Slavery in the Pathfinder World and its implications... (series of weird questions regarding a controversial topic)

[Takhisis]

Slavery. It was a dark element of the world in which we live and it also exists in the world of pathfinder. Despite the fact it exists, I rarely see it brought up in games due to it's controversial nature. While it may be mentioned here and there, it's true ugly face never comes up and that's most likely a good thing. However, despite this it is still a factor in the setting and I can't help but have a morbid curiosity about the topic of how slavery and characters related to it are handled in both Pathfinder Society and home games and exactly what level of exploration of the topic is considered socially exceptable.

While the "runaway/freed slave" PC is probably the most common character to have a connection to the institution I am more interested in characters on the other side of the coin; slave owners, Slavers, middlemen in the slave trade and others involved in the institution of slavery in a very pro-slavery way. I would like to know how characters that fall into any of those archtypes are handled and just what character concepts are and are not considered acceptable at a table, especially in the realm of Pathfinder Society.

Could you, for example, make a PFS character who is involved in the slave trade either as a slaver, slave merchant, middleman in the trade or similar position? Are slaves even legal for purchase in PF society and if so, how do your tables handle the sensitive issues a PC owning a slave would touch upon? Dose owning a slave automatically shift your alignment to evil or can you maintain at least a neutral alignment so long as you don't go out of your way to abuse your slaves and are a generally fair/kind master? Likewise, could a slave owner ever have a "good" alignment if they had the requite kindness and concern for their slaves or is the mere act of owning a slave heinous enough to prevent you from ever having a good alignment even if you treat your slaves like the human beings and are an all around good person beyond the fact you own some slaves?

Finally, if you have ever had issues come up at your table s a result of the existence of slavery in pathfinder how did you resolve them? If anybody has comments on any or all of these topics feel free to post here!

[Zhayne]

First thing's first. Pathfinder is a game system. Golarion is a setting. Pathfinder is not Golarion, Golarion is not Pathfinder. Slavery exists on Golarion, but it isn't an inherent part of the rules system.

I suspect most people gloss over the subject because it is so offensive; the same reason most people don't have rapes in the game. It's a very sensitive and very important real-life topic, and it could make lots of people uncomfortable and spoil the fun of the game.

No matter how nicely you treat a slave, you're still saying 'I'm better than you, you're just a glorified farm implement' (or whatever job the slave is put to). Lipstick on a pig.

[Takhisis]

Yeah. I know the difference between setting and game system. I just don't know how to spell Golarion by heart and was too lazy to look up the proper spelling. Thus instead of trying to spell it and failing utterly I just posted the Op as-is. I apologize for the confusion that caused and next time won't be as lazy.(Hopefully) Anyway, with that established It's probably a good thing people just gloss over it simply because it causes so many potential issues. I personally have never encountered a character heavily involved with slavery and have little desire to.

However, the reason for this thread is that despite having little experience with the issue I am interested in how it is handled when it comes up. While I've never really encountered it in a game myself, I have heard stories about tables where PCs have bought slaves and, as stated before, I am just curious as to how people handle the topic in their games in the rare chance it does come up. I've seen some people automatically make any character who buys a slave fall to evil and have heard others say that, due to it being a societal norm in Golarion that it would drop the buyer of the slave to neutral rather then straight to evil. I also assume that slaves are illegal for purchase in PF society simply to promote a good table environment, but if they are in fact legal purchases in PF society I'd want to know why since there are so many issues with it that could come up.(Though I honestly hope that slaves are illegal to purchase in PF society since I can't see what reason they would have to allow them.)

[Jake the Brawler]

I think you can't be an evil PC in PFS, so you probably couldn't own slaves.

In the Dark Sun setting (not Pathfinder) good-aligned characters cannot own slaves but neutral characters could be "decent" slave-owners. Even neutral characters aren't going to take slaves adventuring with them, unless those slaves are slave soldiers or gladiators. The stuff about alignment and slave-owning is from 4e Dark Sun and so you might want to ignore it (different company and setting).

Mechanically it would cause a lot of problems beyond the obvious moral and ethical ones. It's a lame Leadership without costing a feat slot or with any level requirement, and I don't know if any rules material beyond Dark Sun 2e has costs for slaves. Slaves are rarely any good in a fight and presumably require a lot of watching to prevent them from running away. A bunch of slaves might kill their master. And while slaves generally weren't paid (Roman slaves were though, as they weren't treated too badly and could literally buy their freedom) you still have to feed them and keep them from freezing to death at minimum, which just creates logistical headaches.

It's a lot easier for an NPC to own slaves as the DM doesn't need to keep track of details. There's the NPC, their overseers, and some slaves. If for some reason the slaves fight for the NPC, just add their CR to the APL; it's not like NPCs take Leadership. Otherwise the slaves might run away or even assist the PCs.

[Scavion]

Slavery is a construct developed by the culture of the society of the region. Its quite easy for it to be considered evil, but can just as easily be justified as neutral or could even be a good thing.

I can think of a generally non-evil instance of slavery being shown in the Wheel of Time series. Gai'shan are Aiel(Desert people) who are captured/defeated in battle. To be defeated in battle is to be shamed and they must don white robes and serve their victors. This entire custom is developed by the Aiel people and they go willingly. Of course they deny the term slavery, but the appearance is still the same.

