could believe justification of slavery.
Also, humans are wery weak against social pressure. Over 95% of tested people can be pushed to do atrocities. About half of these just try find some excuse to justify it themselves. "Everyone does it", "I was only following orders", "I didn't believe it was real". When people are living inside system, I say that not even the 5% could resist. Do you say that Good character can't stay good, if he is brainwashed to follow?
|
|
I agree that in modern world, there is no justification for slavery, but this is medieval fantasy, what we talk about.
Slavery did not go from being a good institution in the past to being an evil institution in modern times, just as rape did not go from being some morally neutral act in the past to being a horrendous act in modern times. It was ALWAYS an evil institution.
And characters who directly engage in the enslavement of people are evil, and those who profit from slavery directly knowing the suffering that it causes are not good. A slave owner might not necessarily be an evil person, but they cannot continue to engage in the practice in good conscience and still be a good person
In medieval, it was common that masters abuse their slaves, but their servants and workers don't have any easier. Senior worker could freely abuse his junior for education and discipline. Starting work might be voluntary, but nobody could leave without agreement of his master, no matter how bad conditions. Even if someone died, there was usually many willing to take his place as it was better than being farmer or beggar.
And Lawful Good characters would not stand by and watch this abuse continue. What separates Good characters from the Neutral characters is that they take it upon themselves to help others and do everything they can to make the world a better place.
It was not matter, how free you was; you was still property of someone, who was your master, senior, father, leader or king. It is easy to see, when slave is sold to another, but land and titles were traded too and it includes people living inside the borders. Any other way was unthinkable, pagan and rebellious. In these conditions, I don't see that being free from pricetag is much of relief.
Again, a Lawful Good character would not support an institution that causes continuous misery. He would not free a slave simply so that they can instead be a serf or some homeless starving wretch. Remember, this may be a Medieval Fantasy Setting, but it is NOT Medieval Earth. Fantasy characters have options and forms of recourse (like starting their own kingdoms where people can live in freedom) that peasants did not have in the real Medieval times.
If Lawful Good can't support slavery as slave is abused property of master, how about these institutions?
- In marriage, wife is abused property of husband.
- In kingdom, population is abused property of king.
- In school, students are abused property of teachers.
- In family, childrens are abused property of their parents.
You keep using the word "abuse." No Lawful Good person would support a system that allows or provides for the free reign of abuse of power. The very point of Lawful Good people is that they believe in justice and benevolence, and they create laws and institutions and orders to provide the maximum benefit to people and do everything to create checks that outlaw and minimize abuses of power.
While all opinions I mentioned previous post are not mine or right, I said them to point how Lawful Good person could believe justification of slavery.
And again, if they believe that in their mind, heart and soul, they are no longer lawful good. Just so you understand the Alignment System is a system of OBJECTIVE Morality. It doesn't matter if someone who commits evil believes themselves to be a good person or is doing it for reason that justify his committing atrocities. It doesn't matter if he has the support of a million people who believe the same thing, and tell him what he is doing is good. If you continuously commit evil acts of your own volition, you are an evil person. If you fail to meet the objective criterion of this Universe, you are not a good person, and may indeed be an evil person.
Even Gods are not immune. Asmodeus I am sure believes himself and his views to be correct, just and moral. However, even his belief in his own decency does not make him a good god. Because he matches the objective criterion, he is an evil God.
Also, humans are wery weak against social pressure. Over 95% of tested people can be pushed to do atrocities. About half of these just try find some excuse to justify it themselves. "Everyone does it", "I was only following orders", "I didn't believe it was real". When people are living inside system, I say that not even the 5% could resist.
Then those people will indeed become evil. The ones who resist and maintain their moral rectitude remain good.
Do you say that Good character can't stay good, if he is brainwashed to follow?
No. If a Lawful Good character suddenly takes it upon himself to participate in a genocide, then he is no longer a good person. Yes, he can be a wonderful family man at home, but during his day job he tortures people, or throws screaming babies into crematoria, whistling while he works. When you start performing evil acts of your own volition, you are an evil person, both under the alignment system and in real life.
In summary: If you were at my table and asked me if your lawful good character could engage or profit from slavery or other atrocities and still maintain your good alignment, the answer will be NO.
TL;DR version of the previous:
|
|
I tend to draw a strong distinction between beliefs an acts, especially within the game. Believing certain people to be inferior to others is just that: a belief, and of no tangible harm until someone acts upon it. Slavery, meanwhile, is both a morally evil as both an act and an institution because it is causing actual harm and oppression in the here and now.
