Is hiring a slave considered an evil act ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.

It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.

That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)


Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.
That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)

depends on what you mean by misapplication, primarily revolving around representation in court and sentencing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.
That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)
depends on what you mean by misapplication, primarily revolving around representation in court and sentencing.

And what the laws are in the first place. Transportation to Australia was usually for things like petty theft, for example.

Point is that it's not as simple as "Slavery bad", "forced labor as punishment fine".


Freehold DM wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.
That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)
depends on what you mean by misapplication, primarily revolving around representation in court and sentencing.

Could you expand on this Freehold? I'm pretty sure I agree with you, but need a more detailed statement to be certain.

Edit: And, TheJeff, I'm not looking to argue with you, but I never said that it was that simple, I said forced labor as punishment (isn't everything pretty much forced when it's punishment, though?) and owning a human being aren't remotely the same thing, and I don't think anything will ever change my mind on that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
I wonder why people put so little value on freedom? Is it because we take it for granted I wonder, or because people don't really feel free!?

I think this is the heart of the miscommunication.

Lawful Good does not equal Super Good or the Most Good of the alignment spectrum. It is Goodness AND Lawful behavior. As indicated in the rules of the game we are discussing, Lawful is associated with obedience, not freedom. Freedom is a virtue of Chaos. You will note that no one ever said any variation of Chaotic alignment would be in favor of institutional slavery.

I am NOT putting less value on freedom, I'm acknowledging how it fits into the rules of Pathfinder. And in case anyone missed my post on the first page of the thread, we are talking about a fantasy world of elves, magic and dragons, NOT DISCUSSING REAL WORLD SLAVERY.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's how you're framing the discussion, Fergie; I'm thinking of my opinions on slavery holistically, and applying those opinions to D&D/PF alignment. ;P

I think equating the lawful alignment with obedience is a rather narrow definition. What would a Lawful Good person do in a slave owning society? Work to end slavery. They were called Abolitionists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yesterday, captain yesterday wrote:
We would NOT get along.

I can't really tell if that comment was directed at me, but since it followed my post, I will respond to it.

I would just like to ask if you think we would not get along in real life, due to the way I view the two-axis alignment system of a fantasy role playing game? Do you really think my views about a world where your gnome sorcerer could summon literal CE demons and LG angels are the same as my morality in the real world?

I apologize in advance if your comment was not directed at me, or if I am incorrectly reading it. Internet communication is often difficult for me. I'm not trying to debate you, or argue, but there seems to be a response to things that I'm not aware of saying, and I would like to figure out how to communicate better in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you going to use slavery as strict or broad term here?
This is circular insanity if we constantly keep denying each other by just going "That does not fit into MY view of the word slavery."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.
That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)
Edit: And, TheJeff, I'm not looking to argue with you, but I never said that it was that simple, I said forced labor as punishment (isn't everything pretty much forced when it's punishment, though?) and owning a human being aren't remotely the same thing, and I don't think anything will ever change my mind on that.

But that's because you redefine the nastier ends of "forced labor as punishment" as not actually "forced labor as punishment." A truly just, "Lawful Good" legal system would not produce such results, I'll agree. But then most examples of forced labor as punishment that come to mind aren't from particularly just legal systems.

More generally, while I usually argue the case against any form of slavery not being evil, it's worth bearing historical context in mind and comparing it to other systems around. The worst examples of forced labor were nastier than the nicer examples of slavery - those most limited and regulated.
What about serfdom? That involved owning humans, as part of the property. They had more protections than many forms of slavery, but some examples were particularly nasty.
Or debt slavery? Pretty easy to set that up so that you can't work your way out of it. Does it really matter if you're not officially property, if you practically are?

Of course all that really means in the "good/evil" discussion is that those forms of exploiting people are also evil.


