Paladins, Alignment and Slavery are such touchy topics that you'll probably get a wide variety of answers but here's mine, nevertheless.
1. My answer is that it depends on the game, the setting and the DM. From a 21st century Player perspective slavery is by default evil and therefore a player is likely to answer yes most of the time. However, in the setting of your game it's up to the GM (imho) to determine whether it's evil or not. If you say it's not outright evil and it is, as you've already pointed out, legal then a lawful good paladin shouldn't have a problem with it.
2. This is another one that has a lot of interpretations and I think the GM should be able to make the decision and the player should abide by it. Technically, a Paladin isn't required to follow all laws; if he did, he'd be required to put up with things he never would when he visited a kingdom that's essentially evil. If the Paladin in your game is from the Katapesh region and is in fact a lawful citizen of Katapesh then he's constrained to follow the laws there unless his God specifically commands him to end the rule of slavery. Again, just my humble opinion.
3. I'd say yes. The Paladin is part of the party, which means he's escorting the slave trader as well. He can't stand by and allow a defenseless man he's already supposed to protect be slaughtered in cold blood. I'd say that his God would frown down on that.
4. You can play a good PC without being a Paladin. If he's not enjoying the Paladin role, I think the way to make him happy is to allow him to play another good aligned character. But outright tell him that evil is not a permitted option for the campaign; that's your right as the GM and if he's going to play he needs to abide by it.
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
Its all in where the paladin is from and what god he has. An Andoran would see it as evil, however most of the world, including Katapesh slavery in and of itself is not seen as evil. Its not a good act, but its not an evil act. Lawful good folks can own and do own slaves. How you treat your slaves is what makes it viewed as evil.
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
Its really in his god or order,if his order is a firm believer in anti-slavery he should be fine. However he will be hunted as an outlaw and possibly other paladins. It is a fine line to walk
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
If the paladin has sworn an oath to this man, he must protect him. If he does not do so he has broken his word.
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go through a war on slavery?
Not sure, where is he from and why does his character{not him} view slavery as evil?
So here's our main disagreements..I'd like to have some opinions:1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go...
Now, this is just my personal opinion of what I read here, and since we've only heard "one side of the story", there's a large risk that it's somewhat skewed: It sounds more like a player problem than a character problem. In my personal experience, people who prefer playing evil are usually in either two categories: immature players who like destroying the world and raping the maidens, or disruptive players who want justification for messing with other players. This guy seems like the second type. I've seen many well-played, balanced evil characters too, but they're usually from players who play all around the alignment spectrum.
Now, when the player is asked to play something good for a change, he plays the class that tends to be the most disrupting class - the goody-two-shoes paladin. There are good paladin players, and there are bad paladin players, and then there's just bad players. I can see the paladin taking issue with slavery, but I as a DM would ask a paladin in a campaign that doesn't focus on the slavery issue, to not revolt against it - especially if said slavery is within the law of the land. The paladin can be an outspoken opponent to it, make a deal with a slave owner to "buy" his slaves and then release them (should be easy enough with PC wealth, and GP spent on story purposes are usually given back by the DM later on), but not to try to start a revolt, murder slave owners and the like.
On 1, that's a vague alignment question that can open up a big can of worms. It depends on your campaign.
On 2, I'd not allow my paladin to do it unless a. the paladin had proof of the slave owner mistreating or killing his slaves and b. he'd already tried the legal methods.
On 3, I can't say that it's an evil act, but it sure as hell isn't paladin in behaviour in my opinion at least. The one thing a paladin shouldn't do is stand aside and let helpless people get killed. If the old man was deserving of a death penalty, the paladin should kill him already. If not, he should be defended. That kind of passive-aggressive behaviour I could see for a chaotic good ranger that don't want a murder sentence but that would still love to see those who don't respect personal freedom to meet a harsch end.
On 4, if he's just there to disrupt, no. If he isn't, ask for him (and help him) to come up with a good reason why his paladin wouldn't be opposed to it; unless the character is new to the region, he's been there sometime without starting a war, why should he do that right now when the story begins? Maybe he's been made to swear an oath to a religious leader of his faith not to start a war that could lead to the death of thousands of innocents, maybe he sees slavery as an acceptable mean of employment as long as the slave owner treats his slaves like human beings, opposing only those slave owners that are openly abusive.
It doesn't matter. The player wants to take action against the slavers. Let him, even if it's only a side quest.
