I also think of things in the context of the Aiel from Wheel of Time, in which one could become a "slave" by being touched in combat by an enemy instead of being killed. It was then required you work for them for a year and a day. But you were treated well, given ample food and water and were not to be killed.It was also 100% voluntary (something Aiel chose to do to preserve their own honor/ego), which prevents it from being comparable to real-world slavery.
I never interpreted it as voluntary. It was a part of Aiel culture which was simply accepted. I don't think the Aiel ever considered that there was a choice to not go with the system. I don't even recall them covering what would happen if an Aiel tried to go against the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.
To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.
|
Let's see, for PFS, players are not allowed to own slaves or buy slaves. They sold in the main city that PFS is located in, but PFS doesn't have an official stance on it.
That said, you can play a character that is, themselves, a slave. Did this once. Seemed to piss off some other players (not my role playing, just the concept), but didn't really impact anything else. Ditched this idea after a single session. I had mainly done it because I couldn't think of a good name for the character, so he was just "slave." Was interesting, but not really worth the unpleasant atmosphere it created.
Regarding slavery in a more general capacity. It's a Lawful Neutral concept, common in any society that embraces the concept of ownership. Slavery, itself, is neither good nor evil, it's the concept of being able to own living/thinking things.
That said, historically, humans have proven very unable to handle the use of slavery with fellow humans. Animal slavery is still common in the modern world, but adult human slavery is regarded as "evil." Evil is in quotes, because again slavery isn't evil, but humans that own slaves seem to always devolve into evil people.
I'd argue it's a human issue, not an issue with slavery as a concept. In theory, morally upright people with a morally guided legal system should be able to create a system of slavery that is not evil, and could even qualify as Lawful Good. Doesn't happen often, in real life, but it does exist and is often found fantasy settings too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.
This. When your main worry is whether your 7 kids will die of cholera or not, and if you'll be eaten by the red dragon who lives up north or attacked by an incubus you've got a lot less time to worry about slavery. Even the worst kinds of slavery.
The point of good is altruism, respecting life, and respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. You must also seek to protect innocent life.
Giving up is not a good action. You don't see Batman just give up on helping a kid because there are too many goons. He still tries and doesn't compromise. He tries to help.
Even if you're trapped in an evil society, you can't be good and just accept slavery is the way it is and just leave it. That is neutral, but not good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of good is altruism, respecting life, and respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. You must also seek to protect innocent life.
Giving up is not a good action. You don't see Batman just give up on helping a kid because there are too many goons. He still tries and doesn't compromise. He tries to help.
Even if you're trapped in an evil society, you can't be good and just accept slavery is the way it is and just leave it. That is neutral, but not good.
Good people are the exception to the rule. That's one of the reasons why we call them out as good.
Batman isn't exactly an ordinary guy on the street. And not only because he happens to be a billionaire.
As far as Cheliax is concerned... good does not require you to be suicidal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding slavery in a more general capacity. It's a Lawful Neutral concept, common in any society that embraces the concept of ownership.
Depending on the society, it can pretty much encompass ANY non-good alignment. Remember that a Chaotic Neutral person might not give bones about anyone elses freedom, and may own slaves as a sign of personal domminance. And the chaotic evil Drow certainly do practise slavery as extensive as it is cruel.
The point of good is altruism, respecting life, and respecting the dignity of sentient creatures. You must also seek to protect innocent life.
Giving up is not a good action. You don't see Batman just give up on helping a kid because there are too many goons. He still tries and doesn't compromise. He tries to help.
Even if you're trapped in an evil society, you can't be good and just accept slavery is the way it is and just leave it. That is neutral, but not good.
Good people are the exception to the rule. That's one of the reasons why we call them out as good.
Batman isn't exactly an ordinary guy on the street. And not only because he happens to be a billionaire.
As far as Cheliax is concerned... good does not require you to be suicidal.
Sure. Yet, I think you'd have to try somehow. At the very least, as a Good creature, living in Cheliax has to be painful. You could try to subtly do your part without endangering yourself too much, or join an outside nation and support them.
