Reciprocal Slavery - Yet Another Horrible Alignment Thread


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I had a situation my most recent game that got me thinking about alignment ramifications. Now, nobody's class abilities are at stake (although one character is CG and this did not seem at all in keeping with that alignment to me), but I eventually came to the unusual conclusion that I don't actually know what I think about it. So I thought I'd put it to you all.

Background: In the most recent session of my weekly game the PCs were hired by a nobleman to assassinate an ogre that had raped and murdered his daughter many years previous. It turned out that this ogre had since become enslaved by a stone giant raider-turned-farm-owner. This giant was neutrally aligned. Due to his past, he had no moral qualms about keeping slaves. All the same, he mostly wanted to be left alone. All of his slaves were raiders he had caught trying to steal from him. And his tendency to kill off nearby monsters had lead to a village cropping up around his farm that he occasionally traded with.

The PCs eventually decide to try to bargain with the giant for the life of the ogre. The giant admits that the ogre has always been a trouble-maker, but relies upon the ogre's labor to run his farm. Consequently the giant demands a couple of alternate slaves in exchange. The PCs then set out to find the lair of some orcish raiders that had been troubling the area. They find an orcish warband leading off a number of (evil) goblin captives and immediately attack and subdue these orcs, trading them to the giant for the ogre.

Implications:Now, I'm still mostly inclined to just handwave the situation. As there really isn't anything at stake. But I got to thinking about the ethics of the incident. The PCs had just sold sapient creatures into slavery. True, slavery might be one of the better avenues for mitigation of damages caused by the raiders. And true, these orcs were evil themselves and were enslaving other sapient beings. But....if slavery of sapient beings is justified based upon the moral character of the enslaved...then these orcs were similarly justified in enslaving the goblins. Would it alternately have been more 'ethical' to have just killed the orcs? I expect they would have preferred slavery. Moreover, I got to thinking about real-world parallels. At least a minority of the African slaves obtained by Europeans during the colonial period were actually purchased from other African cultures.

Or maybe I just think about things too much. Anyway, the question I put to you all is: Evil act? Lawful act? I'm inclined to say at least Lawful on the basis of law equaling authoritarianism and chaos equaling libertarianism in my games.


I am curious as the GM that came up with this scenario(or if from a module of some sort read it before hand) did you expect the PCs to do here?

As to this situration...I would have to say it would not outright change anybodys alignment...but it would be a click towards Evil and probably Lawful.


Yea, anything having to do with slavery other than fighting against it is a firm step towards evil in my book. Actually participating in such a trade is a huge step towards evil. Whether it immediately results in an alignment shift should depend on how the PCs have been acting up until that point.
As for law vs chaos, I can't really say. The Core Rulebook indicates that lawful evil is the alignment of racial-classifications, which is apparently what your players are doing (unless they're also enslaving humans and you haven't told us:O). Overall, though, based on the limited description you gave, nothing screams "Lawful" at me. It is definitely Evil, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds less like slavery and more like a life prison sentence. In a traditional prison you'd have guards (the giant) restricting the prisoners who are wrongdoers (raiders and slavers) from leaving the premises (the farm) while possibly having them do manual labor (farm work).


It's evil, but as Murder Hobos go... is it EVIL? What are the PC's reactions to the situation? are they saying "Despicable but necessary", or, "Good job! We're gettin' paid!"


You could just have them sneak in in the middle of the night and kill the ogre and then sneak out. Maybe leaving a weregild that could be written off as a business expense to be paid back by the nobleman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, thanks to American History, we have a huge negative bias against slavery, and rightly so. Slavery as it was practiced in America 200 years ago was largely Evil.

Another form of slavery was this. If you had debts or other non-violent crimes, you could be sentence to slavery for a fixed period time. During that time, there were rules that your needs would be taken care of, and you would not be mistreated. This was not much different from prison except you actually had a clear way to be a productive member of society while you served your time.

There is a huge difference between kidnapped against your will and sold for another's profits into a system that systematically devalues and mistreats people and a being sentenced into slavery by a lawful authority for breaking the law that has rules in place to make sure slaves are not mistreated.

In theory, slavery can be morally neutral IF it is punishment for a crime and the punishment is not out of proportion with the crime. In practice, that is really really hard to achieve.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Heh. I love this sort of thing when it comes up in my games.

Assuming I didn't have a strong opinion, the way I would handle it is via some sort of provocative NPC conversation that gets the PCs to think about their position, and assuming they respond, y'know, thoughtfully, I'd simply go with what they conclude - after all, that's a good opportunity for character development right there.

(I sometimes ask the players for rulings as well on controversial calls - they're often harder on themselves than I am & I find it keeps the group dynamic healthy when they don't think the GM is out to get them...)

