So basically, is the act of owning a slave evil or good, or chaotic or lawful?
what if you spare someone's life on the condition that they become your slave?
should a neutral good cleric be strongly opposed to a character in their party taking a slave to the point that they are willing to fight about it?
i know that creating party conflict is bad, but who is the one creating it, the slave owner or the good cleric.
for background information on laws of the region, we are doing Legacy of Fire adventure path which is in Ketapesh, soo slavery is totally legal and common, but would a cleric be opposed to it, the cleric in this game is of Sarenrae.
I think that is really depending on the setting, if slavery is a common practice then it can't be seen as an evil act (certainly not a good one either).
Regarding law and chaos I think slavery is much more a lawful act, that's because it needs some degree of structure in order to work.
Whether or not a Cleric would be opposed to it will depend entirely on their god, and their alignment. Our group plays it more that CG would be opposed to slavery, more than NG. Especially legal slavery, frankly. There is nothing I can see in the text about Sarenrae that says to me that she would directly oppose slavery, if it is legal and common.
It's only in the last 100 years or so that slavery has become illegal and considered to be immoral by the majority of western nations. Until then slavery, surfdom, indentured and penal servitude have been a part of society.
So if you are happy for a lot of US presidents, and many of the "good" or heroic people of the past who were at worst slave owners or at best didn't care to be evil go ahead. Slavery was a large part of the medieval world... It was more common in the Mediterranean but Ireland and the south coast of England we often targets of slave raids.
Slavery by itself would have no alignment. In the real world, there were many cases where slaves were treated badly. But there are just as many cases where a slave was treated almost the same as everyone else. Some slaves even got paid for their services (actual money, not just food and shelter).
Usually, using historical concepts and accuracies improve the understanding of many realms. I think in 'viewing' slavery over the last 100 years sets a misrepresentation of how it fits into realms however.
The moral concept of removal of slavery happened in a relatively quick time in reference to historical records. Since most realms and cities do not accept slavery, do we assume that their moral and technological abilities are parallel to our history as well?
That of course is not true. Simply because slavery is very recent in our history, and thus dominated the vast majority of history, does not equate to 'common place' in a game where the mechanics are usually based in a historic age of our own in a time where slavery was more common.
Atarlost's answer is the most acceptable. Though the realms we play in are representative of earlier earth ages, they are not morally equivalent to those ages. For example, the universities mages go to would be teaching things not ever known to those in the ages of slavery. Philosophy, science and other abilities are far more advanced in the common realm than our equivalent times in represented periods.
In this, morality is highly developed in most games, in comparison to their earthly equivalent 'age'. Don't just assume slavery is okey-dokey just because people are swinging metal swords. This is not the case.
First, slavery is not a recent phenomenon, not by a long shot. Secondly, there's more to fantasy worlds than High Middle Ages Europe.
I think the question to ask is: Does an incidence of slavery show disregard for sentient life and/or dignity? Is a slave-master who provides his charges clean living space and nourishing meals worse or more evil than the warden of a rat-infested, plague-ridden prison?
First, slavery is not a recent phenomenon, not by a long shot. Secondly, there's more to fantasy worlds than High Middle Ages Europe.
Considering it still happens in some parts of the world today? Yeah, it actually is rather recent. Even discounting that, slavery definitely occurred in more 'civilized' lands within the last couple hundred years, which, considering the tens of thousands of years we have as a species (or even four thousand, depending on your beliefs), it's a relatively recent event in human history.
And yes, there is plenty more to fantasy than the late medieval period in Europe, but slavery existed in far more regions and periods than the late medieval period in Europe.
-Edit- Ah, wait. You meant that it didn't start recently. Well, now I went and made an a** out of myself for nothing. Apologies.
I do, however, agree with your final point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery (meaning the ownership of a human being, or the fantasy equivalent of such) is evil, regardless of how the slaves are treated. Respect for others and their rights of self-ownership and self-determination is part of being good, and slavery is automatically treating people with a lack of such respect.
