| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm considering not using alignment in my gaming world, so as to avoid becoming entangled in the absolute "good" and "evil" enmeshed in the Pathfinder/D&D system.
While alignments can be interesting to tell certain kind of stories, they can make "shades of grey" stories difficult to tell.
In my gaming world, it's interesting for me (and hopefully for my players) that there are genuinely good people in societies which condone slavery. Those good people will certainly practice slavery alongside their friendly neighborhood - IF that serve the stories I'm proposing to tell the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that indentured servitude is a rather significant difference from slavery. For example if there was a period of indentured servitude as a requirement before being given a mages apprenticeship ... And it was a contract signed into by the indentured with legal obligations on both sides then it can well be neutral. If you are talking slavery of the sort where one side has no legal rights I'd tend to say evil ... But on the other hand is a chain gang or work detail for prisoners evil?
Just positing a question to see the answers it gets. Imagine a society where slavery was a contractual thing, entered into by both the owner and the slave for a set period of time, with established anti abuse rules magically enforced for a lump sum of money or specialized training (for example a wizard apprenticeship) at the end of the period of indenture. Would it be evil to accept that period of slavery entered into willingly by the participant in return for cash.
It also could be a punishment in this same society - which absolutely did not believe in the death penalty for a safely accosted criminal. So that criminal is bound and put under a spell to prevent them from being dangerous. If that society believed that the death penalty was a more evil would a form of legalized slavery instead of the death penalty be evil?
Or would you not define those as slavery for purposes of this argument?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was trying to set up a scenario where Slavery could be portrayed in a "Well, it's not EVIL at least" light, I'd probably do what the Russians did (this is the point where it becomes important to take note that the most popular conceptualization of slavery - American Slavery in the South - isn't what happened world over, but instead stands on its own as a fairly disgusting example of the practice taken to its extremes). Being a slave in Russia wasn't half bad - sure, you had no rights, but there was a pretty strong cultural taboo against treating you poorly. In fact, a very significant number of Russian slaves became so WILLINGLY, because they'd be treated much better as chattel then they would as free men (and, again, because cultural strictures strongly discouraged the mistreatment of your slaves) - this worked for them up until Peter I decided "You know what sounds like a good idea? Turning all my slaves into serfs. There you go, buddies, have some freedom - and the SOUL TAX!"
So, yeah. Long story short: if you set up the alternative to being a slave as being fairly crappy, and you make certain that there're cultural incentives against simply beating your property on a daily basis, then slavery as an institution can easily be seen as morally gray. I can't really justify it as GOOD, but it's not entirely BAD either - but then again, alignment is a wonky, arbitrary thing.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental alignment issue with slavery is that it transforms people into property, which runs afoul of the whole "dignity of sentient beings" part of the Good Alignment. But, as has been pointed out, there is a spectrum of options in how slaves are treated and the Venn Diagram of slaves and indentured servants has some overlap in terms of timeframe and right of the servant. An additional wrinkle is the question of punishment: When jails are expensive and indolent prisoners viewed as a waste of money, how much labor can I put a prisoner to before he's a slave?
To pick a nit, the "dignity of sentient beings" bit of the good alignment is another collision of 21st-century morality with the fantasy milieu. Just as a quick example, I'm currently playing in an adventure where the party has received a request to clear out a nest of kobolds. While we have suspicions that the kobolds were involved in some shenanigans in town, we have no real evidence of such. Rationally, each of us should slide towards evil with every sword stroke taken at a kobold. There are hundreds of adventures that contain similar scenarios. Orcs, goblins, kobolds - they're all sentient creatures and I'll bet all the gold in my coin purse that most of the folks in this thread have had at least one good-aligned PC kill one of those creatures with no better justification than "he was between me and the treasure."