Imagine a country that punishes criminals by putting them to work in mines or such. Is that Evil? Is it Good?

[Mojorat]

Well, the first thing you need to realize is that alot of games do not necessarily go into the fine details. If PC's are in a bar and there is a serving girl there i doubt alot of players thing to ask if she is a slave. Things like comerce and industrary of which slavery is an integral part are usually glossed over because were not playing the game to be chelish textile merchants.

Secondly, While i dont Play PFS you can have vanities, these can be things like porters. Now I hav eno idea what a porter does in PFS but presumably you can have one and say he is a slave. It really doesnt matter, because its background stuff that has no impact on the game itself.

Much of Golarion treats slaves no different from any other comodoty, and theres no reason to make any special big deal out of it or ban it.

[Owly]

It is possible to hold an offensive concept in your imagination without embracing or embodying it or making it real in any way. People have been doing this since there were storytellers.

To spend time discussing how people in a public place may or may not be offended by something entirely fictionalized is a waste of time, and is the sort of bait trolls enjoy setting for the over-sensitive and those starved for approval by their would-be peers.

[Alex Smith 908]

Scavion wrote:

Slavery is a construct developed by the culture of the society of the region. Its quite easy for it to be considered evil, but can just as easily be justified as neutral or could even be a good thing.

I can think of a generally non-evil instance of slavery being shown in the Wheel of Time series. Gai'shan are Aiel(Desert people) who are captured/defeated in battle. To be defeated in battle is to be shamed and they must don white robes and serve their victors. This entire custom is developed by the Aiel people and they go willingly. Of course they deny the term slavery, but the appearance is still the same.

Imagine a country that punishes criminals by putting them to work in mines or such. Is that Evil? Is it Good?

Slavery as an institution defined by the ability to purchase and sell another sapient being cannot be considered good. It cannot be good because the act of being considered property cannot be considered beneficial to the one who is property. Any justification must be predicated on the ideology that the one who is owned is someone less capable leading a fulfilling life than the owner is capable of forcing on them. In fact such justifications would be identical in ideology to the rape apologists that insist "she orgasmed therefore it wasn't rape".

The mining example you gave doesnt even actually sound like slavery so much as labor as punishment within a justice system, which many countries including the United States do. Even if you define that as slavery (it isn't) if it significantly endangers the life of the felon it is evil if not it is neutral, simply as you are lawfully forcing someone who harmed the state to perform functions that help the state.

[Mike Franke]

It seems to me that the kind of slavery is very important in any discussion about good/evil, etc.

Golarion slavery seems much more akin to ancient world slavery than new world colonial slavery.

In the old world just about every country and culture practiced slavery in one form or another. Slaves were usually defeated enemies, however, they could also be debtor slaves (those who were enslaved because they owed money, or even children sold into slavery by parents who had more children than they needed/could support. These slaves were often educated, treated well, sometime paid, and could earn important positions in government and the military. They were just as likely to be tutors or teachers or govt officials or house servants as field workers. In many cultures slaves could buy their freedom and the children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves. Certainly this kind of slavery would not have been seen as evil.

However, I think most gamers, perhaps because they are more familiar with 19th century slavery, associate slavery with pre-civil war American slavery. That was a very different thing.

Maybe we need to know more about Golarion slavery before we can really know but I don't see a "Slaves of Golarion" coming out any time soon.

[Alex Smith 908]

Mike Franke wrote:

It seems to me that the kind of slavery is very important in any discussion about good/evil, etc.

Golarion slavery seems much more akin to ancient world slavery than new world colonial slavery.

In the old world just about every country and culture practiced slavery in one form or another. Slaves were usually defeated enemies, however, they could also be debtor slaves (those who were enslaved because they owed money, or even children sold into slavery by parents who had more children than they needed/could support. These slaves were often educated, treated well, sometime paid, and could earn important positions in government and the military. They were just as likely to be tutors or teachers or govt officials or house servants as field workers. In many cultures slaves could buy their freedom and the children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves. Certainly this kind of slavery would not have been seen as evil.

However, I think most gamers, perhaps because they are more familiar with 19th century slavery, associate slavery with pre-civil war American slavery. That was a very different thing.

Maybe we need to know more about Golarion slavery before we can really know but I don't see a "Slaves of Golarion" coming out any time soon.

Saying all old world slavery was like that is a bit too generalist. Slavery as an institution varied from culture to culture in addition to time period. For instance Roman slaves of Greek origin were treated very differently from their slaves of Middle Eastern origin. Due to the evolving definitions of words slavery as you defined it still couldn't really be better than neutral as it was more akin to a salaried job, just getting your salary as 1 installment for 5 to 10 years or a certain period of earnings. Selling children into such slavery i might still consider at least slightly evil due to their inability to consent properly to such an arrangement and being unable to directly be compensated most times.

[Mike Franke]

Yea, I was being general. And, I agree, definitely different in different cultures. I was thinking of Greek slaves in Rome, but also slavic slaves in Greece and Numidian slaves in Egypt...and of course in each of these examples these cultures enslaved their own peoples as well. I also agree that while these certainly would not be seen as good, neutral might be a good description.

