|
Many families in Athens also put their unwanted babies inside pots and left them out beside the road to die from starvation and exposure. This was considered to be morally acceptable, because technically the families weren't murdering the children (apparently, placing them in mortal danger intentionally doesn't count).While slavery may be considered evil in modern society, it was not considered evil for much of history is would not likely be considered evil in in-game cultures that do allow it.
Lets look at, for example, classical Greece. We consider Athens to have been an enlightened society, yet it was the social norm for the vast majority of households to own one or more slaves.
If the in-game society considers slaves a part of the social norm, using or even owning slaves would not be considered evil in that society.
That's actually where a lot of their slaves came from. People would grab those kids and raise them in servitude.
|
The Very Last Book About Alignment covers this in come detail. Slavery is pretty much defined as anytime you coerce work from someone though threats or intimidation, usually threats involving physical violence against them or their loved ones. The operative clause is that the worker doesn't have the option of refusing to work for you and seeking work elsewhere.
TVLBAA scores it as pushing you in both a more Lawful and a more Evil direction, but as long as you are acting as a Slaver it also "depresses" your ability to be good, so it keeps you from earning too many points for good deeds until you stop.
There's also a separate entry for "Cruel Slavery", which is just as bad as it sounds, and shifts your alignment even further towards Evil to the point where you can never be good while you're doing it.
.... as is true of any temporary employment. What do you think happens when you call Manpower today and say "I need six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks"? The bulk of the money still goes to theYou were hosting a banquet and needed six more servers, four dancing girls, two musicians, and three cooks? Most of the time, they would have been hired slaves. You arrived in a strange city and need to rent a villa for a few weeks? It probably either came with slaves owned by the (absent) landowner, or you hire staff for that period of time (and the staff are probably all someone's slaves).Would the slaves have gotten the bulk of the $? If not - it would be more like renting them.slaveownercontracting agency.
The bulk, but not the entirety, and the people from Manpower have the ability to decline work they find too arduous. If you horsewhip someone from Manpower for spilling your coffee, you're in legal trouble. I know we're all joking around here, but comparing temp work to slavery diminishes the suffering of people who are actually enslaved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question is also there... What happens when the person runs away, or tells you they don't want to do that thing you asked them to? How do you enforce slavery without punishing someone for having their free will.
I'm not sure there can ever be benign slavery.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you horsewhip someone from Manpower for spilling your coffee, you're in legal trouble.
... and under Roman law, you'd be in trouble there too, since you were damaging Gaius Severus Manpowerius' personal property, and he could sue you. (Goodness, the idea that you need to treat slaves that aren't yours nicely even makes the Bible, as well as the Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi.)
|
If you were separating them from a cruel master, and they were not in a situation where it'd be safe for them to be free (i.e. they'd be re-enslaved), and it was temporary, I could see it... but really, even there it should be more, "I'm freeing you and want you to work for me. We'll maintain the charade til I can deposit you somewhere safe."
I could go with this as a GM. A paladin may have trouble going along with this but depending on the context, your idea might be a fine line I would allow.
The question is also there... What happens when the person runs away, or tells you they don't want to do that thing you asked them to? How do you enforce slavery without punishing someone for having their free will.
I'm not sure there can ever be benign slavery.
Respecting free will is not related to good evil axis yadda yadda yadda.
But punishing people for exercising it is.Respecting free will is not related to good evil axis yadda yadda yadda.The question is also there... What happens when the person runs away, or tells you they don't want to do that thing you asked them to? How do you enforce slavery without punishing someone for having their free will.
I'm not sure there can ever be benign slavery.
With that attitude Lawful Good becomes self-contradictory.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
“That we were slaves I had known all my life--and nothing could be done about it. True, we weren't bought and sold--but as long as Authority held monopoly over what we had to have and what we could sell to buy it, we were slaves.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As The Sword said: What do you do when the person runs away or refuses to work?