Remember, D&D (including pathfinder, as I understand it) is not one of subjective morality: things are objectively good or evil, and can be readily identified as such by spells. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself good: in my world, if you keep slaves, you are evil, and Detect Evil and Smite Evil will show this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little while ago i tossed out this question "Slavery and Sarenrae, How can they Co-exist?"
This was the answer i got back from James Jacobs. Just scroll down a little bit, and you should see his quote.
I hope this helps
Here is a copy and past of his post
"Sarenrae herself, and her church, does not tolerate slavery, but nor do they preach "Kill the slavers!" They would certainly look for non-violent ways to seek a slave's freedom—purchasing the slave and setting the slave free is probably the preferred method.
Now that said, there's a wide range of individual variations among the specific worshipers of Sarenrae—as with ANY religion. There are some worshipers of Sarenrae who would, perhaps, seek to simply comfort slaves if possible, espcially if they see the alternative (living on your own with no support structure in a dangerous city) is more painfula nd dangerous than slavery itself. There's ABSOLUTELY some worshipers of Sarenrae who crusade against slavery and slavers themselves and DO use violence against the slavers.
Now, as for Qadira? It's important to keep two things in mind about Sarenrae's faith being the most widespread faith in Qadira:
1) It's not in charge. The government of Qadira is richer and more powerful than the church of Sarenrae in Qadira, and as a result, the government is the one that gets to say if slaves are legal or not. The church has to either go along with that or rebel, and in Qadira's case, the church has opted to go along with it.
2) The church of Sarenrae in Qadira is NOT the most faithful of all of Sarenrae's churches. In fact, it's one of the most corrupt of her churches, because they've more or less lost sight of the "redeem your enemies" and "peace is better than war." Over the course of many generations, the church of Sarenrae in Qadira has become militarized, basically, and they're a lot more pro-war than they should be—but not SO pro-war that the chruch is in immediate danger of losing all their clerical powers. This church's tolerance of slaves in Qadira is but one of many examples of how the church is straying from Sarenrae's path. It's also why there's a schism building among the church, as a growing number of worshipers are coming to realize that things have somehow gone sour in the faith here. But an outright rebellion would tear the church apart, cause massive unrest in the faith AND in the nation, and could even start a Qadiran civil war—which is exactly the type of thing the true worshiper of Sarenrae DOESN'T want. So the actual honest worshipers of Sarenrae in Qadira are sort of caught in a terrible spot—either stand up for the actual teachings of their goddess and risk tearing their church apart, or stay quiet and risk letting the church stray that one final bit that finally forces Sarenrae to take action against the church.
All of this is set up to give a really interesting political angle to the church, honestly—it'd be super easy to just paint Sarenrae's church as a "can do no wrong" set of do-gooders, but this is, in my opinion, a far more interesting and realistic portrayal of the corruption of power. And it's got built into it the seeds of a really interesting-sounding campaign!"
Definitely evil. Much of Pathfinders morality is assumed on what we as a modern western audience find good or evil.
If you are one of those people who thinks that playing modern western values in a a medieval/renaissance time-period is absurd, how does that work out for you with, say, womens rights? Do you have female players?
Slavery is a grey area of alignment.
Strictly speaking, in a LN society that has laws that allow slavery, it is not an inherently evil ACT to own a slave. How the slave(s) is/are treated is a better determiner. The institution of slavery may be evil, but it is not an institution or even an idea that impacts an individual character's alignment; it is the actions he or she takes that are the determiner of alignment.
An example.
A LG character lives in Katapesh. This character owns numerous slaves and treats them very well, while he does not actively participate in the slave trade he does benefit from it. He would willingly free his slaves if required but is also well aware that one of the few protections that his slaves have is that they are his property. That is to say that his reputation and influence extend somewhat to his family and property, especially since it is well known that he takes an assault on his property very seriously perhaps lethally so in his response. Should one of his slaves escape, he may be indifferent as to retrieval. He may flatly refuse to sell his slaves and may allow his slaves to purchase their own freedom. He may even attempt to acquire, as slaves, the family or loved ones of his current slaves in an attempt to keep their families together.
