Is hiring a slave considered an evil act ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Its not I wanted them to work hard and whip all day. I will give em some good meal and sometimes wine (for cayden). Even gives them a clothes. I never told them to fight. Only tend wound, somwtimes tell them to give some buff so I will not waste my spell slot.

I could make them making magic weapon for me too. And I even give em sone vacation....

In the end I need slave :(

But I make a promise if the story/campain/module end I give em a freedom if he like it. Or he could follow.

I swear I will not treat them like slave traders.

If u didnt buy slave. Who know that he will got evil masters ?


For cayden thingy. I buy slave so I could save him. But I need slave help to release other slave in my way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It all depends on what you do with the slave.


It depends on context. In Aurora society that would be a Hell no. Yet in maybe a society such as Cheliax or Geb (or is it that other one I confuse the two), such may be not as Evil. A question maybe for Mr. Jacobs.


Now to convince my gm.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And you can't hire a free person to do these things?

Talk to your GM. In my case, I'd say that merely buying the slave is not evil, but nearly anything you do to keep them or make them work will push you over the line.

If you bought a slave and set them free, that's not evil. If you offered them freedom as soon as you reached another country, that might be okay, though if they demanded it then and there and you kept them in chains to prevent escape ...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Holding a slave in a fantasy setting could be considered to not be an "Evil" act, but it could not be considered a "Good" act.

If you are looking for a man servant, just hire someone or take the Leadership feat or the new ones from Ultimate Intrigue.

Caiden Callean would be very much against slavery, imo.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Veilgn wrote:

Its not I wanted them to work hard and whip all day. I will give em some good meal and sometimes wine (for cayden). Even gives them a clothes. I never told them to fight. Only tend wound, somwtimes tell them to give some buff so I will not waste my spell slot.

I could make them making magic weapon for me too. And I even give em sone vacation....

In the end I need slave :(

But I make a promise if the story/campain/module end I give em a freedom if he like it. Or he could follow.

I swear I will not treat them like slave traders.

If u didnt buy slave. Who know that he will got evil masters ?

To agree with all the above, this might work:

1) Buy slave
2) Tell them "Hey, you're a free person now. If you'd like, you can join me. I need help to do this stuff, and I'll employ you. I will never ask you to fight or break your own ethics, and I will pay you. I will look out for your safety. You can quit at any time, and I will treat you with respect."
3) Be not evil!

Arguably what you're looking for isn't a slave, it's a hireling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Veilgn wrote:

Its not I wanted them to work hard and whip all day. I will give em some good meal and sometimes wine (for cayden). Even gives them a clothes. I never told them to fight. Only tend wound, somwtimes tell them to give some buff so I will not waste my spell slot.

I could make them making magic weapon for me too. And I even give em sone vacation....

In the end I need slave :(

But I make a promise if the story/campain/module end I give em a freedom if he like it. Or he could follow.

I swear I will not treat them like slave traders.

If u didnt buy slave. Who know that he will got evil masters ?

Uh... quite honestly I don't understand what the difference between a hireling and the way you're planning to treat your slave will be. I mean, unless you mean to buy a slave to set the slave free, which you also mention.

Slavery itself has been around for thousands of years, and slaves in some societies could buy their freedom eventually. I would think that the buying of a slave can not be either good or evil, but the treatment of that slave certainly would be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

lo! alloweth me did spread the wisdom of our matriarch, lord Ashiel, into these dark lands regarding allignments in Pathfinder.

core rule booketh sayeth:

"Good implies altruism, respect f'r life, and a concern f'r the dignity of sentient beings. valorous(good) characters maketh personal sacrifices to holp others. . . . . . Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. "

lord Ashiel teaches us yond the word of the rules is the most holy, and thus this is so. Ther'fore, if 't be true what thou art doing with the slave doest not did hurt, oppress, 'r killeth other sentient beings, t is not Evil. if 't be true what thou art doing with the slave is altruistic, respectful of life and concernful f'r the dignity of other sentient beings, t is Valorous(Good).

however!