If I had a strong opinion, I'd probably have tried to finagle that in *before* the PCs followed through on a ethically/morally dubious, as "fair warning". Not that I'm big on GM-directed alignment conflict, though I'll GM-support if one of the players is up for it.

Back to the question asked: I am little more pulled over slavery but not by the originally assassination request. Note this is not phrased as "bring to justice" (possibly LG), and there seems no pressing need to kill the ogre now. Is it phrased as such because the "assassination" is unlawful, and/or unnecessary - N tending E?

IMHO, splicing alignment is rather dependent on motive - are the PCs trying to do the greater good by the least damaging means? I'd be really loathe to call them for Evil. Or are they doing the easiest thing, consequence-be-damned, to call in their profit? Well that does sound a little south of N.


Charender wrote:

So, thanks to American History, we have a huge negative bias against slavery, and rightly so. Slavery as it was practiced in America 200 years ago was largely Evil.

Another form of slavery was this. If you had debts or other non-violent crimes, you could be sentence to slavery for a fixed period time. During that time, there were rules that your needs would be taken care of, and you would not be mistreated. This was not much different from prison except you were actually not a burden to society. In practice the actual treatment of slaves varied from one society to another.

There is a huge difference between kidnapped against your will and sold for another's profits into a system that systematically devalues and mistreats people and a being sentenced into slavery by a lawful authority for breaking the law, and having rules in place that made sure you were not mistreated.

In theory, slavery can be morally neutral IF it is punishment for a crime and the punishment is not out of proportion with the crime. In practice, that is really really hard to achieve.

Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.

But that's neither here nor there in this discussion: it doesn't sound like the OP's PCs were enforcing a temporary debt penalty on people, it sounds like they were kidnapping orcs and selling them, not because of anything the orcs did, but to finish their quest and get loot.
Obviously, there may be a lot of vital information that the OP left out. But just from what's in the thread it sounds extremely evil.


137ben wrote:


Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.

But that's neither here nor there in this discussion: it doesn't sound like the OP's PCs were enforcing a temporary debt penalty on people, it sounds like they were kidnapping orcs and selling them, not because of anything the orcs did, but to finish their quest and get loot.
Obviously, there may be a lot of vital information that the OP left out. But just from what's in the thread it sounds extremely evil.

Agreed. from the OP, I have grave reservations about these things

1. Handing a slave over to an owner who has a huge grudge against the slave. Very high chance of the slave being simply tortured for the rest of his existence.
2. The exact criminal status of the goblins and orcs. Was the punishment of lifetime of slavery proportional to their crimes?
3. The generally attitude of the giant toward his slaves. Does he mistreat his slaves in general?

Those are just the first 3 red flags I see in this situation pertaining to Good/Evil

On the Law/Chaos axis
1. What is the local law pertaining to slavery?
2. Who has legal authority to convict and own slaves?
3. What is the exact legal status of the Orcs/Goblins ?

All this puts me towards calling it somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil depending on the exact details.


Or lawful evil- lawful neutral.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why didn't the PCs just return to the Noble and go, "hey the Ogre is being enslaved by a Giant and condemned to hard labor the rest of his days," it seems like the Ogre was already "brought to justice" honestly. This would have avoided the whole conundrum, as the PCs really just found out where the Ogre was.

However, that wasn't your question. It depends on your (and I mean you're setting) view of slavery. If slavery is evil, then this was most definitely an evil act. I'd say slavery falls under lawful, since it's based in property law and requires government to help enforce.


I was the GM, I came up with the scenario. The situation was set up so that there were multiple possible solutions including, yes, sneaking into the giant's compound to assassinate the ogre. It would also have been possible to convince the giant to accept something else in exhchange with a decent line of argument and sufficient social skill. With respect to crafting the situation, yes, I was fully aware that the PCs might make the choice they eventually did. I just tend to favor gritty gray-on-gray game worlds and didn't really think the ramifications through beforehand.

The nobleman was aware that the ogre was enslaved. He just wasn't satisfied with that. (Said nobleman had actually tried to send armed men to strongarm the giant into giving up the ogre prior to hiring the PCs; with tragic, if predictable, results).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes, the complexity of a story can't be reflected by the simplicity of the alignment conundrum. How about there's no wrong or right answer? I know Pathfinder, like its predecessors, tend to lean towards black or white but I like my shade of grey (only one tough, no fifty of them!) BTW, congratulations on your story! I'm totally going to shamelessly steal it and see what some players will do in that situation. I can see how certain nationalities would be appalled by it while others would be ok with it (Andoran vs Cheliax for example). Unless a character is a paladin, I wouldn't worry about it. I would just enjoy the philosophical dilemma associated with the story. I would even pursue it more. What if a redeemer paladin was actually working with the orc tribe, trying to convert them to Sarenrae? Said paladin could totally be mad at the PCs and willing to hunt them down for their crimes. How twisted would that be? Should they fight a servant of good? Should they betray their employer? Should they atone for a crime that actually might not be a crime?