In our kingdom's case, they are fined for the exact amount they were compensated for when they sold themselves in the first place.
If they lack the funds to do that (say, because they were somehow in debt in the first place due to poor decisions prior), then something is worked out akin to what would have happened if they were unable to pay their original debts, but those debts have now been transferred to a new entity.
Because they are a person, they are treated as a person - that means that if they should fail to live up to the responsibilities that they chose to place upon themselves, the penalties for defaulting on those responsibilities are the same as the penalties for defaulting on similar responsibilities.
"I took the money and spent it all, but refuse to work for it, also I've left." is a crime because you took something from someone on false pretenses - you've become, in effect, a thief.
If there is any abuse going on of the slaves in question; that, of course, is different. Whether or not something counts as abuse is directly related to the "decency treatment" (colloquial term, not official) laws that govern ordinary behavior between people. So, you know, don't be a jerk and show respect to others: no stealing, vandalism, harming, etc. except under justified circumstances (most often that of "self defense" or similar).
Then again, given that slavery is a voluntary, specific, and limited term state (unless something explicit is worked out on behalf of the slave and owner somehow), compensation goes to the slave, and they have treatment as "living persons" just as all do; abuses should be rare and it's less like "slavery" as most people are used to it.
Also, due to free education, basic mandated charity, and a limited regulation of certain economic functions, average lifestyles are pretty easy to come by; so slavery itself should be rare.
I guess I'd have to say that hiring a slave (from their master, like you hire a taxi, I guess) is much less evil than owning a slave, but not by enough to rise above neutrality on my personal alignment meter. It's not a big deal, plenty of very nice people are neutral.
What would a Paladin do in said situation? I can't tell you until I've watched Django Unchained so often and closely as to figure out whether Django or Schultz is the paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so? Obviously there are cases where exercising one's free will can be punished - those who use it to hurt or kill others, for example. Free will is not an absolute good.
At the same time, preventing people from using their free will on the scale necessary for slavery is evil, if only because of the methods that are necessary to enforce it. As The Sword said: What do you do when the person runs away or refuses to work?
Preventing free will is not Evil just because the easiest method to enforce slavery are Evil. There is always a non-violent way to enforce order.
If they keep running away, you bring them back. The more they rebel, the more you can try to lecture and rehab them. In extreme cases where they rebel violently, you life imprison them. Now more interesting question is what causes one to become slave in a Lawful Good society, but plenty of reasons were given by people before me for that one. Community Service is the easiest reason, you are basically "a slave" to the public.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While slavery may be considered evil in modern society, it was not considered evil for much of history is would not likely be considered evil in in-game cultures that do allow it.
Lets look at, for example, classical Greece. We consider Athens to have been an enlightened society, yet it was the social norm for the vast majority of households to own one or more slaves.
If the in-game society considers slaves a part of the social norm, using or even owning slaves would not be considered evil in that society.
alignment trascends societal norms though.
if in a society murder is accepted, murder is still evil, just not illegal
but legality and personal appreciation are different than moral and ethics
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you horsewhip someone from Manpower for spilling your coffee, you're in legal trouble.... and under Roman law, you'd be in trouble there too, since you were damaging Gaius Severus Manpowerius' personal property, and he could sue you. (Goodness, the idea that you need to treat slaves that aren't yours nicely even makes the Bible, as well as the Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi.)
However, if Gaius Severus Manpowerius is considered the wronged party, as opposed to the person who was actually whipped, then you are treating the whipped person as if they do not inherently have worth apart from being the property of Manpowerius. In other words, you are denying the moral dignity of the slave - an act incompatible with the good alignment.
Slavery is more than just a restriction of freedom, it is the reduction of the person to property. It is difficult if not impossible to do that and still respect the dignity of the slave.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a lot of problems with real world debt slavery, but it's probably possible to make it work in fantasy. :)
Sure. Mmmmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch easier than in the real world, that's for sure.
- 1) is the person respected and treated with dignity?
