| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an offshoot from the discussion whether or not androids are "alive", let's consider who gets to be a "legal person" in the Pact Worlds - someone who is either a citizen or a non-citizen who could become one. And for that, the question whether someone is alive cannot possibly matter - because the bone sages of Eox are very much "people" as far as the Pact Worlds are concerned, yet very much "not alive".
My suspicion is that this decision is made by a committee staffed with representatives of the Pact Worlds governments, and they make this decision based on a number of criteria.
The first one is that members of the species must be intelligent enough to understand the general laws and customs of the Pact World - they need not be lawyers, but they must be able to figure out what is and what is not appropriate on the member worlds with some coaching. In game terms, this probably means at least an average Intelligence of 7.
Furthermore, they must be willing and capable of respecting those customs. Members of the Dominion of the Black, for instance, are certainly intelligent enough - but their intelligence is extremely alien and they show unrelenting hostility to the Pact Worlds. Thus, no citizenship for them. And then there are outsiders and aliens that evolved in extremely alien environment whose society is just not comparable with that of the Pact Worlds and who have just as much difficulty grasping Pact World society as humans have grasping theirs - though considering some of the Pact Worlds species (such as Brethedans), they must be very alien indeed.
Beyond that, there are further criteria on whose importance each Committee member will have a different opinion.
One of these is whether the species in question has souls - indeed, this is said to be the main reason why Androids are accepted as citizens in their writeup. There are several effects that refer to souls in the Starfinder Core Rules - raise dead, reincarnate, and the Soul Upload Trap. Other effects presumably exist within the setting even if they are not explicitly mentioned - for instance, divination effects that contact souls in the afterlife. If one or more of these effects work on member of the species, then they can be said to fulfill this criterium. However, note that fulfilling this criterium will not impress the representative from Aballon.
Another one is whether the species in question has free will - that is to say, are capable of making autonomous decisions for themselves. A slave species (whether biological or machine) cannot be held responsible for its action - but that also means it does not have a choice whether or not it can adhere to Pact World laws and customs. Note that "slave species" has a different meaning from "species that has been enslaved" - individuals of the latter may rebel and flee their masters, while the former is genuinely incapable of doing so.
Further criteria depend on the individual Committee members' biases and prejudices - most will generally try to look for things in the alien species that has some resemblance to their own species or culture. Great cultural works, recognizable worship of deities, an aptitude for tinkering... any of these and more can sway the verdict of council members. Conversely, anything that evokes similarities to traditional enemies (the Swarm or the Dominion of the Black, for instance) might sway a Committee member against the species.
Once the Committee members have deliberated, they will eventually make their decision and assign the new species a status from the following list:
Legal Person: Members of this species will be fully recognized as people and may not be harmed without clear justification, nor may their property be arbitrarily seized. They may apply for citizenship in whatever Pact Worlds entity is willing to take them in (though Pact Worlds members might give citizenship even to members of species that don't fall into this category, this probably won't be recognized by most other jurisdictions). Their governments may establish full diplomatic relationships with the Pact Worlds. Citizens and organizations operating out of Pact Worlds space may not wage campaigns of aggression or even genocide against them.
Protected: They aren't fully recognized as legal entities of their own right, but it was a fairly close thing - they impressed several Committee members enough that they are given some weak protections (this will likely require fewer votes than "Legal Person" status - perhaps "Legal Person" requires a majority vote, while "Protected" requires only one-third). Citizens and organizations operating out of Pact Worlds may not kill them for their body parts or make gross alterations to their habitats - in effect, the Pact Worlds governments designate their environment a "nature preserve". In practice, this means little - Pact Worlds citizens may still kill individual members without repercussions back home, and some limited resource extraction remains permissible, with a fair amount of flexibility on what precisely is considered "limited". However, if there is a big enough stink back home there may be legal sanctions. Which can be effectively evaded by just creating a new company that doesn't operate within Pact Worlds space (the Pact Worlds governments have better things to do than trying to patrol worlds outside their system), in which case any repercussions must come from locals - or outside activists (most prominently the Xenowardens).
