The answer to my question isn't as clear-cut, but I think most people would say "yes". If it's morally all right for me to eat a hamburger, it should be acceptable for me to participate in the cattle slaughter. Contra-positively, if it's not okay for me to participate in a burglary, it should not be acceptable for me to knowingly benefit from the burglary.
In that case I feel that, "If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing people, selling them off in the city, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?" Attaching the children for them to be sold and bad things to happen at the hands of gnolls is beyond the point you are trying to make.
With the point of, "if you benefit from the action, you should be ok in taking part in the action," I would suggest that this is a closer representation then of your example, "you [the poor] all have benefited from the robberies of Robin Hood, therefore it should be acceptable for you to rob the orphanage." I do not believe that you presented the action that the slaver benefited from accurately.
Addendum: Slavery is still bad.
|
If we accept slavery, only as a criminal punishment, I wonder how many PCs will explain that their slave is a convicted felon.
In Kingmaker, offering a captured bandit an option to work off his crimes, instead of just building a gallows or running him through, seems like an accepted option, even if it's really just a step away from calling the former bandit a slave.
In a game setting where slavery was commonplace, and PCs were expected to recognize it as so, I could see sleep and color spray being absolutely treasured tools, while a wizard who cast fireball would be criticized by his allies for 'destroying loot,' as the living flesh of his targets represents actual coin value for sale as slaves.
(Bringing us perversely back to 1st edition, when a fireball *did* 'destroy loot.')
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In that case I feel that, "If it's acceptable for PCs to own other people, then it would presumably be okay for PCs to engage more actively in the slave trade itself, capturing people, selling them off in the city, and making a tidy profit off it, yes?" Attaching the children for them to be sold and bad things to happen at the hands of gnolls is beyond the point you are trying to make.Addendum: Slavery is still bad.
Conceded.
If we accept slavery, only as a criminal punishment, I wonder how many PCs will explain that their slave is a convicted felon.In Kingmaker, offering a captured bandit an option to work off his crimes, instead of just building a gallows or running him through, seems like an accepted option, even if it's really just a step away from calling the former bandit a slave.
In a game setting where slavery was commonplace, and PCs were expected to recognize it as so, I could see sleep and color spray being absolutely treasured tools, while a wizard who cast fireball would be criticized by his allies for 'destroying loot,' as the living flesh of his targets represents actual coin value for sale as slaves.
(Bringing us perversely back to 1st edition, when a fireball *did* 'destroy loot.')
Yes fireball and other spella did destroy loot in first and second but it was still fun, so what if you had to take a slab of silver to town to have it converted to coin you still made money and so did the silversmith/jeweler. Nothing tops reflective lightning bolts when the wizard carefully aims and hits the bad guys twice, once from the front and again on bounce back.
At the risk of upsetting the calming water of this thread I am going to wade in.
Slavery itself is Neutral. It is an institution, an action. How it is enacted and upon whom, would define whether it remains neutral or becomes evil.
It is like saying: "Killing is Evil"
Looks good from a far but... What about the death penalty? Self Defense? Intelligent Monsters? War? etc.
Many qualifiers can be added that make the issue not so clear cut and even justified in certain scenarios.
|
*sigh* I've been failing a lot of will saves lately...here goes:
Slavery as the practice of capturing prisoners and enslaving them in lieu of death sentence is neutral. If those same slaves have a chance at citizenship in their new lands and their children are born free it might even be good. Same with enslaving prisoners in lieu of death. (although this is more indentured servitude)
Slavery that rounds people up for the sole purpose of making them slaves, making their children automatically slaves, and giving them no chance at freedom is evil...plain and simple.
If I were to play in a game that for some reason allowed PCs to own slaves, I'd illustrate how absurd that was by having my PC own "Whitewash Jones." For those that don't remember Whitewash, this page sums it up rather eloquently:
Thanks for the great link. I laughed so hard I almost cried.
The really sad part is I own that issue of Wonder Woman.I have been collecting that serious for 35+ yrs and the cultural shift from the 40's to the 60's and beyond was profound.
I never really thought about side kicks as anything other than bad guy bait. Much like we have NPC's?
By todays modern standards it's easy to say "they meant this or were trying to imply that" but like the very controvesial issue where a young dick grayson climbed into bruce waynes bed so he would stop haveing nightmares the writers meant it in the most inoccent and parental loving scene possible and when they were grilled by congress over the Comic Code they were shocked that something that they thought of as inoccent comfort for a child that had had both parents murdered could be taken as something sexual.