At no point in this has he committed an evil act, other than participating in a society that has the chattel system so deeply imbedded as to be the "way of things". It may be possible that it is not possible for him to conduct Buisness without the use of a slave labor force despite the fact that his Buisness is not one that would be considered inherently evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery in almost any form is quite certainly evil, as it relies on the removal of a person's basic rights. While in real life things may be more subjective*, the Pathfinder game is one of objective morality. Ethics are empirical, and can be accurately and reproduceably tested through the use of magic. That being said, it doesn't mean that anyone who enforces, practices, allows, or is complicit in slavery is evil. In a place where slavery is the law of the land, for example, a Lawful Neutral constable would be obliged to adhere to that law. A Neutral- or even Good-aligned lawmaker might weigh the practice of slavery against the starvation of an entire nation and, having chosen slavery, emerge with an intact alignment, if not a clear conscience.
To return to your original post, you are asking two questions: one about roleplaying a cleric, and another about maintaining harmony at your gaming table. To answer the first, a Neutral Good cleric would almost certainly take exception to one of their companions taking a slave, quite possibly to the point of violence. Depending on the specifics of their faith they may or may not be specifically called on to oppose it. Your example of offering someone a choice between slavery or death is certainly non-Good, since the Good thing to do would be to save the person without thought for personal gain, such as might be had from their unpaid labor. Taking advantage of a situation in such a way is probably even mercenary enough to be considered evil. As for the second question, both PLAYERS are responsible for the conflict, unless they agree out of character that this situation makes for exciting roleplaying. The DM, in their role as mediator, is also responsible for making sure such conflicts don't disrupt the game. Other players are also responsible to the extent that making the game enjoyable is everyone's job. That being said, the lion's share of the blame for conflict must go to the player who's in-character choices are disrupting your group's status quo, which is probably the one taking the slave.
*It MAY be more subjective, but I would argue that it is not. While some forms of slavery may be more benign (indentured servitude) than others (American slavery), all forms are repugnant. People may sometimes choose slavery for themselves in preference to starvation or extreme poverty, but that does not justify the slaveowner in stripping them of some or all of their basic human rights. To do such a thing under any circumstances is predatory and opportunistic at best; it is malicious, sadistic, and evil at worst. The morality RPGs aside, slavery is one of the foulest crimes a human can be guilty of, perhaps second only to rape.
Evil.
You just can't own a sentient living being.
If it is accepted in society, a slave owner who treats his slaves well is not necessarily evil. But the concept of slavery is evil IMO.
|
Slavery can be perfectly Lawful. Has been historically Lawful (Ancient Egypt, Recent US, Ancient Rome), Neutral (Ancient Rome), and Chaotic (Underground slave trades).
As far as Good, Neutral, Evil - people have traditionally been in ALL THREE places. A LG Paladin, for instance, would defend his sworn Lord's rule over slaves if it were legal. He might not like it, but essentially would not change his LG alignment over this issue. He would do his best to see that no slaves were mistreated.
And honestly, that is what it means to be "Good" in PFS. You make sure people are treated well... no matter their status in society. The "end game" is that everyone will be free to do what they want (so long as they too are being good to one another). Insomuch as that is part of your goodness, then slavery is evil. But a LG person could own slaves they treated well (Roman citizens who DIDN'T send their slaves to die in the arena). As could a NG person (again, Rome comes to mind). A CG person would be hard pressed to justify it.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Any case of oppressive slavery is evil. If you can come up with non-oppressive slavery (some people have mentioend indentured servitude entered into willingly by the indenturee, which might make the cut in some although certainly not all cases), you might rise to neutral.
It's only in the last 100 years or so that slavery has become illegal and considered to be immoral by the majority of western nations. Until then slavery, surfdom, indentured and penal servitude have been a part of society.
