I'm creating a halfling paladin right now, and I'm really wondering how to play her if she ever ends up in Cheliax. I'm leaving her regional background open enough to place her into whatever game I can get a slot in, so she might even end up being Chelaxian. Being both a halfling and a paladin, she of course loathes slavery and all who stand for it, and feels a deep pain at watching her kin be subjected to such treatment, but what does she do about it? If she runs into escaped slaves, does she stay neutral, help them, or turn them in? If she runs across a plot to free slaves, what does she do? What if she is an escaped slave herself? How does a paladin balance being Lawful Good and rebelling against her forced servitude? Normally, I'd Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good with this sort of character, so I don't know how to handle these issues within a lawful context.
So, no violent rebellion or bloody liberation raids, but helping escaped slaves to the best of my ability is okay?
Do you have any idea which god will be hers? That´s a major part of it i think. Halflings should always dislike slavery, perhaps neutral or evil halflings would like others in slavery though. There is the Bellflower network, a halfling organisation freeing halflings from slavery especially in Cheliax.
From a roleplay perspective, your Paladin can detest everything and everyone participating in slavery openly, but no violence or other things which would be against the law. At least not in the open.
Never forget LG is not stubborn stupid^^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, from the way I interpret the Paladin's code, a Paladin is under absolutely no obligation to stand aside and watch atrocities occur simply because they are being committed under the color of the law. Remember, a Paladin is LAWFUL GOOD. Lawful good is not an either/or thing, where one is either forced to uphold laws or be good. A Paladin's duty is to uphold the laws both she and her god believes are correct, just and made for the benefit of all, or at the very least are morally neutral. She is meanwhile obligated to stand against (or refuse to uphold) laws that she and her god would find tyrannical, capricious, unjust and atrocious and that lead to unnecessary and unjustified suffering.
As I see it, a Halfling Paladin would not stand aside and watch the slavery and suffering of her people continue even if it were legal, no more than she would stand aside and watch a genocide being carried out against her people under the color of the law. I also doubt that a Halfling would devote herself to worshipping a god or goddess who would basically say "Slavery (or any other atrocity) of Halflings is A-OK as long as it is legal in the country where it is practiced." Because no good god or goddess would ever decree any such thing. Perhaps a lawful neutral god or goddess, but not a good one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she runs into escaped slaves, does she stay neutral, help them, or turn them in?
It depends on the circumstances. Even if the law of the land states that those escaped Halfling slaves are chattel, to be used as their master wishes, your Paladin does not answer to the laws of that land. She answers to a higher power: The Paladin's code, and her God. Remember, the Paladin's code states the following:
"a paladin's code requires that that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Also, some nations might have people put into forced servitude for a variety of crimes. For example, if your Paladin found out that these halflings actually were part of a legally sentenced chain gang because they were convicted of assault, burglary and larceny, then I would say that she should turn them back in to the authorities because they were tried under laws that her God might find just.
However, if these were escaped chattel slaves, or you knew that these Halfling were placed into forced servitude under trumped-up charges then I would say your Paladin is obligated to help them out, or at the very least not hinder their escape. As a paladin, you must help those in need as long as they are not using your help to evil or chaotic ends. Escaping from slavery is not chaotic or evil (unless they plan on doing something like butchering their former master and his/her family or something like that).
If she runs across a plot to free slaves, what does she do? What if she is an escaped slave herself?
I would say that generally she would feel obligated to assist the people plotting to free the slaves.
How does a paladin balance being Lawful Good and rebelling against her forced servitude?
She would have no problem against rebelling against her forced servitude. Unless she was justly sentenced into forced servitude as the result of a crime, she is not obligated to obey laws that would make her a piece of property to be used and disposed of at some master's capricious whim.
Lawful good people generally believe that laws must be put in place to protect people, and that an orderly society is necessary to promote social cohesion for the benefit of everyone. I would say that lawful good people would despise chattel slavery as a cruel institution that benefits a few people at the expense and suffering of others. I contend that a lawful good society would make chattel slavery illegal, and if there were any forced servitude in such a society, it would be handed down for crimes so that the criminal could repay his debt to society through labor. And even then, it would be a set duration, the lawbreaker would have protections in place to guard him from abuse, and the criminal's descendants certainly would not be forced into servitude as well.