I only wish to point out one thing "Evil Minds have Evil Thoughts" meaning don't look for a hidden meaning behind every little thing when their isn't one.
If I were to play in a game that for some reason allowed PCs to own slaves, I'd illustrate how absurd that was by having my PC own "Whitewash Jones."
That doesn't demonstrate the absurdity of allowing PCs owning slaves, it would just show that you were quite willing to be ass at a game. It could be equally applied to things like letting PCs be married, gay, or an certain ethnicity. All can be twisted into allowing the portrayal of insulting caricatures for the purpose of demonstrating that PCs shouldn't be allowed to do these things. None of those things are comparable to slavery, but doing what you suggested, their results are pretty much as insulting.
This may been discussed already, I have not had time to read all the posts.
I did a lot of casual reading about slavery for a quixotic attempt to convert the TORG universe into GURPs.
In the real world, as apposed to RPGs
In societies that did not have the tech to make engines or the fuel to run them, slaves and serfs were needed because human and animal muscles were the only available power source to do work. Animals could do the push-pull work, people were needed to do the thinking work.
As steam engines and internal combustion engines were created that could do the work of muscles, societies had the luxury of evolving away from slavery.
When slavery was the only option, it seemed societies evolved rules to be as "humane" about them as possible (Ancient Greece). When societies started to think of slaves as motors on feet, they seemed to be more cruel, (1800s slavery)
|
When slavery was the only option, it seemed societies evolved rules to be as "humane" about them as possible (Ancient Greece). When societies started to think of slaves as motors on feet, they seemed to be more cruel, (1800s slavery)
That's an interesting addition, and thanks for it. However, that doesn't square well with the galley slavery practiced throughout the Mediterranean in the 14th-16th centuries. There was a great need for slaves to power the galleys, and the Christians and Turks regularly raided each other (and their own) for galley slaves. Everything I've ever read about it says they were treated very harshly, and the mortality rate was huge.
How do you square that with your division, or do you think galley slavery was simply an exception to that rule?
When slavery was the only option, it seemed societies evolved rules to be as "humane" about them as possible (Ancient Greece). When societies started to think of slaves as motors on feet, they seemed to be more cruel, (1800s slavery)That's an interesting addition, and thanks for it. However, that doesn't square well with the galley slavery practiced throughout the Mediterranean in the 14th-16th centuries. There was a great need for slaves to power the galleys, and the Christians and Turks regularly raided each other (and their own) for galley slaves. Everything I've ever read about it says they were treated very harshly, and the mortality rate was huge.
How do you square that with your division, or do you think galley slavery was simply an exception to that rule?
IMO on that subject based on my own studies of naval history I would say that is an exception to the rule. Galley slaves were also considered prisoners of war plus as any historian will tell you life on board any ship was extremmly harsh and had their own set of rules.
Even today the captain of a U.S. Naval vessel has the authority to execute a crewman. It isn't done because of the sever ramifications but they could if they needed to. The life on board ship had it's own rules even for crew members such as keel hauling or any other numerous punishments taht were considered barbaric on land. Thats why I think the galley slave example was the exception not the rule.
No clue on the galley slave treatment was so bad. Maybe it's a factor of supply? If the society sees the slaves as an endless commodity, there is little need to treat them well, cause if they die, they will just raid and get more?
Maybe the Greek and Am Indian systems that seemed nicer, had supply problems. Would you treat your car better if you know you could only get 2 in your lifetime vs being able to get 200 in your lifetime?
---
Anyway back to slavery in RPGs. I think if you wanted to "realistic", slavery would be common.
But we ignore a lot of reality in RPGs. Life was short and often brutish, women died a lot in childbirth, diseases were rampant as was tooth decay. Rule of law was who was stronger, not right (and even up to the 1950s in the states, lynching was disturbingly common). Most people didn't read. And of course, realistically there is no such thing as magic, elves, dragons or orcs.
If you are the GM and don't like slavery, don't have it.
IMHO
I feel the need to point out that the mortality rate was huge be you slave or free man on a ship...and that this was more or less how things on a ship went until very modern times.
I feel the need to point out that the mortality rate was huge.