Sorry if I'm not actually answering your question, I just wanted to express my thoughts about the story...


Funny question, but one I'm not seeing asked: Did any one in the party bother to ask a GP price to buy the "slave" so they could take him back to the noble? Surely a successful diplomacy check, a thousand gp or so, and the giant could have been convinced to sell the ogre. Sure the adventure is shorter and not as interesting, but to me its the only non-evil option. I'm not certain if the PCs transaction should be considered lawful, but its certainly evil to participate in the slave trade.

*Want to make a point of distinction that I don't consider purchasing the ogre from the giant to be particpating in slavery as they are purchasing the ogre for punishment not slavery.


If you consider forced labor (duration up to life) a suitable punishment for the crimes of the orcs, then I don't see how any Evil was committed. That is also based on my interpretation that the giant seems to treat the slaves amicably. Now if he's aways whipping and beating them, or even raping them, and the PCs could reasonably be aware of this, then they did something bad. Other wise it sounds like they're reaping what they sowed as any criminal here in the real world might.

EDIT: Basically what Charender said.

The real moral question is if the PCs did find slavery a fitting punishment, how would they feel preempting the ogre from that punishment for what must be a worse one?


Well, if its good or evil would depend on the back round of the char and its personal system of belief,

is slavery wrong? yes, but its an oger, it will kill, rape and slaughter, there is no reasoning with it what so ever, So, on the one hand, you kill the group of overs the giant sends you after because they will die at the hands of humans regardless as once they kill enough they will br a threat and hunted down like beasts, or, give it to the giant, at least it still has its life.

are either good good? no, but you can't treat the oger like a you would another human or other race that might you know, not kill and rape if given enough reason, like you know, death, profit, ext,

in the end I guess you have to look at the long view, it becomes a very grey area but I don't see it as evil as the giant is keep the area safe anyway,

in the end the ogre will kill helpless people and do horrible things, no matter what,

again, lots of grey area's that the aliment system is not set up to deal with, it is still D&D after all, and D&D was made to be a war-game at first :)


Davick wrote:

If you consider forced labor (duration up to life) a suitable punishment for the crimes of the orcs, then I don't see how any Evil was committed. That is also based on my interpretation that the giant seems to treat the slaves amicably. Now if he's aways whipping and beating them, or even raping them, and the PCs could reasonably be aware of this, then they did something bad. Other wise it sounds like they're reaping what they sowed as any criminal here in the real world might.

EDIT: Basically what Charender said.

The real moral question is if the PCs did find slavery a fitting punishment, how would they feel preempting the ogre from that punishment for what must be a worse one?

I disagree with you first point because the noble (unless given authority by some otherwise undescribed means) does not have the auhority or right to pronounce punishment on his own nor do the PCs have the right to mete out such a punishment unless so instilled by the rightful forces of the land. Without the approval of the lawful authority the PCs are slave traders. If they decided to obtain such permissions to bring the ogre to justice by putting him into slavery for his crimes then they are serving the law. Even still, forcing someone into slavery against their will (even as punishment) I would consider evil (on the part of the person either deciding that is the appropriate or the person who created the law that stated, etc) but enforcement of the would likely be a lawful-neutral act.


Claxon wrote:
Davick wrote:

If you consider forced labor (duration up to life) a suitable punishment for the crimes of the orcs, then I don't see how any Evil was committed. That is also based on my interpretation that the giant seems to treat the slaves amicably. Now if he's aways whipping and beating them, or even raping them, and the PCs could reasonably be aware of this, then they did something bad. Other wise it sounds like they're reaping what they sowed as any criminal here in the real world might.

EDIT: Basically what Charender said.

The real moral question is if the PCs did find slavery a fitting punishment, how would they feel preempting the ogre from that punishment for what must be a worse one?

I disagree with you first point because the noble (unless given authority by some otherwise undescribed means) does not have the auhority or right to pronounce punishment on his own nor do the PCs have the right to mete out such a punishment unless so instilled by the rightful forces of the land. Without the approval of the lawful authority the PCs are slave traders. If they decided to obtain such permissions to bring the ogre to justice by putting him into slavery for his crimes then they are serving the law. Even still, forcing someone into slavery against their will (even as punishment) I would consider evil (on the part of the person either deciding that is the appropriate or the person who created the law that stated, etc) but enforcement of the would likely be a lawful-neutral act.

That is exactly why I threw it into the chaotic category. there are 3 possibilities.

1. Slavery is legal, and the Noble, PCs, and the Giant are lawful legal entities for owning slaves. If this is the case then the PCs actions are Lawful.
2. The PC and nobles are in a lawless area, or the law is otherwise agnostic on slavery. Then you might get away with it being Neutral.
3. If not 1 or 2, then the PCs actions are Chaotic.