if 't be true thee did hurt, oppress 'r killeth the slave, yond act shalt not beest valorous(good), and neither shalt t beest hath called neutral, 'twill beest evil. if 't be true, on the other handeth, thee care f'r the slave, giveth him fine food and eventually freedom, those acts shalt not beest hath called Evil, and neither shalt they beest hath called neutral, they shalt beest hath called Valorous(Good).

mybe i speaketh falsely, f'r the true Will of our monarch is not f'r mortal minds, but i bethink mine own words may holp thee understandeth this rather perilous part of the rules better, and maketh thee enjoy the game moo than befere.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

You are a cleric of Caiden Callean and you own a slave long term? Most good god's I'd allow it, as I can see it not being a terrible act, though still an evil one. However you are a priest of the god of freedom. If I were your GM I would tell you if you didn't immediately free the slave you would be an ex-cleric. Your actions go against your god's tenants pretty much diametrically.

Personally I don't care, a bit of evil makes a game interesting. Your god however is amused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Freedom is an ideal of Chaos, not Good. In my understanding of the alignment system, which is DIFFERENT THEN THE REAL WORLD, there is nothing stopping a lawful good person from having slaves, as long as they are treated well.

Cayden Cailean however is a deity of Choas, and loves freedom (liberation domain even!), and would not tolerate any kind of slavery at all.

So just pay a crappy wage, and give your newly acquired friend freedom and wine, and the goods will smile on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

And you can't hire a free person to do these things?

Talk to your GM. In my case, I'd say that merely buying the slave is not evil, but nearly anything you do to keep them or make them work will push you over the line.

If you bought a slave and set them free, that's not evil. If you offered them freedom as soon as you reached another country, that might be okay, though if they demanded it then and there and you kept them in chains to prevent escape ...

Yep.

Basically there is no good reason for you to buy the slave and force them to serve you that isn't evil.

If you need someone to help you do things, you could buy the slave, give them their freedom, and then offer to hire them (since you would like the help). But if you attempt to force them to work and do things for you without any sort of payment and freedom on their end, then it's pretty damn evil. Also, Cayden Caliean definitely wouldn't support it.

You might get away with telling the slave that you will buy them and have them work for you until the amount of work they do works off their debt like an indentured servant. But, manipulating the full terms of servitude to be heavily in your favor so that they can never get out of servitude as historically happened in cases would again be very evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
Yet in maybe a society such as Cheliax or Geb (or is it that other one I confuse the two), such may be not as Evil.

I fail to see how morality is related to your geographical location.

Just because it's allowed in those nations doesn't make it less evil. It probably makes it more lawful than in other nations, though. There's probably a strong correlation in the facts that those nations are considered evil and that slavery is legal.

However, I think that owning is actually a bit neutral, as long as you treat them well. As in, they're like a servant but you pay everything for them instead of paying them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the setting, keeping slaves is neutral on the good-evil axis as long as one is not cruel to them. Buying slaves from a slaver who captures innocent people and forces them into slavery would be an evil act, however, unless done with the intention of freeing the slaves. If the slaves in question are criminals who were put into slavery as a punishment, or people who were in debt and willingly sold themselves into slavery to pay it off, or actually indentured servants whose contracts end after a certain amount of time or value generated by labor, that would not be evil and could even be a good act under certain circumstances.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
In the setting, keeping slaves is neutral on the good-evil axis as long as one is not cruel to them. Buying slaves from a slaver who captures innocent people and forces them into slavery would be an evil act, however, unless done with the intention of freeing the slaves. If the slaves in question are criminals who were put into slavery as a punishment, or people who were in debt and willingly sold themselves into slavery to pay it off, or actually indentured servants whose contracts end after a certain amount of time or value generated by labor, that would not be evil and could even be a good act under certain circumstances.

So how do you keep the slaves enslaved without treating them badly? What do you do if they try to run away? Or just not follow orders?

I suppose you can personally keep your hands clean and not treat them so badly if you have the threat of selling them to a worse master or can rely on the legal system to hunt down escapees.

Individual exceptions may be possible, but the system has to be evil, because you can't keep it going with personal or institutional cruelty.