I do agree that a Paladin returning a slave to its owner should get warnings that this will not sit well with the deity in question (UNLESS...we're talking about Abadar, but paladins of Abadar are weird birds) and that actually doing so would probably constitute an evil act for which atonement would have to be made. If you want to enforce the law at that level, that's what Hellknights are for, really.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good thing there's no moral ambiguity in wandering the countryside, murdering people who don't agree with you philosophically, and taking their stuff -- AKA, adventuring.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a woman in colonial America wasn't half bad - sure, you had no rights, but there was a pretty strong cultural taboo against treating you poorly.
Putting things in perspective for you.
The loss of agency is the inherent problem with racism, sexism, slavery, wage slavery, etc. If your life is only pleasant because of someone else's mercy then any safety you have is an illusion. It's the same mentality as people who claim random searches by the police and everything the NSA does is okay because "if you're not guilty you have nothing to fear". If you really want what is best for someone and then take away their ability to choose what is best for themselves you are buying heavily into terrible evil cultural double think. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm considering not using alignment in my gaming world, so as to avoid becoming entangled in the absolute "good" and "evil" enmeshed in the Pathfinder/D&D system.
While alignments can be interesting to tell certain kind of stories, they can make "shades of grey" stories difficult to tell.
In my gaming world, it's interesting for me (and hopefully for my players) that there are genuinely good people in societies which condone slavery. Those good people will certainly practice slavery alongside their friendly neighborhood - IF that serve the stories I'm proposing to tell the players.
People can be of good alignment in D&D and still do good and even now and then evil acts. They don't exemplify good (like Paladins), but they don't have to.
Personally though, I wouldn't want to be in a campaign centered in a slave-keeping society unless I get to stop slavers and free slaves. To each their own though.
Same here.
In my game worlds, slavery is outlawed in every civilized nation on the face of the planet. Even the 'bad guy' countries don't usually want to cross that line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slavery is not inherently evil. Neither is Darkness or Killing.
Slavery could be a form of honor for some (like the Nords & Celts) where if a warrior is defeated and spared he serves the one who spared him as a slave.
The only time I can see Slavery as being inherently evil is in the surprisingly rare cases of abusive owners.
Jeven has the right idea on the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good thing there's no moral ambiguity in wandering the countryside, murdering people who don't agree with you philosophically, and taking their stuff -- AKA, adventuring.
Yeah, no, that's not really how it works.
I can see a paladin owning slaves.
In a strongly lawful, caste organized society, 'freed slave' could easily be worse than owned slave...and I can see a paladin doing his best to help as many as possible, even if that means buying them.
Suddenly I can't help but think of the Farmer & Leif from Vinland Saga...
Rome had surprisingly strict laws against abuse to a slave, well save Gladiatorial Slaves. The same could be said for the Nordic, Celts, and Persian Peoples though their's was more of a code of honour since most of those slaves came from conquest rather than monetary exchange.
I've never openly prevented a player from buying/owning/selling slaves. It has only very rarely come up, because of reasons so far discussed, but it does in fact come up from time to time. Sometimes it leads to harsh interactions between players who disagree on the subject matter, and other times it is an interesting character development point. I've had parties where one person bought a slave and was immediately universally reviled by the entire party. In another, one player bought a slave, only to essentially be told by the paladin that if he ever so much as lifted a finger against the slave, he'd have hell to pay. In another, a slave ended up becoming a PC after one character died, and it was an interesting point of development seeing the slave buy off his freedom through adventuring.
It's how you attack the subject matter. I usually leave it up to my players to decide how deep down the rabbit hole they want to go with certain subjects.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Ulfen thralldom works pretty much the same. You work to basically pay a debt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were objects, yes. Could you beat them to near death? No. The penalty for being found out or even suspected of that was punishment in public and your house(family) disgraced and striped of a fairly large portion of your land.
Most Codes of Conduct are for appearance but it will still translate to actions that cause better treatment of slaves and such.
Most people have it in there heads that all slaves were mistreated and were of certain race or similar. But in truth a vast majority of them were treated well.
History does have more records of mistreatment though because they are shocking and out-of-the-ordinary. It is like turning on the news and hearing of a Murderer who killed someone with a Pitchfork despite the fact that there was 3 other murders in the same neighborhood. The M.O. makes it unique and shocking meaning it makes for a better story.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh this thread.