Slavery was illegal in every western nation over a century ago (the last major Western slaveholding nation to abolish slavery was Brazil in the 1880s). Most of the West European great powers abolished it in the early 1800s, circa 200 years ago (after abolishing it first in the middle ages, but allowing it to resurge in the colonial era).
Slavery became considered immoral in Western Christian society long before the last hundred years - largely circa a thousand years ago. That is the reason most Western slave systems since then relied on enslaving people viewed as subhuman in some way - otherwise, it would have been morally indefensible.
Classical slavery
It's important to know that the idea that classical slavery was systematically more humane than black slavery is largely BS. Classical slavery could be better if you were one of a lucky few slaves. The worse aspects of Roman or Greek slavery would give many US Southern slaveholders nightmares.
The condition of slaves who were not the personal household slaves of some senator is generally less well-documented in classical literature (because who bothered to write about agricultural slaves who owners often would never even have met?), but the information is out there. There are plenty of articles on the latifundia (Roman plantantion system) or the best-documented Greek slave mines, the Athenian silver mines at Laurion, if anyone is interested.
Lacking definition where do you draw the line for sentience? Because we own animals of all sorts some of which may or may not be sentient by a definition and all of which are living but this is deemed entirely acceptable we just love to draw lines in the sand regarding the treatment of humans. Of course then we wash over those lines whenever we feel like it would benefit us ... bah humans.Evil.
You just can't own a sentient living being.If it is accepted in society, a slave owner who treats his slaves well is not necessarily evil. But the concept of slavery is evil IMO.
I'm an elf! ;)
I actually don't like owning animals.
(But I admit I'm not a vegan.)
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Any case of oppressive slavery is evil. If you can come up with non-oppressive slavery (some people have mentioend indentured servitude entered into willingly by the indenturee, which might make the cut in some although certainly not all cases), you might rise to neutral.
It's only in the last 100 years or so that slavery has become illegal and considered to be immoral by the majority of western nations. Until then slavery, surfdom, indentured and penal servitude have been a part of society.Slavery was illegal in every western nation over a century ago (the last major Western slaveholding nation to abolish slavery was Brazil in the 1880s). Most of the West European great powers abolished it in the early 1800s, circa 200 years ago (after abolishing it first in the middle ages, but allowing it to resurge in the colonial era).
Slavery became considered immoral in Western Christian society long before the last hundred years - largely circa a thousand years ago. That is the reason most Western slave systems since then relied on enslaving people viewed as subhuman in some way - otherwise, it would have been morally indefensible.
Classical slaveryIt's important to know that the idea that classical slavery was systematically more humane than black slavery is largely BS. Classical slavery could be better if you were one of a lucky few slaves. The worse aspects of Roman or Greek slavery would give many US Southern slaveholders nightmares.
The condition of slaves who were not the personal household slaves of some senator is generally less well-documented in classical literature (because who bothered to write about agricultural slaves who owners often would never even have met?), but the information is out there. There are plenty of articles on the latifundia (Roman plantantion system) or the best-documented Greek slave mines, the Athenian silver mines at Laurion, if anyone...
Serfdom, and indentured servitude is slavery with a nicer name. Slave markets existed all over Europe in the middle ages, Ireland was a common target for both Christian and Muslim slavers.
According to the Domesday Book census in 1086, over 10% of England's population were slaves.
As the feudal order congealed during the 12th century, the reduced status of the serf rendered outright slavery largely obsolete.
1600's - Cromwell had as many as 100,000 Irish men, women and children were transported against their will to the colonies in the West Indies and in North America as indentured servants.
The Scots and the English, along with other western European nations, dealt with their "Gypsy problem" by transporting them as slaves in large numbers to North America and the Caribbean. Cromwell shipped Romanichal Gypsies as slaves to the southern plantations and there is documentation of Gypsies being owned by former black slaves in Jamaica.
From the 16th to the 19th centuries it is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and Barbary Slave Traders and sold as slaves during this time period.
