Our philosophy is advanced? It's news to me, considering the philosophers we have some of the greatest respect for are quite ancient, such as Aristotle, Plato, Democritus and more recently (but still more than just a few years) Descartes.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.
We respect them now, however, in their own time periods this is not necessarily the case. For example, the life of Beethoven and Shakespeare were riddled with attempting to 'make it' in the world. Shakespeare eventually was given fame, but not too soon before his death (and many bouts of depression). Beethoven as well was a child prodigy, but his father had to cart him around Europe to pay the bills. Descarte may be the first great philosopher that was not seen as a threat by society. It was during the renaissance (enlightment) after all. Before this time, many philosophers dealt with... less welcoming circumstances. Socrates trial and death come to mind, merely for teaching.
In the realms we play in, Mages are openly seen as intelligent and vital (or in the least, a power to be reckoned with). Intelligence is not hunted down like it would be in our history. They need not be dead for hundreds/thousands of years before their contributions are given worth. The public at large already believes they are of immediate worth.
This is why, as I said, games like Pathfinder live in the 'physical' realm of many earlier time periods of earth, while religion, philosophy, intellect, etc... is far more advanced for its time. Some earlier editions of say D&D would be much closer to Tolkein-esque mental/physical conditions. However, as these games have enveloped a much younger audience, and to be more broadly used, the mentality of gameplay has quickly caught up with our current age.
Generally slavery exists either to fulfill a pre industrial need for labour, as a form of punishment for criminals, or as a way to take advantage of a underclass of society.
The first is probly a mix of law neutrality and evil depending on curcunstances, the second can be lawful ( and basically existst in modern democracies) and the third is evil.
Generally speaking i canot see a good person owning a slave unless its from some system of obligation where releasing the slave would be more harmful than freeing them. But i cannot ever see them buying or seeking to own one.
As far as what to d o if your laying a ng priest and a party member wants to own a slave? Its like the pharasma priest undead mount thing its largely aplayer problem.
I woukd either h wave my char lave or simply stop healing.
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.
Charity is too vast in modern times. Sadly one of the bottomless wells of money going to terrorist groups is from charities. If you have a sad story (true or false) then you can raise huge sums in RL.
Taking slaves outside a kingdom means teaching them to survive as free people first...
I flatly deny that statement. One man is under no obligation to teach any other free man. And secondly these people aren't untrained. They have communities to which they once belonged. Communities where they worked a trade and were members of a family. A family that probably misses their loved one very much.
If this merchant was truly good then he would free his slave immediately. And afterward offer to educate or equip them as salary for work. This way it is entirely up to the former slave if they wish to remain and work toward a better life or return to the one they held previously.
I fear we are drifting off topic in discussing the institutions of US prisons; though I will say that prisoners are not deprived of name or legal identity, and that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right of a prisoner to marry. If a prison official blocks a marriage without grounds, he is breaking the law. Which is not to say that such things never happen; but they are illegal.
As for not having the chance to buy if the owner does not wish to sell (whether that owner is the State, or otherwise), that's generally true of most property and hardly unique to slaves.
Slaves have often have had rights and privileges and usually far greater legal protection then a cow.
I don't know about that. It's usually been legal to have sex with a slave regardless of consent, but not to do the same with a cow (or a prisoner for that matter). It's often been just as legal to kill a cow as a slave, (in many cases, less legal to kill certain animals than slaves), but not legal to kill a prisoner without an actual death sentence handed down by a court. It has also occasionally been less legal to torture a cow than a slave, although admittedly it historically has often also been legal to torture prisoners. Generally it is legal to sell or buy either a slave or a cow, but it is not legal to buy or sell prisoners unless they have actually been condemned to slavery (which has at times been a punishment). Neither cows nor slaves can generally marry legally (at least in Western slavery and classical slavery; I will admit that Islamic practice may differ on this point).
I'm ignoring the privilege part since, being arbitrary, they don't really matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two coppers is pretty simplistic:
Slavery is Lawful Evil.
"Law" = Actions should be based on what benefits society.
"Chaos"= Actions should be based on what benefits each individual.
In the vast majority of cases slavery benenfits society, not the slave.
"Good" = Every sentient being is valuable. Whether thru Lawful or Chaotic means, the goal is to increase well-being for as many beings as possible
"Evil" = By heritage or position or simple selfishness, some beings believe themselves to have more value than others. Others' suffering is irrelevent, or even enjoyable.