To the issue of alignment, code, et cetera, paladins are not required to be law-abiding. They are required to be good first, lawful second. Slavery other than indentured servitude or as a punishment for crime cannot be morally justified, and even then it's a tough argument to make.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Questions
1) What alignment are Paladins in your game allowed to be?
2) What alignment are the Gods that your paladin follows?
Paladins: ( does he follow the code ) ??
A) Follows his God & Alignment first.
B) Follow his religions order second.
C) Follow his king and Country third.
D) Follow his Town/Citystate forth.
Does the character have a problem with slavery because
He wants to oppose the evil of slavery ?
He wants to help those in need (aka the slaves) ?
He wants to speak out against the injustice of slavery ?
He wants to be concerned for the dignity the slaves ?
Is the paladin willing to make the personal sacrifice to help the slaves, and become an outlaw of his country to do so ?
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go...
1. forced slavery that takes people against their will and forces them into slavery is evil, indentured servants that willing chose because of finances where there are rules on the length of service and the way the slave is treated, maybe not as much. If its evil the Paladin should have a problem with it IMHO
2. See above, Paladins are only obliged to uphold just laws, if the slavery is evil as described above then raiding the slave trader to free the slaves is not against their alignment
3. He should defend the old man, but certainly try to talk him out of his evil ways and not allow him to transport any slaves with him
4. I would let him do as he pleases if he wants to free slaves, IMHO that is a very paladinly thing to do, I am a big proponent of letting characters do what they want as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
A Paladin would have a problem with anything he thinks is wrong. Even if his God is silent on the issue he may still think slavery is wrong. If it were legal for nobles to beat 2nd class citizens on the streets, might a Paladin have a problem with that? Also, for the GM to say something as arbitrary as "In this setting, slavery is not evil" makes as much sense as saying "In this setting, murder is not evil" Sometimes it's not about good and evil, sometimes it's about right and wrong. Also, in many societies where slavery is the norm, there were people who still thought it was wrong. Mostly societies that encouraged free thought and had many philosophers.
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
A Paladin only has to follow "Just" laws. What he considers just depends on his Ethos.
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
A Paladin only has to defend innocents and specifically does not have to help those who would use such help for evil ends. So if this slave trader is just a business man. He treats his slaves well and is more or less a good guy who has done no wrong, then yes, a Paladin should help him. And he should have regrets if he does not. If, on the other hand, the slaver is an SOB who beats his slaves for fun, then a Paladin could certainly let him die. Heck if he's evil enough the Paladin may be justified in killing him outright, depending on his crimes. (Crimes against the Pallys ethos, not necessarily crimes against the state) If the Paladin has no way of knowing whether or not the slaver is good or evil, then it's a judgment call. Some Paladins are fanatical zealots who smite any infidel who doesn't share his moral compass. Others are more merciful and might give this man the benefit of the doubt or at least try to redeem him and help him to see the error of his ways.
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go through a war on slavery?
I certainly can't answer this one. A Paladin may realize that such a war is one he could not hope to win, and choose his battles. Perhaps he could still striking a satisfying blow against slavery without derailing the campaign. I don't think a character should be compelled to work for or with a NPC he finds morally reprehensible unless there's an obvious greater good to be served. In fact, a Paladin may be unable to work with such people. I don't know anything about LoF, but perhaps some tweaks to the NPCs could work out? Or at least give him a bone, show him a glimpse the Greater Evil he has to destroy, I mean, there's always a Greater Evil in PF APs, right?
This reminds me of the Book = Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg.
Actually the Bible contains a partial account of a very ancient abolitionist movement. They even made a movie about it.
|
Introduce him to some shades of gray. There may well be some good aligned slave owners whose ownership(or "ownership" in some cases) of others is a form of protection for them that they would otherwise be denied.
My character in Legacy of Fire was planning on going down that route if the issue of slavery kicking back up in the area they're in became inevitable. If he can't stop it, he's damn well going to try and steer it away from its worst excesses.
2. Make them an offer. They can remain legally bound to me, and I can give them what freedom and protection I can so long as they abide by my rules(placed for their own protection), or they can I can legally free them and wish them the best(and recommend that they head for someplace that isn't big on slavery).
3. Go into business with the new work force. Profit, care for the workers, and buy more. Free those that wish to go, protect and care for those that wish to stay. Run interference on other slave buyers in the area so that I can inch as close to a monopoly as I can.
4. Use wealth and economic clout to steer regulations of slavery towards more humane ends. Set up safe exit routes for freed slaves that wish for safe passage out of Katapesh.