My problem is that I don't feel there has been a lot of info on slavery in Golarion. I know I have seen examples of criminals enslaved. I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of enemies enslaved in war or conflict between nations. In Cheliax are haflings enslaved just cause? or maybe that is Taldor.

Point being it seems to me Golarion slavery is pretty varied and hard to lump all together.

[137ben]

Takhisis wrote:

Yeah. I know the difference between setting and game system. I just don't know how to spell Golarion by heart and was too lazy to look up the proper spelling. Thus instead of trying to spell it and failing utterly I just posted the Op as-is. I apologize for the confusion that caused and next time won't be as lazy.

Just a note, you posted this thread in the Pathfinder RPG forums. There is a separate Pathfinder Campaign Setting forum, and since this thread is about Golarion you probably could post it there.

On the topic of slavery in Golarion,
I know that in the CRB, slavery does not have the [Evil] descriptor, although the ethos of most 21st century "western world" readers would suggest that it should be considered extremely [Evil], and the core alignment rules calls out "oppression" as evil. Does anyone more familiar than me with Golarion know if this discrepancy is rectified in Golarion cannon?

[Drachasor]

Hmm, given the rules on making constructs, seems like most slavery would be replaced by animated objects. They can work 24 hours/day, never tire, never age, and a hard to injure. Granted, there's a higher upfront cost, but each one you buy replaces the need for 2-3 slaves forever.

Oh, and they don't need food, don't get sick, and won't rebel.

Seems pretty good way to go at least for all the unskilled labor needs. Intelligent Constructs are a bit more difficult for the skilled labor bits.

[Mojorat]

Your average construct costs thousands of gold. Careing for and feeding slaves even treating them well is still cheaper.

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

[mkenner]

Scavion wrote:

I can think of a generally non-evil instance of slavery being shown in the Wheel of Time series. Gai'shan are Aiel(Desert people) who are captured/defeated in battle. To be defeated in battle is to be shamed and they must don white robes and serve their victors. This entire custom is developed by the Aiel people and they go willingly. Of course they deny the term slavery, but the appearance is still the same.

I might just be a dense wetlander but I don't really consider the practise of Gai'shan or Ji'e'toh as being morally justified. While there were certainly some very reasonable exceptions (you couldn't take a clan's blacksmith or a mother with young children as Gai'shan), it's still a barbaric practice in which people's lives are turned upside down for the benefit of another based on military might.

Their culture indoctrinates them to accept this and to consider it a point of honour, but I don't think it makes it less abhorrent. I'm not sure how willingly and consensual we can regard their service when it's stated that their sept would shame and shun them (I believe they even mention that their sept would "send them back") for breaking their Ji'e'toh in this way and other members of the sept would become Gai'shan to make up for the disgrace.

[Scythia]

I once had a character in a "children of the divine" game ascend to become a goddess of slavery. Although, she was an evil half devil daughter of a God of tyrants, so it was a natural progression.

Aside from her, the topic had never come up, and hasn't since -at least in a D&D style game.

[Alex Smith 908]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes, that is literally the most stereotypical lawful evil act ever.

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes, that is literally the most stereotypical lawful evil act ever.

Upholding the law is evil? Do tell

[Alex Smith 908]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes, that is literally the most stereotypical lawful evil act ever.

Upholding the law is evil? Do tell

Upholding an evil law is evil, upholding a good law is good. Both acts are lawful. How is that hard?

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes, that is literally the most stereotypical lawful evil act ever.

Upholding the law is evil? Do tell

Upholding an evil law is evil, upholding a good law is good. Both acts are lawful. How is that hard?

How can you define the law as evil with no context? You seem pretty passionate about this but passion doesn't always make a rational argument. Would it be different if it were aforementioned criminal 'servants'?

[magnuskn]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes. Instant fall.

[Alex Smith 908]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

How can you define the law as evil with no context? You seem pretty passionate about this but passion doesn't always make a rational argument. Would it be different if it were aforementioned criminal 'servants'?

If one defines slavery as evil its legality has no bearing on whether it is good or evil. You're currently arguing with a logical fallacy "appeal to authority". Capturing someone by virtue of their legal status as property so that they can continue being treated as property when their status as escaped meant they had agency is lawful evil. Capturing someone due to their breech of social contract which meant that they had a limited defined loss of freedoms such as jail-time or hard labor is lawful neutral. Once again though why do you bring up its legality, as pathfinder objective morality is specifically defined such that law and good have no correlation.

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Lets say I am the leader of a tribe. We have a rival tribe, like oh so many tribes do. One day this opposing tribe has the gall to attack my tribe. An OUTRAGE! Heavens, how dare they? What do I do? I fight, of course. Over the corse of their petty attempt at a raid, they fall to my powerful and well organized tribe. We are victorious. They weren't completely wiped out in the fight, seeing as they are rational, cognitive beings. Well, I cant let them just go on their way, now can I? I have women, and children who need protecting! I can't have them sneaking back in my camps at night and slitting their throats. So, my choices are, bleed them like pigs and let the sands swallow their blood and be done with the whole mess, or I offer them a choice. Serve me and my people, for penance of the crimes you have committed to my people, or die. Its their choice. It may not be an ideal choice, and I'd rather see them all live as servants, well treated i might add, to my people. Does that make me an evil man?