Not protected: The species in question receives no protection at all from the Pact Worlds governments, and may be freely killed or enslaved.
Belligerent, redeemable: The species might qualify as "Legal People", but it is currently hostile to the Pact Worlds. However, there is hope that this state of affairs may cease at some point in the future. Obvious military forces may be engaged at will, but attacks and atrocities against recognizable "civilian" populations and installations should be avoided. The military forces of the Pact Worlds governments are held to the highest standards here (though even so, the rules for "collateral damage" remain very generous), while mercenary forces and private adventurers will hardly monitored at all. Still, the (admittedly low) possibility to be charged for "war crimes" remain, especially if they interrupt delicate peace negotiations. The Pact Worlds government might accept individual members of the species as refugees, or even as representatives of a "government in exile" (and smuggling such people out makes for an excellent adventure hook), though such refugees will be watched closely and may face prejudices from the local population.
Belligerent, irredeemable: The species is considered hostile and may be engaged at will with any and all means, and erradication would be seen as a positive goal by the Pact Worlds governments - examples include the Dominion of the Black and the Swarm. It would require extraordinary evidence to change this status.
So, what does all this mean in practice?
Whenever there is a report of a new, apparently intelligent species coming in - whether from the Starfinder Society, colonists, assorted organizations, or individual explorers and adventurers - the employees of the Committee will take note of it and add it to a list of species to investigate for possible legal personhood.
This list is very, very long, and getting longer all the time.
But there are ways of fast-tracking this process. The simplest way is for a member of the species to show up on Absalom Station and declare: "My species wants to establish diplomatic relations with the Pact Worlds." Even then there will likely a bunch of interviews (possibly involving requests for further information and all sorts of medical and magical examinations) and a waiting period of a few days until the Committee can make its decision. Gee, I hope the alien diplomats have some good local guides and bodyguards (i.e. player characters) who can protect them during this time!
It also helps if a Committee member strongly supports the application of a particular species, which usually means that their government has some sort of interest in the species or their world that would benefit from establishing diplomatic relations. To a lesser degree, this is also true for corporations and other organizations - if they hope to make trade deals with them or otherwise see something beneficial to their agenda, they can make an effort to convince the Committee members of it and fast-track the process. Sometimes the Committee members' government benefit from the trade and will be easily convinced, while sometimes the convincing needs a little push (bribery is such an ugly word...). However, sometimes rival corporations and organizations will oppose the fast-track process for their own reasons (usually because they want to exploit the world on their own terms) and work behind the scenes to slow it down.
Very occasionally, lone individuals or small groups manage to get the fast-track process started on their own, without the backing of governments or large corporations - usually by making a huge PR splash. Player characters with the Icon theme (and possibly the Envoy class) will have the best chance at this. It's not easy, but if they get enough public attention those Pact Worlds governments who are responsive to public opinion might get behind their efforts.
If there is no fast-track process (and truthfully, these tend to clog the Committee's agenda), then the assorted sub-committees will gradually gather more and more information and have their experts evaluate it until they are confident about the quantity and quality of their data and the analysis of the data. Worlds colonized by Pact Worlds members that see frequent trade will almost inevitably accumulate the most data, while lone accounts of explorers will be filed in the archives until more information comes up. Very occasionally they might send one of their experts to an alien world to evaluate a local species, especially if the world might feature other things of interest (such as tradable or extractable resources), but for the most part they will leave such exploration to the Starfinder Society with whom they have a good working relationship - many Starfinders report their encounters with alien species to the Committee, while the Committee is generally happy to share its information about species in its archives with Society members.
Well, these are my thoughts on this issue. What are yours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually disagree quite a bit with your first two requirements and that's as far as I got before deciding to start a response.
While I agree that intelligence and competency is related to the issue of personhood, I disagree that a specific individual need exhibit it.