I said I wasn't looking to argue with you, TheJeff. There's no point in scolding me about my fascistically narrow view of slavery. :)


Im going to say it depends on the game, ethic of the world and other factors.
For example slavery was punishment for many crimes in some society.
For example Joe gets drunk at Bills Tavern and wreck the place. Bill sues and Joe has to be Bill slave for the next five years. So Would a Lawful Good be prohibited from using going to Bill's Tavern?
The great Irish hero Cu Chulain worked as a slave for several years for Culann after killing Culann's Hound.


Might mention in the Ancient world slaves could hold almost any job.
In Rome, Greek physicians where prized slaves. Would it be evil to receive treatment for such a Doctor?
And in Rome, China and the Middle East, in theory the eunuchs and others who served as High ranking Ministers where slaves of the Emperor , although it might not be healthy to remind them of that.
And in Egypt the Mamelukes who ruled for several centuries and served as its Army where in theory Stated own slaves.


High-society slaves like those were usually eunuchs etc to make sure the rulers were not in a position to bequeath their rulership to anyone. The rest was simply details. The RCC took a similar stance as the reason for forbidding prests to marry.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
Truthfully, it should be CHEAPER to just hire a hireling or go leadership to do whatever you neeed done and let him pay his own expenses.

Cheaper doesnt mean better. Depends on his plans- hiring someone is great, but they may not know the ins and outs of slave markets, processing and various other items- such as who, how many guards and various items.

I can see an argument for it, short term. Long term no. Depends on what his plans are. But its really a sit down with your DM and discuss ideas and see whats what.


The definitions in the PRD aren't self-interpreting and therein lies a problem.

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include... resentment toward legitimate authority <snip>

Notice the lead-in to this portion; "On the downside". Downside? Really? Who made that value judgment cannon? The LG viewpoint I'll wager.

To continue:
If it's true

PRD wrote:
that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

how does one define "legitimate authority"? Because "unfettered personal freedom" sure as the Nine Hells gives the finger to "legitimate authority".

The whole alignment thing is just a mess, other than using it as a simple mechanic for certain effects in game.

Fergie wrote:
And in case anyone missed my post on the first page of the thread, we are talking about a fantasy world of elves, magic and dragons, NOT DISCUSSING REAL WORLD SLAVERY.

And that gets directly back to my prior post.

To repeat, "It gets complicated in a fantasy game setting since different species are in fact different.

It gets more complicated in a 3.PF type setting since PC races are functionally just humans that have different traits."

IRL some people are prima facie less able to act in their own best interests. Society in general applies this to children without question. Applying it to adults these days requires some pretty clear evidence of incapacity (strongly debilitating mental illness/retardation) in order to sidestep their civil rights. And even then it generally doesn't happen unless/until they threaten others. This type of "for your own good" thinking was/is applied to slaves, both implicitly by the cultures that allow slavery and by the formal laws of those cultures.

How does that relate to 3.PF?

In order to make the game playable as is, and to avoid the crush of politically[?] correct backlash, the game sees all non-human PC races with equal standing.

Kobolds are just shorter than average, scaly, weightlifting challenged, somewhat sickly, shifty little trap-making humans (with tails).
sorry KC but is true :p


Hitdice wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
It can be. There's a sliding scale there. From modern community service through chain gangs through penal colonies to actually being sold into slavery as criminal punishment. In some cases for petty crimes and with the only other real distinction being that the term was theoretically limited.
That's a misapplication of the justice system to perpetuate slavery you're describing, not a sliding scale with community service at one end and slavery at the other. (As usual, In My Not So Humble Opinion.)
depends on what you mean by misapplication, primarily revolving around representation in court and sentencing.

Could you expand on this Freehold? I'm pretty sure I agree with you, but need a more detailed statement to be certain.

Edit: And, TheJeff, I'm not looking to argue with you, but I never said that it was that simple, I said forced labor as punishment (isn't everything pretty much forced when it's punishment, though?) and owning a human being aren't remotely the same thing, and I don't think anything will ever change my mind on that.

well, if someone is accused of a crime, they need more than to simply be sent to the gallows or prison - a trial needs to be held and both sides of the case need to be represented competently- stressing the word "competent". Railroad on either side isn't a trial. Sentencing is also of the utmost importance -a variety of punishments need to exist hopefully aligned to the severity of the crime- if everyone goes to jail for a dozen years once found guilty no matter what was done, then something is truly wrong with that justice system.