I would imagine the only exception is if you are completely ignorant of all the wrong. That could make some sense (especially in Razmiran) although I do think Cheliax (as an example) isn't as good at hiding things.
I never interpreted it as voluntary. It was a part of Aiel culture which was simply accepted. I don't think the Aiel ever considered that there was a choice to not go with the system. I don't even recall them covering what would happen if an Aiel tried to go against the system.
This was covered in the books, an Aiel who would even consider not submitting to their system accumulated so much Toh that, death was considered a better alternative. So I'll agree that doesn't seem voluntary at all.
Also didn't the break-away Aiel clan (the one that didn't follow Rand-al-Thor; the name started with an S I just can't think of it off the top of my head) take slaves against their will?
Sure. Yet, I think you'd have to try somehow. At the very least, as a Good creature, living in Cheliax has to be painful. You could try to subtly do your part without endangering yourself too much, or join an outside nation and support them.I would imagine the only exception is if you are completely ignorant of all the wrong. That could make some sense (especially in Razmiran) although I do think Cheliax (as an example) isn't as good at hiding things.
What is 'good', though?
Becoming a healer to tend to slaves?
Liberating slaves?
Becoming a member of the political/legal framework to mitigate the harsh effects of slavery?
Murdering those who own slaves?
Performing different levels of entertainment to highlight the plight of slaves and 'guilt' people into 'doing better'?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone was designing a game set in the cave age partially to ditch alignment.
I said the first time a family loses some members to another family's cannibalism, they would invent alignment.
Shackles that make you row a galley, work the fields, or empty the chamber pots require dominate to make and would detect as evil.
Magic handcuffs that stop you from violently attacking officers of the law and allow you to be led, are not evil. They are merely lawful.
Note that if the greek city states were under attack by humanoids that vastly abused and ate human slaves, they would probably have moved from slavery to another system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on the society, it can pretty much encompass ANY non-good alignment. Remember that a Chaotic Neutral person might not give bones about anyone elses freedom, and may own slaves as a sign of personal domminance. And the chaotic evil Drow certainly do practise slavery as extensive as it is cruel.
Regarding slavery in a more general capacity. It's a Lawful Neutral concept, common in any society that embraces the concept of ownership.
It's a lawful neutral concept, but any alignment can take advantage of it.
And regarding good alignments, you are dwelling on the evil potential of slavery. It's just about ownership vs freedom, not a matter of treatment. Just because you have a slave, doesn't mean you must be evil or treat them in an unreasonable manner.
For example, a slave could be given a good bed, good food, water, and a job that isn't too hard and earns them respect. A free person could do the same, but instead earn a wage that hopefully allows them to afford the good bed, good food and water. Being "free" doesn't mean a better life, it just means you have more personal control (which can be good and bad, depending on your personality).
Like having children. You effectively own your children (until they are 18) in the modern legal system (USA's anyway). Most parents are good, moral people, that raise their children in a good manner so when they reach 18, they too, can become good people. Some parents are evil, or evil to their kids and not all children survive childhood, as sad as that is, and some that do survive are very damaged because of the choices their parents made on their behalf due to the parent being legally controlling of the child's life.
Do I think parenting is evil, because some parents are bad? No. Even if all of them were bad, I wouldn't claim the concept of parenting was evil. I would definitely consider making parenting illegal, if they were ALL bad parents, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think opposition to it was probably more common than you think. Now, that's not to say everyone took steps to end it. I'll agree most people consider their own problems more important than others.Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.
Abolitionists in the runup to the civil war were like 2 to 3 percent of the population.
In boston one of the most well known abolitionists was dragged out of a meeting by a mob and dragged around town by a noose around his neck.
If we are talking Pathfinder, then i would disagree. I believe they ruled cannibalism of sentient creatures as evil. I imagine enslaving sentient creatures would also be considered evil.Depending on the society, it can pretty much encompass ANY non-good alignment. Remember that a Chaotic Neutral person might not give bones about anyone elses freedom, and may own slaves as a sign of personal domminance. And the chaotic evil Drow certainly do practise slavery as extensive as it is cruel.