The very definition of slave is a being which is "lesser" than yourself. It must be evil.
Of course there are rare exceptions when slaves are treated well and valued. But they are nonetheless... considered to be *less than* their owners. Their free will is irrelevent.
Throughout history, otherwise "good" people often performed evil acts, especially if it was a social norm. It doesn't make it less evil, and many of them seemed to know it, even while indulging.
In game play a Neutral Good Cleric may overlook a slave, depending on the "social norm" of the milieau, and how their god feels about it. Still it will probably make them uneasy.
I have a mentor at the UN who's life work is trying to get rid of the child sex trade. Slavery is alive and well and worse than ever. Millions of children in impoverished countries are sold into sex slavery every year. Sold by their parents who can't afford to raise them. The optimal age for a child sex slave is 5 or 6. Their virginity is greatly prized. After a decade of constant rape they rarely live past their teens. Can you think of any way to define that as anything but evil?
Personal slavery, like Orc thrills based on fear and immediate death, is chaotic evil.
Large-scale organized systems of slave markets, socially justified slave codes, etc., are lawful evil.
In general, and there could be variations, and of course people canbe good in a generally evil society, and vice versa.
|
As many have pointed out, it depends on your personal views (or alignment..) as to how you will view slavery.
Many "good" people in history owned slaves when it was lawful in society.
Many (most?) slavers treated people abhorently, they had no respect for life, they were undoubtably evil.
Consider the ethics around other moral issues in todays societies. Its very difficult to judge individuals when society says a thing is OK. Such issues relate to animal rights, age of consent, issues relating to gender and sexuality...
All of these things are highly emotive, as is slavery. If you believe its wrong then to you its evil and will always be regardless of what your GM says. Historically you did not have to be evil to own a slave.
The only alignment I would see having real trouble with any form of slavery is CG.
LG could use the slavery is better than death argument, use work houses or criminals as slaves. If they believed it was for the good then it falls in their alignment.
|
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.
While technically just because something was widespread does not necessarily make it good (or evil)...he does bring up a point. In an area where slavery is legal and widespread, unless you were CG or followed a CG god, then the opposition to it might not necessarily be justified. It isn't good, by far (since the idea of treating another human being as property is neutral at best), although in rare cases it can be (if they are treated extremely well, although one could raise the argument of why keep them slaves at all if you're just going to treat them like another person), but neither is it necessarily evil unless it is corrupt and oppressive and dehumanizes the slaves. In the case of Katapesh, I don't think Sarenrae is actively opposed to slavery (being a Keleshite goddess, and i believe slavery is acceptable in the Keleshite culture), if the cleric's backstory makes it possible for him be opposed to it, he is justified. But since he's neither CG, nor Andoran, nor a worshipper of, lets say, Cayden Cailean, he wouldn't be being "good." He'd be causing tension for the group and with their surroundings needlessly.
|
Slavery, Indentured service, Thralldom... lots of different names witch can amount to one huge grey area. Taking away someones freedom and making them serve another may seem evil may seem wrong but its the same difference as the freedom fighter and terrorist.
Ive always judged slavery as a cultural matter rather then moral one. How the slave are treated by a persons or culture is largely dependent on alignment, at least as I see it.
Lawful sorts would have long standing traditions of slavery, servitude and etiquette regarding the treatment and acquisition of slaves.
Chaotic types may or may not care so long as their own personal freedom is not being infringed on. Slaves might be might well be taken and released on whims.
Good folk would probably call slaves serfs or indentured servants, odds are faithful service would result in eventual freedom, slaves might even be paid, laws would protect the rights of slaves and abuse of ones slaves might result in said abuser being made a slave themselves.
Evil peoples abuse slaves, treat them as fodder and wouldn't bat an eye if they died so long as they had others to replace them. Slaves would be an expendable if not valuable resource.
I try to keep my personal views of topics out of the role playing.
So with this in mind, is it legal where the character lives? Is it legal where he/she is from?
If its both yes, then its not evil.
If he is from somewhere where its not legal, but its legal where he is now, its interesting roleplaying and go with the flow.
If its illegal where he currently is, but not where he is from, then its evil with roleplaying options.