Edit: Meant to add, criminals who would need to be kept confined anyway are a different story, as long as the laws punishing them are just.
Indentured servitude and debt slavery are greyer areas. Could be okay, with sufficient limitations and protections.


If you were separating them from a cruel master, and they were not in a situation where it'd be safe for them to be free (i.e. they'd be re-enslaved), and it was temporary, I could see it... but really, even there it should be more, "I'm freeing you and want you to work for me. We'll maintain the charade til I can deposit you somewhere safe."


Davia D wrote:
If you were separating them from a cruel master, and they were not in a situation where it'd be safe for them to be free (i.e. they'd be re-enslaved), and it was temporary, I could see it... but really, even there it should be more, "I'm freeing you and want you to work for me. We'll maintain the charade til I can deposit you somewhere safe."

In that case, treat them like a free person - give them agency: "I'd suggest maintaining the charade until we reach the border where you'll be safe, but if you want to head off on your own now, that's your choice."


Alignment is silly. Be what you consider good and you should be fine. Feel free to discuss it with your GM, if they start telling you what "good" is I would run pretty darn far.


KujakuDM wrote:

Holding a slave in a fantasy setting could be considered to not be an "Evil" act, but it could not be considered a "Good" act.

If you are looking for a man servant, just hire someone or take the Leadership feat or the new ones from Ultimate Intrigue.

Caiden Callean would be very much against slavery, imo.

I wanted to have leaderahip feat. But 8 cant find in hero lab. I play as wizard. Also about hireling... I dont actually like their way of work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Veilgn wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:

Holding a slave in a fantasy setting could be considered to not be an "Evil" act, but it could not be considered a "Good" act.

If you are looking for a man servant, just hire someone or take the Leadership feat or the new ones from Ultimate Intrigue.

Caiden Callean would be very much against slavery, imo.

I wanted to have leaderahip feat. But 8 cant find in hero lab. I play as wizard. Also about hireling... I dont actually like their way of work.

Well, if you don't like how hiring someone to pay them works, then..well, it's s-word time. And while I find it highly amusing to have a cleric of Cayden forced into owning a slave ('You're free!' 'Yes, mistress.' 'So, what'cha wanna do, have a brew?' 'Let me get that for you, Mistress.' 'F#$%!' 'If you want, Mistress.' 'AAUUGH!'), WANTING one to the point of BUYING one is ... um ... about as clear a violation of a god's tenets as you can get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leadership should be there in herolab, as it is in the core rulebook. It's a feat, and make sure you meet the prerequisites, and it isn't turned off in any sort of houserules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And you can't hire a free person to do these things?

Talk to your GM. In my case, I'd say that merely buying the slave is not evil, but nearly anything you do to keep them or make them work will push you over the line.

If you bought a slave and set them free, that's not evil. If you offered them freedom as soon as you reached another country, that might be okay, though if they demanded it then and there and you kept them in chains to prevent escape ...

Yep.

Basically there is no good reason for you to buy the slave and force them to serve you that isn't evil.

If you need someone to help you do things, you could buy the slave, give them their freedom, and then offer to hire them (since you would like the help). But if you attempt to force them to work and do things for you without any sort of payment and freedom on their end, then it's pretty damn evil. Also, Cayden Caliean definitely wouldn't support it.

You might get away with telling the slave that you will buy them and have them work for you until the amount of work they do works off their debt like an indentured servant. But, manipulating the full terms of servitude to be heavily in your favor so that they can never get out of servitude as historically happened in cases would again be very evil.

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained. Hell, when they tried to disband serfdom in Russia, peasants were like "Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, I would rather stay with my lord who protects me and knows how to balance the economy of our village, because I sure as f%!& don't, and neither do I want to learn how"

Not every slave wants their freedom, and not every owner is a horrible person.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:


And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained. Hell, when they tried to disband serfdom in Russia, peasants were like "Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, I would rather stay with my lord who protects me and knows how to balance the economy of our village, because I sure as f*@$ don't, and neither do I want to learn how"

Not every slave wants their freedom, and not every owner is a horrible person.

Yep. Slavery is such a twisted dangerous conversation to have... but it's had SOOOO many forms over the years. And real world atrocities and baggage shouldn't be attached to Golarion.