5. Pray to Sarenrae that I manage to not piss off the Pactmasters with this small social revolution and that no overzealous Eagle Knights and Cayden Cailean worshippers @#$% up a good thing.
It's gonna be tricky, especially with his fear of growing too comfortable with the idea of owning slaves and forgetting why he's doing this to begin with. Particularly rough for him since he's an ex-slave himself.
Actually the Bible contains a partial account of a very ancient abolitionist movement. They even made a movie about it.If you're referring to Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt, that's not an abolitionist movement. That's more of a 'let US go'/slave revolt kind of thing. The Hebrews didn't have any issue with having their own slaves (although the Law in the Torah laid a lot of regulations on it, and required release at regular Jubilees), or making other groups slaves, they just didn't want to be slaves themselves and God was game to help them out.
So the idea is "Slavery is A-OK"... Unless you're a slave... Or one of your friends is a slave... Or you feel sorry for slaves.
Yeah, I see no reason why not a single individual from a region where slaves are the norm might not like slavery, or at least might want to free some slaves just to free them. Even a Paladin.
Have to agree with EWHM. Its not viewed as evil in Golarion, much like it wasn't in pre modern earth. Its an excepted practice and its not thought of as evil, necessary at times maybe unsavory but not evil. I can't think of a single good god who has lead a crusade agnist it for example and only one nation has a stance against it. And that stance has made them kinda outcasts to the rest of the world.
Well, this player is having a problem with the fact that slavery is legal, has been arguing with me for the last two days that he should be allowed to do something about the slave trade, saying he thinks a paladin would have a problem with it.
Congratulations. You wanted him to Roleplay someone good and he is.
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
Quite likely yes.
From da rules.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
-Unless the slavery is an EXTREMELY limited form such as voluntary indentured servitude a la rome, punishment for a heinous crime the paladin IS going to have a problem with it. There is no respect for the life of a slave, much less their dignity as a sentient being. The paladin isn't doing anything wrong he's doing exactly what you asked him to: role play a good character.
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
That's a bit of a bind for a paladin and the contradiction inherent in lawful good: that sometimes whats lawful and what is good are diametrically opposed.
Yes, it would be against his alignment, but he probably wouldn't fall for it. A paladin is MORE good than they are lawful: they can fall for a single evil act. They are not specified as falling for a single unlawful act
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
Nope. Unless the paladin agreed to protect him, its the perfect solution to his problem. He is not legally allowed to attack the slaver. He is not legally obligated to protect him either.
Its karma giving the slaver his just deserts.
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go
You wanted someone to role play. That means they're going to do something other than advance from point a to point b through a module like you do a Warcraft dungeon. As a DM, you should have seen the paladin slavery problem comming and altered the adventure a bit if it was possible.. he's hauling turnips or wanted murderers or something.
The paladin can and should act against slavery but he has to keep it legal or he will eventually fall. Preach in the streets, buy slaves and ship them out, petition nobles to change the laws etc.
Are the slaves... wyverns? :P
So here's our main disagreements..I'd like to have some opinions:
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
No, I wouldn't expect them to. Depends on where they're from and the gods they serve. A paladin from Andoran will have a lot more trouble with salvery than one from Katapesh. A paladin of Shelyn would probably have more trouble with it than a paladin of Erastil or Abadar. That said, just because they don't particularly like slavery doesn't mean they need to do something about it or should be sanctioned for not doing something about it.
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
It's against their code. They're expected to respect legitimate authority and that should pretty much preclude violently opposing it except under pretty dire circumstances (paladins should be able to prioritize when class principles are in conflict). It does not, however, preclude disagreeing with it, trying to reform it, speaking out against it, or undermining it at the margins. A slave trader who is beating his slaves would invite a paladin to knock sense into him. A slave trader who isn't particularly cruel, perhaps even treats his property well anticipating a good return on a slave in good condition, shouldn't have much to fear from a paladin.
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
Not necessarily evil. Definitely not up to code, though. He's not helping those in need. Standing by and letting a slave revolt that the slaver provoked with his cruelty would be another matter. That is, arguably, justice. Letting the slave trader get butched by random raiders, however, is not.
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go through a war on slavery?
Yes but that depdends a lot on the player. Lay out what is expected of a paladin and what is reasonable to do. Don't punish the paladin player for not eradicating slavery where it's legal and part of the culture simply because it's an immoral institution. The paladin wouldn't have a prayer and that's pointless. The paladin can still work to ameliorate the effects of slavery. He can buy them and free them. If can menace and intimidate slavers or overseers known to be on the brutal side. He can defend slaves in imminent danger of life and limb. He can treat slaves with the dignity they deserve as people and, thus, set an example for others to follow.