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

My tribe is Chaotic Good. Does this automatically make us Chaotic Evil?

[Alex Smith 908]

If you define them as property or otherwise less than human yes. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot ever be integrated into a society then one should kill them for the sake of your own loved ones' safety.

If they can be integrated into your society and this service is among the steps to making them "of your tribe" then it is a pragmatic neutral decision as the "slavery" is a temporary transitional state.In realistic confines though such transitional slavery would never have frequent enough escapees, that weren't simply killed due to danger, for slave catching to be a frequent occurrence.

Edit: That particular act makes you significantly closer to law at least and possibly closer to evil dependent on previously mentioned conditions.

[Set]

magnuskn wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes. Instant fall.

And this is why people can't play Paladins. GMs deciding that the paladin will instantly fall if he *does what the GM has his boss orders him to do.* Catch 22.

Easier to just say 'No, you can't play a Paladin' during character generation than hose your player this way.

If a region in the setting both has active Paladins, and has slavery, then there will *have* to be some sort of accomodations or 'wiggle room' built into the system. Religious exceptions to lawful orders, for instance, or forms of slavery that a LG Paladin can reasonably accept (such as prisoners who would otherwise be sentenced to death for their crimes being allowed to choose a lifetime of servitude, instead, making them slaves by their own choice, and yet also in that situation because of their own wrong-doings, making their status as slave also their *just and lawful punishment*).

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Set wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes. Instant fall.

And this is why people can't play Paladins. GMs deciding that the paladin will instantly fall if he *does what the GM has his boss orders him to do.* Catch 22.

Easier to just say 'No, you can't play a Paladin' during character generation than hose your player this way.

If a region in the setting both has active Paladins, and has slavery, then there will *have* to be some sort of accomodations or 'wiggle room' built into the system. Religious exceptions to lawful orders, for instance, or forms of slavery that a LG Paladin can reasonably accept (such as prisoners who would otherwise be sentenced to death for their crimes being allowed to choose a lifetime of servitude, instead, making them slaves by their own choice, and yet also in that situation because of their own wrong-doings, making their status as slave also their *just and lawful punishment*).

Nope. Not black and white enough. -______-

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

If you define them as property or otherwise less than human yes. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot ever be integrated into a society then one should kill them for the sake of your own loved ones' safety.

If they can be integrated into your society and this service is among the steps to making them "of your tribe" then it is a pragmatic neutral decision as the "slavery" is a temporary transitional state.In realistic confines though such transitional slavery would never have frequent enough escapees, that weren't simply killed due to danger, for slave catching to be a frequent occurrence.

Edit: That particular act makes you significantly closer to law at least and possibly closer to evil dependent on previously mentioned conditions.

Genocidal tendancies are more acceptable than an option of slavery vs. death? Giving a man a choice of forced servitude makes you lean towards evil as opposed to treating them like untrustworthy animals? I'm not sure I follow the logic behind that

[Alex Smith 908]

Set wrote:

And this is why people can't play Paladins. GMs deciding that the paladin will instantly fall if he *does what the GM has his boss orders him to do.* Catch 22.

Easier to just say 'No, you can't play a Paladin' during character generation than hose your player this way.

If a region in the setting both has active Paladins, and has slavery, then there will *have* to be some sort of accomodations or 'wiggle room' built into the system. Religious exceptions to lawful orders, for instance, or forms of slavery that a LG Paladin can reasonably accept (such as prisoners who would otherwise be sentenced to death for their crimes being allowed to choose a lifetime of servitude, instead, making them slaves by their own choice, and yet also in that situation because of their own wrong-doings, making their status as slave also their *just and lawful punishment*).

The issue with that is punishment of crimes is never really good aligned. Protecting people from a criminal is good aligned because you're helping the victim not because you're harming the criminal. Thus punishment is only just on a basis of preventing a criminal from harming others. As such punishments should be based on preventing continued criminal behavior. Within such a system of laws death would only be applied to those considered so dangerous they cannot be rehabilitated, and as such keeping them around as slaves would be dangerous and counter to the point of keeping innocents safe. Similar to keeping a demon bound but only having it bake cookies.

What you're describing sounds like a lawful neutral society not a lawful good one. In which case it would have to be slightly more thoroughly examined but in general Bobby the Baby Rapist would be apprehended by the paladin who would likely prefer him dead than a slave. If it was Billy the Bread thief though the paladin should likely help him escape because the good is more important than law.

[Alex Smith 908]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Genocidal tendancies are more acceptable than an option of slavery vs. death? Giving a man a choice of forced servitude makes you lean towards evil as opposed to treating them like untrustworthy animals? I'm not sure I follow the logic behind that

Saying "you are on watch but will eventually be one of my people" is neutral, saying "you are my cattle" is evil. Saying "you're free to go and here's to helping you rebuild" is good but also likely hopelessly naive. Then again the latter worked for dealing with Nazi Germany.

[Imnah, The Half Steel]

Okay so Ned Flanders is good, a rational person is neutral, and anything else is evil. Got it. I'll be sure to impliment that into my next session. Welp. Looks like paladin lost favor with his deity for not being goody two shoes.