At it's most basic, slavery is when one person belongs to another. Whether it is enforced with whips and chains... or fancy clothes. There are a lot of prostitutes in the real world who enslave themselves and see that life as better then flipping burgers and paying rent on their own.

Any servant who takes care of your needs and couldn't really make it on their own.. is a 'good' version of Slavery. Batman has Alfred, Zorro had Bernardo, Iron Man had Jarvis... Any of them COULD quit and walk away if they wanted to... but due to loyalty or love they never would. Slaves can also run away and you could chose to let them go. Mechanically the difference is REALLY small.

Alfred works like a DOG keeping that Manor and cave in order... and sometimes gets chef, medic, and mechanic thrown on his responsibilities... yet you never see him cashing a check.

In Pathfinder Radovan talks about being sold into slavery, Then street gang, and now he's Jeggare's 'servant' and is constantly lorded over by his Chelaxian 'boss' who... while I'm a couple books behind, Never seemed to ask Radovan's opinion on any of their actions. Yet Jeggare is still NG.

If your Hell bent on your character owning a slave... he must be fed, housed, equipted and treated kindly as a servant. He just wouldn't get a lot of spending cash, and not really have a vote on when you leave. Just like any other employee/servant.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained. Hell, when they tried to disband serfdom in Russia, peasants were like "Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, I would rather stay with my lord who protects me and knows how to balance the economy of our village, because I sure as f~*% don't, and neither do I want to learn how"

Not every slave wants their freedom, and not every owner is a horrible person.

It's possible, of course.

It seems to me that the thing to do to account for that is to offer the slave freedom on decent terms - not "You're free to leave and starve" - and make it clear that the offer remains open. And then treat them like an employee.

Regardless of the legal situation, a slave who's really free to leave whenever they want isn't actually a slave at all.

I also suspect the situation with Russian serfdom wasn't as simple as you make it seem. Which attempt? What terms?

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:


And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained.

Sorry, but...

Bwahahahaha - "nobody complained"!? - hahahahaha

Yeah... you haven't studied a lot of history.

The entire French Revolution was people complaining about it. (Admittedly - there weren't officially a lot of serfs by then, but France had kept a sort of semi-serf class.) As was the Polish revolt (which was basically put down by Russia because they didn't want a bunch of freed serfs giving their own serfs uppity ideas). And many X many more times.

Yeah... no.

Were there some people who didn't want freedom? Sure. After the civil war some ex-slaves stuck around and worked on the plantations too. But they were a minority.

One of the reasons that Russia eventually abolished serfdom (1860's) was to cut off the fomenting rebellion. Of course - the Marxists did it anyway a half century later, but that's a whole different ball of wax.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained. Hell, when they tried to disband serfdom in Russia, peasants were like "Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, I would rather stay with my lord who protects me and knows how to balance the economy of our village, because I sure as f+$@ don't, and neither do I want to learn how"

Not every slave wants their freedom, and not every owner is a horrible person.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, there were four major uprisings of serfs against the Tsars each lasting multiple years. The 19th century was pretty much a continuous series of small rebellions of serfs and until serfdom was abolished there was an outbreak of rebellion somewhere in the Russian Empire pretty much the entire time.

When they tried to abolish it / reform it in the 18th century, it was the nobles who revolted over it. It wasn't until the second half of the 19th century that the nobles were weak enough that Alexander II could push it through.


So, as with all conversations about alignment, you are in a weird situation. In DnD/Pathfinder... any game that uses the alignment chart, there are gods that have their own set of rules and you are judged by them for everything you do (this means in practice that the GM judges you by everything you do and will tell you when you shift your alignement) Most in game people probably don't actively know where they fall on an alignment matrix. When someone slips from LN to N to LE they probably are not actively aware of it.

So there could be a LN deity that has tenets allowing slavery under specific circumstance (something like must not be abused, must be treated adequately... whatever really) If that deity exists in the campaign and you follow its tenets then yes, you can own slaves and not be evil. Followers of a CG deity of liberation and freedom might claim you are evil and treat you as such but the owner's actual alignment could still be LN. If there are only evil deities that condone slavery in your setting then the owner is probably going to have a bad time.

