While my evil parties have one take on it: Yay!
And by good parties have another: Boo!
My neutral parties tend to be conflicted on the issue. Sometimes they've utilized or exploited slavery systems while treating the slaves decently before letting them go, other times they used a slave to save a PC's life and stop an evil cult, costing the slave his life in the process. In a game where "some evil actions don't make you evil", slavery seems to be one of those actions seen as appropiate for neutral PCs and NPCs. (Personally I say castrate, hang, and then burn all slavers and slave owners after burying any of their non-slave supporters under a hail of lead and fireballs, but that's just me).
|
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?
Yes, they are all slavery. That said, most people in real life have a moral disconnect with slavery, and don't count all slavery as slavery because if they do so, they have to admit to themselves that their existance is more sinful than they thought. It always amazes me, how important being viewed as good (by others or themselves), is to some people.
Another example, would be a servant of the king, who works in the castle in exchange for room and board (and possibly some status). This was not an uncommon medieval practice, since living in the castle was viewed as a means to attain a longer life, free from the common dangers of peasent life.
Speaking of Peasents, they were owned by their Lords. A little less hands on than typical slavery in film, but they were unable to leave and had to work without pay. They also couldn't marry without the Lords permission (and marriage used to be something that was done BEFORE having sex, so this would limit reproductive options). Sounds like slavery to me.
And here's one, if a ruler has absolute authority, like a dictator or king, aren't all their subjects/citizens technically slaves?
Oh, and if you really want to do a fun one. Could you own an intelligent robot without it being slavery? Like a machine that can think for itself in a true capacity.
You're setting up the answer by defining the system as Good. Since the system is defined as Good, the answer that whatever happens within that system is not evil.In the last case, it's quite possible for the system to be both lawful & evil, which I'd argue it probably is, depending on the details.
Okay.
The first question is a rough generalization of the modern penal system in the United States (some variation will apply).
The second question was based on 'Wookie Life Debt' from Star Wars.
The third question was based on the honor system of the Clans in BattleTech.
I am trying to figure out the parameters here. Can one voluntarily be enslaved without it being a negative thing? Do we need a new word to indicate a status that is servitude without pay?
If you are "voluntarily enslaved" but not kept in service by any sort of force beyond your own decision to serve, then I would submit that you are not a slave but a volunteer.
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.
There are no records on people who secretly fought slavery. If you find an underground railroad station, the building becomes a historical treasure. They have only found a small fraction of the ones that probably existed.
I disagree with the idea of slavery being neutral. I assumed you were including neutral in "any non-good."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.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.
I generally consider Absalom to be a neutral city and slavery is quite legal there.
well, aren't we all, chained to the rhythm ?
*snark*
And if you try to break those chains, I tell you what, the rhythm is gonna get you.
Oh, and if you really want to do a fun one. Could you own an intelligent robot without it being slavery? Like a machine that can think for itself in a true capacity.
You don't need to be that exotic. Owning a psuedodragon and stuffing it in a cage is essentially slavery. There are noble types who crave pseudodragons and other such beings as exotic pets. That is slavery. The familliar bond is the exceptional case where it isn't.
Well, are pseudodragons exotic because they look like a cool little almost-dragon, or because they're intelligent enough to understand the concept of self determination? I'm with you on Absolom being a neutral city (that's what the stat block said, last I checked) that allows slavery, but have severe misgivings about equating pet ownership with slavery.
I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.
I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.
Not every sentient needs to be a copy of Homo Sapiens, just because ours is the only model of sentience we're aware of, doesn't mean that every other one is going to follow that model.
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.
I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.Not every sentient needs to be a copy of Homo Sapiens, just because ours is the only model of sentience we're aware of, doesn't mean that every other one is going to follow that model.
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.
Not to derail the thread, but are there many examples of tool using, non-sentient species? I mean in the real world, on this earth.
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.
No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
Not to derail the thread, but are there many examples of tool using, non-sentient species? I mean in the real world, on this earth.I always thought that fantasy settings positing the existence of creatures that have human-level intelligence, but lack opposable thumbs or other means of using tools was kind of cruel. The pseudodragon is as smart as an average person, but has the hardest time turning pages.Not every sentient needs to be a copy of Homo Sapiens, just because ours is the only model of sentience we're aware of, doesn't mean that every other one is going to follow that model.