That's exactly what I mean by misapplication. Maybe it's not a strong enough word. I believe a legal system that's as badly administered as you describe is a different beast from a governmental system which is predicated on one human being owning another.

Do you think I'm splitting hairs?


Hitdice wrote:

That's exactly what I mean by misapplication. Maybe it's not a strong enough word. I believe a legal system that's as badly administered as you describe is a different beast from a governmental system which is predicated on one human being owning another.

Do you think I'm splitting hairs?

No, but all legal systems eventually get "badly administered". Just look at the tax code in the USA (and elsewhere I expect). If it weren't for computers the average person could not do their own taxes with any surety of being correct.

Add to a bulky legal code some formalisms that class certain people as "not human" or "not fully human" and abuse will be rife.


That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later. Not that I, speaking as a citizen, consider the US a Lawful Good nation; Chaotic Neutral at best! :P

Silver Crusade

Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.

I'm not seeing a problem here.


Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later. Not that I, speaking as a citizen, consider the US a Lawful Good nation; Chaotic Neutral at best! :P

Capitalism helps keep it that way.

Feel the Bern! LOL


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

Nor am I, like, at all. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough; I'd much rather live under a government that recognizes rights common to all persons than one where one person can own another.


Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
Nor am I, like, at all. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough; I'd much rather live under a government that recognizes rights common to all persons than one where one person can own another.

Ah, okay. We agree then :3

Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?


Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
Nor am I, like, at all. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough; I'd much rather live under a government that recognizes rights common to all persons than one where one person can own another.

Ah, okay. We agree then :3

Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

My understanding is that it's up next for federal recognition. "Consenting adults" seems to be the standard. With polygamy, as advertised, all adults are "consenting".

But such a system is inherently unequal. Inequality walks hand-in-hand with abuse.

To be clear: Abuse is a problem.


Not to derail the thread (anymore) but where did you hear that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:
What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

Well in the context of a Pathfinder alignment thread about slavery...

Marriage was the other institution that in REAL WORLD history allowed one human to own another. I think almost all the same arguments about slavery being immoral could be applied to olde timey marriage, but somehow marriage transitioned into the 21 century (or is transitioning...), while slavery morphed into exploitative labor practices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

polygamy and marrying someone who is the same sex or gender as you are concepts that are in different boxes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
Nor am I, like, at all. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough; I'd much rather live under a government that recognizes rights common to all persons than one where one person can own another.

Ah, okay. We agree then :3

Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

My understanding is that it's up next for federal recognition. "Consenting adults" seems to be the standard. With polygamy, as advertised, all adults are "consenting".

But such a system is inherently unequal. Inequality walks hand-in-hand with abuse.

To be clear: Abuse is a problem.

Unless you're going in a "marry someone when they aren't looking" direction, I don't see how.


Fergie wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

Well in the context of a Pathfinder alignment thread about slavery...

Marriage was the other institution that in REAL WORLD history allowed one human to own another. I think almost all the same arguments about slavery being immoral could be applied to olde timey marriage, but somehow marriage transitioned into the 21 century (or is transitioning...), while slavery morphed into exploitative labor practices.

Yes indeed it was. And polygamy, being inherently unequal, will be want to bring some of that back.

Not as advertised mind you, but as practiced.


Freehold DM wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

polygamy and marrying someone who is the same sex or gender as you are concepts that are in different boxes.

Yes, but the legal argument hinges on "consenting adults" and for a whole host of reasons (some of them patently bad others not obviously so), there are three or more adults who will wish to be considered "married" by the state.

Laws represent power and power can be brokered.

We might all be equal but we are not all equally endowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's true Quark, but when you add "everyone's human" to a bulky legal code, you get federally recognized same-sex marriage a century and some odd number of years later.
I'm not seeing a problem here.

I am.