But he doesn't have to follow a course of tilting at windmills he'll never beat simply because he's a paladin.
We have several issues here:
Is slavery evil?
Slavery is certainly lawful, but evil is in how it is practised. Some forms of indentured labour certainly are not evil, in some societies they were an acceptable way into an apprenticeship, and slaves could gain their freedom with relative ease (Rome has a number of examples of foreign slaves earning their freedom, going into trade for themselves and becoming respectable and wealthy citizens, for example). Other forms of slavery are undoubtedly evil, like the plantation slavery in the 'Confederate' South, where slaves were slaves for life and had no real rights whatsoever. Other forms of slavery include debtors prison, serfdom in feudal societies, chain gangs of convicts in prisons can be regarded as slavery.
Economically, slavery has existed in societies which are poor, this is true - but sometimes those societies were poor because they had slaves, rather than having slaves because they were poor. Slavery impoverishes because slaves have little incentive to be any more productive than they need to be to survive, and have no surplus wealth to plough back into the economy. While paid employees cost more in the short term, they also bring with them economic opportunities to take that money off them after they have earned it, and this generates more wealth. The industrial revolution did not generate wealth because of the use of fossil fuels (although that certainly helped), it generated wealth because the workers in the factories had money (not much, but they had some) and they had to spend that money ... which made more money.
Would a paladin oppose it?
Largely, only if it is evil. If he is Andoran, then certainly he would as Andoran regards slavery in the same way that modern societies do - that it is an unnecessary restriction of the freedoms that all people have by right. But most societies in Golarian regard slavery as a good means of dealing with convicted felons and prisoners of war.
I could understand the Paladin taking action against somebody that mistreated a slave, but not on anyone who merely owned one.
|
1) Will all lawful good paladins have a problem with slavery, even if it's legal?
You'll get about as many opinions as replies and that'll only be the tip of the iceberg. In MY games... it depends. Lawful does not mean 'obey every law'. It means the character obeys a particular code. That code might sync up with a nation's legal code simply because of the character's background but that's just a coincidence. Imagine how hard it would be for the character to stand for anything if he's against slavery in Nation A but defending slavery in Nation B...
If the Paladin's church has a code that states or implies a stance for or against slavery, then that would be the deciding factor for him. Bear in mind that slavery = evil is a fairly modern opinion. Many societies throughout history probably could not have existed in whatever level of glory they dd without the use of slaves so its not far fetched for a Good deity to have no opinion about slavery or, considering how many people benefit from it (how many fortifications that protected thousands were built by a scores of slaves?), may even be a supporter...
2) Is raiding a slave trader in a place where slavery is legal against a paladin's alignment? It's against the law to raid a slave trader...doesn't a paladin have to obey the law?
Depends on #1. If the character's church stands against slavery, then it is a Lawful thing for the Paladin to do even if it is legal for slavery to exist in the nation.
3) The party is escorting a slave trader (unarmed, old, no way to defend himself) back to Katapesh. If the party is attacked and the paladin stands by and let them kill the slave trader with no move to stop it when he could stop it, is that an evil act?
Depends, again, on #1... but allowing someone to kill someone else isn't exactly taking the moral high ground. Is his church's code that slavers should be brought to justice? Or killed outright? Either way, the Paladin should probably be doing his own work. He's not really serving his deity by allowing someone else to deliver justice while he sits by and watches.
4) Is there anyway to make this player happy without having to go...
Taking some of the above into consideration.. but he has to buy into all of this, too. A lot of people assume that Lawful Good is measured against modern values... and they're not necessarily wrong. It could work that way in their games and that's fine. It just takes more than saying "But its legal!" to buy the Paladin's acceptance.
Slavery is a legal thing not a good or evil sort of thing. So the Paladin should have no problem with Slavery as long as it's legal. Being legal there would regulations on who slaves are and how they are treated. Anyone not following the law in regards to Slavery would be a target for the Paladin.
Slavery is a legal thing not a good or evil sort of thing. So the Paladin should have no problem with Slavery as long as it's legal. Being legal there would regulations on who slaves are and how they are treated. Anyone not following the law in regards to Slavery would be a target for the Paladin.
I would add, anybody mistreating their slaves by the moral standards of the paladin is a target as well.