- 2) has a financial transaction occurred in which money has changed hands?
If the first is "yes" then there is no problem, as respect and dignity include the normal legal protections for people.
If the second is "no" then there is no contract, hence no slavery. If the second is "yes" then there is an obligation. Effectively, you've been given a line of credit and are expected to work for it (whatever that work may be).
Very few, if any, real-world slavery elements (much less debt-slave elements) function this way for a large host of reasons.
Taken in a vacuum, such a system would be extremely problematic and prone to corruption and bad things.
Placed into the proper context of the kingdom as a whole, however, it allows for people to be more free (in a way) than they otherwise would be, albeit there'd likely only be limited subset of people who'd want to follow that route.
One of the reasons that it functions is that the slavery is always voluntary and pre-arranged (and has its limited term and strict behavioral limits).
It must be, or it is deemed illegal and negated by law.
Beyond that, with free education, guaranteed basic (if limited) charity, and ample supply, there isn't a real reason in most comprehensible circumstances for people to do so outside of a desire to do so or get something.
(And in those rare cases, the vast majority of time, someone who is not the would-be slave has done something evil, and, by all of Harathia*, said evil-doer will not get away with whatever it is.)
* Harathia is the name of the kingdom.
Harathia, by-and-large, is exceptionally blessed with resources, and a powerful devotion to both the freedom and prosperity of its people; but that also allows its people to make non-evil choices for their own lifestyle while mitigating them from negative consequences and protecting others from them as much as possible (most especially these others).
Harathia cannot and will not handle everyone's issues and lives, nor will it make every little thing better. That's stupid and causes an over-reliance plus creates a society uninterested in betterment. But it will do its best to ensure an at-least minimally secure potential average lifestyle plus the occasionally rare nicety.
Letting people sell themselves into slavery could be problematic.
Making sure they have education, employment, and charity options to see them through such things first, however, means that they're only doing so because they want to instead of because they "need" to.
And if there is a need for some reason... well, that's either handled by the government (in the case of someone else manipulating a situation to do evil - which isn't terribly profitable anyway), or the person in question managed to burn so many bridges and crash so meteorically into such a negative place, socially, that they can sell themselves into slavery or choose a life outside of society (because daggumit, if the wilderness isn't tame enough to allow people to just live off the land, if they like).
The government has its limits in ability. It's also pretty daggum impressive and has done nearly impossible things to make the land a better place*.
*
I wonder what happens to criminals who refuse to join the Crime Guild. Viciously, you say. And run by the government, you say. Sounds like the place LE inquisitors live in your LG kingdom.
If there's something from out of country that doesn't buy it, an "anonymous" tip to the government handles such criminals, because it's an outside invasion.
Again - there are always limits to what can be done.
If someone does something actually evil that the 'Guild doesn't approve (and curiously, all of the "evil" actions the 'Guild sends people on, no one ever gets seriously injured or harmed and are ordered by people who'd do that anyway), suddenly loses the backing of the 'Guild for "internal political" reasons and must face the weight of the law.
It's an elaborate and very successful shell game, in other words, with a majority of people that don't know they're doing a shell game with players that function very well. Because people don't know they're working for something, it's not really a ruse, most of the time, but reports are followed up within the guild, and people wrongfully harmed are healed and aided by the government, with wrongful actors finding themselves in legal trouble.
Again - I love these boards, but I also love how people seem to have a strong desire to try and pounce on things and "prove" why something that is good (that actually does have the dignity and freedom of the actors in question) isn't by seizing on words and ignoring everything else of the context. It's a fascinating tendency and very telling.
But, more to the point... of course there are evil people. Evil people aren't smote by an army of paladins just because they're evil. They're smote in response to doing something explicitly evil that deserves smiting.
The point isn't that evil people can't exist. It's allowing them to exist and do what they want so long as it's not evil.