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.
For sufficiently low definitions of "tool-using".
None of those examples seemed particularly sentience exclusive, though. (Yes, since you ask, I'm one of those annoying people who prefers to think that bird nests are incubators, not "houses.")
@Original_Post and @Original_Topic:
I haven't GM'd a game in recent times yet (last time was back in AD&D 1st Edition, back in the 1990s in an on-and-off campaign that started in the early 1980s). But I have read about the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (naturally mostly Golarion) with great interest. In the event that I DID get to GM in it (which I would like to do but can't for at least the next few months), I would certainly play up the dystopian aspects of slave societies. Of course, I tend to be quick to identify dystopian aspects more generally, including in our own world, so I wouldn't stop there, but also flesh out other aspects. For instance, given that Cheliax has a documented history rewriting machine (Hellknight Order of the Rack working together with House Thrune), it seems only natural that Cheliax would share the characteristic with George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four of major buildings having government (in this case House Thrune) propaganda slogans painted on them in large letters so as to be visible from a wide area around, with the content of the slogans being overall fairly similar. One of these that would likely be adopted word-for-word in Cheliax would be "Freedom is Slavery". Such things should loom large over the Cheliax Adventure Paths; at the same time, very real threats of making things even worse would have to be apparent enough for characters to be invested in attempting to preserve some aspect of civilization, to prevent (for instance) the onset of the slow-motion wanton slaughter ongoing in Galt. After all, in Cheliax as in Hell, Thrice-Damned means you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and damned even if you try to sit on the fence . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience, something that we haven't yet nailed down that much in standards for. Manta Rays are another questionable inclusion, given that I haven't read anything substantive about manta ray behavior that would indicate sentience.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience, something that we haven't yet nailed down that much in standards for. Manta Rays are another questionable inclusion, given that I haven't read anything substantive about manta ray behavior that would indicate sentience.Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
You don't think ants should rate higher on sentience than inchworms? :P
My real (admittedly, thread-derailing) question is, if you're of the opinion that we haven't yet nailed down standards of sentience, how can you differentiate between ants, manta rays, and all the less questionable inclusions on the list?
As for the role of slavery in my games, my campaign world features orcs as a slave race to one of the human empires, but there's no way I can describe it on the interwebs without sounding like a racist jerk.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience,Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
That is, of course, your perogative. The problem that I have with your "question" --- which, by the way, I reject out of hand -- is that it's not so much "questioning" as "question-begging." You've decided a priori that ants and manta rays aren't sentient, despite, by your own admission, not having any evidence to support it. In fact, you don't even have an epistemological basis to establish such evidence.
Basically, that's why I included the cite to the paper on the Gallup Mirror test, as an example of scholarly thought on its significance. You are, of course, at liberty to substitute your own judgment for the experts who have written and reviewed the papers, but, at the same time, everyone else is welcome to make their own judgment about the validity of yours....
Slaveowners are soft, weak, and stupid. They are the first to fall before the zombie horde or an outbreak of werewolfism. The slaves not only abandon their masters to their well earned fate, they then burn down the manor to cut off the spread of the plague.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mirror test may show how the animal feels about itself. If the animal recognises the optical illusion of a reflection, they will probably ignore it. Most cats realize that mirrors and TVs are illusory and do not show actual living creatures present at the time.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience, something that we haven't yet nailed down that much in standards for. Manta Rays are another questionable inclusion, given that I haven't read anything substantive about manta ray behavior that would indicate sentience.Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.
What I question is how ants can get enough visual resolution with their extremely small compound eyes (which is a double-strike right there) to be able to recognize themselves in the mirror, even if they somehow achieved human-level intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not equate sentience with human-level intelligence, though.
Let's not equate sentience with human-level intelligence, though.
Unfortunately, this has a long tradition in D&D and Pathfinder. Authors frequently use "sentient" when they clearly mean "intelligent" and have done so for ages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have fun with this one- because while the idea of owning another person against their will is clear-cut on its surface, I have slavery in differing types...