1 is very unlikely. 2 seems unlikely, because the presence of a noble points to civilization being nearby, and it is unlikely that they would be completely silent on the issue of slavery. Which makes 3 the most likely.

If forcing someone into slavery is automatically evil, then so is forced incarceration(IE prison), and thus our entire prison system is Evil. The good or evil of slavery as punishment follows the same criteria as sending someone to prison. Was the punishment just and fair for the crime committed?


If this is Golarion, keep in mind that slavery is legal and well-accepted in most places. It's not really a matter of Good and Evil, just like our modern minds don't think putting our prisoners to work is an evil act.

Now, whether the orcs did deserve slavery, that's what decides the alignment of the act imo.
At least Good/Evil wise. I'm not sure Law/Chaos enter into it too much, unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the law of the land.


Tharken wrote:

If this is Golarion, keep in mind that slavery is legal and well-accepted in most places. It's not really a matter of Good and Evil, just like our modern minds don't think putting our prisoners to work is an evil act.

Now, whether the orcs did deserve slavery, that's what decides the alignment of the act imo.
At least Good/Evil wise. I'm not sure Law/Chaos enter into it too much, unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the law of the land.

Law vs Chaos has to do with following the law of the land, not unholding it.

A cop or city guard can easily be chaotic. They are upholding the law, but they break the law to do it. IE ignoring things like due process, and the suspects rights.


Quote:
Law vs Chaos has to do with following the law of the land.

Eh, not really my opinion, but the link between Law and law has been a subject of debate for a long time and we're not going to solve it here. To each their own on that one.

Edit : I feel I may have been unclear. What I meant by 'unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the laws of the land' was that if they were, and they were breaking those laws, then it would definitely be a chaotic act for them.
I'm more of the opinion that acting with honor and keeping your word is the most important part of being Lawful, though of course following the local laws can be a part of it too, depending on circumstances.
But your point of view is perfectly fine too.


Claxon wrote:
Davick wrote:

If you consider forced labor (duration up to life) a suitable punishment for the crimes of the orcs, then I don't see how any Evil was committed. That is also based on my interpretation that the giant seems to treat the slaves amicably. Now if he's aways whipping and beating them, or even raping them, and the PCs could reasonably be aware of this, then they did something bad. Other wise it sounds like they're reaping what they sowed as any criminal here in the real world might.

EDIT: Basically what Charender said.

The real moral question is if the PCs did find slavery a fitting punishment, how would they feel preempting the ogre from that punishment for what must be a worse one?

I disagree with you first point because the noble (unless given authority by some otherwise undescribed means) does not have the auhority or right to pronounce punishment on his own nor do the PCs have the right to mete out such a punishment unless so instilled by the rightful forces of the land. Without the approval of the lawful authority the PCs are slave traders. If they decided to obtain such permissions to bring the ogre to justice by putting him into slavery for his crimes then they are serving the law. Even still, forcing someone into slavery against their will (even as punishment) I would consider evil (on the part of the person either deciding that is the appropriate or the person who created the law that stated, etc) but enforcement of the would likely be a lawful-neutral act.

But authority has nothing to do with Good and Evil. That's exactly why we have the Lawful Chaotic axis. Good and Evil are what they are irrelevant to borders.

Honestly, cosmic forces of chaos and law aren't bound by any geography either. People get too caught up on the word Lawful, it should be Order instead. It's not about law of the land, a character is Lawful if they are strict with themselves and others, whether that be about the law or general conservatism or whatever. You can't change alignment just by moving to a different country.


Tharken wrote:
Quote:
Law vs Chaos has to do with following the law of the land.

Eh, not really my opinion, but the link between Law and law has been a subject of debate for a long time and we're not going to solve it here. To each their own on that one.

Edit : I feel I may have been unclear. What I meant by 'unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the laws of the land' was that if they were, and they were breaking those laws, then it would definitely be a chaotic act for them.
I'm more of the opinion that acting with honor and keeping your word is the most important part of being Lawful, though of course following the local laws can be a part of it too, depending on circumstances.
But your point of view is perfectly fine too.

That was really besides the point. I was specifically addressing your comment about "unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the law of the land." Whatever you define "The rules" as, Law/Chaos has to do with following them, not enforcing them.


Yes, I explain this in the Edit's first paragraph. Let me rephrase it again :

If selling the orcs into slavery means a PC is breaking an oath, then it is a chaotic act. And if a PC has sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and those laws forbid slavery (or at least have it tightly controlled), then he is breaking his word when he sells the orcs into slavery, and therefore it is a chaotic act.