For instance an intelligent swarm hive might not have the "intellect" reside in individual member of the swarm, but rather have a distributed intelligence. That would still be a "person" in my opinion. You could also have something like Legion from Mass Effect where it is roughly a thousand separate AIs inhabiting one "body" that combine their computing power together to have "intelligence".
As to your second point, respecting and being willing to follow the rules or culture of a civilization does not at all pertain to personhood. A "normal" human could be completely unwiling to cooperate or follow the law in any manner. Being a complete nihilist with their only goal being destruction. But that doesn't make them any less of a person.
Individual swarm intelligences would count as "persons" for this purpose.
Furthermore, it's one thing if an individual member of the species is a sociopath unable to operate within Pact Worlds society - it's an outlier that can be dealt with. But the Committee evaluates entire species, not individuals - and if all members of a species could be considered "sociopaths", then they probably won't be able to integrate into society.
(For a video game example, consider the Typhon from the recent game "Prey".)
Furthermore, keep in mind that the Committee is not intended to settle philosophical questions about the nature of the Self - it exists in order to determine a legal status that the Pact Worlds government can work with. And the basis of that ultimately boils down to "species we can work with"... or at least, "species we want to work with".
On the other hand -- did any world in the Pact Worlds ever recognize goblins as people? I didn't think so.
Likewise things like the Aboleth or Goblins. You can wipe those out by the dozen, but they're still people. It's still strongly frowned upon to desecrate their corpses, try to eat them, or torture them without a damned good reason.
Meanwhile you've got Eoxians, who from descriptions in the books are barely tolerated off their home planet and are actively hostile, but are still given citizenship status with the assumption and understanding that unless they're on a diplomatic mission or responding to a threat to the system they stay the hells on or around Eox and the rest of the Worlds will stay off of and away from it under the same stipulations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the issue of Personhood would be separate from the issue of Hostility. The Vesks, for instance, were never not-people, they were just a hostile nation. Even wanting to kill all other life you encounter doesn't make you a not-person, it just means your an enemy.
Exactly. Being amicable isn't a requirement for personhood. Even for an entire species.
A species can be "people" while being completely hostile to the pact worlds and even all life.
One would definitely argue that the Swarm is hostile to all life in the Pact Worlds. The swarm constitutes a have mind intelligence, and are people much like Shirren are.
On the other hand -- did any world in the Pact Worlds ever recognize goblins as people? I didn't think so.
They're people. People no one likes. People that other people regularly kill. But still people.
I think the OP mixed up a lot of concepts and got lost on the way.
Whether a being is a "person" vs whether they can be a citizen are different concepts.
I am going from PF definitions here, but outsiders don't have souls as per not being a legal target of Raise Dead. (Might be different in SF.)
There is also the question of whether the robotic inhabitants of (2nd planet) have souls also, being robots, not androids. They are definitely an accepted planet in the Pact Worlds.
Also, in SF alive and sentient are mutually exclusive concepts.
In short, I think it's fair to say sentient beings are "persons." That seems safe to say since no SF AI is sentient.
|
That seems safe to say since no SF AI is sentient.That is up for debate. Durandal of Marathon, the Omnics of Overwatch, the Geth of Mass Effect, and probably at least a few I haven't heard of are all pretty firmly in the "sentient" camp.
I think he was using SF for Starfinder...an admittedly bad choice in this instance.
However, even in Starfinder it's not actually true. They make specific reference to sapient AI and them having full rights...those just aren't the kind of AI PCs can own.
I think this was a very interesting and well thought-out post. Kudos.
I am going from PF definitions here, but outsiders don't have souls as per not being a legal target of Raise Dead. (Might be different in SF.)
Just one quick note: Outsiders do have souls. In fact, more than that, they are a soul. In fact, if I remember correctly that's why they can't actually be rezzed, their soul is not distinct from their body, so when their body dies their soul dies with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP mixed up a lot of concepts and got lost on the way.
Whether a being is a "person" vs whether they can be a citizen are different concepts.