One could have repellant beliefs, but if that person never acts on those beliefs, they are not evil. One person could be a mean, bile-filled racist who everybody fears and loathes, but when the chips are down, he actually works to save the people he had hitherto held in contempt from being killed or enslaved. Another person might, on the other hand, hold the purest and most decent, politically-correct beliefs, but never act upon them or ever stick his neck out to help anyone, or in any way make the world a better place in any meaningful way. I would say that the vitriolic racist who actually works to help the oppressed is the moral superior of the self-righteous wallflower, and the racist could indeed be a good person while the sensitive moralist is merely a neutral person.
People do not have to believe in all the correct things to be the paragons of virtue (see: Erastil, chauvinistic old codger, paragon of Lawful Good). It is the fact that they go out of their way to help people and work to make the world a slightly better place than they found it. What puts the morally good above the morally neutral is that they do not turn a blind eye to the world's problems, or say "someone else will take care of it." or "this doesn't hurt me or mine, so it's not my problem." They may not always be nice, or even do the right thing at first. But you can always count on good people to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Slavery-by-verdict was one of the major sources of slaves in the Roman empire. A criminal could (and would, routinely) be reduced to the status of a slave; the process was known as "capitis deminutio." Depending upon the laws in effect at the time, this might be for life, or it might be something like a 25-year lease, after which your former status would be restored.Given the average life expectancy of the era, 25 years is effectively a life sentence.
Not really. A person who made it past childhood had a very good chance to making it to 60-70. The oft-cited average life expectancy of 35 derives basically from averaging the 50% of children who don't make it to their second birthday and everyone else.
Not really. A person who made it past childhood had a very good chance to making it to 60-70. The oft-cited average life expectancy of 35 derives basically from averaging the 50% of children who don't make it to their second birthday and everyone else.Slavery-by-verdict was one of the major sources of slaves in the Roman empire. A criminal could (and would, routinely) be reduced to the status of a slave; the process was known as "capitis deminutio." Depending upon the laws in effect at the time, this might be for life, or it might be something like a 25-year lease, after which your former status would be restored.Given the average life expectancy of the era, 25 years is effectively a life sentence.
I suspect that whoever calculated a 35 number for the Roman Empire was calculating for the free population and the number did not include nor apply to slaves (and yes, vulnerable to infant mortality issues as you say).
When talking about Roman demography studies I begin to leave the areas that my own studies have focused on, although I know that it is a much argued field. My guess would be that the slave portion of that would be much more difficult to study, though, and that any numbers that are made are likely estimates founded in much thinner data than for the free population. If you asked now, I would find it difficult to think of any good source of data from the ancient world to turn to in order to help average slave life expectancy, although there are many which can aid in estimating free life expectancy. Slave graves aren't the kind that are commonly marked with names and dates, they don't figure in records dealing with military manpower and soldiery, the literary record certainly would have too few firm data points to contribute... etc, etc.
That said, some looking through papers on Google Books, Jstor, and such seems to indicate a) that a 1999 paper by W.V. Harris, "Demography, geography and the sources of Roman slaves" provides an often-cited estimate, that the life expectancy at birth of the slave population was below 20 years, and b) that his and various other studies are indeed thick on speculation and thin on actual data, but that this has not stopped a fair share of surprisingly terse arguing about the topic from occurring.
<20 is a guess, and probably as good as any. Against that, you'd have to point out that anyone getting sentenced to slavery in a court has probably already dodged the infant mortality bullet. But I suspect you're still looking at a significantly lower adult life expectancy than that of the free population.
PS, since most conceivable types of answer to the OP's original question seem to have already been provided, I no longer feel any remorse about engaging in willful and reckless derailment.
Slavery did not go from being a good institution in the past to being an evil institution in modern times, just as rape did not go from being some morally neutral act in the past to being a horrendous act in modern times. It was ALWAYS an evil institution.
Slavery is in many cases identical for adoption or marriage. Someone outsider was taken into family. For law or tradition, they have same status than other, but usually authority members of family favour someone of their own children.
And Lawful Good characters would not stand by and watch this abuse continue.
...
Again, a Lawful Good character would not support an institution that causes continuous misery.
I agree, Good character should oppose any kind of abusing. Master whipping his slave. Man beating his wife. Adventurer killing an orc, just because he is an orc. These all should be stopped.
but during his day job he tortures people, or throws screaming babies into crematoria, whistling while he works.
Sounds like typical day of adventurer. All those poor goblin babies. Be Good and stop supporting violent adventures against oppressed people.
|
|
Slavery is in many cases identical for adoption or marriage. Someone outsider was taken into family. For law or tradition, they have same status than other, but usually authority members of family favour someone of their own children.
...Except that it is nothing like adoption or marriage. Family members had rights and privileges that went with being of the same blood as the master of the house. In practically every society that practiced slavery, slaves were not considered people with legal status on par with free men and women; they were considered property. You could be bought and sold at the pleasure of your master. You were not considered a member of the family...you were furniture.