TLDR: The absolute morality in the game is determined by the GM, if they say you can do it without being evil than guess what, you can do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the absolute morality of Golarion, I would put Slavery from punishment or working off debt and the like at LN.

Slavery based on the slaves being "Non-Human" (or sapient I guess), being worth less than the owner, or placed in bondage without the possibility of freedom as LE.

One Gm's interpretation though.


Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

Simple. There isn't any.


Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

On some level, in a society living fairly close to the subsistence level, everyone had to work. If you needed to punish someone by imprisoning them, you still needed them to work, since you couldn't support the extra mouths.

On that level, LG slavery for punishment might work.

OTOH, that's also why punishments in such societies tended to not involve confinement, but more corporal approaches. Execution, flogging, cutting off hands, etc.

OTGH, most RPG fantasy worlds, including Golarion, tend not to be so close to edge of subsistence and often have much more modern systems than classic medieval or earlier societies.


Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

Hard labor as punishment for severe crimes after a just trial? Allowing people to sell themselves into indentured servitude? A (misguided), patronizing relationship where someone takes care of others unable to care for themselves?


Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

It's called World of Warcraft subscription, slavery you opt into.


Veilgn wrote:

Its not I wanted them to work hard and whip all day. I will give em some good meal and sometimes wine (for cayden). Even gives them a clothes. I never told them to fight. Only tend wound, somwtimes tell them to give some buff so I will not waste my spell slot.

I could make them making magic weapon for me too. And I even give em sone vacation....

In the end I need slave :(

But I make a promise if the story/campain/module end I give em a freedom if he like it. Or he could follow.

I swear I will not treat them like slave traders.

If u didnt buy slave. Who know that he will got evil masters ?

Well, you don't really "hire" a slave, you buy them from someone else, so there isn't really any level at which you're getting the slave's permission for any of this. Everything you're making them do, you're forcing them to do.

Is it an "evil" act, in the sense that casting a spell with the EVIL descriptor is? No, but it's an immoral act, and a freedom-loving god like Cayden Cailean would likely punish you for it. Likewise, no good-aligned faction in the Inner Sea would look kindly on you. You'd be tolerated in neutral places like Taldor and Katapesh, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

It starts with a group of people who are unable or unwilling to abide by the rules of a Lawful Good society, or provide for their own needs. In a LG society, you don't have freedom to choose a non-LG way of life. On the other hand, you have a group of wise people with resources (or Gold Dragons, or Angles, or whatever) who are able to facilitate a LG life for the the first group. I suspect it would be fairly close to people choosing (or being sentenced) to serving a god, but in this case it would be more like a representative of a god (like a King).

To put it in more modern terms, it would be similar to people joining hardcore religious groups, or military groups. You would give up some things we consider "Rights", but your worldly and otherworldly needs would be taken care of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:


Well, you don't really "hire" a slave, you buy them from someone else, so there isn't really any level at which you're getting the slave's permission for any of this.

Actually, hiring a slave was quite common, for example, in Ancient Rome. You were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).

I admit that I'm a little confused by the opening post, which I attribute to non-native English. If you are looking to hire someone to do a short-term job for you -- "I need three stevedores to help me load 200 barrels of wine onto this trireme" -- you might not even know if your help are slaves or freemen, but they wouldn't be your slaves, they'd be someone else's.

If you are looking for a long-term servant, buying a slave might be a cheaper option in the long term (like buying a house instead of renting by the month), but I don't see any reason why this would be considered "good" when the alternative option is, as thejeff pointed out, hiring a freeman to do the same thing.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).

Would the slaves have gotten the bulk of the $? If not - it would be more like renting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Envall wrote:
Now I am intrigued to figure out Lawful Good slavery.

It starts with a group of people who are unable or unwilling to abide by the rules of a Lawful Good society, or provide for their own needs. On the other hand, you have a group of wise people (or Gold Dragons, or Angles, or whatever) who are able to facilitate a LG life for the the first group. In a LG society, you don't have freedom to choose a non-LG way of life. I suspect it would be fairly close to people choosing (or being sentenced) to serving a god, but in this case it would be more like a representative of a god (like a King).