In this case, I explicitly refer to "legal personhood", which pretty much means "can be citizens under the law".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
Whether individuals or groups consider someone a "person" is not addressed here, nor whether the Starfinder rules consider someone to be a "person". This only addresses the legal perspective of the Pact Worlds governments and their courts.
Likewise things like the Aboleth or Goblins. You can wipe those out by the dozen, but they're still people. It's still strongly frowned upon to desecrate their corpses, try to eat them, or torture them without a damned good reason.
They may be considered "people", but they are not considered "legal persons" in the Pact Worlds. They have proven themselves to be incapable (goblins) or unwilling (aboleths) to work within the legal and social framework of the Pact Worlds, and thus have no rights whatsoever. There is no legal consequence for killing them and, I suspect, desecrate their corpses, eating them, or torturing them (though local governments might have some ordnances against the latter, this will not be true for the Pact Worlds as a whole). There might be social consequences for eating goblins, but that's not the same as legal consequences.
And from a "meta" perspective, this gives player characters "acceptable targets they can pick fights with without having to fear legal consequences.
Under normal precedent, all persons are legal persons. Youre definition still doesn't fit.
Legal persons is usually meant to allow things like corporations to have limited rights of people.
Under normal precedent, all persons are legal persons. Youre definition still doesn't fit.
Legal persons is usually meant to allow things like corporations to have limited rights of people.
Under "normal precedent" for Earth maybe, and even that was not universal (consider the old Roman Republic and Empire, which were legalistic societies with slavery). But a society like that of the Pact Worlds which knows hundreds, if not thousands of species - and dozens of thise which "do not play well with others" - the legal situation is bound to differ.
And in my perspective, the situation for the Pact Worlds is this:
"People": Sapient beings which I, the speaker, can empathize which on some level - something subjective with no legal standing:
"Legal persons": Sapient beings with clearly defined rights and responsibilities within the Pact Worlds.
Hence, goblins may be recognized as "people" by many - their gleeful sadism and enthusiasm for things that go "bang" are easily recognizable by many other humanoid species. Yet they are incapable of blending into Pact Worlds society and thus cannot be "legal persons".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under normal precedent, all persons are legal persons. Youre definition still doesn't fit.
Legal persons is usually meant to allow things like corporations to have limited rights of people.
Under "normal precedent" for Earth maybe, and even that was not universal (consider the old Roman Republic and Empire, which were legalistic societies with slavery). But a society like that of the Pact Worlds which knows hundreds, if not thousands of species - and dozens of thise which "do not play well with others" - the legal situation is bound to differ.
And in my perspective, the situation for the Pact Worlds is this:
"People": Sapient beings which I, the speaker, can empathize which on some level - something subjective with no legal standing:
"Legal persons": Sapient beings with clearly defined rights and responsibilities within the Pact Worlds.
Hence, goblins may be recognized as "people" by many - their gleeful sadism and enthusiasm for things that go "bang" are easily recognizable by many other humanoid species. Yet they are incapable of blending into Pact Worlds society and thus cannot be "legal persons".
Perhaps the language is really the thing that needs to change.
"Legally Protected People/Persons" wouldn't imply that other beings aren't people (which the phrase Legal Persons does), but would imply they aren't protected.
I like this legal person idea. If someone doesn't fit, they don't have rights and can be enslaved or killed with impunity. My vesk will have great deals of fun and profit with this. Thank you for the legal lesson.
Anyone know a guy who knows a guy who makes Goblin sized control collars? Maybe some 'reeducation implants?'
I think its barking up the wrong tree. You are allowed to kill goblins, not because they are non-people, but because they are presumptive outlaws. If they put even the minimum effort into not-always-being-terrible, then they'd get the same basic legal protections everyone else has. As is, they don't, and are unlikely to do so ever. So, since "being a goblin" actually *is* 99% probable evidence that you have, are, or will do something horrible to other people, nobody questions that your killing of goblins was justified.