And if it is illegal where he was from, and where he is, then its evil. period.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel slavery or indentured servitude of any form can never be a "good" act and in almost all circumstances except the most exceptional it is an evil act. Slavery can be a chaotic act but is more likely to be practised with regularity by lawful beings and societies.
I should mention this does not include things like religious or cultural "life debts", these beings are making a choice to follow a certain code which binds them purely by their own morals and beliefs, were as a true slave is help against their will and denied that choice.
No matter how well treated and pampered a slave is still denied basic rights that all sentient beings should be allowed, namely the freedom to choose. In China Mievelle's excellent novel (imo)Perdido Street Station a race of avian humanoids called the Garuda have a unique form of crime, in so that there is only one crime which is commonly called "Choose theft", denying another beings the right to choose their own fate. To the Garuda I think no form of choice theft would be more sever than slavery.
Setting and campaign world can mean a great deal when you're considered if slavery is a purely evil act and not simply an act by those who are strongly lawful, but in the end anyone who would treat another intelligent living thing as property and not as an individual is on a very slippery slope right down into darkest evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically in any case were it might be motivated to kill someone, it is probably less evil to enslave them.
Well, as noted, I feel there are big holes in the argument "I could have killed you, and since I didn't, that makes it okay for me to do X to you instead."
X could be slavery. Or it could be rape, torture, dentistry... the point is that X can very easily still be evil, and if it is something evil, then having been an alternative to death does not make it particularly less evil.
So basically, is the act of owning a slave evil or good, or chaotic or lawful?
Evil.
All the arguments to the contrary fall apart once the question "What happens when the slave doesn’t feel like being a slave anymore" is asked.what if you spare someone's life on the condition that they become your slave?
Slave = Evil.
Prisoner = Not Evil.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.
The cleric should be opposed; The players should not be jerks and figure out a way to work it out without ruining the game.
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.
Legal and common does not mean ok, it means Good has a lot of work to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually, in a debate like this, there is usually someone with whom I can agree, but it seems like everyone here is off in at least one regard, dealing with the issue of historical fact. What you deal with it, is just your opinion...
Slavery exists today, in every country in the world. There are probably as many slaves in America as anywhere else. Slavery will always be around because it is so profitable. Simply being illegal has never stopped slavery (today called human trafficking). Many people turn a blind eye to it because its easier to ignore, especially as most slaves today are prostitutes or children.
Slavery has always existed, and in virtually every culture. What has varied is the conditions in which one comes to be a slave, the status of slaves, the amount of rights a slave has, and the cultural expectations of slave owners.
The Americas, prior to the abolition of slavery in the US and British Empire, used a rather different kind of slavery than the slavery used in other times. It was a concept developed by the Muslims in Africa. Perpetual inherited chattel slavery. This is the slavery most of us are familiar with, and is considerably worse than the other varieties, except perhaps modern sex trafficking. A slave is sold, has no rights, is property like ox, and the worst bit of all...his status as a slave will be inherited by his children, and their children, and so on...
Historically, slaves were usually taken as prisoners of war (the preferable alternative to the also common extermination of the populace). There was no bankruptcy in the ancient world. If you couldn't pay, you, and perhaps your family would be taken as slaves until the debt was paid. From a certain lens, this is more honorable than how we treat money in our society.
In some cultures, slaves could have relatively high status, being in service to a great noble, and as such having a much better quality of life than they could have had they been free. In many cultures, slavery was not permanent...Romans often granted freedom to favored slaves in their wills.
Then there is the issue of treatment. One could make the argument, and the slave owners in the South certainly did, that the slaves had a better life on the plantations than the free Irishmen working in the factories up North. A slave was guaranteed food and and a pension, and most owners made sure they were healthy. A factory worker worked with no insurance in an extremely dangerous and unhealthy environment for just a few pennies a day.
As has been pointed out, serfdom is its own kind of slavery. A serf has few rights, does not own property, is exploited for his labor by the lord of the manor, and is prohibited by law from leaving the land. This manorial system, however unfair, was something of a social contract though..the lord treats them not too badly and protects them from vikings and such (or orcs) and his own profits thereby, and they won't cause a fuss.
Finally, I'd like to note that the ancient Greeks and Romans had highly sophisticated cultures, and advanced ideas about philosophy...ancient man was not less intelligent than modern man, they just lacked modern technology. Though I would not endorse Greek or Roman ethical codes, it is a poor argument to say that they were unenlightened. Perhaps the fact that they new what they were doing when they put whole cities to the sword makes it all the more terrible.