If a PC has not sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and he is not breaking an oath or acting dishonorably, then I personally wouldn't label selling the orcs as a chaotic act, even if he is breaking the law.

Edit : Oh, I think I see what you mean. Yes, but people don't really make oaths to follow the laws of the land. I mean it's theoretically possible I suppose, but it just doesn't happen, they swear to uphold them.


In general terms, my attitude is that slavery as a practice almost always pulls towards evil. It tugs its practitioners towards evil, it pervasively influences a society in which it exists towards evil. This does not mean that everyone involved with a slave system is personally evil - just as not everybody who does other evil things is evil-aligned - but that participation in a system of slavery naturally draws people in that direction.

Slavery is basically front and center in the definition of evil.

Quote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

So when confronted with any particular "is slavery evil" scenario, I tend to start with the assumption that it is evil or a pretty dark neutral until proven otherwise. Proving otherwise requires active demonstration of a non-evil attitude towards the situation. Once you have jumped in, swimming against an evil social current can be done, but it requires work... if you just kind of lazily float, you know which direction you'll be floating in.

So... what did your PCs do, beyond sell some people to a giant? Did you notice anyone trying to actively demonstrate a non-evil attitude towards the situation, whether minor (example: ensuring that conditions would not be horrible) or major (example: seriously exploring other alternatives)?

Quote:
Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.

"Arguably" being the key word. I've studied classical slavery in extensive depth... once you scrape off the fairly widespread whitewashing that goes on to this day, it's can get pretty nightmare fuel dark underneath.

Which is not to give slaveowners in this country any undue credit. Just to note that their ancestors had matched and sometimes exceeded the various barbarities they dreamt up.

But that's a tangent for another time.


Well, if my CN summoner ,who totally hates the idea of slavery because that means taking freedom away , was in that game chances are i would have:

First , killed the giant manager (hah i dont care if the slaver is good/neutral/evil , im neutral and im going to cut him in half for being a slaver , not his alig , even more if i know the guy was a raider lol)

Second , my char is not dumb , he understands those are evil slaves , therefore he cant really "free" them. Solution? Kill them all next.

Now , because ofc the party (and the village) is involved and i dont know other PC tendencies and so on , it might take time and planning to kill the giant and the slaves , but in due time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Kill everybody.

You sure you're CN?


Also, i find it highly ironic that a summoner has a excessive anti-slavery stand.

Do your summons follow your orders of their own free will?
And your Eidolon, has he a say in what he wants to do on any given day?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:


That is exactly why I threw it into the chaotic category. there are 3 possibilities.
1. Slavery is legal, and the Noble, PCs, and the Giant are lawful legal entities for owning slaves. If this is the case then the PCs actions are Lawful.
2. The PC and nobles are in a lawless area, or the law is otherwise agnostic on slavery. Then you might get away with it being Neutral.
3. If not 1 or 2, then the PCs actions are Chaotic.

1 is very unlikely. 2 seems unlikely, because the presence of a noble points to civilization being nearby, and it is unlikely that they would be completely silent on the issue of slavery. Which makes 3 the most likely.

If forcing someone into slavery is automatically evil, then so is forced incarceration(IE prison), and thus our entire prison system is Evil. The good or evil of slavery as punishment follows the same criteria as sending someone to prison. Was the punishment just and fair for the crime committed?

There is a big difference between capturing a free man and forcing him into slavery, and convicting a criminal and incarcerating him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
martinaj wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Kill everybody.
You sure you're CN?

Pretty much.

Im not saying to harm the villagers ofc , but all the slaves are captured raiders from what he said , therefore we can assume they are not exactly good people, while the char is against slavery he is also capable of understanding that freeing a bunch of captured raiders is a bad idea. If there was a LN char in the party who thought we should take them to receive a proper trial , my char could go with that also for an example.

My point here is , he would make them stop being slaves , but is not about to free a bunch of raiders to atk people again. To him killing them is the fast and clean way , if others give alternative solutions , that could possibly roll also.

And the giant is a slaver , i dont really care about his alig.

If anything , this more inclined to the good side of my char , because he is worried about them atking people and raiding again , maybe to simple deliver the freedom and let them do whatever they wanted with it would be a more N approach, but would make little sense to this PC.

Note that , this group of slaves is composed by raiders , this is the whole point here. If it was just a group of slaves from many places and situations (which is what i usually find) , where there were a few raiders in there and so on , my char would not go out of his way to kill the bad people.

Andreas0815 wrote:

Also, i find it highly ironic that a summoner has a excessive anti-slavery stand.

Do your summons follow your orders of their own free will?
And your Eidolon, has he a say in what he wants to do on any given day?

Yes.

Yes.

Usually the eidolon goes with what my summoner got in mind, but it got its own backstory and my summoner actually spends time doing things the eidolon likes to do and accomplishing things for the eidolon. The idea is more of a team working together than a master giving orders.