Polygamy - fine "as advertised", never really works out that way.

polygamy and marrying someone who is the same sex or gender as you are concepts that are in different boxes.

Yes, but the legal argument hinges on "consenting adults" and for a whole host of reasons (some of them patently bad others not obviously so), there are three or more adults who will wish to be considered "married" by the state.

Laws represent power and power can be brokered.

We might all be equal but we are not all equally endowed.

I dunno. That's weird, with respect to the topic. I think we'd have to create a different topic for this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:
What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

Well in the context of a Pathfinder alignment thread about slavery...

Marriage was the other institution that in REAL WORLD history allowed one human to own another. I think almost all the same arguments about slavery being immoral could be applied to olde timey marriage, but somehow marriage transitioned into the 21 century (or is transitioning...), while slavery morphed into exploitative labor practices.

Hold on guys, we're going over here now. I understand, it's hard to keep up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moving Goalposts wrote:
Hold on guys, we're going over here now. I understand, it's hard to keep up.

Explain please...

Also, the link contains humor - BE WARNED!


Fergie wrote:
Moving Goalposts wrote:
Hold on guys, we're going over here now. I understand, it's hard to keep up.

Explain please...

Also, the link contains humor - BE WARNED!

I admit, I didn't chase down the derailment in to marriage from slavery to it's source.

My apologies. :-)


Just a quick note about the definition of 'slavery'. For this discussion, I had been using the google dictionary definition:

dictionary wrote:
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

However, I just read this article in the BBC News, that included this definition:

The 2016 Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia wrote:
situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception.

I think the first definition allows for possible situations of benevolent "slavery" that could exist in a LG society. However the second definition is basically evil any way you look at it.


Fergie wrote:

Just a quick not about the definition of 'slavery'. For this discussion, I had been using the google dictionary definition:

dictionary" wrote:
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

However, I just read this article in the BBC News, that included this definition:

The 2016 Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia wrote:
situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception.
I think the first definition allows for possible situations of benevolent "slavery" that could exist in a LG society. However the second definition is basically evil any way you look at it.

The problem with the first definition is that you then have to define "legal property".

Though "is forced to obey them" is a pretty long step towards evil in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are all forced to obey rules by law enforcement.

The Exchange

Envall wrote:
We are all forced to obey rules by law enforcement.

I guess there are a lot of different things dropped into the "slave" category in each readers mind.

We would need to define the Laws/Customs of slaves and slavery as they appear in the game world setting.

Historically they have been very different...just compare a 17th century plantation worker in the new world with a 17th century Janissary - and that difference is just location!

What if the Qadirians (somewhat modeled after the Turks) actually have something like Janissaries?

Is it against the law in Qadira to enslave worshippers of Sarenrae?

Is the slave of a citizen freed in Cheliax a citizen? (Roman Slaves were - it was one of the fastest ways of becoming a Roman Citizen, other methods took 25 years of military service in the legion).

Are Talden Serfs better treated than Slaves (often Serfs were treated worse than slaves)?

note on Janissaries:
The Janissaries were kapıkulları, "door servants" or "slaves of the Porte", neither freemen nor ordinary slaves (köle). They were subjected to strict discipline, but were paid salaries and pensions upon retirement and formed their own distinctive social class. As such, they became one of the ruling classes of the Ottoman Empire, rivaling the Turkish aristocracy. The brightest of the Janissaries were sent to the palace institution, Enderun. Through a system of meritocracy, the Janissaries held enormous power, stopping all efforts at reform of the military.

more from Wikipedia:

Slavery in ancient Rome played an important role in society and the economy. Besides manual labor, slaves performed many domestic services, and might be employed at highly skilled jobs and professions. Teachers, accountants, and physicians were often slaves. Greek slaves in particular might be highly educated. Unskilled slaves, or those sentenced to slavery as punishment, worked on farms, in mines, and at mills. Their living conditions were brutal, and their lives short.