I agree, Good character should oppose any kind of abusing. Master whipping his slave. Man beating his wife. Adventurer killing an orc, just because he is an orc. These all should be stopped.
If someone killed some orcish peasant or artisan simply because of his green skin, or assumed that he might have been a barbaric raider (but had no evidence) that would be murder, which is an evil act. Any time a player kills a person who is not threatening them and for whom they have no evidence of wrongdoing, it is an evil act, no matter the race.
Sounds like typical day of adventurer. All those poor goblin babies. Be Good and stop supporting violent adventures against oppressed people.
Yes...that would be the typical day of extremely Evil adventurers. I don't know how you run your adventures, or the crowd you play with, or the style of play you are used to. But anyone in my games who would go around slaughtering the defenseless children of other people, even of the so-called "monstrous" races, becomes evil in a heartbeat and all appropriate consequences follow.
|
|
Cheliaxian slavery seem to be evil, but there is other types of slavery that aren't, in XVIII century, europeans serfs prefers the ottoman slavery than famine in serfdom.
Well of course someone would prefer slavery where they are fed as opposed to slavery where they are not fed. That does not make the institution of slavery itself good.
Slavery as an institution is so destructive, both in theory and in practice, that I contend that it is an evil institution, even when a few nominal rights are built in to particular forms of slavery.
"But this form of slavery isn't nearly as bad because the master is required to feed the slaves/slaves are allowed to own property/slaves are allowed to practice their own religion."
Yeah, the laws say that on paper. But paper is a flimsy thing, and makes a poor shield. Let me ask: To whom do the slaves turn when the master does not uphold their rights or abuses them? Has any slave master actually been punished for abusing his slaves?
Now, another question, can a Paladin be playable in a campaign that all civilized lands uses slavery as it's economic system?
Yes. He could be played as an abolitionist crusader.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would put a example that an abolitionist crusader in a slave economic campaign it's like playing a desert dweller who has fear of water in a sailing campaign, but that is just silly, you play as you like, a paladin that abhors slavery and a paladin that accept it it's cool, so long you have fun.
The common people from Europe were in famine precisely because the industrial revolution punching up Europe, and slavery being abolished. Suddenly they found themselves useless because of the machination of farms and the loss of theirs serfs guarantees in exchange of meager wages that couldn't pay all it's needs, except if they (many times, litaraly) kill themselves working more and harder. The price of freedom, in the end, was more slavery.
Maybe, in your point of view, Louis, all real world (including our present way of life) is evil. But in fantasy, there can be a good society free from slavery, after all, it's fantasy. AND in fantasy, you can have a good slaver society, after all, it's fantasy!
I suspect that whoever calculated a 35 number for the Roman Empire was calculating for the free population and the number did not include nor apply to slaves (and yes, vulnerable to infant mortality issues as you say).
I'd be surprised if that were the case. My understanding is that most of the studies on life expectancy are done by archeologists, not historians, precisely because the sort of records you describe below -- historical records, graves marked with names and dates, military manpower, and so forth, are not only strongly skewed not only to the free population but also to adult males. The four childen who died in infancy -- even of a senator -- are unlikely to be mentioned anywhere, and even the senator's first wife who died in childbirth may not be recorded.
It's actually fairly easy to find the age at death of a skeleton. The key question is simply finding enough skeletons, and, oddly enough, that's often easier to do with mass graves and ossaria and such, the places where slave bodies would be dumped.
Slavery is in many cases identical for adoption or marriage. Someone outsider was taken into family. For law or tradition, they have same status than other, but usually authority members of family favour someone of their own children....Except that it is nothing like adoption or marriage. Family members had rights and privileges that went with being of the same blood as the master of the house. In practically every society that practiced slavery, slaves were not considered people with legal status on par with free men and women;
You're contradicting yourself here. RIghts aren't things you either have or don't -- if they were, I have already cited a number of societies that granted rights to slaves.
If you insist that simply having "lesser" rights is evil, then society today is evil (my 17 year old niece can't vote, my 15 year old niece can't marry whom she chooses, and my 4 year old niece can't even refuse medical treatment). This isn't just an age-related issue. Married women were not granted the right to own property in their own right until 1882 in the UK; in the USA, this right was granted piecemeal starting in 1835.
Does this mean that Victorian England was largely an "evil" society" because people were routinely sorted into classes of varying degrees of legal status?
If so, you're basically just indulging in the prejudices of our age. Everything before last Tuesday was EEEEVIL, but we have finally achieved "good' today. Except that historians next week will look at the abuses committed this morning and place us in the EEEEVIL pile as well.
|
|
Now, another question, can a Paladin be playable in a campaign that all civilized lands uses slavery as it's economic system?Yes. He could be played as an abolitionist crusader.Which makes the campaign about removing slavery. And probably either unrealistic or short. At least for the paladin. A campaign of good characters in an entirely evil world is likely going to have issues.