Vod Canockers wrote:
There is a big difference between capturing a free man and forcing him into slavery, and convicting a criminal and incarcerating him.

Jail is a terrible solution, but we lack better alternatives. A fantasy setting could have better alternatives; things like Helms of Opposite Alignment or other personality-rewrite magics. That brings its own bag of moral questions, but it's a solution with little to no extra misery attached.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helic wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
There is a big difference between capturing a free man and forcing him into slavery, and convicting a criminal and incarcerating him.
Jail is a terrible solution, but we lack better alternatives. A fantasy setting could have better alternatives; things like Helms of Opposite Alignment or other personality-rewrite magics. That brings its own bag of moral questions, but it's a solution with little to no extra misery attached.

Jail as it is in the late 20th and early 21st century is a terrible solution, but it does beat just shooting them.


Shadowdweller wrote:

I was the GM, I came up with the scenario. The situation was set up so that there were multiple possible solutions including, yes, sneaking into the giant's compound to assassinate the ogre. It would also have been possible to convince the giant to accept something else in exhchange with a decent line of argument and sufficient social skill. With respect to crafting the situation, yes, I was fully aware that the PCs might make the choice they eventually did. I just tend to favor gritty gray-on-gray game worlds and didn't really think the ramifications through beforehand.

The nobleman was aware that the ogre was enslaved. He just wasn't satisfied with that. (Said nobleman had actually tried to send armed men to strongarm the giant into giving up the ogre prior to hiring the PCs; with tragic, if predictable, results).

So, you talked the players into a option, and now think it's evil? You know that's EXACTLY what you did when you had the Giant offer them that option. OOC, players know that's how adventure hooks are offered. But your "hook" was a trap it seems like. So, in the future you need to either stop offering the players trapped adventure hooks or start expecting them to decline the hook.

You were wrong by setting it up that way.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with evil vs good it's how you set up a morally ambiguous hook for the players. It may have been possible to do LOTS of things but that looks like a hook to me. As you said you "didn't really think the ramifications through beforehand."

Just drop it. You made the mistake, not the PC's.

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:

So, you talked the players into a option, and now think it's evil? You know that's EXACTLY what you did when you had the Giant offer them that option. OOC, players know that's how adventure hooks are offered. But your "hook" was a trap it seems like. So, in the future you need to either stop offering the players trapped adventure hooks or start expecting them to decline the hook.

You were wrong by setting it up that way.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with evil vs good it's how you set up a morally ambiguous hook for the players. It may have been possible to do LOTS of things but that looks like a hook to me. As you said you "didn't really think the ramifications through beforehand."

Just drop it. You made the mistake, not the PC's.

Umm, so if I give my PCs a morally-shaky option and they take it, it's my fault as the DM? I call shenanigans.

While I wish to avoid straight-up Morton's Fork, no-good-option, choices, I should still be able to provide my PCs with choices, some of which are less than on the up-and-up, and merrily greet them with the consequences of their decisions.

I suppose it bears mentioning to my players that "I will not give you the auto-win or correct choice in every scenario." Still, I do not have an active obligation to only present savory choices to my players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would any good person kill any other humanoid for any reason? Self-defense maybe and accidents - can you think of any other reason? Would these good people stand by idly and watch others get slaughtered by their teammates and friends?

I believe the alignment "Good" in pathfinders does not mean "good", but rather a lesser form of evil than some of the other alignments.


Bookkeeper wrote:

Umm, so if I give my PCs a morally-shaky option and they take it, it's my fault as the DM? I call shenanigans.

While I wish to avoid straight-up Morton's Fork, no-good-option, choices, I should still be able to provide my PCs with choices, some of which are less than on the up-and-up, and merrily greet them with the consequences of their decisions.

I suppose it bears mentioning to my players that "I will not give you the auto-win or correct choice in every scenario." Still, I do not have an active obligation to only present savory choices to my players.

Well, perhaps the OP didn't present it well. But having perhaps too much genre savvy, I'd look upon that as a "adventure hook" which the players are generally supposed to bite. I didn't see it as a "choice". Perhaps you had to be there.....

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:


Well, perhaps the OP didn't present it well. But having perhaps too much genre savvy, I'd look upon that as a "adventure hook" which the players are generally supposed to bite. I didn't see it as a "choice". Perhaps you had to be there.....

See, as a player, I'd be throwing monkey wrenches immediately if this were presented to me as an adventure hook. If the plot requires me to deliver sentient beings into slavery, I'd call shenanigans on that too. Even the most violent of parties could probably see their way clear to simply killing the slaver giant and the ogre and returning the Ogre's head to fulfill the contract in question. That's hardly the only option, but it's one of several that does not involve getting down for some freelance slave-trading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mapleswitch wrote:

Would any good person kill any other humanoid for any reason? Self-defense maybe and accidents - can you think of any other reason? Would these good people stand by idly and watch others get slaughtered by their teammates and friends?