[Alex Smith 908]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Okay so Ned Flanders is good, a rational person is neutral, and anything else is evil. Got it. I'll be sure to impliment that into my next session. Welp. Looks like paladin lost favor with his deity for not being goody two shoes.

Wow you are being intentionally difficult. You don't fall for commiting neutral acts, you fall for evil acts or such a large failure to perform good acts that your overall alignment shifts to neutral. Also you don't get points toward good for doing things you would already do out of self interest, the whole point of good is self sacrifice, helping others either at the expense of yourself or without any apparent benefit to yourself. That's the whole point of good being distinct from neutral.

When the primary motivation for something is self gain and at the same time not actively harming others it is pretty much the definite of a neutral act.

[Drachasor]

Mojorat wrote:

Your average construct costs thousands of gold. Careing for and feeding slaves even treating them well is still cheaper.

Tiny Animated Objects cost 250gp. A slave costs ~100gp. A lot of tasks can be done with tiny constructs. With burn a tiny animated object can even provide an eternal heat source for cooking and so forth.

A Small Animated Object does cost 2k since it is CR 2. But again it does the work of 3 slaves in all likelihood (given ill health, fatigue, etc). And granted 2k verses 300-400gp is quite a difference, but a tireless worker that doesn't get sick, complain, and you can give to your kids is certainly a solid investment.

However, I don't think it is outrageous to propose that you could have a more specialized Worker that was CR 1 and medium size. Such a Construct would just cost 1k by the guidelines, which is an even more solid investment than a repurposed animated object.

Of course, undead are much cheaper.

[Set]

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Saying "you're free to go and here's to helping you rebuild" is good but also likely hopelessly naive. Then again the latter worked for dealing with Nazi Germany.

But, but, but! Naïve! Hopeless! Please ignore any examples where the moral choice turned out to be the effective choice!

We *have* to make expedient immoral hard serious grown-up choices to be all realistic and stuff! Also, namby pamby and Disney princess and sandal-wearing hippy peaceniks and whatever other derogatory stuff I can say to belittle anyone espousing a moral viewpoint!

[Alex Smith 908]

Set wrote:

But, but, but! Naïve! Hopeless! Please ignore any examples where the moral choice turned out to be the effective choice!

We *have* to make expedient immoral hard serious grown-up choices to be all realistic and stuff! Also, namby pamby and Disney princess and sandal-wearing hippy peaceniks and whatever other derogatory stuff I can say to belittle anyone espousing a moral viewpoint!

It's okay man the 90's are over, you're allowed to wear colors other than black, and heroes don't need to wield guns with more barrels than bullets.

[Chris Kenney]

So we can't have Paladins in Golarion because they're constantly forced between freeing slaves (Highly chaotic act in direct violation of the core ethos "respect legitimate authority") and not freeing slaves (apparently always an evil act.)

Well, that settles that, since they obviously don't exist.

[Alex Smith 908]

Chris Kenney wrote:

So we can't have Paladins in Golarion because they're constantly forced between freeing slaves (Highly chaotic act in direct violation of the core ethos "respect legitimate authority") and not freeing slaves (apparently always an evil act.)

Well, that settles that, since they obviously don't exist.

Or the only authorities that paladins consider legitimate are those without slaves. Paladins fight devils just as readily as demons. Cheliax nobles or Confederate aristocrat stand-ins fall into the same alignment as the aforementioned outsiders.

[Drachasor]

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Genocidal tendancies are more acceptable than an option of slavery vs. death? Giving a man a choice of forced servitude makes you lean towards evil as opposed to treating them like untrustworthy animals? I'm not sure I follow the logic behind that

Saying "you are on watch but will eventually be one of my people" is neutral, saying "you are my cattle" is evil. Saying "you're free to go and here's to helping you rebuild" is good but also likely hopelessly naive. Then again the latter worked for dealing with Nazi Germany.

A Paladin would most likely deal with slavery in his own country by trying to end it via legal means. Breaking an unjust law is an option, but not the go-to solution. Then again, if the country is an Evil Empire then working through the system might not be practicable.

In any case, freeing slaves and providing them resources (beyond just money) to rebuild doesn't seem very naive in a general sense. It's what sort of resources are provided and how they are provided that would determine how effective that is.

I think we're forgetting the Law and Chaos access here. Indentured Servitude is very lawful, but I think even Chaotic Neutrals would have a problem with it (they just wouldn't both to do much unless it involved them or one of their friends). It is definitely something Chaotic Good types would fight tooth and nail against. Even Lawful Good types are likely to dislike it after examination -- it's very prone to abuse and it is not very dignified overall (imho).

Remember "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." One could argue a good character would sooner be ok with undead as a work force than slavery.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Chris Kenney wrote:

So we can't have Paladins in Golarion because they're constantly forced between freeing slaves (Highly chaotic act in direct violation of the core ethos "respect legitimate authority") and not freeing slaves (apparently always an evil act.)

Well, that settles that, since they obviously don't exist.

Or the only authorities that paladins consider legitimate are those without slaves. Paladins fight devils just as readily as demons. Cheliax nobles or Confederate aristocrat stand-ins fall into the same alignment as the aforementioned outsiders.