And the Crime Guild functions as a wonderful magnet for those who would do evil, and channeling their talents into doing little other than actually reducing crime against everyone that isn't secretly the actual ruler of the nation. It allows those who would engage in criminal behavior anyway to do so. It also ensures that criminals are doing so in a way that is secretly a controlled environment. Acting outside the 'Guild generates harsh punishments, because it strains the 'Guilds resources and ability to handle things if, say, a raid goes wrong. Other criminal gangs are, intriguingly, infiltrated and either recruited, or harshly put down. Rather like a band of adventurers is prone to doing. Because usually the put-down is from a band of adventurers who happen to receive anonymous tips. Or, if said rivals are the kinds of people that do terrible things, and the government doesn't get to them first, the 'Guild sends their own people that like to do terrible things and quickly end that nonsense.
Either way -> fewer criminals doing criminal things that actually harms anyone.
Of course, unless the Death Penalty was actually placed on those criminals, they are offered the chance of free resurrection as well as integration into the society they once (unsuccessfully) tried to be a part of. They're free to refuse, of course, but at that point, it's because they're either ready to move on, or they're choosing death over reform, and in either of those cases they'd cause more problems for Harathia than could be solved.
Evil people deserve a chance, and the 'Guild has no problem if you choose to retire. It's only concern is criminal activity not part of itself. And given that it has a very solid track record of either getting away with it or getting its members released, and all other crime has proven extremely unprofitable and actively harmful, choosing otherwise is stupid for many reasons.
(One useful thing to do, though, is stage "brutal enforcement" on people that are literally not real people. A powerful, tangible illusion will bleed and behave very similarly to a real entity. Such "demonstrations" of destruction of rival groups - which are also created by the king, mind - helps lessons linger in the underworld consciousness. "Did you hear what the 'Guild did to so-and-so..." is a powerful tool, especially when there are honest witnesses, and said characters are later made to "disappear"...)
Again - people are people. There will be criminals. Control the criminal activity to where it hurts no one but other criminal activity in a measure equal to the criminal activity while demonstrably and freely providing everything a person needs to avoid doing criminal activity successfully means that those who persist in it are criminal more or less by "nature" (that is, they have voluntarily chosen a life that they aren't going to change). Allowing them to lead full lives where possible and still not harm others is a feat nearly impossible in the real world. Fantasy worlds have few such limitations.
EDIT: Added a needed emoticon! That title and certain word choices looked far angier than it actually was upon re-reading! I hope my intent is clearer now.
You've obviously thought this out quite a bit and had it played out in your game, and with the further clarification I think it's brilliant. Good job. You do you, Tacticslion.
It's not my fault LE is my favorite alignment to play! Honest!
Hah! Ninja'd while I was editing. Also: thanks!
That said, it's a collaborative effort. The thing is, no one person can really come up with a "fool-proof" system... and even with a collaborative effort, nothing can be infinitely "fool-proof"... as soon as it's codified, it can be broken.
And if something "can't"... just give me a million typewriters with monkeys (i.e. "randomizers") - it'll be broken pretty badly in no time (though that might just be the typewriters being broken by all the monkeys, not to mention all the poo...).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is also there... What happens when the person runs away, or tells you they don't want to do that thing you asked them to? How do you enforce slavery without punishing someone for having their free will.
I'm not sure there can ever be benign slavery.
In a Good slavery, person wouldn't want to run away, so there would be no need to enforce anything, people will do it themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Slavery was originally an alternative to just killing everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you just use a little imagination, you will realize that there are numerous LG was to get slaves, great reasons to stay a slave, and ample reasons why running away would be harsher punishment then any mortal could inflict.
For example, Joe the Gambler, just lost his farm and home in a card game, and his family is about to be destitute. Gold Chainz the gold dragon knows that Joe is incapable of living a LG life and makes an offer. In exchange for giving up his Earthly desires and turning himself and his family over to Gold Chainz, they will be provided with everything needed for a LG lifestyle that will result in them all ascending to The Seven Heavens, or Elysium, or whatever. If Joe decides to run away his punishment is likely to be ending up in one of the lower planes for all eternity. If Gold Chainz decides it would be in his best interests (which are also the interests of LG, and far better understood then almost any mortal could fathom) to sell Joe to some Solar or Archon or whatever to benefit LG, there is no problem with that.