As for the question itself...I would say that slavery can be practiced by a person of any alignment depending on the laws, the culture, and the treatment. However, Lawful Evil fits best and Chaotic Good fits worst. Slavery is usually an institution that is legal, and undermining the institution (i.e. killing a slave owner and freeing his slaves) would be breaking the law. What one does about the laws in question determines the law or chaos question. What the laws are depends on the campaign. What sort of slavery it is largely going to be dependent on the DM. Ownership of slaves, why the slaves are owned, and how the slaves are treated determines the good-evil axis. Slavery in itself is never good, but could be either neutral or evil, depending on the circumstances.
TLDR: Slavery is very old and has existed everywhere, in every time, but isn't always the same. It's not as simple as some are making it out to be. This isn't a black and white question. Freeing lawfully owned slaves is chaotic. Owning slaves if they're well treated is neutral. Owning them and treating them badly, or making slaves of people, is evil.
The Americas, prior to the abolition of slavery in the US and British Empire, used a rather different kind of slavery than the slavery used in other times. It was a concept developed by the Muslims in Africa. Perpetual inherited chattel slavery. This is the slavery most of us are familiar with, and is considerably worse than the other varieties, except perhaps modern sex trafficking.
The slaves who were worked and starved to death underground at Laurion might disagree with that assessment ;)
Once again, I will say that the idea that ancient slavery was systematically better than later black slavery is largely baseless. Household slaves tended to be treated better and slaves in large-scale agricultural or mining operations tended to be treated worse, under both systems. The difference is that modern people are more familiar with the less cruel aspects of ancient slavery, and the more cruel aspects of black slavery.
The Americas, prior to the abolition of slavery in the US and British Empire, used a rather different kind of slavery than the slavery used in other times. It was a concept developed by the Muslims in Africa. Perpetual inherited chattel slavery. This is the slavery most of us are familiar with, and is considerably worse than the other varieties, except perhaps modern sex trafficking.The slaves who were worked and starved to death underground at Laurion might disagree with that assessment ;)
Once again, I will say that the idea that ancient slavery was systematically better than later black slavery is largely baseless. Household slaves tended to be treated better and slaves in large-scale agricultural or mining operations tended to be treated worse, under both systems. The difference is that modern people are more familiar with the less cruel aspects of ancient slavery, and the more cruel aspects of black slavery.
I will not argue that ancient slaves were *treated* better than black slaves. What makes it worse is the keywords *Perpetual* *inherited* *chattel* slavery. Further, it was race-based, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. Slavery in the ancient world was basically its own socio-economic status for an individual. Slavery under the Arab system throws everything out and makes a person a piece of property, and just like you would own the calves your herd of cows produce, a master owns the children of his slaves. And there is no way out of the cycle. Perpetual, inherited, chattel (and race-based) slavery. That's why its worse. Treatment varies from circumstance to circumstance, but the dehumanizing aspect is what makes this variety so terrible.
|
I fear we are drifting off topic in discussing the institutions of US prisons; though I will say that prisoners are not deprived of name or legal identity, and that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right of a prisoner to marry. If a prison official blocks a marriage without grounds, he is breaking the law. Which is not to say that such things never happen; but they are illegal.
As for not having the chance to buy if the owner does not wish to sell (whether that owner is the State, or otherwise), that's generally true of most property and hardly unique to slaves.
Slaves have often have had rights and privileges and usually far greater legal protection then a cow.I don't know about that. It's usually been legal to have sex with a slave regardless of consent, but not to do the same with a cow (or a prisoner for that matter). It's often been just as legal to kill a cow as a slave, (in many cases, less legal to kill certain animals than slaves), but not legal to kill a prisoner without an actual death sentence handed down by a court. It has also occasionally been less legal to torture a cow than a slave, although admittedly it historically has often also been legal to torture prisoners. Generally it is legal to sell or buy either a slave or a cow, but it is not legal to buy or sell prisoners unless they have actually been condemned to slavery (which has at times been a punishment). Neither cows nor slaves can generally marry legally (at least in Western slavery and classical slavery; I will admit that Islamic practice may differ on this point).
I'm ignoring the privilege part since, being arbitrary, they don't really matter.