Normally, I'd Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good with this sort of character, so I don't know how to handle these issues within a lawful context.
Lawful can imply a multiplicity of things, not necessarily following all the laws of all the lands. It could mean you have iron self-discipline, unshakable honor, and/or that you always do what you believe is correct, even if it is to your own detriment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always took stealth and deception against a legitimate evil to be perfectly valid for a Paladin. It minimizes casualties among the good and furthers their causes, and I see little reason why that is less honorable that kicking the door down and taking someone's face off. Direct force is useful, but not for every single problem.
|
I always took stealth and deception against a legitimate evil to be perfectly valid for a Paladin. It minimizes casualties among the good and furthers their causes, and I see little reason why that is less honorable that kicking the door down and taking someone's face off. Direct force is useful, but not for every single problem.
i agree but that is a more chaotic approach that is universally seen as not honorable. I like the idea of a CG "paladin of freedom" as in the ol holy liberator. If the dm is willing that might be a better path
I don't see see stealth or deception as having a spot on the law/chaos axis at all. They are tools, and can be used for either lawful or chaotic ends. That's why Rogues and Ninjas can be lawful.
There is a difference between an outright lie and using stealth and deception in combat. Unless you announce all your moves to the enemy like it's Dragon Ball Z, no lies need be said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a LG character should have any problem tolerating slavery because of their alignment. Obviously, they should try to help slaves who are mistreated and stand up for the oppressed, and in principle, should try to bring about the end of slavery. However, slavery is not, per se, evil, any more than any other system that treats human beings as capital (eg. capitalism, communism). When a child dies in a mine shaft, it makes little ethical difference whether that child is a slave or an exploited laborer. Slavery has been a fact of human civilization since basically forever, and has been tacitly condoned by every major world religion on Earth.
If anything, a chaotic good character might be more opposed to slavery, since they may not feel obliged to respect the social structures which define who is legitimately a slave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences. So is labor exploitation, as a matter of fact. It may be a necessity to tolerate it because violent revolution against it will lead to a bloodier Galt, but never should it be considered a non-evil act.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences.So..
George Washington, President of the USA
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (owns slaves = evil, revolutionary = chaotic)List of a few evil (slave-owning) cultures: ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Egyptians, colonial English and Dutch and Spanish, revolutionary America, African tribes, the Muslim Sultanate, native Americans, New Zealand Maori, ...
Pretty much.
By contemporary standards (and DnD alignments embody idealized versions of thise standards) just about all historical civilizations were pretty much evil.
When the Law is not Good, conflict arises.
Since what is and is not Good cannot be changed, that only leaves the Law to be changed. A paladin faced with such a circumstance has their work cut out for them, peacefully educating and illuminating the lawmakers.
Being both a halfling and a paladin, she of course loathes slavery and all who stand for it, and feels a deep pain at watching her kin be subjected to such treatment, but what does she do about it? If she runs into escaped slaves, does she stay neutral, help them, or turn them in? If she runs across a plot to free slaves, what does she do? What if she is an escaped slave herself?
I suspect a paladin could not justify turning in escaped slaves in most situations. Neutrality or a fourth option may be justified sometimes (not every escaped slave is worthy of aid, and some may themselves be pursuing evil aims or otherwise worthy of opposition). I suggest a rule of thumb that aid should be provided unless there is a good reason not to associate with the people in question, though the specific aid provided (Religious sanctuary? Legal counsel? Smiting pursuers? A hot meal and a safe place to sleep?) probably depends on the paladin, their personal philosophies, and the situation.
However, slavery is not, per se, evil, any more than any other system that treats human beings as capital (eg. capitalism, communism). When a child dies in a mine shaft, it makes little ethical difference whether that child is a slave or an exploited laborer. Slavery has been a fact of human civilization since basically forever, and has been tacitly condoned by every major world religion on Earth.
The institution of slavery is typically Lawful Evil in Pathfinder terms.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others
Now, it is not surprising to see a defense of slavery based out of, first, appeal to tradition, and second, appeal that oppression is an unavoidable characteristic of society and therefore oppression is not, per se, evil.