On the other hand, looking at what I wrote above, you also have to consider the CONTEXT. A Paladin who inherits a bunch of slaves SHOULD free them. But if freeing them would result in far more evil, then I think there's a strong case to be made for him keeping slaves -- but he'd treat them as people and not as slaves. He'd give them as much freedom and respect as possible. He'd work towards finding a way to ensure their freedom and safety.

I think one could make a similar case for a Paladin that needed to a cover to infiltrate the upper echelons of Chelaxia to end the empire once and for all.

Owning a slave isn't inherently evil in D&D terms. There's certainly a thin line there. It definitely is far from good, and I think most really Good characters would feel deeply uncomfortable about it and try to get out of the situation.

I think people need to remember that difficult ethical situations with no super-fantastic happy-happy solution are not an excuse to make a Paladin fall. One might be able to engineer a no-win scenario for a Paladin like that, but I think it is really bad DMing to force a fall there if the Paladin makes the best of a bad situation.

[magnuskn]

Set wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Is it 'evil' for a lawful good paladin to uphold the law by capturing and returning slaves to their master, if tasked by authorities?

Yes. Instant fall.

And this is why people can't play Paladins. GMs deciding that the paladin will instantly fall if he *does what the GM has his boss orders him to do.* Catch 22.

Easier to just say 'No, you can't play a Paladin' during character generation than hose your player this way.

If a region in the setting both has active Paladins, and has slavery, then there will *have* to be some sort of accomodations or 'wiggle room' built into the system. Religious exceptions to lawful orders, for instance, or forms of slavery that a LG Paladin can reasonably accept (such as prisoners who would otherwise be sentenced to death for their crimes being allowed to choose a lifetime of servitude, instead, making them slaves by their own choice, and yet also in that situation because of their own wrong-doings, making their status as slave also their *just and lawful punishment*).

Dude, a Paladin is Lawful GOOD. Not Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil.

Playing a Paladin presupposes a contract between the player and the GM that the setting and plot of the campaign will allow the player to play his character according to the concept of the Paladin. Lawful, but Good. If you as a GM already impose impossible to compromise situations on the Paladin from the beginning, then, yes, you make it impossible to play a Paladin. Not the player, you the GM.

[Drachasor]

magnuskn wrote:

Dude, you are Lawful GOOD. Not Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil.

Playing a Paladin presupposes a contract between the player and the GM that the setting and plot of the campaign will allow the player to play his character according to the concept of the Paladin. Lawful, but Good. If you as a GM already impose impossible to compromise situations on the Paladin from the beginning, then, yes, you make it impossible to play a Paladin. Not the player, you the GM.

It's also important to note a Paladin is indeed lawful GOOD.

He is not LAWFUL good. He is not LAWFUL GOOD.

The GOOD is more important than the lawful.

But again, one should not treat good or the Paladin code as a straitjacket in morally complicated situations. Sometimes the Good choice is easy to see. If there's no clearly good choice, then a sincere best effort should be sufficient. Anything else, imho, is bad DMing (unless the Player wants that, which is a totally different thing).

[Friend of the Dork]

While not Golarion, I play a PF game where slavery exists and is tolerated in most parts of the world. The PCs, although not slave owners, come from an empire that condones slavery, yet outlaws enslaving citizens.

They grew up in a village where there was a single slave, a servant girl bought from soldiers passing through who was their spoils of war. While we did not go into detail about it, she was essentially no different than a normal serving girl - hard work, hard life, little pay or future, but not mistreated either.

The second incident was kind of special: The PCs were to escort a slave who had murdered her master to his son, who happened to be a Paladin. Long story short, she was evil and showed no mercy to other slaves in the household who would suffer because of this. The PCs agreed and did it, and the Paladin decided not to execute her or free her, but to keep her in service in order to attempt turn her towards good before releasing her.

Moral of the story? Slavery need not always be portrayed as the evil sadistic dehumanization it is often portrayed at. That kind does exist, and is undoubtedly evil, but that does not mean everyone involved in slavery is per definition evil - especially in a society where it is socially accepted. A good PC should strive to make sure people are treated fairly, that slaves are not abused - just like they would do serfs, who in some cases were historically treated worse than some slaves.

An example of a good character who keeps slaves is one that uses them out of need (say a farmer who needs help), treats them fairly, and rewards them with freedom whenever he can. Neutral ones are likely to use slaves as they are seen - livestock. They might make sure they are healthy, but for mostly selfish reasons. And they are unlikely to be unnecessary cruel. Evil slave owners are - well you should know this yourself.

[Googleshng]

Imnah, The Half Steel wrote:

Lets say I am the leader of a tribe. We have a rival tribe, like oh so many tribes do. One day this opposing tribe has the gall to attack my tribe. An OUTRAGE! Heavens, how dare they? What do I do? I fight, of course. Over the corse of their petty attempt at a raid, they fall to my powerful and well organized tribe. We are victorious. They weren't completely wiped out in the fight, seeing as they are rational, cognitive beings. Well, I cant let them just go on their way, now can I? I have women, and children who need protecting! I can't have them sneaking back in my camps at night and slitting their throats. So, my choices are, bleed them like pigs and let the sands swallow their blood and be done with the whole mess, or I offer them a choice. Serve me and my people, for penance of the crimes you have committed to my people, or die. Its their choice. It may not be an ideal choice, and I'd rather see them all live as servants, well treated i might add, to my people. Does that make me an evil man?