You could probably also get away with a paladin (or order of paladins) who opposed slavery, but was focused on something else: If you're holding back the demonic invasion, you're not going to fall for not actively seeking out slavers.
In that case, the campaign it's not evil, it's just the way the world goes.
People are accustomed to be slaves or own slaves, they are against harming slaves in any way apart for righteous punishment. It's not about an evil campaign, its just the campaign economy. Like vassals, commoners and serfs are for suzerains, lords and kings - or poor class, middle class and upper class nowadays.
I suspect that whoever calculated a 35 number for the Roman Empire was calculating for the free population and the number did not include nor apply to slaves (and yes, vulnerable to infant mortality issues as you say).I'd be surprised if that were the case. My understanding is that most of the studies on life expectancy are done by archeologists, not historians, precisely because the sort of records you describe below -- historical records, graves marked with names and dates, military manpower, and so forth, are not only strongly skewed not only to the free population but also to adult males. The four childen who died in infancy -- even of a senator -- are unlikely to be mentioned anywhere, and even the senator's first wife who died in childbirth may not be recorded.
It's actually fairly easy to find the age at death of a skeleton. The key question is simply finding enough skeletons, and, oddly enough, that's often easier to do with mass graves and ossaria and such, the places where slave bodies would be dumped.
Hm. I'm looking into it, but from what I have found so far, skeletal analysis doesn't seem to be the gold standard academically in the classical demography field.
My research this morning has mostly been one guy, Walter Schneidel. From "Debating Roman Demography:"
Almost all ancient historians now accept the view, originally propounded by Keith Hopkins in 1966, that for the general population, average Roman life expectancy at birth is likely to have lain in a range of 20 to 30 years. Such empirical evidence as we have, though it leaves much to be desired, tends to support this view, albeit with some qualifications. This evidence includes the apparent estimates of life expectancy in a famous schedule of the tax annuities, called 'Ulpian's life table'; the distribution of ages at death both in the funerary inscriptions from Roman North Africa (where selectivity in giving age is not a problem, unlike in the European epitaphs) and in the few late imperial cemeteries that paleodemographers have accurately analyzed; and the age distribution in the Egyptian census returns.
Some more Schneidel, on skeletal analysis:
and
And another excerpt from the second article which suggests that (as of 2006), the science on skeletal analysis may stand to pass some useful thresholds before too long:
In any case, I have yet to find any indication of whether the 35 number includes slaves because I haven't found an academic source defending 35 at birth. However, if one combines the estimates of Harris (20 is implausibly high for the slave population) with Schneidel (20-30 for the general population), and then also consider the estimated slave proportion of the population, that does seem to suggest that.... more research is needed. ;)
Schneidel does provide 35 as an estimate of average life expectancy at age 10:
What the evidence supports is a population in which average life expectancy at age 10 was approximately 35 to 37 years. This figure may be taken, I think, as relatively secure for the general Roman population, with an exception being made only for the affluent elite whose life expectancy may well have been considerably higher.
|
|
My answers to the OP will be based on my definition of Lawful = puts the traditions of his culture and society first, letter of law second and spirit of law a distant first and Good = takes actions to protect the innocent.
I'm creating a halfling paladin right now, and I'm really wondering how to play her if she ever ends up in Cheliax. I'm leaving her regional background open enough to place her into whatever game I can get a slot in, so she might even end up being Chelaxian. Being both a halfling and a paladin, she of course loathes slavery and all who stand for it, and feels a deep pain at watching her kin be subjected to such treatment, but what does she do about it? If she runs into escaped slaves, does she stay neutral, help them, or turn them in?
Very first thing that springs to mind is whether the slaves are innocent or not. Did they escape by killing an innocent person and are not the least bit remorseful about it ? Then they are not innocent and deserve harsh justice for their wrongdoing.
If they are innocent, the paladin must try and protect them as best he can.
Second thing obviously, according to my definitions above, is whether or not slavery is an accepted and traditional port of the PC's culture. If not, he will likely try to find a way to help the slaves while keeping true to the letter of the local laws. He can turn a blind eye to their escape or buy and free them or take their place in slavery.
This is the likeliest path for your Paladin.
If slavery is all good and well in the traditions the PC subscribes to, he must still protect the slaves even though he does not see slavery itself as evil. He can make sure that their master treats them well or find them another master, or even take them in his own service.
Note that this is not very likely in Golarion as most Good deities, including the LG ones, tend to despise slavery (at the very least).
If she runs across a plot to free slaves, what does she do?
Make sure that no innocent will be harmed. If such is not the case, confront the freedom fighters or bring them to justice.
If no innocent will be harmed and she despises slavery, help and support the plot as much as she can without outright breaking the law or the code. This could be as simple as turning a blind eye to the plot or as involved as taking part in the actual freeing of the slaves, if only to ensure that no innocent life is lost.