To put it in more modern terms, it would be similar to people joining religious groups, or military groups. You would give up some things we consider "Rights", but your worldly and otherworldly needs would be taken care of.

This is very similar to how it is run in our Kingmaker society. People who are unable or unwilling to take care of their own needs may sell themselves into slavery for a limited period of time. Slaves are explicitly people, however, and, in addition to normal rights as a citizen, all are periodically freed, causing a regular market shift (the closer to the Year of Freedom, the less valuable slaves are).

No one is permitted to sell slaves to other people. This is a severe offense and anyway, all such slaves are instantly free. Beyond that, there is a minimum percentage that all who live in-country are required to donate to organized (and officially recognized but non-government) charity organizations. These organizations are mandated to be limited to very basic assistance and required to limit the income from the charity itself that goes to its workers to place excess finances into emergency funds (also privately owned, but legally limited) - any job training is handled for free by the government, with free education up to third level in PC classes (retraining rules are awesome). Further training requires extra financial investment, but prices are artificially lowered. Between education (which can guarantee a minimum +6 Profression modifier, and thus an average of 16 check or 8 gold per week - more than enough for an average lifestyle, hence rarely leaving a reason to sell yourself into slavery.

Any slaves from behind the country are immediately free citizens when crossing into the country, and anyone who owns a slave is prohibited from traveling into another country with them.

There are possible abuses and loopholes, but generally, as a voluntary system of entry with promised payment at the end, it's more like a hireling service. It is possible to be freed or to recieved financial gifts, so it should be hypothetically unusual circumstances that lead to such a situation in the first place. And as the country's enforcement employs both powerful divination aid and high investigative skill, it's far more profitable (and easier) to do most other forms of illicit activity than illegal human trafficking.
(Depending on the severity of the illegal human trafficking, the price ranges from full compensation to reversal slavery to death penalty. Most people get better from death around here, but those given the actual penalty are given a "your old life is forfeit, welcome to reincarnation-and-reeducation into aquatic environments/as a merfolk" or "you're not coming back, and I'm ensuring it" as the death penalty is a last resort with multiple checks including witnesses, skills, summons, and divinations befor hand; OotS' lesson about over-reliance not withstanding.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).
Would the slaves have gotten the bulk of the $? If not - it would be more like renting them.

.... as is true of any temporary employment. What do you think happens when you call Manpower today and say "I need six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks"? The bulk of the money still goes to the slaveowner contracting agency.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).
Would the slaves have gotten the bulk of the $? If not - it would be more like renting them.
.... as is true of any temporary employment. What do you think happens when you call Manpower today and say "I need six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks"? The bulk of the money still goes to the slaveowner contracting agency.

OTOH, hiring slaves from such an organization means you're not controlling their treatment of the slaves or how they became slaves or any of the other circumstances we've been saying might move slavery out of the evil category.


To the OP. If you purchase a slave and grant his freedom, and pay him a fair wage to work for you then there is no evil.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

One more complication: In many societies, including the U.S. when slavery was practiced, slaves could actually work for wages in their "off time" and earn their own money in addition to the basic upkeep provided by their owner. Just as some people work two "jobs" today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
One more complication: In many societies, including the U.S. when slavery was practiced, slaves could actually work for wages in their "off time" and earn their own money in addition to the basic upkeep provided by their owner. Just as some people work two "jobs" today.

If their masters let them. Hardly as a general rule. Usually the master got a cut anyway.

It's not like field hands got "off time" in any real sense anyway.

In some other systems it was more common.


Firstly, you don't "hire" a slave, you buy them.

The question seems to be "is it okay to keep a slave if you treat them well?" For a Chaotic Good person, all forms of bondage (especially the involuntary ones) are anathema. So no, if you're a CG worshipper of Cayden it's not okay.

Buy then free, or just outright free slaves, and ask if they will aid your cause of their own volition.


While slavery may be considered evil in modern society, it was not considered evil for much of history is would not likely be considered evil in in-game cultures that do allow it.