The only real loser in all this is Free Will, but that is not valued by LG, only Chaos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But your primary point still stands - that LG values free will.
I'm still not seeing that. In fact it seems like the opposite:
Law Vs Chaos
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
and also:
Good Vs Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I'm just not seeing anything that would prevent LG slavery.
We would NOT get along.
LG may prohibit buying and owning slaves from the good angle.
You would have to respect the life of a slave and its dignity without oppressing them.
One problem is that you would have to free any slave that asks for freedom unless you knew that slave would harm others.
Wardens can be LG and that is similar to slavery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In which case it's not slavery.LG may prohibit buying and owning slaves from the good angle.
You would have to respect the life of a slave and its dignity without oppressing them.
One problem is that you would have to free any slave that asks for freedom unless you knew that slave would harm others.
If your premise is slavery = bad then obviously anything not bad is then not slavery.
I assumed we were dealing with legal slavery.
In which case it's not slavery.LG may prohibit buying and owning slaves from the good angle.
You would have to respect the life of a slave and its dignity without oppressing them.
One problem is that you would have to free any slave that asks for freedom unless you knew that slave would harm others.
If your premise is slavery = bad then obviously anything not bad is then not slavery.
I assumed we were dealing with legal slavery.
If you're called a "slave", but you're freed on request, that's not slavery. It's not involuntary.
This.
I'm not saying I'd want to live in a society so stratified as Downton Abbey, but if your servants can offer notice and find a new job whenever they choose to, they're not slaves.
If you just use a little imagination, you will realize that there are numerous LG was to get slaves, great reasons to stay a slave, and ample reasons why running away would be harsher punishment then any mortal could inflict.
For example, Joe the Gambler, just lost his farm and home in a card game, and his family is about to be destitute. Gold Chainz the gold dragon knows that Joe is incapable of living a LG life and makes an offer. In exchange for giving up his Earthly desires and turning himself and his family over to Gold Chainz, they will be provided with everything needed for a LG lifestyle that will result in them all ascending to The Seven Heavens, or Elysium, or whatever. If Joe decides to run away his punishment is likely to be ending up in one of the lower planes for all eternity. If Gold Chainz decides it would be in his best interests (which are also the interests of LG, and far better understood then almost any mortal could fathom) to sell Joe to some Solar or Archon or whatever to benefit LG, there is no problem with that.
The only real loser in all this is Free Will, but that is not valued by LG, only Chaos.
If he can walk away, it's not slavery.
Beyond that, we're debating the morality of Judgement and the afterlife, which is a different question.
Removing free will is generally the opposite of what the gods do. They give mortal choices which then determined their fate. A gold dragon or Angel that enslaved people to ensure they stayed good would be a LE villain in my campaign. In fact that would make an excellent planescape campaign BBEG
I wonder why people put so little value on freedom? Is it because we take it for granted I wonder, or because people don't really feel free!?
I don't know where you got that idea from.
Anyway n Lawful Good society, it would still be lawfully good to use forced labour as a punishment. Forced labour in service of the community would fit into broad definition of slavery. All depends how strict you want to be about slavery as a term.
Forced labor as punishment isn't remotely the same thing as owning a human being as property.
|
... and under Roman law, you'd be in trouble there too, since you were damaging Gaius Severus Manpowerius' personal property, and he could sue you. (Goodness, the idea that you need to treat slaves that aren't yours nicely even makes the Bible, as well as the Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi.)
If you horsewhip someone from Manpower for spilling your coffee, you're in legal trouble.
While I can't speak to Hittite laws or the Code of Hammurabi, the Bible also has punishments laid out for particular abuses of slaves that one owns.