Any time someone is saying "Serve me or die!" it's generally safe to assume they are evil, yes. Doesn't help your case when the only rationalization you can think of for it is that keeping people in your camp somehow makes it harder for them to sneak around your camp killing people. Unless, I suppose, you have some system in mind to totally break their spirits first, but that's not exactly scoring you extra morality points.

In this particular scenario, one good option would be to send them back to their leader to explain how soundly they were defeated. Even better, work out just what horrible problems they're dealing with that forced them to take the desperate measure of a suicidal raid against you, and finding a way to solve it for them. If you really insist on getting something for your trouble, holding them as prisoners of war, and negotiating their release in exchange for something else along with a peace accord is also on the table.

But anyway, getting back to the question originally asked here- Without even factoring morality into it, slave owners don't work as PCs. Owning slaves inherently implies a sedentary lifestyle where you order people to do things that seem like too much of a hastle for you. Being an adventurer calls for you to do things nobody else is willing to do. There's an inherent ideological conflict there.

[Drachasor]

Friend of the Dork wrote:

While not Golarion, I play a PF game where slavery exists and is tolerated in most parts of the world. The PCs, although not slave owners, come from an empire that condones slavery, yet outlaws enslaving citizens.

They grew up in a village where there was a single slave, a servant girl bought from soldiers passing through who was their spoils of war. While we did not go into detail about it, she was essentially no different than a normal serving girl - hard work, hard life, little pay or future, but not mistreated either.

The second incident was kind of special: The PCs were to escort a slave who had murdered her master to his son, who happened to be a Paladin. Long story short, she was evil and showed no mercy to other slaves in the household who would suffer because of this. The PCs agreed and did it, and the Paladin decided not to execute her or free her, but to keep her in service in order to attempt turn her towards good before releasing her.

Moral of the story? Slavery need not always be portrayed as the evil sadistic dehumanization it is often portrayed at. That kind does exist, and is undoubtedly evil, but that does not mean everyone involved in slavery is per definition evil - especially in a society where it is socially accepted. A good PC should strive to make sure people are treated fairly, that slaves are not abused - just like they would do serfs, who in some cases were historically treated worse than some slaves.

An example of a good character who keeps slaves is one that uses them out of need (say a farmer who needs help), treats them fairly, and rewards them with freedom whenever he can. Neutral ones are likely to use slaves as they are seen - livestock. They might make sure they are healthy, but for mostly selfish reasons. And they are unlikely to be unnecessary cruel. Evil slave owners are - well you should know this yourself.

This example tremendously distorts the whole issue because the slave is guilty of murder. You then dovetail the slavery into being ok because what is actually going on is a prison sentence. Very different.

Did the Paladin make sure all the other slaves were freed or did he keep the innocent bound in servitude with no future prospects of note?

[mkenner]

A paladin tries to uphold both the highest in moral and ethical standards at the same time. It's a difficult tight-rope to walk, but that's why they're paladins.

Being asked to enforce an unjust law, is probably the classic difficulty a paladin can face. However I doubt that the powers of good wouldn't realize this and be willing to accept that a paladin is doing everything within their power to do the right thing. If worst comes to worst and the paladin does lose their powers then that's what the atonement spell is there for. (Also note that being coerced into performing an act against the code of conduct waives the GP cost for the atonement spell).

I would also suggest that the paladin losing their powers in this case shouldn't be regarded as the paladin being punished. It's a sign that the gods themselves disapprove of the order and might be enough of a message to get said legitimate authority to change their ways.

[Several Orestes]

So let me get this straight, my favorite paladin of Sarenrae cant be a paladin cause he hails from Osirion which has slavery? Maybe I should make him from Qadira, since you know Sarenrae is big over there too... wait they have slavery too...hmm I suppose Paladins of Sarenrae don't exist then. drats

[Friend of the Dork]

Drachasor wrote:

Friend of the Dork wrote:

While not Golarion, I play a PF game where slavery exists and is tolerated in most parts of the world. The PCs, although not slave owners, come from an empire that condones slavery, yet outlaws enslaving citizens.

They grew up in a village where there was a single slave, a servant girl bought from soldiers passing through who was their spoils of war. While we did not go into detail about it, she was essentially no different than a normal serving girl - hard work, hard life, little pay or future, but not mistreated either.

The second incident was kind of special: The PCs were to escort a slave who had murdered her master to his son, who happened to be a Paladin. Long story short, she was evil and showed no mercy to other slaves in the household who would suffer because of this. The PCs agreed and did it, and the Paladin decided not to execute her or free her, but to keep her in service in order to attempt turn her towards good before releasing her.

Moral of the story? Slavery need not always be portrayed as the evil sadistic dehumanization it is often portrayed at. That kind does exist, and is undoubtedly evil, but that does not mean everyone involved in slavery is per definition evil - especially in a society where it is socially accepted. A good PC should strive to make sure people are treated fairly, that slaves are not abused - just like they would do serfs, who in some cases were historically treated worse than some slaves.