If you combine what the Core Rulebook says about the downsides of Lawful, ("reactionary adherence to tradition") with evil ("oppressing others"), you arrive at exactly this defense: oppression as traditional and inherent to civilization, the way things are and have always been due to the fundamental nature of people and society, once you scrape off paint jobs like serfdom, communism, capitalism. A defense grounded in Lawful and Evil premises.
So..
George Washington, President of the USA
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (owns slaves = evil, revolutionary = chaotic
Inarguably, some of the founding fathers did evil things, participated in evil institutions, etc, and likewise for chaos, according to Pathfinder's alignment definitions.
Whether you believe that made any particular one evil or chaotic is up to your own judgment as to the balance of their character, since there's no detect evil or detect chaos in real life.
I didn't say slavery wasn't bad, just that it's not Evil. Slavery is ownership, which can lead to, but is not the same thing as, oppression. You also have a high hurdle to climb if you want to posit that slavery is more evil than, say, mercantile exploitation, child labor, or feudalism. The paladin class is inspired in part by the romance of knighthood, and the aristocratic system is, by modern standards, pretty oppressive.
If you're a NG person living in a modern democratic system, it's not hard to identify that slavery is, on the balance, pretty Evil, but it would be hard to get most people who have ever lived to agree with you. The list of "evil" slaveowners includes not only George Washington, but a sizeable number of people in Union states during the Civil War, virtually all the kings and prophets mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek philosophers. It's also pretty comfortable, as a person living in a democratic system, to criticize slavery, while ignoring the 70 hour work weeks of the early Industrial age, the child labor used to make your sneakers, and of course the fact that your car license plate was probably made by a slave. Err, I mean the enforced labor of a prisoner. That's completely different, of course.
A Lawful Good person believes you should be nice to slaves. Depending on their personal views, if they live in a society that accepts slavery, they are likely to believe that slaves should not try to escape except to escape death or torture. You know how Superman lets people lock him jail for no reason? That's pretty much how a LG person feels about slavery. Believing that slavery is flat-out wrong, Evil, always, is more of a NG viewpoint.
Here's another thing. Plenty of LG characters live in societies which consider (legitimate) warfare to be a noble and admirable activity. Like, for instance, oh, most of the readers of this forum. Only, we call it "supporting the troops" rather than, "Yay, Lancelot! Go slay those dudes."
It's entirely possible that a Lawful Good person would say, "I have determined that slavery is always, completely wrong, according to principles I consider immutable." But it's not necessarily the case. And if they live in or near a slave-holding society, it probably isn't. Another paladin might decree, "Be nice to your slaves, or I will personally challenge you to battle on the field of honor, to the death." And even though wanton slaughter isn't Good, a justification can be found for that, too.
No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences.So..
George Washington, President of the USA
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (owns slaves = evil, revolutionary = chaotic)List of a few evil (slave-owning) cultures: ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Egyptians, colonial English and Dutch and Spanish, revolutionary America, African tribes, the Muslim Sultanate, native Americans, New Zealand Maori, ...
And again, applying what is meant to be a game mechanic to real life social studies is nothing more than stupid.
Keep in mind that we're discussing GAME play here, not History.
Someone asked how a LG character would deal with slavery as though it were a real "ish" thing. That's not stupid. If you don't want to talk about why slavery is or isn't purely evil, this probably isn't the thread you are looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my campaigns a Halfling paladin would be SO against slavery in Cheliax it's not even funny or open to debate. While you may not run around smiting every single person with a Halfling slave (or slave in general), you would be working with the Bellflowers and trying to help as many slaves escape as possible. And as a GM, I'd be more than happy to allow it and set up some games specifically about freeing slaves from a very very evil person.
What I'm saying is that terms like "Good" and "Evil" can make great entertainment for game material, or morality plays for a sunday sermon, but don't belong in discussions of History that aren't meant to devolve into histronics.