I love Paizo's treatment of the issue in the Golarion setting. It's a game about pulp fantasy, and so slavery plays the same role as in pulp fantasy fiction.
Yeah, that's gonna cause issues. Especially with the objective morality of the alignment system. But I'm glad that hasn't scared the publisher away from the topic, or reduced it to saturday-morning-cartoon morality.
The only real answers about game morality are provided by your GM. I'm sure it's safe to assume that for society play, slave ownership is lawful or unlawful depending on the community you are in, and it is always an evil act. Evil acts do not make evil characters, but the more "good" you are, the less likely you are to keep a slave. In fact, the circumstances where a good character would keep a slave rather than free them are quite exotic, but anything's possible. (For example, a lawful slave from a weird society is honorbound to commit suicide unless serving a master, and a new CG "master" plays along in order to keep him alive, or some similarly contrived thing) Such scenarios are exceedingly unlikely to be topics in society play unless you're going out of your way to be a difficult player. It should go without saying: don't do that.
Can we just take a minute to appreciate that the game treats its players as grown-ups on this issue? Other games often use slavery as a litmus-test or shorthand for evil — often hypocritically evil races—and I always felt that somehow cheapened the issue.
Recognizing it as an abhorrent practice that nevertheless can become an accepted norm—that non-evil people can be accomplices to the act— is nuanced and wonderful. It sets up the setting for meaningful stories about the morality of slavery.
To me, it is much more courageous for the heroes to struggle with the gray areas of their own culture than to have instant judgement over their obvious enemies.
Rome had surprisingly strict laws against abuse to a slave, well save Gladiatorial Slaves.
The above statement is a load of Donkey droppings. Apologetic history books and popular culture may state this, but it is no way true.
Slaves were the absolute property of their masters and could for the most part be killed, raped and sold with impunity. The slave had no rights to resist their master's use of their bodies in any way he wished, including sexually. The only part of the above statement that is somewhat true is that during the Principate, some laws curbing the absolute rights of masters to kill or castrate their slaves were passed, but they were rarely enforced.
Good books on what slavery was really like in Roman society are Slavery in Early Christianity by Jennifer A. Glancy and Slavery in the Roman World by Sandra R. Joshel.
I like that Golarion has it set but it still brings up an interesting thing on how this would be handled in another setting or in corner cases.
@Salazar: The Master had to be able to provide specific reasons and then leave it to a Magistrate(can't remember what the specific title was) to kill a slave. They could do anything that wasn't lethal. Now a Master could arrange an "Accident" but that still would cause them problems.
Sex, Marketing, and "Modification" were legal but not outright Killing. Even Gladiatorial Slaves were protected from being killed on a whim.
Now one could pit them in a Gladiatorial Arena with little chances but they still had a chance. After all even a Naked Unarmed Man can defeat an Ironclad Jeggernaut with a little luck & skill.
The recent Archive discoveries (2011-2012) has shed some interesting light onto Roman Culture.
You could hit them not Beat them. Anything more than a Single Slap or Punch was only able to be given by the Roman Equivalent of a Minor Judge (think a Roman Equivalent of Judge Judy) with sufficient evidence. OF course Bribery and such could be used but that can lead to even more problems (All the way up to being castrated and made into a Slave yourself).
Read any of the recent Archaeology Reports on the Current "Digs" of the Roman Archives.
Let us remove 'paladins' from the equation. Let us instead assume a basic, moral man or woman.
The first question might be: can law be both good and bad?
If we go back to olden times, a sage by the name of Gotama developed a special form of meditation. During these sessions, at each descent into the depths of his mind, he would contemplate what he referred to as the four immeasurable minds of love. That huge, expansive and immeasurable state that knows no hatred. He would direct his thoughts to the furthest corners of the world and not omit a single creature from the cause of concern. To him this invoked also the quality of maitri, or "loving kindness." He included also the quality of karuna, or "compassion."
There were other qualities and goals he mediated upon, but the intent was what he saw as basic goodness and compassion towards others.