I believe the alignment "Good" in pathfinders does not mean "good", but rather a lesser form of evil than some of the other alignments.

You can play Pathfinder without ever fighting humanoids, or even sapient beings, for that matter.

That said, good =/= pacifism. A good person does not have to be a pacifist, and a pacifist does not have to be a good person. And evil people love pacifists, because they won't fight back.

"Good" adventurers usually have the best reason for using lethal force - defense of society. Most humanoid races are bent on the destruction of social order - they enslave, pillage, burn, murder and rape at every opportunity. They generally can't be reasoned with either, naked force is the only thing they're conditioned to respond to.


Clearly the solution should have been to kill the orcs, cast animate dead on them and then sell them to the giant. That wouldn't have been evil at all!

Helic wrote:
"Good" adventurers usually have the best reason for using lethal force - defense of society. Most humanoid races are bent on the destruction of social order - they enslave, pillage, burn, murder and rape at every opportunity. They generally can't be reasoned with either, naked force is the only thing they're conditioned to respond to.

This really depends on your campaign world. Your GM may adopt the position that humanoids are irredeemably evil. This is the "Tolkien" approach.

But I prefer to think of humanoids as sentient creatures with free will. As such, an orc is no more compelled to be chaotic evil than a human is compelled to be neutral or good.

The way orc societies have been described makes them evil, but there have been plenty of human societies in history that had similar characteristics. Nothing that orcs do in the game is original; it has all been done by humans on Earth in the past.

The orcs of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings were beings who had been magically corrupted by Melkor. As such it can be argued that they are irredeemable and ought to be killed on sight, since there is no-one alive that has the power to "cure" them.

Golarion's orcs do not share this property. They are as naturally evolved as any other race. Aside from a racial memory of the aggression by the dwarves that drove them to the surface which drives them towards vengeance, and an overall lower level of intelligence that makes it harder to create a stable society, there is no particular reason that orcs have to be evil in Golarion.

D&D 3.5 actually had rules for "converting" such beings, which would shift their alignment (this was in the Book of Exalted Deeds, if I recall correctly).

If this is a possibility then doing anything to a group of orcs you have captured can be evil, since the orcs may be bad guys, but they could be redeemed. In fact, it is good roleplaying for certain types of clerics to attempt this.

In the example given by the OP, though, the original mission isn't exactly lily-white either. They have been assigned to kill someone. That someone is evil and has committed a crime. But the party is not sent to deliver justice; they are sent to deliver revenge. The mission is neutral at best. Good characters may be able to justify their actions taking this quest, but they are not doing good in doing it. Evil characters would be happy to take up this quest.

The whole adventure is pretty muddy to begin with.

Peet


Peet wrote:
They have been assigned to kill someone. That someone is evil and has committed a crime. But the party is not sent to deliver justice; they are sent to deliver revenge. The mission is neutral at best. Good characters may be able to justify their actions taking this quest, but they are not doing good in doing it. Evil characters would be happy to take up this quest..

It's marginal. They are being hired assassins. Sure the ogre was pretty guilty, but since he'd already been neutralized and was being punished, their act was murder for hire.


Bookkeeper wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Well, perhaps the OP didn't present it well. But having perhaps too much genre savvy, I'd look upon that as a "adventure hook" which the players are generally supposed to bite. I didn't see it as a "choice". Perhaps you had to be there.....
See, as a player, I'd be throwing monkey wrenches immediately if this were presented to me as an adventure hook. If the plot requires me to deliver sentient beings into slavery, I'd call shenanigans on that too. Even the most violent of parties could probably see their way clear to simply killing the slaver giant and the ogre and returning the Ogre's head to fulfill the contract in question. That's hardly the only option, but it's one of several that does not involve getting down for some freelance slave-trading.

So, a double assassination is better than what they actually did?


Peet wrote:
Helic wrote:
"Good" adventurers usually have the best reason for using lethal force - defense of society. Most humanoid races are bent on the destruction of social order - they enslave, pillage, burn, murder and rape at every opportunity. They generally can't be reasoned with either, naked force is the only thing they're conditioned to respond to.
This really depends on your campaign world.

Yes, I'm assuming bog standard evil humanoids. There's no question there have been 'evil' humans, and defending their society isn't a good act. Murderous hordes of humans are no different from murderous hordes of orcs.

That said, the motivation for killing is what defines the act as 'good' or 'evil'. The Evil types are killing for hatred, fun and/or profit. The Neutral types are killing for self defense/survival, and the Good types are killing to defend/save others who are generally unable to defend themselves.