History is a guide. If you look at how "lawful, good" people related to slavery in history, you have a pretty good idea how Lawful Good people might relate to it in fantasy. Most modern people, fortunately, don't have direct personal experience with living in a society that tolerates widespread slavery (virtually every civilization of any size, even in the modern day, has SOME slavery).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see see stealth or deception as having a spot on the law/chaos axis at all. They are tools, and can be used for either lawful or chaotic ends. That's why Rogues and Ninjas can be lawful.It is more the "act honorably" part. i mean it says not to lie even
Stealth isn't a lie. Stealth is a tactic. Paladins aren't stupid. They're not going to kick in a door and alert an entire building of slavers to their presence when they're outnumbered 20 to 1. What good is honor if all it does is get you killed? Lawful stupid is not the base setting for a paladin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong, the system is screwed up but far from slavery. If americans are slave to anything it is their own ignorance. Those "unlivable" wages are much easier without a smartphone and overpriced car. and the "marginally legal" can blame only themselves or their parents.
Is there some unwritten rule on these boards that every alignment thread has to derail into a polarized argument where people regurgitate political punditry talking points?
Back on topic, a paladin doesn't have to go kicking in the door in a no-win situation putting lives at risk. A halfling paladin in particular, being less stellar at kicking in doors than bigger paladins, will likely look for aid. At worst, taking stock of the situation and reporting pertinent information to the Bellflower Network would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to Lawful Stupid behavior.
Nowhere in the Paladin code does it state you must run repeatedly into a brick wall until dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences.So..
George Washington, President of the USA
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (owns slaves = evil, revolutionary = chaotic)List of a few evil (slave-owning) cultures: ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Egyptians, colonial English and Dutch and Spanish, revolutionary America, African tribes, the Muslim Sultanate, native Americans, New Zealand Maori, ...
Being an important historical figure or culture does not exempt one from having done evil things. I can't think of a figure that hasn't' done wrong. Where that puts them on the alignment scale is up for debate, but the institution itself is still evil. Everybody having done it does not reduce the suffering of the victims.
Is slavery unfair? Yes. Does that make it evil? Well, compared to what? Lots of things are unfair. Plenty of religions have defined charging interest on loans as "evil."
Indentured servitude was a form of debt bondage, established in the early years of the American colonies and elsewhere. It was most used as a way for poor teenagers in Britain and the German states to get free passage to the American colonies. They would work for a fixed number of years, then be free to work on their own. The employer purchased the indenture from the sea captain who brought the youths over; he did so because he needed labor. Most worked as farmers or helpers for farm wives, while some were apprenticed to craftsmen. Both sides were legally obligated to meet the terms, which were enforced by local American courts. Runaways were sought out and returned. About half of the white immigrants to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured. Living conditions were similar to children of the employer, but the death rate was higher because of exposure to new diseases.
Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society and the Lord of the Manor and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal society.
Debt bondage (or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined. Debt bondage can be passed on from generation to generation.[1] Article 1(a) of the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery defines debt bondage as "the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined". The Convention seeks to abolish the practice. Debt bondage has hese are forms of slaverybeen described by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery".[2] Most countries are parties to the Convention, but the practice is still prevalent in South Asia.[1] Debt bondage in India was legally abolished in 1976 but it remains prevalent.
Forced marriage is a marriage in which one or both of the parties is married without his or her consent or against his or her will. A forced marriage differs from an arranged marriage, in which both parties consent to the assistance of their parents or a third party (such as a matchmaker) in identifying a spouse, although the difference between the two may be indistinct. Forced marriage is still practiced in parts of South Asia, East Asia and Africa and among immigrants to the West from these regions. Some scholars object to use of the term "forced marriage" because it invokes the consensual legitimating language of marriage (such as husband/wife) for an experience that is precisely the opposite.[1] A variety of alternatives exist, including forced conjugal association, and conjugal slavery.[2][3]
Samples of slavery I'd have a hard time describing as evil, I can surely imagine that people will be taken advantage off within such a system but that doesn't make the system evil per se.
Slaves can be prisoners serving a (life)sentence, perhaps even as a reward for good behaviour or a mercy provided by their captors.
I think slavery in most cases is bad as it is prone to abuse, but it can easily survive in neutral societies and on a limited scale in good societies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think slavery in most cases is bad as it is prone to abuse, but it can easily survive in neutral societies and on a limited scale in good societies.
I was going to say that, but AO beat me to it.
Part of the issue is that we as modern mostly-American and always strongly-American-influenced have a very specific image of slavery in mind; that of the American South and to a lesser extent the various West Indian colonies, where blacks were shipped forcibly from their homelands to serve for generations untold in racially enforced conditions of slavery.