Kinda like Old Testament slavery,sure you had certain rights but could be legally beaten as much as the master wants as long as you don't die the day you are beat.not to mention the racial predudice part of it. Cannot remember any specific protections given to animals beyond no raping them or eating ones that are abused.
|
|
I will not argue that ancient slaves were *treated* better than black slaves. What makes it worse is the keywords *Perpetual* *inherited* *chattel* slavery. Further, it was race-based, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. Slavery in the ancient world was basically its own socio-economic status for an individual. Slavery under the Arab system throws everything out and makes a person a piece of property, and just like you would own the calves your herd of cows produce, a master owns the children of his slaves. And there is no way out of the cycle. Perpetual, inherited, chattel (and race-based) slavery. That's why its worse. Treatment varies from circumstance to circumstance, but the dehumanizing aspect is what makes this variety so terrible.The Americas, prior to the abolition of slavery in the US and British Empire, used a rather different kind of slavery than the slavery used in other times. It was a concept developed by the Muslims in Africa. Perpetual inherited chattel slavery. This is the slavery most of us are familiar with, and is considerably worse than the other varieties, except perhaps modern sex trafficking.The slaves who were worked and starved to death underground at Laurion might disagree with that assessment ;)
Once again, I will say that the idea that ancient slavery was systematically better than later black slavery is largely baseless. Household slaves tended to be treated better and slaves in large-scale agricultural or mining operations tended to be treated worse, under both systems. The difference is that modern people are more familiar with the less cruel aspects of ancient slavery, and the more cruel aspects of black slavery.
Race based slavery goes back a long way, jewish slaves had different rights in old isreal for instance. Had to be freed every seven years unless they chose to stay. Not so kind to the gentile.....
I have read some of the deitiy supplements in PF.
I have seen evil gods having the aspect of slavery.
I have not seen a good god having slavery as part of their domains.
Therefore under PF society, slavery is evil.
If you feel otherwise, if and when there are slave revolts, paladins and anti paladins would be working together to put the slave revolt down. And that would make my gamming brain explode.
I will not argue that ancient slaves were *treated* better than black slaves. What makes it worse is the keywords *Perpetual* *inherited* *chattel* slavery. Further, it was race-based, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. Slavery in the ancient world was basically its own socio-economic status for an individual. Slavery under the Arab system throws everything out and makes a person a piece of property, and just like you would own the calves your herd of cows produce, a master owns the children of his slaves.
Yeah, race-based (or similarly, religion-based) slavery becoming the sole legal form of slavery was a more recent thing. You will find inherited chattel slavery a lot more commonly in the ancient world, though. Both of the greatest slave societies of the classical Mediterranean area - the Greek and the Roman - practiced perpetual inherited chattel slavery, and the Greek model variably (depending on which city-state and when) was race-based perpetual inherited chattel slavery. Sparta and Athens both following the race-based model, though helotage is not well understood and may (depending on who you ask) have been closer to race-based perpetual inherited serfdom.
|
|
Most of humanity in fantasy worlds are neutral with good and evil being the outliers. So all in all allot of bad things would and do occur world wide. Are they evil? some certainly are but most people likely don't give a damn. When it all boils down to it slavery (witch is often narrowly defined, as opposed to the dozens of variations on the theme of forced servitude that one can fathom) as evil or at least not very good.
In the case of the NG cleric, perhaps the best compromise would be to settle on a predetermined period of indentured service to make amends before freedom is earned as opposed to a life of slavery.
Slavery is a concept, so true Neutral.
Now if we are talking about owning slaves it becomes all shades of grey.
Lawful good: Slave working to pay of sept to society, ie criminal turned slave.
Lawful Neutral: Slave is working to pay of debts, or is a prisoner of war.
Lawful Evil: Slave is bought for the sake of having a slave, with no chance of freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
We play with renaissance values.
If fact, the women players actually were the one who wanted that.
Women have always had rights, the 'feminist' movement forced them to work. We have a Female Elven Ranger (Elven Princess) who was dis-owned by her family because she refused to marry the 12yo human prince.
In the game world, no leniency is shown for serious crimes,
The Nun/Cleric was dis-owned by her order because her Chasity was forcibly broken by an Orc (hence why she was at the Inn when the party-forming dragon attack happened.)
It isn't a major plot-line but the inn keepers keep on asking about 'Who's wife be yer?' and upgrading the beds to a Double; "Oh? U running away to elope or summat?"