1729 the then-Attorney General decided that slavery of Africans was lawful in England. At this time slaves were openly bought and sold on commodities markets at London and Liverpool. Slavery was also accepted in England's many colonies.
It was not until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that the institution finally was abolished in the British Empire (1840's in India).
In Russia state-owned serfs were emancipated in 1866
As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.
The Imperial government formally abolished slavery in China in 1906, and the law became effective in 1910
During the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) about 30% to 50% of the Korean population were slaves.
In the US 1865 following the surrender of the Confederate States, the Emancipation Proclamation was enforced throughout remaining regions of the South that had not yet freed the slaves
1888 for the end of slavery in Brazil.
124 years is still the "the last 100 years or so".
Then there is modern slavery and that is a whole other kettle of fish.
what is the difference between:
1) a master and his slave
2) a dictator and his people
other then the scale (amount of people involved) I don't see much of a difference...
a master/dictator ca be nice to his subjects, or he can be cruel, but in the end he makes all decisions in their place (and against their free will)
so it's definately a law (no choice) > chaos (free will)
I'd say the society allowing slavery is evil because it gives a lot of room for abuse.
But it could in some rare cases be "good" if it's a temporary punishment thingy (repaying debts, alternative to imprisionment, ...) and NOT hederitary.
I guess my line would be: if a child born of a slave is automatically a slave, then the people allowing such laws are evil.
Honestly the Roman slave model wouldn't have been so bad IF they would actually follow their legal codes regarding treatment...
Let's remember that those legal codes were a very late development, arising almost universally in the Imperial period rather than the monarchical or Republican. They are not characteristic of Roman slavery as a whole, but only of the later Empire, and even what protection they did afford was very limited.
For nine hundred years it was legal for a Roman to kill his slave without needing a reason. One of the emperors eventually made it illegal about two hundred years after the overthrow of the Republic, and that illegality lasted, effectively, for a century or two.
And as you say, these later laws were not consistently enforced. Classical slavery was not nice, and contrary to many peoples' ideas, it was generally no more nice in theory than it was in practice.
Serfdom, and indentured servitude is slavery with a nicer name.
Serfdom is not the same thing as slavery. Indentured servitude may or may not be, though in the examples you cite (the British servitude-and-transportation model) it certainly tends towards slavery under another name.
Slave markets existed all over Europe in the middle ages, Ireland was a common target for both Christian and Muslim slavers.
[various examples]
All fine examples, but it's difficult to see where any of them contradict the idea that slavery was recognized as immoral long before a century ago.
That is the reason most Western slave systems since then relied on enslaving people viewed as subhuman in some way - otherwise, it would have been morally indefensible.
All the Western examples you give conform to this standard, as being examples of slavery that had to be justified by painting the enslaved as either racially or religiously subhuman in some way. Irish, Gypsy, African and, (though you don't mention them) Chinese and Native American - as well as Nazi slavery - all follow that pattern. This is a major difference compared to the classical era, when enslaving a human being like yourself was not necessarily* viewed as immoral.
*there are some limited exceptions - Greeks for example objected occasionally to the practice of enslaving other Greeks, though they did not stop doing it - but it is broadly true.
To sum: Slavery has been recognized as immoral for a long time. In the West, it has since the Middle Ages had to be justified by arguing that the enslaved are not fully human, or similarly unworthy for some reason of the moral status usually accorded to another human being, as that moral status would otherwise have demanded that they not be enslaved.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enslaving criminals is the only non-evil form of slavery.
In every other case it is an evil act.
If a society freely practices slavery it is almost certainly an evil society.
Not being familiar with the setting I would have to guess this is a LE kingdom? If a citizen in such an evil society takes slaves he has started down the path to evil. But then that is what this society encourages. If he treats his slaves well that is irrelevant. No one said evil has to always be cruel.
If a citizen in such an evil society takes slaves he has started down the path to evil. But then that is what this society encourages. If he treats his slaves well that is irrelevant. No one said evil has to always be cruel.