Slavery, historically, is a lot broader than that. In many slave-owning cultures, slavery was more a social class than the notion of mere property it was in the American south. In Islam, for example, slaves were considered to be "inferior people," but still people and had specific rights. It was, for example, illegal to force slaves into certain immoral jobs (such as prostitution), and slaves were entitled under Sharia law to the same style of food and clothing as their master. (By "entitled," I mean that a slave could -- and did -- complain to judges, who would order the master's other goods sold to provide for the slave.)
Slaves in the Old Testament were similarly provided with rights; after seven years, they were supposed to be freed (along with their wives, children, and goods), and if injured were to be set at liberty (again, as a matter of law).
I don't think that a paladin would have any more issues with Sharia slavery than he would with traditional medieval serfdom. And I think he'd have more issues with the 19th century "company store" than with either of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd expect a paladin to be generally opposed to slavery, with some exceptions. Slavery comes in different degrees, and the level of opposition would probably come from the degree.
There is a significant difference between (1) "subject is a criminal and needs to work during his sentence," (2) "subject owes a debt to a master, and will work exclusively for that master for X years to pay off said debt," (3) "subject voluntarily belongs to a master and will obey the master [within reason] because they both enjoy it," (4) "subject was abducted from subject's home and sold to the highest bidder" and (5) "subject was born a slave and will probably remain a slave for the rest of subject's life."
Most paladins would probably find #1, #2 and #3 acceptable within reasonable limits (though probably raising an eyebrow at #3).
#4 and #5, however... The fact that doing that to people might be technically legal in whatever nation doesn't make them less horrible as acts.
I'm under the impression that most halfling slaves fall into my fifth arbitrary category. A paladin of Abadar might tolerate it, but otherwise I'd expect opposition within the paladin's reasonable limits. Just what form that opposition would take would depend greatly on where the paladin is.
Incidentally, serfdom really isn't a thing in Golarian. The only nation I've read about practicing serfdom is Irrisen, and Irrisen's horrible. Does Cheliax do it too?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a LG character should have any problem tolerating slavery because of their alignment. Obviously, they should try to help slaves who are mistreated and stand up for the oppressed, and in principle, should try to bring about the end of slavery. However, slavery is not, per se, evil, any more than any other system that treats human beings as capital (eg. capitalism, communism). When a child dies in a mine shaft, it makes little ethical difference whether that child is a slave or an exploited laborer.
I believe a Lawful Good character would find the oppression of people who have done nothing to deserve such treatment under ANY legal or economic system to be unacceptable. But I believe their first course of action would be to work through the legal system to either change that practice for the better, or to abolish the practice outright. Thus, a Lawful Good person in a society that tolerated slavery would most likely take the William Wilberforce route, while a Chaotic character would be more likely to take the John Brown route.
But in a country like Cheliax where the practice is so ingrained, and the government so cruelly repressive and tyrannical so as not to tolerate the proposed abolition of such an institution, I believe a lawful good character would turn to illegal means to promote the greater good. But they would do so because they believe that laws allowing slavery are designed to oppress, and thus are illegitimate laws.
Slavery has been a fact of human civilization since basically forever, and has been tacitly condoned by every major world religion on Earth.
And that matters why exactly? I could name several horrible things that various human cultures found correct and that their religions either reinforced or did not condemn including slavery, rape, child prostitution and genocide. That does not make these occurrences any less evil.
"God grant the Paladin the serenity to accept the things he cannot change, the courage to change the things he can, and the wisdom to know the difference".
There is a world of difference between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. One of the most important is the ability to own property as well as the ability to leave a life of slavery depending on financial and legal situations. Trying to compare-with-steps-towards-conflate chattel slavery with other forms is ignorant at best and something I would rather not accuse someone of on these forums at worst. That said, a Halfling paladin wouldn't be okay with slavery and would probably try to get in contact with the bellflower network ASAP to organize some kind of counter. They also probably wouldn't be okay with the entire country being aligned with Devils.
We think that slavery is evil, but only because we value so much of individualism and freedom. Lawful Good could fully support slavery if
- It won't bring injustice
- It won't bring unnecessary suffering
- It wont disturb harmony
- It support his/her view of world
For example, many good Chelaxians may think that all halflings are just cute pink skinned goblins, who need hard discipline and care provided by slavery to keep them out of troubles, like drinking, stealing and overeating.