If she accepts slavery, likely bring the freedom fighters to local justice unless they are innocent and doing so would bring them harm. If the latter, try to convince them to act within the letter of the law, just as she would (ie, find a better master, buy the slaves).
What if she is an escaped slave herself? How does a paladin balance being Lawful Good and rebelling against her forced servitude? Normally, I'd Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good with this sort of character, so I don't know how to handle these issues within a lawful context.
An escaped slave is very likely to oppose slavery at every turn. After all, if she believed that it was a tradition of her society, she would not even have tried to escape, according to my definition of Lawful above ;-)
|
|
You're contradicting yourself here. RIghts aren't things you either have or don't -- if they were, I have already cited a number of societies that granted rights to slaves.
First, how did I contradict myself? It looks more like you are contradicting me rather than me making separate contradicting statements.
And second, could you please cite a historical instance or legal case in which a slavemaster was punished for abusing his slaves and/or not upholding their rights? I'm sure it must have been quite a famous case.
If you insist that simply having "lesser" rights is evil, then society today is evil (my 17 year old niece can't vote, my 15 year old niece can't marry whom she chooses, and my 4 year old niece can't even refuse medical treatment).
If I said that unequal power dynamics or one person simply having less rights under the law than another person is evil in and of itself, then you'd really have me over a barrel. But I did not. I said slavery, the legal institution in which people are bought and sold as property and forced to labor against their will, was evil.
I really do not think that it is so radical of me to say that an institution in which you can buy and sell people as pieces of property who you can force to work for you on pain of beatings and torture is an evil institution. I guess I should just be called eccentric.
I would put a example that an abolitionist crusader in a slave economic campaign it's like playing a desert dweller who has fear of water in a sailing campaign, but that is just silly, you play as you like, a paladin that abhors slavery and a paladin that accept it it's cool, so long you have fun.
If that's the game you wish to play, that is the game you wish to play. I have not problem with that. But from my viewpoint, I believe slavery is evil, it always was evil, it will always be evil, and those who actively engage in its practice knowing what it does to people are evil. And those who engage in it in my games can only be morally neutral at best if they are slave masters.
The common people from Europe were in famine precisely because the industrial revolution punching up Europe, and slavery being abolished. Suddenly they found themselves useless because of the machination of farms and the loss of theirs serfs guarantees in exchange of meager wages that couldn't pay all it's needs, except if they (many times, litaraly) kill themselves working more and harder. The price of freedom, in the end, was more slavery.
And did I argue that was a good thing? I do not believe I did. I am arguing that slavery is evil, not that other forms of oppression and deprivation are good.
Maybe, in your point of view, Louis, all real world (including our present way of life) is evil. But in fantasy, there can be a good society free from slavery, after all, it's fantasy. AND in fantasy, you can have a good slaver society, after all, it's fantasy!
And in a game world that you create there can be a good society that is A-OK with rape, practices genocide and cannibalizes its own children. You are free to consider that society good and call it good. But if that is the case, I think the term "good" has lost any substantive meaning.
|
|
My answers to the OP will be based on my definition of Lawful = puts the traditions of his culture and society first, letter of law second and spirit of law a distant first and Good = takes actions to protect the innocent.
I think you left out one huge factor which goes into the equation of what the Paladin finds acceptable or unacceptable- What does the Paladin's God have to say about the matter?
A paladin of Abadar may be a bit more accepting of certain forms of slavery, such as debt bondage and indentured servitude, and perhaps even chattel slavery. A Paladin of Iomedae on the other hand might balk at the idea, for being a champion of the goddess of justice, she may very well believe that there is nothing just about being made property from one's birth to one's death for no other reason than one was born to a slave.
|
|
My answers to the OP will be based on my definition of Lawful = puts the traditions of his culture and society first, letter of law second and spirit of law a distant first and Good = takes actions to protect the innocent.I think you forgot one HUGE aspect of the Paladin which goes into the equation of what the Paladin finds acceptable or unacceptable- What does the Paladin's God have to say about the matter?
Frequently the answer is ..... nothing. Gods don't generally speak to their worshipers or take direct notice of their day to day details. The broad tenents of a religion are known, but the interpretation and execution of them is generally left to mortals themselves.
That's why Separatist clerics can exist, why an entire wing of Sarenrae would devote itself almost exclusively to the conquest of Taldor under the Qadiran flag.
Indeed, but broad tenets for some deities can definitely provide guidance on various specific issues, such as upholding business contracts for Abadar, defending the innocent and helpless for Iomedae, healing the sick for Sarenrae, etc. Some gods, such as Milani, make their feelings very well known with respect to slavery and other forms of tyranny and oppression.
|
|
Hold your gun, Louis! Slavery was a real - and very efficient - economy for civilized society, but, rape, cannibalism and genocide not. If you think that the society that force someone work 24/7 to gain a miser salary to survive (concealed slavery) is as evil as rape and genocide, you and i are not tuned in the same frequency.