Over time, Gotama found that this disciplined practice broke down the walls of selfishness. That he felt enhanced and without hatred or with the need for petty violence. That is, he found the use of ritual and order to enhance his enlightenment and basic goodness of self.
In similar ways, the concept of law and discipline may be used as a vehicle for goodness. That is, just as it may be used for oppression. One of the reasons that Muhammad instituted the bow into his rituals was to challenge the ego of his followers, and remind them of humility.
What about opposing law systems? A good law versus bad?
Well, to make examples a little world-reaching, let us move on to China. We can take a famous sage and look at his actions and how while he made mistakes, also worked towards what he felt was the greater good. Confucius developed at a time when the nobility in China was, as he saw it, running amok. They were destroying the lands of the common folk, were feuding and marching to war against one another.
Initially, the nobility had been taught the practice of li versus these impulses. Li is, and I am sure someone here may offer a better understanding of it, but a set of rituals and principles which aided in self-restraint and better living. Li had been intended to discourage the destructive behavior the nobles were now engaging in.
In answer to the warring states and slaughter of fertile lands, Confucius drew on the strength of the old concept of li as well as emphasizing additionals. For example, he emphasized rituals of consideration (shu), that people did not treat others carelessly and were not driven by self-interest.
Confucius believed, among other things, that a ruler would "curb his ego and submit to li, for a single day [then] everyone under Heaven would respond to his goodness!"
Confucius countered the "evil state" of the time by becoming a sage and a teacher. He attempted to change the system from within. In fact, he died in 469 BCE, regarding himself as a failure. He did not believe he had changed /enough/.
Yet, the (new) system he advocated was in fact a different, and what he saw as, a more moral set of laws and ritual...intended to lead towards a better life and better rulership, than what was present.
We can look to different systems and different sages for similar answers. We can also say that by and large, many of them chose to remain a part of the world and confront these issues more directly. To the Buddha, he advocated that his students should stay among the everyday world and teach within it. That way, compassion within the world would grow and suffering might cease. Teachers were useless if they stayed upon mountains for years, staring at their navels.
The response of these sages of their time, when confronted with the evils and what they perceived as the injustices of the world, was to try to find a better way forward.
In other words, they disagreed with how things were currently done. They then advocated a better one.
A moral man or woman may use a sword. A monk after all, in Pathfinder, may use their fists. However, they are also not without minds or compassion and the wherewithal to use them. Importantly, laws are not without precedent of opposition, even by those who would support the concept of /a/ law or discipline...just one better than the system currently in place.
In brief, law can be both good and evil, and may be opposed by other, otherwise good individuals...who would advocate and support a better method...of law or lawful behavior.
In addition, law itself does not equate tyranny. It may instead be a means of transformation or even of restraint of baser impulses. The vows of a Bhuddist monk, for example, are intended to enable their focus and ability for compassion and contemplation, just as the ancient rules of li for the Chinese nobility acted to restrain their worse impulses within government.
I can see a paladin owning slaves.
In a strongly lawful, caste organized society, 'freed slave' could easily be worse than owned slave...and I can see a paladin doing his best to help as many as possible, even if that means buying them.
I can't really see a paladin doing that, but I can totally see it from an LG cleric. Paladins tend to take a more direct approach, so I think you'd see a lot more along the lines of policing the hell out of slave owners looking for signs of abuse to call them out on, followed by ensuring those slaves were set free (or sent to someone doing the above) and taking time out to make sure they maintained their safety.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Which brings up another catch 22. Good is not more important than law for a paladin. Shifting either of your alignment categories will count as a fall, and acrue all the associated penalties thereof. Doesn't matter if you ceased being good or ceased being lawful; the severity is just the same. Paladins are required to uphold both the law AND their own tenets.
Say for example a chaotic evil monarch allows slavery in his realm. There, he IS the law. Regardless of how he got into power, he is in fact the legal authority. Defeating his subjects so as to send legally purchased slaves back from whence they came is an unlawful act. Attempting to overthrow someone whose authority is recognized to end the entire ordeal (assuming you don't already have some other, legitimate reason to take them down) would also be an unlawful act despite them being of evil alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beard, please go back and read my post for examples of how law may oppose law while still being well, lawful.