Slaves were considered property under Roman law and had no legal personhood. Unlike Roman citizens, they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation (prostitutes were often slaves), torture, and summary execution. The testimony of a slave could not be accepted in a court of law unless the slave was tortured—a practice based on the belief that slaves in a position to be privy to their masters' affairs would be too virtuously loyal to reveal damaging evidence unless coerced. Over time, however, slaves gained increased legal protection, including the right to file complaints against their masters

Many Ancient cultures used slave soldiers. As far back as Ramses the Great (1200 BC)
Check out:
Mamluks in Egypt.
Ghulams in Iran/Persia.
"Servants" in crusader armies.

Heck, conscript armies!

have you registered for the Draft? (for whatever State currently "owns" you?)

Slave armies are still around...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The problem with the first definition is that you then have to define "legal property".

That is not so hard however. For example, my pets are my legal property, although they are treated more like family then property. Generally if something tangible can be exchanged for money, (not including services) then it could be considered property. Just like there are special laws for selling and owning pets, there would be simiar laws for slaves. I would also note that for modern military personal and convicts, there are some ways that they are treated more like property then persons - for example, right to refuse injections and such.

thejeff wrote:
Though "is forced to obey them" is a pretty long step towards evil in the first place.

Well, again it depends on interpretation. I'm "forced" to obey laws by armed police who can imprison me. I'm "forced" to obey my boss by economic conditions. I'm forced to pay rent in order to have shelter. If I had kids, I would be forced to school them, feed them, etc. I think arguments could be made both ways. In real life, "forced to obey" tends to get ugly pretty quick. In a world of Good dragons and angels, and gods, I can imagine something different*.

*Which I think is the appeal of fiction... It is nice to imagine a world where things are better then reality.


HWalsh wrote:
Slavery is *never* good.

So many evil people we base our current society and beliefs on ....

Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Aristotle wrote:
those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Hyperbole involving polygamy, gay marriage, and Hitler is totally inappropriate on our forums.

EDIT: Removed much of the surrounding line of discussion as well, as it doesn't belong in this thread.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

However, I just read this article in the BBC News, that included this definition:

The 2016 Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia wrote:
situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception.
I think the first definition allows for possible situations of benevolent "slavery" that could exist in a LG society. However the second definition is basically evil any way you look at it.

By that definition, everyone who works in the USA were enslaved until April 24 of this year (on average). Since that's when we finished paying off our taxes for the year. It's the rest of the year that we can actually work for ourselves.

(And just try to avoid paying taxes if you don't think that there are threats/coercion involved.)

That definition is terrible. It sounds evil, but it's so subjectively open-ended that it can easily be stretched to include virtually everyone.

After all, isn't it coercion if they won't feed you if you don't work?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Fergie wrote:

However, I just read this article in the BBC News, that included this definition:

The 2016 Global Slavery Index, from the Walk Free Foundation in Australia wrote:
situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception.
I think the first definition allows for possible situations of benevolent "slavery" that could exist in a LG society. However the second definition is basically evil any way you look at it.

By that definition, everyone who works in the USA were enslaved until April 24 of this year (on average). Since that's when we finished paying off our taxes for the year. It's the rest of the year that we can actually work for ourselves.

(And just try to avoid paying taxes if you don't think that there are threats/coercion involved.)

That definition is terrible. It sounds evil, but it's so subjectively open-ended that it can easily be stretched to include virtually everyone.

After all, isn't it coercion if they won't feed you if you don't work?

just because you think you are working for yourself (after April 24th), does not mean you are not still a slave...

From Wikipedia article "Slavery in ancient Rome"

"...Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[2] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom..."

It was not unknown for a Roman slave to buy themselves free... to become freemen thru their own labor. Something we in the modern age cannot do... next year, you'll still be "working for the state".

and to repeat a quote -

“That we were slaves I had known all my life--and nothing could be done about it. True, we weren't bought and sold--but as long as Authority held monopoly over what we had to have and what we could sell to buy it, we were slaves.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

101 to 150 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is hiring a slave considered an evil act ? All Messageboards