Lets look at, for example, classical Greece. We consider Athens to have been an enlightened society, yet it was the social norm for the vast majority of households to own one or more slaves.

If the in-game society considers slaves a part of the social norm, using or even owning slaves would not be considered evil in that society.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:

While slavery may be considered evil in modern society, it was not considered evil for much of history is would not likely be considered evil in in-game cultures that do allow it.

Lets look at, for example, classical Greece. We consider Athens to have been an enlightened society, yet it was the social norm for the vast majority of households to own one or more slaves.

If the in-game society considers slaves a part of the social norm, using or even owning slaves would not be considered evil in that society.

Many families in Athens also put their unwanted babies inside pots and left them out beside the road to die from starvation and exposure. This was considered to be morally acceptable, because technically the families weren't murdering the children (apparently, placing them in mortal danger intentionally doesn't count).

I don't know about you personally, but I don't consider Athens' society to be "enlightened".


Thats called uncaringness.

I relly hate athens for doing that though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In any case, "enlightened society" or not, this is Good in Pathfinder:

Good wrote:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

...and this is not:

Evil wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

...and this is in the middle...

Neutral wrote:


Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Unless you subscribe to the view that willful negligence with full knowledge of the slow, torturous consequences is somehow morally superior to quick, painless murder, the Greek practice of leaving unwanted innocent children to die unambiguously falls into the evil category, social norms be damned.

Frankly, the whole respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings thing also puts a damper on slavery. I mean, it's technically not impossible for a society to care about the life and dignity of it's slaves. It's just extremely unlikely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment rules and expectations are always going to vary table to table. Pathfinder has a set of guidelines not hard and fast rules. All I can do is say how our group views it, and how it is ruled at our table. Your GM may rule completely different. It may also vary by campaign setting. If you are looking for persuasive arguments why you should be allowed to hold slaves though, you won't find them in this post - I haven't seen any above yet.

It isn't just the maltreatment of slaves that makes a system of slavery evil. It is the removal of personal freedom and choice and the objectification of people. The slave has can't choose where they live, isn't free to marry, raise children, better their prospects or choose their own destiny. They are both reliant on their master and restrained by him. When they do have access to these things, it is at their master's sufferance. Enslavement is part of the dictionary definition of oppression.

if someone is captured/kidnapped and then being forcibly separated against their will from family and society. Then that is evil.

If someone chose to commit a crime and was fairly tried and held against their will then that isn't evil, it is punishment. The crime and range of punishments is made known in advance.

If someone willingly sold themselves into slavery, an outcome that seems most like born out of fear of something worse, how much choice did they really have. If there is a market for 'voluntary' slaves how big is it and what is the going rate for a voluntary slave?

A person who profiteers from other people's misfortune is at best Neutral. Forcing a person to follow your orders and preventing them living a normal life is neither altruistic nor respecting life. You can justify that they would be worse of without you as a master (in fact that poor justification was used as an argument for both slavery and colonialism for many years) but the truth is you will never know for sure that they would be worse off.

For a cleric of Freedom and liberation, buying a slave (and therefore supporting the trade and supply chain of slavery) would be an instant 'fall' situation in my games. Though you would have plenty of warnings, starting with that terrible feeling of having your god's eyes upon you as you stand waiting in the crowd by the auction block.

There have been lots of things throughout history that have been seen as acceptable at the time but are now seen as absolutely wrong. That is why we have objective morality as a base and not subjective morality. Marrying 13 year old girls to old men was common practice (wrongly) in most medieval societies and earlier but now we would see this as a heinous crime.

The biggest reason not to own slaves in our group would be the 'don't be a douche' rule. Doing something potentially offensive and in poor taste falls well into that category for us, along with many other historically accurate but generally distasteful things. I'm playing a Viking equivalent character in Frog God Games Northlands Saga but it doesn't mean I rape and pillage every settlement I come to on the basis that the Vikings did it. All that said, It is a sad sign of today's society that so many people don't see anything fundamentally wrong with slavery. We don't know how lucky we are.

1 to 50 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