Wealthy mustache-twirling chattel slavers who can afford to be as cruel and despicable as they like because each slave represents such a small percentage of their net worth.
Less-wealthy chattel slavers who still invest a deal of care and concern because each slave is a major investment. I still have them show up as evil on the alignment grid, but they're so reasonable
Incredibly poor chattel slavers who inherited their slaves and keep them because they legitimately cannot afford to hire help without selling them to someone who might not treat them well.(Obviously, a wealthy PC is more than welcome to alleviate this burden if they so choose)
Various forms of debt slavery
Use of captive enemies as slave labor on war-torn frontiers ("It's this or kill them, we don't really have resources for prisoners who don't contribute, and if we set them free we'll risk seeing them armed and hostile again")
And so forth.
If ants pass this test, than I question it's value in determining sentience, something that we haven't yet nailed down that much in standards for. Manta Rays are another questionable inclusion, given that I haven't read anything substantive about manta ray behavior that would indicate sentience.Tool use by the way is no longer considered an indicator of sentience.No, but Gallup's Mirror Test is, and a number of non-humanoid animals have passed it, including elephants, dolphins, orca, magpies, ants, and quite possibly manta rays.You don't think ants should rate higher on sentience than inchworms? :P
My real (admittedly, thread-derailing) question is, if you're of the opinion that we haven't yet nailed down standards of sentience, how can you differentiate between ants, manta rays, and all the less questionable inclusions on the list?
As for the role of slavery in my games, my campaign world features orcs as a slave race to one of the human empires, but there's no way I can describe it on the interwebs without sounding like a racist jerk.
We have some fairly wooly standards for sentience to the extent that we can make broad distinctions between Homo Sapiens, Dolphins, Dogs, and earthworms. But we're severely lacking in the finer distinctions. to the point where we can't make the call between ants and inchworms. I myself don't believe that ants are either individually sentient nor sentient as a "group mind". I do believe that they do have instinctual cooperative programming within them as that demonstrated at a TedTalk sometime bag with mini flying drones.
I mean, honestly, fantasy games are under no obligation to represent humanity's past, the reprehensible aspects thereof, or otherwise. It's part of the fantasy to want to play as an elf and cast spells and fight a dragon, and none of those things were ever real, so adjusting the politics of your fantasy setting to do away with slavery and make it so LGBT people are universally accepted isn't even remotely out of bounds.
Very little is going to be unacceptable in terms of game content 100% of the time, but for darn near everything even remotely borderline there's going to be someone at some table somewhere who's deeply uncomfortable with it. So if you're going to tell stories about "reprehensible episodes in human history" and not, you know, lighter fantasy fare you're going to either want to clear that with your group beforehand or have some sort of system in place (I like the X-Card System) for people to call an audible for the story before it goes somewhere deeply unfun for them.
I myself don't believe that ants are either individually sentient nor sentient as a "group mind".
Well, that's nice. I'd ask you what you meant by "sentient" in this context, except you've already stated that you don't actually have a meaning. So I'll approach it in a somewhat roundabout manner.
Earlier, Goth Guru suggested that "If the animal recognises the optical illusion of a reflection, they will probably ignore it. Most cats realize that mirrors and TVs are illusory and do not show actual living creatures present at the time."
However, mirrors are not purely illusionary. The objects in the mirror are not real, yes, but they are reflections of real things. So when the ant sees an illusionary ant in the mirror, what does that mean?
At a minimum, the ant is capable of distinguishing "that is my illusion" from "that is an illusion of a generic ant," or even "that is another ant." The ant is capable both of recognizing the fundamental ant-ness of its image, but also to distinguish that illusion from all other illusions of ants. To go even further, the ant can recognize that properties of the illusions are properties of itself, even properties of which it was not itself aware (which is why it will, as an individual, start grooming to get the markings off).
There are thousands of ants in the colony, but somehow the ant not only knows of itself as an individual, but also knows that the fact that that ant in the mirror needs to be groomed means that this ant -- that I myself -- need to be groomed. What's your alternative explanation that does not include a pretty sophisticated mental model of the self on behalf of each individual ant?