Slavery it's not evil in itself, but it facilitates evil acts. It's far more easy to abuse a slave than a free citizen, for example. But a slave could, in exceptional cases, receive better treatment and have a better life than a free man.
Don't get me wrong, i'm also infected by modern way of thinking that slavery is evil, but i'm aware that was a time that it was not. As a gamer, i can exploit this time in a campaign.
Logically, in a world that has slavery and a alternative economic society, like republic, for example, of course slavery would be evil. And that's the case of Cheliax, so a Halfling Paladin, will fight against slavery in every opportunity, because he sees this form of society as illegitimate, since other societies proved that are fairer alternatives than that.
|
|
My answers to the OP will be based on my definition of Lawful = puts the traditions of his culture and society first, letter of law second and spirit of law a distant first and Good = takes actions to protect the innocent.I think you left out one huge factor which goes into the equation of what the Paladin finds acceptable or unacceptable- What does the Paladin's God have to say about the matter?
A paladin of Abadar may be a bit more accepting of certain forms of slavery, such as debt bondage and indentured servitude, and perhaps even chattel slavery. A Paladin of Iomedae on the other hand might balk at the idea, for being a champion of the goddess of justice, she may very well believe that there is nothing just about being made property from one's birth to one's death for no other reason than one was born to a slave.
Hence my caveat about the Good gods of Golarion ;-)
But really, by the book, most countries in the Inner Sea Region have slaves. I do not think it would be possible if all Paladins of all Good gods were actively fighting slavery.
|
|
A paladin of Abadar may be a bit more accepting of certain forms of slavery(...)
Wait, what? You admit that a paladin may accept slavery (whatever the kind), and - at the same time, defends slavery as evil?! How? Why? And why being rude by perverting my argument, implying that i'm defending rape and genocide as good things when i even touched on these matters?!
While marriage or adoption can be evil institutions in some societies, they're not in all cases, because not all have the abuse and inequity built.
What if society is powerless against someone abusing the institution?
As in family, matters do not belongs to outsiders. Does it makes society or institution evil?And Good characters will oppose the evil versions.
So, good character will bravely follow their righteous conscience caring no law, media, armed warriors or opinion of their friends, neighbours or parents.
What have you done for those innocents, who are kept in Quantanamo Bay?Slavery is in many cases identical for adoption or marriage. Someone outsider was taken into family....Except that it is nothing like adoption or marriage. Family members had rights and privileges that went with being of the same blood as the master of the house. In practically every society that practiced slavery, slaves were not considered people with legal status on par with free men and women; they were considered property. You could be bought and sold at the pleasure of your master. You were not considered a member of the family...you were furniture.
Children and women weren't any better. Did you know that after prohibition of slavery, it was common in Europe that poor parents sold their childrens as workforce. There were markets for trade of childrens, but it wasn't slavery, as in adult they were free to go or continue the work what they had learned. (Well, I personally think differently.)
It ended only when Germany started compulsary education for all childrens in 19th century.I don't know how you run your adventures, or the crowd you play with, or the style of play you are used to.
You might have quessed that I like to play tricky character. I once played CE drow fightress, which was magically bonded to serve party's sorcerer. She was created after party picked up some magical cards on fairy banquet and she was my best/funniest character ever. The paladin of party did teach, who is mightiest god, but never the values of his faith. I must say that she had the most interesting death and resurrection forever. It almost broke my GM.
|
|
Hold your gun, Louis! Slavery was a real - and very efficient - economy for civilized society, but, rape, cannibalism and genocide not.
Indeed. Slavery is immensely economically efficient and beneficial...for the slave master. And genocide can be immensely efficient and beneficial for the people who wipe out the other group of people, so now all their lands and resources can be taken without any further fuss (see: the United States settlers' treatment of Indian Tribes, Belgium's treatment of the Congolese, Germany's treatment of native rebellions in East Africa). And if Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was taken at face value, and not as the work of satire as Swift intended, one might even be able to see the societal benefits of cannibalism of poor children.
If you think that the society that force someone work 24/7 to gain a miser salary to survive (concealed slavery) is as evil as rape and genocide, you and i are not tuned in the same frequency.
I do not have to defend wage slavery in order to argue that slavery as an institution is evil.
Slavery it's not evil in itself, but it facilitates evil acts. It's far more easy to abuse a slave than a free citizen, for example. But a slave could, in exceptional cases, receive better treatment and have a better life than a free man.
And those were, as you say, exceptional cases.