It could also be the only means of a LG merchant to help those slaves and get them a better life then they would otherwise face... he might even stay in that country on purpose to help those slaves within the limits (laws).
If that merchant were to systematically free each slave he buys, he'd run out of money (slaves are usually expensive) and would have no warranty for their safety. If he keeps them and provides as much comfort as he can (clothes, food, education, a chance for their kids, ...), nobody can abuse his slaves because that would mean "damaging his property", yet they get to live a relatively (it's a LE country...) nice life,
the only thing the slaves would lack is their freedom, but freedom is tricky in any law-heavy country anyways...
If a citizen in such an evil society takes slaves he has started down the path to evil. But then that is what this society encourages. If he treats his slaves well that is irrelevant. No one said evil has to always be cruel.It could also be the only means of a LG merchant to help those slaves and get them a better life then they would otherwise face... he might even stay in that country on purpose to help those slaves within the limits (laws).
If that merchant were to systematically free each slave he buys, he'd run out of money (slaves are usually expensive) and would have no warranty for their safety. If he keeps them and provides as much comfort as he can (clothes, food, education, a chance for their kids, ...), nobody can abuse his slaves because that would mean "damaging his property", yet they get to live a relatively (it's a LE country...) nice life,
the only thing the slaves would lack is their freedom, but freedom is tricky in any law-heavy country anyways...
A bizarre argument. If he acquires slaves and then sets them free then he isn't evil... since he really isn't practicing slavery at all. But in your example he KEEPS the slaves... That is evil. The evil isn't in how soft the slaves pillows are or how nice his clothing, it is in the act of depriving another of their freedom. If he was nice he would let them go outside the kingdom. If he was worried about money then perhaps he can find outside charities willing to fully or partially underwrite his activities.
It depend alot on how the slaves are treated and what the slave's alternatives are, taking someone as a slave isn't worse than killing him in most cases (which most parties of any alignment do without discussion).
Slavery in most cases will be evil, using people for your benefit with no respect for their person.
Chaotic people are likely to be strongly opposed to slavery either on a personal level or carrying it out into society evil/good respectively.
Lawful Evil people make classic slavers, though lawful neutral, neutral or neutral evil are likely alignments for people that benefit from slavery.
If one is taken a 'slave' to aid his attonement or offering himself as one, it might even be a good act, though if you seek to benefit from your slave it will be neutral rather than good.
The above is my opinion only.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A citation from Pathfinder's rules may help us: "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." It can generally be assumed that slavery is an affront to the dignity of a sentient being... it may be a severe one (the slavery conditions are cruel) or a minor one (their owner is very kind, understanding, reasonable, etc.), but it's still an affront to them.
Nonetheless, as James Jacobs' reply has shown us, Sarenrae is willing to compromise on dogma to prevent immediate harm. In fact, I would like to propose something that I feel would be Very Sarenite To Do in the situation Igorwolfgang is talking about.
The cleric might tolerate this new slave in their midst if there is no other safe way of dealing with the creature, because it gives the cleric a chance to non-violently and repeatedly share company with the enslaved creature. This could give the cleric a chance to share their faith and try to shape that creature's long-term behavior. Perhaps they'll even embrace Sarenrae's teachings, or find that another Good-aligned deity's faith suits them... or just becomes peaceful in general even without a divine tenet to it. Eventually circumstances will come along such that this new convert can be set free, and safely so. These are all outcomes that would cause the Dawnflower's faithful to feel warm and fuzzy inside once it comes to fruition.
Sure, this is using an Evil situation to do Good... but it's making the best of a raw hand dealt to the cleric in the first place. It's not his fault this came up, so he's just trying to do something constructive with it anyway.
Note that all of this assumes the enslaved creature is being treated tolerably. If his owner is beating him, starving him, etc... then that's when a Cleric of Sarenrae would likely start cutting a new deal with the Evil master in question. And by 'cutting a new deal', I mean 'scimitar them.'
taking someone as a slave isn't worse than killing him in most cases (which most parties of any alignment do without discussion).