If orcs in your campaign fall into the noble savage category (a bit rough but willing to live in peace if they can), then knee-jerk killing them is basically evil. It helps to define this for your players before you start the campaign.

Liberty's Edge

And now we've reached the point where particular aspects of the society and environment must be known, as we fill the lack with our own presumptions and end up talking past one another. But let's spoiler tag that part of it...

Presumptions about Law:
For instance, several posters in this threat have referred to violations of the "law of the land," but there's a huge problem with that - it presumes there is a law of the land. Consider Varisia - it's all well and good to declare that there's banditry on the Lost Coast Road, but so what? It's not against the law, nor is murdering those bandits when they try to take your stuff. Between cities is wilderness, where there is simply no law to speak of. We can potentially contrast this Taldor or Cheliax, where there is the perception of a national authority, but outside of a civilized place - say, the sort of place where a Giant ex-raider could establish a slave-based plantation - how legitimate is an authority incapable of enforcing the law?

In such a place, there's a devolution of justice systems. If I encounter an injustice and there's no jail, no fines to be handed out, and no higher authority to appeal to, I am left to decide how to resolve such an injustice (or even if I care to) myself. It's certainly a possibility that I could negotiate with the Giant for release of the slaves, but that seems a road unlikely to lead anywhere but back to violence. If I'm adamantly opposed to slavery, there is no authority to appeal to, and I've got a contracted promise to keep regarding a certain murdering ogre, then violence shall be the order of the day.

You might well be presuming some different level of authority to be had in your own perception of the scenario and that's fine. I'm working off the idea that this land was largely empty of people, hence the village that "sprung up," which means that any authority capable of enforcing rules is far enough away so as to be effectively non-existent.

Rolling back to the original thread topic, I still maintain that the party had options that did not involve becoming slavers and that to do so was a morally abhorrent act.


If anyone cares - yeah, the location was in a fairly lawless area. The region was formally claimed by a feudal human kingdom. But had been more or less ceded to the armies of a frost giant chieftain for several decades, prior to said chieftain's untimely demise. The giants never bothered with any sort of governance, just exacted regular tribute from those still living in the area. As a result of which, plenty of monsters crept in.

Slavery of sapient beings IS illegal in the human kingdom. From the hiring nobleman's perspective, aside from the slain daughter being a deeply personal and painful loss, justice in the form of being a giant's slave was uncertain at best due to an understandable lack of communication between the two cultures.

DrDeth wrote:
Bookkeeper wrote:

Umm, so if I give my PCs a morally-shaky option and they take it, it's my fault as the DM? I call shenanigans.

While I wish to avoid straight-up Morton's Fork, no-good-option, choices, I should still be able to provide my PCs with choices, some of which are less than on the up-and-up, and merrily greet them with the consequences of their decisions.

I suppose it bears mentioning to my players that "I will not give you the auto-win or correct choice in every scenario." Still, I do not have an active obligation to only present savory choices to my players.

Well, perhaps the OP didn't present it well. But having perhaps too much genre savvy, I'd look upon that as a "adventure hook" which the players are generally supposed to bite. I didn't see it as a "choice". Perhaps you had to be there.....

Yeah, you know, presuming that a morally questionable offer made by a morally debatable individual (even in a grey on grey world) is the one true adventure path certainly does not fit any definition of 'genre savvy' that I'm personally aware of... But to each their own...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:


Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.

You apparently don't read much history...especially the history of slavery in the Caribbean islands.


HangarFlying wrote:
137ben wrote:


Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.
You apparently don't read much history...especially the history of slavery in the Caribbean islands.

Your point on that comment is well taken, however there were many plantations in the Caribbean that were owned by U.S. citizens/concerns. Then of course there is the Haitian Revolution. The history of slavery in all of the Americas is really complex and horrifying.

For the last few days I have been questioning the entire alignment mechanic in RPGs and this thread has provided me with more grist for the get rid of alignment mill. Alignment (at its worst) seems like a mechanic designed to justify the slaughter of most everything players come across. In practice, it seems to come down to this: If you are good, neutral or evil you kill things that get in your way. I realize that there are nuanced campaigns but that seems to be a common way that play goes.

At its best I suppose alignment can help players create personas for their characters. Most of the time it seems flat or irrelevant in game. Setting up moral conundrums like this one seems to highlight that: do characters shift alignment every time they have to make a choice with no outcome that fits the alignment slot they have been assigned? -

Unless deontological ethics really are desirable for ease of setting up role play, I think that virtue becomes more interesting and dramatic when it is relative and situational.

The question I'm wrestling with is whether getting rid of alignment all together in PF makes for a more or less interesting game (and obviously the play style of the group in question is central to this).

Sorry to distract from the main question - the thread just struck a chord with me.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Reciprocal Slavery - Yet Another Horrible Alignment Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.