Regarding slavery in a more general capacity. It's a Lawful Neutral concept, common in any society that embraces the concept of ownership.
What does that have to do with my point? I waschallenging Knight's assertion that slavery is confined to being described as a lawful neutral institution. Note the now-bolded "non-good" part of my assertation.
I do not agree with the idea that slavery is somehow a Lawful Neutral concept. I think in order to justify the idea that you "own" a person (that is a free-thinking person just like you) you have to believe you are somehow superior to them - you have more rights than that other person. We own pets because we do consider ourselves superior to them in intelligence, so we "know better". We breed them, we rear them, sell and buy them. And we certainly love them, but we as humans have that right by virtue of being intellectually more advanced and capable of granting ourselves that very right.
To own a person you have to believe he/she is an "enemy", an "it", an "other", different from you, and somehow lesser. Your superiority grants you the right to essentially have a person as a "pet". You may treat it right, feed and clothe it, but it is a lesser "thing" and you can do what you want with it because you know better than it.
Checking the (admittedly) very scarce description of alignments on Pathfinder:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
Doesn't fit. You could make a stretch to link it to "obedience to authority", but it's thin.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Yep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 to 3 percent thought slavery was bad or 2 to 3 percent actively worked to end slavery?I think opposition to it was probably more common than you think. Now, that's not to say everyone took steps to end it. I'll agree most people consider their own problems more important than others.Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.Abolitionists in the runup to the civil war were like 2 to 3 percent of the population.
In boston one of the most well known abolitionists was dragged out of a meeting by a mob and dragged around town by a noose around his neck.
2 to 3 percent were abolitionists, as in spoke, voted, lobbied, and campaigned for slavery to end. They actually had a ridiculously bad image. John Brown and his 1800's version of 'punch a nazi' was not particularly kindly viewed by the majority of the country(north and south) at the time, however much modern sensibilities polish him up nowadays.
Rune
Lawful neutral does not require justification only obedience
And do you think only the people who spoke, voted, lobbied, and campaigned for slavery to end opposed slavery?2 to 3 percent were abolitionists, as in spoke, voted, lobbied, and campaigned for slavery to end. They actually had a ridiculously bad image. John Brown and his 1800's version of 'punch a nazi' was not particularly kindly viewed by the majority of the country(north and south) at the time, however much modern sensibilities polish him up nowadays.2 to 3 percent thought slavery was bad or 2 to 3 percent actively worked to end slavery?I think opposition to it was probably more common than you think. Now, that's not to say everyone took steps to end it. I'll agree most people consider their own problems more important than others.Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.Abolitionists in the runup to the civil war were like 2 to 3 percent of the population.
In boston one of the most well known abolitionists was dragged out of a meeting by a mob and dragged around town by a noose around his neck.
I think that if you dont speak, vote, lobby or campaign for a cause like slavery to end you by definition aren't opposing it.
|
|
I do not agree with the idea that slavery is somehow a Lawful Neutral concept. I think in order to justify the idea that you "own" a person (that is a free-thinking person just like you) you have to believe you are somehow superior to them - you have more rights than that other person. We own pets because we do consider ourselves superior to them in intelligence, so we "know better". We breed them, we rear them, sell and buy them. And we certainly love them, but we as humans have that right by virtue of being intellectually more advanced and capable of granting ourselves that very right.
To own a person you have to believe he/she is an "enemy", an "it", an "other", different from you, and somehow lesser. Your superiority grants you the right to essentially have a person as a "pet". You may treat it right, feed and clothe it, but it is a lesser "thing" and you can do what you want with it because you know better than it.
How do you do that? Basically, you've split your opinion between a group you've decided is "inferior" and a group you've decided is "equal" and you have completely different options on the same subject, regarding each group differently, even though they are really the same group that you've arrogantly divided using a self-established measuring of superiority.
By your logic, human slavery is okay, provided the species that owns them is "intellectually more advanced." Seems like faulty logic. If slavery is exclusively evil, then the intelligence of the "Master race" really shouldn't matter.