If you think that slavery is never righteous, what do you think property of cattle or pets? Do you accept conditions of Cows, Dogs or Delphins? Would you accept same for Criminals or Orcs?
|
|
I think the question is not 'how should a halfling paladin react to slavery', but 'how does MY halfling paladin react to slavery?'
This depends on your halfling's deity, personal experiences, and especially their own code. What are YOUR paladin's priorities? Write it out. SERIOUSLY. Write it out, refer to it when you come across moral dilemmas in -game, and be prepared to show it to your GM when defending your choices.
Some paladin codes focus more on law, while others more of good. Some paladins find protecting the innocent to be their top priority. For others it s destroying the undead, or defending their church. Some need to show mercy to all who request it, while others might be required to take vengeance those who have attacked their church.
For example, my paladin's code says that not only can she lie to prevent an injustice or protect the innocent, she MUST, since she cannot place her own pride above that greater good.
Think about your paladin, write our her code, and see what answer you come up with.
As long as she doesn't buy halflings she should be fine.
What if she buys a halfling out of strict necessity for the greater good, then frees the halfling once she has finished her paladin-ing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if she buys a halfling out of strict necessity for the greater good, then frees the halfling once she has finished her paladin-ing?
How does this differ from torturing the halfling out of strict necessity for the greater good, then healing the halfling once she has finished her paladin-ing? Or lying to the halfling out of strict necessity for the greater good, then telling the halfling the truth....?
If (your code says that) buying halflings is evil per se, then paladins (like you) don't get to do it. If your code says that slavery is fine if the slave's rights are respected, then you wouldn't even need to free the halfling, and there's a very interesting character in there somewhere who simply buys Chelish slaves from cruel masters and puts them to work under "proper" conditions.
By not worsening the halfling's condition and probably improving it? I don't think the Code gets to define what is Evil; not doing evil, keeping your alignment, and keeping your Code are three different (though related) things.
|
|
I worked against slavery in Westcrown when I could, and earned my own freedom. I don't want my family to grow up amidst such horror, so I take every opportunity I am presented to showcase the wrongness of it, and turn the tide against such an evil institution. One must sway the people from it through words and deeds, not bloodshed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We think that slavery is evil, but only because we value so much of individualism and freedom.
...And? That is correct. We view certain things as being evil when they are diametrically opposed to our values. Most people also find the murder of children evil because we value the lives of children and find destroying innocent life reprehensible. I think it is right that we value these things.
Lawful Good could fully support slavery if
- It won't bring injustice
- It won't bring unnecessary suffering
- It wont disturb harmony
- It support his/her view of world
In other words, Lawful Good people would not support slavery, because slavery violates all those things. It is unjust, it causes unnecessary suffering, it disturbs harmony, and lawful good person's worldview generally does not have a place for slavery (especially in the form of chattel slavery).
For example, many good Chelaxians may think that all halflings are just cute pink skinned goblins, who need hard discipline and care provided by slavery to keep them out of troubles, like drinking, stealing and overeating.
Yes. And Chelaxians who think that way are not Lawful Good, or any other form of good for that matter. They are morally Neutral at best.
If you think that slavery is never righteous, what do you think property of cattle or pets? Do you accept conditions of Cows, Dogs or Delphins? Would you accept same for Criminals or Orcs?
You know, I am not one who believes most animals are "people" as human beings are, or should be afforded the same number of rights as human beings. Not all living things deserve the same levels of same treatment simply by virtue of living.
But you know the funny thing? Well, not so funny, really: Many slave owners and slavery proponents throughout history, most infamously in the American South, justified slavery for the reason that they believed black Africans to be little better than animals who needed to be domesticated and controlled. Those slaveowners saw themselves as good and moral people, even when they were physically, mentally and emotionally torturing the slaves they saw as chattel, because it wasn't as though the slaves were people. Guess what? The slaves were people, and the slave owners were not moral. They were simply sick pieces of garbage who had mastered the art of cognitive dissonance.
Simply thinking yourself as good does not make you good. Morality in D&D/Pathfinder is objective, and people who support slavery as some form a benign social institution fail to meet that objective standard of goodness.