Don't get me wrong, i'm also infected by modern way of thinking that slavery is evil, but i'm aware that was a time that it was not. As a gamer, i can exploit this time in a campaign.
I did not and would not accuse you of supporting slavery. But I do not find the modern way of thinking about it an "infection," as though being able to extend our empathy to other human beings and say that slavery is wrong is somehow a disease. I consider it enlightened thinking brought on by societal progress and learning from horrible past errors.
Logically, in a world that has slavery and a alternative economic society, like republic, for example, of course slavery would be evil. And that's the case of Cheliax, so a Halfling Paladin, will fight against slavery in every opportunity, because he sees this form of society as illegitimate, since other societies proved that are fairer alternatives than that.
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the matter. But also remember, in the context of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cheliax is specifically stated to be a Lawful Evil society. None of the good aligned countries in the Inner-Sea Region allow for the practice of slavery. Those that do allow slavery are, at best, Neutral.
Wait, what? You admit that a paladin may accept slavery (whatever the kind), and - at the same time, defends slavery as evil?! How? Why?
Because Abadar, the Lawful Neutral God, I believe is not against slavery per se. And I said that Paladin "may be" accepting of slavery. I did not say that he "would be" accepting of slavery. It depends on the circumstances. Because remember, he is still Lawful Good and out to help people. For example, he would likely try and find out whether or not this is a permanent enslavement. If it is, he may try to put an end to it. If it is not, and the servant has to fulfill a term of years before he is set free in exchange for learning a trade, the Paladin might not oppose it.
And why being rude by perverting my argument, implying that i'm defending rape and genocide as good things when i even touched on these matters?!
I was using that as an illustration as to how utterly ridiculous I found the proposition that a hypothetic good-aligned civilized society would accept slavery. That is, I find the idea of a society accepting slavery and being considered good as to be just as absurd as a society that accepts rape, genocide or cannibalism a decent thing and being considered good. Yes, the people practicing slavery might consider themselves good people. Almost everyone considers themselves to be a good person. But thinking of yourself as a good person does not make you good.
If you felt I was a bit harsh, I apologize. But I do not find the proposition any less absurd.
|
|
Indeed. Slavery is immensely economically efficient and beneficial...for the slave master. And genocide can be immensely efficient and beneficial for the people who wipe out the other group of people, so now all their lands and resources can be taken without any further fuss (see: the United States settlers' treatment of Indian Tribes, Belgium's treatment of the Congolese, Germany's treatment of native rebellions in East Africa). And if Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was taken at face value, and not as the work of satire as Swift intended, one might even be able to see the societal benefits of cannibalism of poor children.
Yeah, genocide has it's benefits, but, compared to slavery benefits, genocide is a short term benefit and a last resort - desperate move. You cannot build a "genocidal society", it topples itself when there is no other species to genocide, or when it is bested against the intended target.
But slavery is different, it was a legitimate societal and economical tool that the whole world practiced. It was also self sustainable, since the slaves were, mostly, very loyal to their masters and were conformed with theirs lives and caste. They were part of the society, in a fashion, and have propriety, family and purpose. Slavery was self-sustainable. Genocide you only practice once, slavery can go on forever. So slavery, is immensely more efficient than genocide to build - and maintain a society.
I do not have to defend wage slavery in order to argue that slavery as an institution is evil.
Well, i'm in the mind that slavery, like murder, is a neutral tool.
The whys and hows can be evil (and, most of times, are).
A paladin that battles and murder a demon, is not doing a evil thing (but not good also, murder is never good). But, by stopping it and their vile deeds is a good act.
A Paladin that battles, subdues and redeems a demon does two good acts.
A kind master that buys a child slave and threats it as a son/daughter, maybe even giving her freedom, does a good thing, but supporting slavery by buying it its not good (nor evil).
Of course, i admit, slavery opens far more opportunity to evil, and almost none for good (save for the well being of the community). But it's not evil or good by itself.
I did not and would not accuse you of supporting slavery. But I do not find the modern way of thinking about it an "infection," as though being able to extend our empathy to other human beings and say that slavery is wrong is somehow a disease. I consider it enlightened thinking brought on by societal progress and learning from horrible past...
Yes, about that. Crazy wording, i meant "conditioned" instead - my bad :) Can i excuse that English it's not my primary language? no? :p
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the matter. But also remember, in the context of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cheliax is specifically stated to be a Lawful Evil society. None of the good aligned countries in the Inner-Sea Region allow for the practice of slavery. Those that do allow slavery are, at best, Neutral.
Although they are a lawful evil society, not all of its citizens are, actually, there are good aligned characters there, like the elf wizard investigator that i fail to recall his name and his tiefling friend. That means that not all citizen from a slaver society is evil.