And you really can't establish intelligence by judging animals on human standards. If I compare the human ability to do animal things with the animal ability to do animal things, humans are idiots.
I think the real arguement that you are making is that it's wrong to enslave humans because you are a human, but it's okay if it's any other species. If you were another species, I suspect that would be the species that wasn't okay to enslave, and humans would be fair game in your eyes. A very selfish approach, I think.
Well, then we are using different definitions.I think that if you dont speak, vote, lobby or campaign for a cause like slavery to end you by definition aren't opposing it.And do you think only the people who spoke, voted, lobbied, and campaigned for slavery to end opposed slavery?2 to 3 percent were abolitionists, as in spoke, voted, lobbied, and campaigned for slavery to end. They actually had a ridiculously bad image. John Brown and his 1800's version of 'punch a nazi' was not particularly kindly viewed by the majority of the country(north and south) at the time, however much modern sensibilities polish him up nowadays.2 to 3 percent thought slavery was bad or 2 to 3 percent actively worked to end slavery?I think opposition to it was probably more common than you think. Now, that's not to say everyone took steps to end it. I'll agree most people consider their own problems more important than others.Just because something was common in a society, doesn't mean everyone thought it was right.To be perfectly honest, most folks wouldn't have an opinion at all. Especially the further back you go, the less time people have the luxury to worry about issues that don't directly impact them. They were either rich enough that they were above the problem, or so poor that they had to worry about their own survival first.Abolitionists in the runup to the civil war were like 2 to 3 percent of the population.
In boston one of the most well known abolitionists was dragged out of a meeting by a mob and dragged around town by a noose around his neck.
What definition is it where you somehow oppose a thing yet never speak, vote, campaign or lobby against it?
|
|
Maybe it just depends on the definitions we are working with. I consider myself "anti-war" but really I've never taken any actions to actually end war. It's not something I spend a lot of time "worrying" about but if you asked me how I felt about war, I would tell you I was against it. That might be considered neutral on war in your opinion.
Kinda off topic, but I gotta say, I think inaction, is probably the best anti-war option. Opposing war would only generate conflict, and conflict is the basis of war. Sounds like you are doing it right (being anti-war by not creating conflict).
Sure, there are other methods, but I think inaction is probably the most practical opposition to war.
|
|
However, I've learned my lesson about walking too close to the fire. I wish this thread didn't exists and I could somehow pry my foot out of my mouth.
Better here, then have it come up in a session, in a bad way.
As for role playing, ideally the GM and the players should have some sort of theme in play, regarding moral codes, so when the GM presents something like slavery, the PCs respond in a predictible manner.
If it's a good aligned party, you'd probably avoid calling it slavery unless the point was to incite the players to attempt to free the slaves or to establish villiany of the slaves' owner. Its not about slavery being evil, per say, but why mention it unless you want the party to react? An evil-themed party, on the the other hand, would probably be focused on acquiring slaves (or some other morally dubious use for slaves).
It is so easy for the GM to just call them "workers" and not really address if they are slaves or not. Unless being slaves is important, "workers" or "servants" is almost always a better phrase.
It's a common thing, in stories (like TV, books, and pathfinder scenarios), to not mention lots of unimportant facts about your setting. The veiwer/reader/player character will eventually develope a bias, where they assume that all the mentioned details matter. In real life, they often don't matter, but in a story the storyteller often has time constraints and an overall conclusion, so they avoid details that confuse the plot's resolution.
So, as GM, if you mention slavery, it will likely be interpreted as something you are expecting the players (or characters) to react to.
As a plot mechanic, slavery quickly establishes that their master lacks the charisma to obtain non-slave workforce. And in stories, typically charisma is a trait that only good guys have. This also fits with the classic "evil is ugly and good is beautiful" theme of most stories. In those sort of settings, I often think that you should get a CHA bonus for having a good alignment, and a penalty to CHA for an evil alignment.
Having an opinion against something is not the same as opposing something. Opposition requires some kind of action.
You might be against slavery but if you don't do anything you're not opposing it. Sharing an opinion, voting, etc. is opposing.