Some of the other posters may be able to provide better references and sources.
Many of our greatest movements towards compassion or basic goodness arose /because of/ the presence of what someone saw as evil and the misuse of power under their current governmental system.
They then moved to change things.
That's what heroes are made of.
Your current argument appears to be that the paladin, or the good cleric, or goodly warrior, would knuckle under and say "Yes ma'am," and "No ma'am."
That is not what heroes are made of, and they do not always need to use the sword to accomplish it. In fact, the sword may be the worst way to do so.
Personally, the thing that bothers me most about slavery in Golarion is that they made it racial. It's the halfling's niche.
In one way that's good because halflings never really had much of a racial niche before. On the other, ugh. I don't really like what it does to the race. Unless you just ignore it, which I usually do.And it makes it clear that Golarion's slavery is, at least mostly, a racial, inherited version. It's not debt slavery or prisoners of war or any of the other variations.
That is only in Cheliax there are a few other places with slavery/psuedo-slavery that isn't based on racial aspects.
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.
Oh, but it is. Check the Adventurer's Armory under Black Market Purchases.
Granted, it's not a big part of the rule set, but it's there. Owning a slave is even legal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play (so long as you have the AA book).
Adventurer's Armory is a Setting Book not a Core Book.
|
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, absolutely. Even the military - the closest our modern society has to the epitome of lawfulness - has a section in the UCMJ that explicitly commands that soldiers MUST disobey illegal, Unconstitutional, or harmful orders. If you were commanded by your superior officer, for instance, to turn your weapon and open fire on innocent citizens you would not only be allowed to disobey it but be held culpable if you didn't.
Obviously, it doesn't always work out that way, but being lawful is about a lot more than following orders. A Paladin upholds just laws - you can argue all day about how whether he's allowed to lead a revolution or free slaves, but he's under no obligation to perpetuate an evil system.
Adventurer's Armory is a Setting Book not a Core Book.
Huh. I knew it wasn't a Core Rulebook, but didn't realize the weapons and other equipment contained were for Golarion only.
Well then, nevermind. :)
What if it was a case of Master is better than any alternative?
Say a City State where one side is Undead Territory, another is Deadlands, the third and Forth are Orc and other Savage Humanoids Territories, with the 5th being a Mainly Human Empire that is at war with the City State.
@Mystically Inclined: They aren't just for Golarion they were just part of the Chronicles or Companion Line. Though most of the Weapons and Such were reprinted into the Core Line.
What if it was a case of Master is better than any alternative?
Say a City State where one side is Undead Territory, another is Deadlands, the third and Forth are Orc and other Savage Humanoids Territories, with the 5th being a Mainly Human Empire that is at war with the City State.
@Mystically Inclined: They aren't just for Golarion they were just part of the Chronicles or Companion Line. Though most of the Weapons and Such were reprinted into the Core Line.
There are always the niche and "what if" scenarios. It does not mean that these scenarios do not inspire heroism.
Mencius was another well-known sage and an adviser to emperors. He advised them towards compassion but also benevolence, encouraged the virtue of keeping one's word and honoring the elderly, among other aspects. He worked from within to change the system.
I've included a few summaries of some of his teachings, for the geeky among us (spoilered):
While he retained the use of ren in the broader sense to refer to an all-encompassing ethical ideal, he used it more often in the narrower sense to emphasize affective concern. Ren in this narrower sense has to do with love or concern for others, and involves a reluctance to cause harm and the capacity to be moved by the suffering of others. The scope of such concern includes not just human beings but also certain kinds of animals, and there is a gradation in ren in that one has special concern for and obligations to those closer to oneself. Ren results from cultivating the special love for parents that everyone shares as an infant and the affective concern for others shown in the well-known Mencian example of our commiseration for the infant on the verge of falling into a well.