An example of a good character who keeps slaves is one that uses them out of need (say a farmer who needs help), treats them fairly, and rewards them with freedom whenever he can. Neutral ones are likely to use slaves as they are seen - livestock. They might make sure they are healthy, but for mostly selfish reasons. And they are unlikely to be unnecessary cruel. Evil slave owners are - well you should know this yourself.

This example tremendously distorts the whole issue because the slave is guilty of murder. You then dovetail...

Yes and no - the Paladin's choice is based on the fact that she is guilty of murder, but not the reason she was enslaved in the first place.

The other slaves in the household were already executed by the local authorities due to a law about collective punishment. She was sent on just because she was at large when this happened and the local nearby Baron thought it nice to let the son have the pleasure of killing her himself.

No, it's not really a LG nation - more like Cheliax and not being honest about it. And mostly not dealing with devils. Mostly.

I just remembered the PCs actually captured the slave when hunting down some other bandits.

[Googleshng]

Several Orestes wrote:

So let me get this straight, my favorite paladin of Sarenrae cant be a paladin cause he hails from Osirion which has slavery? Maybe I should make him from Qadira, since you know Sarenrae is big over there too... wait they have slavery too...hmm I suppose Paladins of Sarenrae don't exist then. drats

I'm not really following the logic here. Just because you live in a country where slavery is legal doesn't mean you have to approve of it, much less personally practice it. That's like arguing that if you live in a country where you're allowed to consume alcohol, advocating that people should avoid doing so makes you some kind of dangerous radical, rather than someone who cares about their friends' health.

Relevant side note here by the way. From Faiths of Purity's entry on Sarenrae-
"Though slavery might exist in your culture, it is an abomination to you, and you might work tirelessly to destroy the institution."

[Drachasor]

Friend of the Dork wrote:

Yes and no - the Paladin's choice is based on the fact that she is guilty of murder, but not the reason she was enslaved in the first place.

The other slaves in the household were already executed by the local authorities due to a law about collective punishment. She was sent on just because she was at large when this happened and the local nearby Baron thought it nice to let the son have the pleasure of killing her himself.

No, it's not really a LG nation - more like Cheliax and not being honest about it. And mostly not dealing with devils. Mostly.

I just remembered the PCs actually captured the slave when hunting down some other bandits.

Then it becomes a simple case of the Paladin being merciful because otherwise he'd have to kill her or set a murderer free. Essentially, he's taking the law into his own hands (legal) and holding her prisoner until she reforms.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but slavery is pretty much irrelevant here. If the local authority decides it is legal, a Paladin could do the same thing with any enemy equally guilty of crimes and be perfectly fine. Assuming they handle the prisoner properly.

Of course, if the Paladin can get into hot water over this. If, within the constraint of imprisonment, he doesn't respect her dignity and isn't concerned with her well-being and happiness, then at that point he's oppressing. With normal people ignoring that stuff is just neutral behavior, but when you have such total control over someone's life it becomes oppression (imho). So a Paladin who does take such a prisoner also accepts a very serious level of responsibility -- both for his behavior and her behavior.

Similarly, a Paladin that does that with the intention of never letting them go free is also committing an evil act. I think it is acceptable for a Lawful Good law or code to allow indefinite imprisonment under the grounds of freedom once someone has reformed (e.g. won't do wrong again). But that conditional imprisonment is very different from a lifetime of slavery. Similarly if he sets unreasonable goalposts for her freedom or unreasonably moves those goalposts, then he's just making excuses.

Again, it is different if slavery is somehow the best option. But you'd have to literally be living in a situation where setting people free would end up causing a great, great deal of harm. Even then, the Paladin (or other truly Good character) has a responsibility to work towards a situation where they can set those slaves free. They also have an obligation to treat any slaves with as much dignity and respect as possible; to treat them as free people as much as they possibly can given whatever onerous situation they are working under. (I'm not saying messing that up now and then means a fall, but it is something they must be careful about).

mkenner wrote:

A paladin tries to uphold both the highest in moral and ethical standards at the same time. It's a difficult tight-rope to walk, but that's why they're paladins.

Being asked to enforce an unjust law, is probably the classic difficulty a paladin can face. However I doubt that the powers of good wouldn't realize this and be willing to accept that a paladin is doing everything within their power to do the right thing. If worst comes to worst and the paladin does lose their powers then that's what the atonement spell is there for. (Also note that being coerced into performing an act against the code of conduct waives the GP cost for the atonement spell).

I would also suggest that the paladin losing their powers in this case shouldn't be regarded as the paladin being punished. It's a sign that the gods themselves disapprove of the order and might be enough of a message to get said legitimate authority to change their ways.

It's not reasonable for the gods to punish a Paladin for the wrongs of a country. The much better way to handle this is for the Paladin to get warnings of some sort so he knows the support he's providing isn't ok. If he persists, THEN he should lose his powers.

I dislike like the idea of "well, if you're heavy-handed with Paladins and give them no-win scenarios, that's ok, they can always get a Atonement spell." The latter isn't always easy.

I grant that's RAW, but probably a more reasonable house rule is that the Paladin needs to personally seek atonement within a reasonable period of time. He doesn't have to get a spell cast, he doesn't lost his powers, but he needs to do something to cleanse himself of what he did (even if he didn't have a choice). He only loses his powers if he refuses to honestly atone. That's a much more playable alternative and provides for plenty of RP opportunities.