Depends on the situation and area the game is set in.
I've played both ends of the spectrum though, from a LE Bounty Hunter turned Slaver (Who interestingly enough enslaved only her own race, because she had nothing but raw contempt for them, being a more intelligent than usual Varag who considered her own species little more than CE animals and basically brutalized them into serving, while at he same time freeing drow slaves and leading a huge swathe of freed goblins that were sincerely loyal to her) through to !Moses (TN Snakeman in an Egyptian game, the party were a bunch of colonials and he was their local guide, assisting them in return for them letting his people go, they also gained his actual loyalty when they un-Eunuched him using a regenerate spell and he eventually turned his back on his bloody-handed NE god) through to a LG Abolitionist who in one particularly fun game, brought down that settings equivalent of the Lumber Consortium Game of Thrones style (Which isn't 'technically' slavery, but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck as they say.)
Basically, it depends entirely on the setting/'type' of slavery, it's a thing that exists and the players are free to interact with it or not as per their characters attitudes.
Then again we're massive fans of the 'death of the GM' type play, you present the world without judgement one way or the other and without letting OOC opinions get in the way of what the setting is.
On the topic of slavery being lawful neutral that's just plain and simple wrong. Slavery requires one to assume that someone is unworthy of agency and that agency can be taken from them against their will. Any society that conceptualizes property ownership but at least implicitly acknowledge agency as a component of personhood as one must have some manner of agency to own property.
Note that if the greek city states were under attack by humanoids that vastly abused and ate human slaves, they would probably have moved from slavery to another system.
The Greeks did not have a developed chattel slavery economy instead relying on each purchasing slaves from merchants or capturing them during raids. Thus in any situation in which Greek city states faced existential risk for a prolonged period of time they would be unable to maintain their slave economy.
I never said neither of those things. There's plenty to condemn in the modern world and while there are certainly things to admire in the past, once you condemn anyone linked to slavery, serfdom, the oppression of women or anything similarly horrific and ubiquitous, there's not a lot left.
Even those opposing or victimized by one, might well be benefiting from another.
It's quite possible hence why one has to try to avoid perpetuating those systems. Being good isn't easy hence why it's aspirational. Not everyone was cut out to oppose serfdom but they were at least able to form an opinion on it. The only ones who were evil for their position on serfdom were those who had the power to oppose it and failed to. Diocletian was evil for his persecution of Christians, for creating the institutions that led to feudalism, and for murdering a whole lot of people, but the average Roman citizen does not have to share responsibility for that evil because they were a bit busy fending off Germanic raiders.
Having an opinion against something is not the same as opposing something. Opposition requires some kind of action.
You might be against slavery but if you don't do anything you're not opposing it. Sharing an opinion, voting, etc. is opposing.Do you support or oppose real world modern day slavery? If you oppose it, what actions have you personally taken to end it?
Edit: you don't need to answer that. I feel I may have pulled this thread off topic slightly so I'm going to excuse myself from it. At least for a little while.
By expressing my opinion and by not buying clothes or other items that come from countries where slavery is a thing I think I'm opposing it, even if I don't do a lot.
Anyway, you can avoid supporting something while not opposing it at all. You just can do nothing at all.Anyway, I guess we are derailing it by going into semantics. As much as I like doing it, I shouldn't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't actually want to justify, I'm just not sure how to deal with it as a accepted backdrop in a setting. I'm not really happy with the "you can't be good unless you're an active abolitionist" approach.
The ultimate motivating factor behind every argument on PC alignment I've ever seen is this bizarre assumption that every PC is inherently good, because the PCs are the protagonists which makes them "the good guys."
Absolutely nothing with regards to morality, storytelling, or the rules of the game supports this, and it is therefore not a valid base assumption to come into an argument with.
In addition to the Good and Evil alignments, there is this third option called Neutral. Generally speaking, people who are Neutral understand the difference between right and wrong, and consider themselves to be fundamentally good people because they avoid doing things they know are wrong. What sets them apart from Good people however is that they sometimes recognize what the right thing to do in a situation would be (abolish slavery, remove an evil dictator from power, etc.) but opt not to do it for understandable reasons (it would take years of draining effort/be a huge personal risk/is something someone more motivated probably has covered).