My dad had me read "Two years before the Mast", an account of a sailor on a "nice" sailing ship in the 1800s? (It's been a while). I remember one part when he had a toothache but the ship was going around the horn of S. America. The captain forced him work, and after 2 days the tooth rotted out and the nerve died.
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=4408
What would you guys think about a Paladin who is ruling a very small independent area working in the slave trade? Even though he doesn't recognize it as such (yet).
Details:
It involves a taken over keep and surrounding lands. After he took it over from an evil lich he freed the population (who had explosive collars on to motivate obedience). He then was approached by a strange looking man who wanted to talk about the peace treaty his tribe and another has with the keep (3 way treaty). He doesn't care about the rulership change but wants the current lord to be aware of it and to make sure it would still be honoured.
The paladin agreed as it was a mutual defense trade and peace treaty no real strings attached. After agreeing the man asks if he would agree to settle a dispute between the two tribes. Paladin agrees to arbitrate. The paladin finds out that the tribes are dark naga and ogre magi. This wasn't hidden before but it wasn't stated either (nor were races ever asked when the tribe's names given).
So a dispute over a scared site is settled without blood shed. Though some how after the whirlwind of negotiations (in game) the paladin has agreed to become part of an export business. The naga capture trolls (in great abundance in their area) with use of poison & traps (using cages supplied by the paladin's keep). The ogre-magi train the beasts (as they can regenerate and thus are able to teach them weapon use and discipline). The paladin deals with shipping and deals with the out side world (being not a monster and all). All are lawful beings dealing in trained beasts (the paladin does not have the knowledge skills to know the intelligence of a troll). He also thinks its a better fate then exterminating them (which was the other solution to the problem of their increasing population).
The prices they sell them at are: 1,000 gp per untrained juvenile troll, 2,000 gp per untrained adult troll and 3,500 gp per trained 'soldier' troll & 5,000 per trained 'elite' troll.
They have just received their first tidy profits from the transaction. They sold 3 untrained adults to an an arena owner, 2 soldier trolls to private buyer and 10 elite trolls to another fortress owner.
The paladin is trying to vet all buyers as he is trying to make sure these potential advanced weapons of war are not put into the wrong hands.
How evil is this?
|
|
By todays modern standards it's easy to say "they meant this or were trying to imply that" but like the very controvesial issue where a young dick grayson climbed into bruce waynes bed so he would stop haveing nightmares the writers meant it in the most inoccent and parental loving scene possible and when they were grilled by congress over the Comic Code they were shocked that something that they thought of as inoccent comfort for a child that had had both parents murdered could be taken as something sexual.
I only wish to point out one thing "Evil Minds have Evil Thoughts" meaning don't look for a hidden meaning behind every little thing when their isn't one.
Oddly enough - that is how the Riddler would destroy Batman/Bruce Wayne - by painting him publicly as one of those 'evil' individuals.
But yeah - slavery is definatly evil - moreso when the State legitimizes it. You must then become an enemy of the State which can put you at odds with the Law of the Land.
|
|
What would you guys think about a Paladin who is ruling a very small independent area working in the slave trade? Even though he doesn't recognize it as such (yet).
Details: ** spoiler omitted **...
The Instant he sold any of them - he became evil. Good isnt conflicted over slavery - It knows it for what it is.
Trolls are at least intelligent enough to be trained. Had he made the Trained/Elite trolls available in units of 10 as 1st level Clerics Or Trained the Elites as Paladins then he might have achieved something Good.
Imagine an army of the Church of (insert diety here) made up of Troll Clerics. When word gets out that you are training an army of Troll Clerics - you can guarantee War.
What would you guys think about a Paladin who is ruling a very small independent area working in the slave trade? Even though he doesn't recognize it as such (yet).
Details: ** spoiler omitted **...
The Instant he sold any of them - he became evil. Good isn't conflicted over slavery - It knows it for what it is.
Trolls are at least intelligent enough to be trained. Had he made the Trained/Elite trolls available in units of 10 as 1st level Clerics Or Trained the Elites as Paladins then he might have achieved something Good.
Imagine an army of the Church of (insert diety here) made up of Troll Clerics. When word gets out that you are training an army of Troll Clerics - you can guarantee War.
Well he isn't training them and he doesn't realize they are people. He thinks that they just are beasts that are combat trainable like war elephants or trained tigers. Dangerous, deadly, expensive and rare but beasts all the same.
Good isn't conflicted over slavery - It knows it for what it is.
How does being good give him instant understanding?