Besides using yi to refer to the propriety of conduct, Mencius also used it to refer to an ethical attribute that has to do with a proper regard for oneself and distancing oneself from disgrace. However, disgrace is no longer measured by ordinary social standards but has to do with one's falling below certain ethical standards. As an ethical attribute, yi has to do with a firm commitment to such standards.
(Source)
Like Confucius, Mencius regarded the transformative power of a cultivated person as the ideal basis for government. In addition, he spelled out more explicitly the idea that order in society depends on proper attitudes within the family, which in turn depends on cultivating oneself. Also, he made explicit the point that gaining the heart/mind of the people is the basis for legitimate government, as it is the response of the people that reveals who has the authority from tian to take up the position of king. Only the ruler who practices ren government can draw the allegiance of the people, and such a ruler will become invincible, not in the sense of superior military strength, but in the sense of being without opposition. A ren ruler enjoys the allegiance of the people and is unlikely to confront any hostilities; even if a few seek to oppose him, the opposition can easily be defeated with the support of the people. This idea provides one example of how Mencius would try to convince a ruler that his initial desire (viz., being invincible in the sense of superior military strength) can be accomplished in a higher form (viz., being invincible in the sense of being without opposition) through the practice of ren government.
(Source)
Law may oppose law and there are many ways to do so. Not all means of opposition are violent.
Dark times and cruelty have also traditionally been inspiration for heroes and creative thinkers.
Personally, the thing that bothers me most about slavery in Golarion is that they made it racial. It's the halfling's niche.
In one way that's good because halflings never really had much of a racial niche before. On the other, ugh. I don't really like what it does to the race. Unless you just ignore it, which I usually do.And it makes it clear that Golarion's slavery is, at least mostly, a racial, inherited version. It's not debt slavery or prisoners of war or any of the other variations.
I'm not sure you can make that generalization. Yes haflings are slaves in some places but they do not make up all of the slaves traded around the inner sea which appears to be a very large trade with only Andoran really objecting.
Also Cheliax is widely considered an evil place. What about the other slave societies like Qadira? They would provide more insite on this issue for us I think.
PS: If your god doesn't care about slavery why should you? I could see a paladin of a war god or goddess like Sarenrae accepting slavery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could hit them not Beat them. Anything more than a Single Slap or Punch was only able to be given by the Roman Equivalent of a Minor Judge (think a Roman Equivalent of Judge Judy) with sufficient evidence. OF course Bribery and such could be used but that can lead to even more problems (All the way up to being castrated and made into a Slave yourself).
This argument has come up before on these boards, so I'll just quote myself:
Let's remember that those legal codes were a very late development, arising almost universally in the Imperial period rather than the monarchical or Republican. They are not characteristic of Roman slavery as a whole, but only of the later Empire, and even what protection they did afford was very limited.
For nine hundred years it was legal for a Roman to kill his slave without needing a reason. One of the emperors eventually made it illegal about two hundred years after the overthrow of the Republic, and that illegality lasted, effectively, for a century or two.
And as you say, these later laws were not consistently enforced. Classical slavery was not nice, and contrary to many peoples' ideas, it was generally no more nice in theory than it was in practice.
PS: If your god doesn't care about slavery why should you? I could see a paladin of a war god or goddess like Sarenrae accepting slavery.
Kind of. Where it exists, tolerance of slavery in Sarenrae's church is a sign of deep-running corruption.
Ah, the whole "to be lawful or good" paladin debate.
I think it depends on the god that you're following. Obviously, they're all opposed to slavery but they have different codes.
Take Ragathiel for instance. If you read his background, he spends most his time fighting against the Lawful Evil forces of the Nine Hells. So apparently, he could care less if he comes across as unlawful. That, and we can't forget the whole "Kill an evildoer each day" Celestial Obedience rule. Slavers would be obvious targets to pick off for a paladin who wants his bonuses.
I can envision a slaver convoy encountering a paladin of Ragathiel, and one of them meekly protesting about slavery being legal in this kingdom right before the paladin slams a bastard sword through his sternum.