Evil people also largely consider themselves to be good people, doing things they would openly admit are the wrong thing if looked at in a vacuum, but finding ways to rationalize them as special exceptions (obviously slavery is wrong but this guy tried to kill us and knows where the villain of the week is, so it's OK to chain him up and make him lead us to him).
If you are not playing a character who always does what's right, no matter how personally inconvenient or risky, don't put Good on your sheet. It's simple, and I've never met anyone who refused to allow neutral characters. Outside of PFS games, it's also totally possible to play an Evil character, who ends up going along with the plot and saving the world for purely pragmatic reasons (you live in the world, it's where you keep your stuff, and speaking of stuff, monsters drop major loot).
Rationalize would probably have been a better choice. I would probably drop the "active" requirement but I don't think "good" characters should support or excuse slavery. I think if you're searching for the ancient macguffin to save the world you could probably ignore the evils of slavery and still count as "good."
OK now here's the thing. This entire conversation even happening in the first place is hugely offensive to a huge swath of people, as you are making an academic game out of discussing basic human rights. That is never a pure academic hypothetical without any real world impact, and if you think it is, you're not qualified to be discussing it. This "balanced scales" argument in particular though is something being actively applied to justify awful things in the real world, today, with people turning a blind eye to some serious crimes against humanity "in pursuit of a greater good." Ponder this in whatever combination of maintaining civility/trans rights/refugee intake/deportations/prosecution of terrorists you'd prefer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are not playing a character who always does what's right, no matter how personally inconvenient or risky, don't put Good on your sheet.
Doesn't that put an impossible burden on the character? Or, if we were to hold the same standards to modern society, doesn't that put an impossible burden on being moral? To be considered a good (or Good) person, you need to always do what's right, not matter how inconvenient or risky. I'd wager there is no one who can meet that standard, and not merely through ignorance, but because it's actually impossible to do.
Per the CRB...
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
You cannot accept evil. It does put a burden on the character, but generally in campaigns the GM lets the good guy get away with it. Much better story. The point is that it's a fantasy world where the impossible becomes possible. That kind of drive does meet a lot of heroes in stories. They may falter slightly, but that is the exception and not the rule. It doesn't affect their overall need and compulsion to help others.
This has prompted other questions as I've been watching this thread evolve is this:
It requires some set-up, though, so please bear with:
A person has committed criminal acts against the government, which is a Good government. As said person's punishment, they are sentenced to a term of service and incarceration to the government, at the honorable end of which they will be restored to their rights as a citizen.
Would this count as 'slavery' within the broadest of strokes, or is it a completely different thing? Would it be 'evil' to allow this punishment to continue (perhaps it is done with an eye towards rehabilitation?).
Person A has saved the life of Person B. The law of the Good land is that if a Person A does this, Person B now owes their life to Person A.
Is this 'slavery'?
A person has been defeated in battle in a Lawful land. They are given two choices: Accept the status of a defeated opponent and serve their victor until they prove their worth OR commit ritual suicide. This system has been in place for centuries and has worked really well.
Is it 'evil' to prevent the person from taking the more distasteful of the two options?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is becoming a "falling paladin" thread but for all good aligned characters.
I never interpreted it as voluntary. It was a part of Aiel culture which was simply accepted. I don't think the Aiel ever considered that there was a choice to not go with the system. I don't even recall them covering what would happen if an Aiel tried to go against the system.This was covered in the books, an Aiel who would even consider not submitting to their system accumulated so much Toh that, death was considered a better alternative. So I'll agree that doesn't seem voluntary at all.
Also didn't the break-away Aiel clan (the one that didn't follow Rand-al-Thor; the name started with an S I just can't think of it off the top of my head) take slaves against their will?
Yeah, that's kind of what I recall.
To not accept your new role as a slave was considered such an "embarrassment" that every Aiel would have preferred to die than live that way.
That is not a choice.