Because Abadar, the Lawful Neutral God, I believe is not against slavery per se. And I said that Paladin "may be" accepting of slavery. I did not say that he "would be" accepting of slavery. It depends on the circumstances. Because remember, he is still Lawful Good and out to help people. For example, he would likely try and find out whether or not this is a permanent enslavement. If it is, he may try to put an end to it. If it is not, and the servant has to fulfill a term of years before he is set free in exchange for learning a trade, the Paladin might not oppose it.
If it's evil, a paladin cannot abide by any means, and by any length of time. A paladin would not allow "just a little bit" torture or rape, why slavery? Unless slavery is not evil by itself, as i'm trying to explain.
I was using that as an illustration as to how utterly ridiculous I found the proposition that a hypothetical good-aligned civilized society would accept slavery. That is, I find the idea of a society accepting slavery and being considered good as to be just as absurd as a society that accepts rape, genocide or cannibalism a decent thing and being considered good. Yes, the people practicing slavery might consider themselves good people. Almost everyone considers themselves to be a good person. But thinking of yourself as a good person does not make you good.
Well, if those citizens know only slavery as a form of society, how can they all be evil? If humankind didn't developed any other form to further it's societal and economical progress apart from slavery, how all societies in this scenario would be evil? Think outside the box a little bit.
When we, as humankind reach an utopia that all people will be equal, and violence will be abolished, would they point at us and condemn our whole society as evil? Probably yes, but it's not the truth. We use our best tools to further our well being as a whole, wickedness, inhumanity and abuse is fallout, and not the primary intention of the societal mechanism.
If you felt I was a bit harsh, I apologize. But I do not find the proposition any less absurd.
Yes, it was a bit harsh, but that is the fault of communication by words, i couldn't hear your tone. Apologies accepted, and sorry about my outburst too.
Just to chill out a little bit. I'm enjoying our conversation, hope we bonk head some more!
Would you be happy living under those conditions? Being stripped of your agency and forced to work for the rest of your life in exchange for nominally decent room and board, unfree to leave?
So, being a working class person of almost any time and place, under any economic system?
|
|
Well, i'm in the mind that slavery, like murder, is a neutral tool.I think you shouldn't be surprised that relatively few of us consider murder, (as opposed to killing in self defense) a "neutral" act.
If you consider murder an acceptable act, than one shouldn't be surprised that you consider slavery that benign.
Ok, as i said, English is not my primary language, i read about the difference of killing lawfully and murder, so i now understand were i err.
Well, exchange my sentence, "murder" to "killing". Killing is a neutral tool.
A benign thing is not necessarily a good thing. If you are locked in a cell with a monster that is weak and dying of thirst, and a bottle of water (a benign thing) fall on its mouth, that benign thing doubtfully made a good thing to you.
But, even as you guys admitted, that are many slavery forms, i wounder if you are only considering the iron and shackles form of slavery.
In ancient Greece, slavery were more akin with serfdom than the harsh inhuman exploitative colonial slavery. In many city states, the boundary between slave and citizen was very blurry. Slave status could be easily lost, but many choose to remain slaves so they didn't loose the advantages of this status.
But, in general, i agree that slavery is bad, but it was essential for humankind evolution, as bad as it sounds.
So, being a working class person of almost any time and place, under any economic system?
Would you be happy living under those conditions? Being stripped of your agency and forced to work for the rest of your life in exchange for nominally decent room and board, unfree to leave?
If yes, HELL NO!
Now, time to maul me.
P.s.: Oh, and the Cheliaxian investigator is Count Jeggare and his bodyguard Radovan.
Man, this is thread is all over the place! Starting at the start:
I'm creating a halfling paladin right now, and I'm really wondering how to play her if she ever ends up in Cheliax.
Mama Kelsey, I just started a campaign set in Cheliax and, from what I've read, you should burn the whole country down. Vive le Pezzack!!!
For the historical stuff, a very good book I recently read was The Story of American Freedom by everybody's favorite red-diaper historian, Eric Foner. A running theme throughout the first, antebellum, half of the book is how other groups--workers, women, etc.--would appropriate the language of freedom and slavery in order to express their grievances. Interesting read.
Another good book I read, not so recently, was The World the Slaveholders Made by everybody's favorite commie-turned-Catholic rightist historian, Eugene D. Genovese. Half of the book was a study of one George Fitzhugh who believed (American) slavery was so great, it should be extended to poor whites as well.
Another thing he alluded to in the book was that the (relative) freedoms that the lower classes in Anglo-America-France won during the Age of Revolution was paid for by the African slaves (which I already knew) and the "reenserfment" (I think I made up that word; I don't recall what he called it) in Eastern Europe. The latter part I'd never heard of before and should explore at greater length someday but, clearly, like in Cheliax, a halfling paladin would spend most of her days in this world trying to burn it down.
Of course, I usually play goblin paladins, so maybe my view of paladins is a little skewed...