This was a common justification for slavery in classical times (when prisoners of war were a major source of slaves); the argument being that a prisoner has essentially thrown himself on his captor's mercy to avoid death, and so anything the captor does to him is fair game (because it's still better than death). I don't think it's a very good justification, though.
If one is taken a 'slave' to aid his attonement
White man's burden? It seems like a slippery slope, and it sure was in real life. If someone is already your prisoner, what in particular about enslaving him is going to aid his atonement?
And by 'cutting a new deal', I mean 'scimitar them.'
Heh. Heh heh.
Only they are called “inmates” or “prisoners” instead of slaves, but the difference is mainly of what one chooses to call it rather then a difference in practice.
I think you will find that there are vast gulfs in practice. Most of which stem from a fundamental difference that a prisoner traditionally does not lose legal personhood while a slave does.
And while the gulf can be narrowed by making prison conditions harsher, the more it is narrowed, the more likely the prison system is institutionally evil.
A bizarre argument. If he acquires slaves and then sets them free then he isn't evil... since he really isn't practicing slavery at all. But in your example he KEEPS the slaves... That is evil. The evil isn't in how soft the slaves pillows are or how nice his clothing, it is in the act of depriving another of their freedom. If he was nice he would let them go outside the kingdom. If he was worried about money then perhaps he can find outside charities willing to fully or partially underwrite his activities.
Money doesn't grow on trees... charity fails rather quickly unfortunately. I wish it were different, it would solve a lot of problems in our RL world.
Taking slaves outside a kingdom means teaching them to survive as free people first, often ex-slaves got caught again and put back into slavery because they lacked whatever was needed to stay free (skills/job, land/house, community):
- skills to earn money and eat without stealing
- a place to stay so they wouldn't be homeless
- a community that accepts them and protects them
So that merchant would need to keep them at least until they are capable of taking care of themselves. Being 18 doesn't make you automatically responsible and mature, you gotta learn stuff for that first.
Depriving somebody of his freedom is a law vs chaos act... law means you gotta do/not do stuff because somebody else says so, laws are not inherently evil.
You are not free to drive a car without a license, because of laws. Nobody denies you could be a decent driver without a licence, but to drive you have to have a license (which happens to be expensive around here) otherwise you'll be punished by the law (payment and/or prison). See... law vs chaos axis :-)
How many slaves can that merchant "save" if he keeps them and how many slaves can he "save" if he lets them go immediately? Imho he can "save" more if he keeps them at least for a while (earn back some money with their help) and can use that time to teach them what they need to stay free.
If he says it isn't in his world, it isn't.
While I grant a DM's ability to houserule anything he likes, that is one houserule I admit would cause trouble with my verisimilitude.
Then I hope you and your DM would be able to come to an accord on it. :)
Harmonious gaming? Crazy talk! ;)
There is no “gulf” between slavery and imprisonment.
At least in the country I live in, I'll accept that argument when I can buy an inmate, sell him, prevent him from marrying, deny legal recognition to any marriage he might already have had, change his name if I like, or whatever else I might legally be able to do to, say, a draft animal.
Till then, prison isn't slavery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's a reason slavery exists in very few countries in almost any realm you can think of. It is really the exception to the rule, and as others said, Pathfinder is built on the morality epicentre of today, not in the day where it was 'commonplace'. That is the misconception here. The average player in Pathfinder of any alignment is aware that the removal of a persons rights, against their will, not for the fair use of crime and punishment is evil.
The only realm I can even think of that had any level of slavery beyond miniscule is Dark Sun, and even then it was about 50/50 between cities that used slavery and free cities. I think that statement alone ends the discussion. It is rare, because it is rarely accepted. It is rarely accepted because it is evil and almost never accepted by a general populace that isn't considered either 1) barbaric, or 2) highly evil/corrupt. Dark Sun of course is overflowing with both of these, thus its high level of accepted slavery. Anything else is an outlier.