So either "presumptive outlaws" is a legal category (in which case I don't see much difference to my "belligerent" category), or law enforcement and judges get told during their training:
"If members of species X get killed, don't bother investigating - they probably did something to deserve it."
And the latter strikes me as a terrible idea for a legal system - after all, it means that legal rights and protections can be revoked not just by legal processes, but by informal opinions.
I like this legal person idea. If someone doesn't fit, they don't have rights and can be enslaved or killed with impunity. My vesk will have great deals of fun and profit with this. Thank you for the legal lesson.
Anyone know a guy who knows a guy who makes Goblin sized control collars? Maybe some 'reeducation implants?'
I doubt that the Pact Worlds as a whole would have a legal problem with goblin slavery as such - but by enslaving them you also have to accept legal liability for them.
(Meanwhile... how about using goblins as a substitute for animal testing?)
Another good example of a "slave species" would be certain undead enthralled by the Eoxians. Even if they are intelligent, they might have no free will of their own - or they are feral if uncontrolled. Thus they cannot be legal persons, and Eoxians can do what they want with them - but they are also responsible for what they donif they enslave them.
Oh, they are not - but if the Pact has any meaning, there needs to be some basic rights and protections for its citizens no matter what species they are - especially if they are outside of their home jurisdiction. And it would solve so many problems if the Pact Worlds administration could say: "Goblins, aboleths, etc. cannot be citizens and do not have any rights."
Because then there would be a clear divide between citizens and noncitizens, not a sliding scale based on whatevee is convenient at the moment. Because if it is merely informally okay to kill goblins as opposed to legal, then what species that used to have meaningful protection under the laws will be next?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to pose a litmus test.
If a member of a species is capable of caring whether or not they are classed as a person, they are classed as a person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the language is really the thing that needs to change.
"Legally Protected People/Persons" wouldn't imply that other beings aren't people (which the phrase Legal Persons does), but would imply they aren't protected.
No, it doesn't need to, you're just overthinking it. Keep in mind that the legal jargon isn't supposed to be known and used by the common folk - it's a tool designed for a certain function.
Namely, to designate an entity that doesn't necessarily exists as a physical being in the real world. Dead people, an entire group sharing a common trait, a business company or even a cause can all constitute a legal person.
It's a catch-all term not a political statement.
It is when you're trying to write out sentient creatures (like Goblins) as not people.
You might not like them, but they're still people. They do have a potentially different legal status from Humans (for example), but doesn't remove the fact that they're people. They do likely have different protections from other people (Humans again).
Do you asking them whether they care before or after shooting them? ;)
Daat
Instead you simply want to classify some species as non-persons with no rights or protections whatsoever. Now it's not merely informally okay to kill them, but abuse them in whatever fashion people choose - enslave them, experiment on them, hunt them for sport.
And as they are non-people with no rights, even exemplary individuals can not legally protest their treatment.Why do you want to have a category for slave species?
Because the Eoxians are firm members of the Pact, and they have created quite a few sapient slaves over the centuries.
If the species in question has enough exeptional individuals arguing for their freedom, their status can be changed - that happened with the androids, after all.
I'd take J4RH34D's test: If individuals of a species ask to be considered persons - that species should be considered persons. (Barring cases where those individuals are reasonably representative of their species - not magically or technologically enhanced or controlled, etc. No Awakened dogs demanding personhood for all dogs.)
I think there is.
Ultimately, the principles of the Pact do not derive from an abstract Declaration of Universal Sapient Rights. They are not the Federation of Star Trek, and the only reason they care about anything outside of the Pact Worlds system is because the outside can affect them and their citizens.
They are a mutual self-defense pact. And if an outside species might be able to contribute something to that defense - politically, economically, militarily - then you may be given the benefit of the doubt. But if you are incapable - likr goblins - then why should they want to waste resources on you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And from a meta perspective, it's useful to have some enemy species around that the PCs can just shoot without worrying about the legalities.
I still think there are probably a LOT of species that are considered people, but also kill-on-sight. Goblins are a good example, where it's considered reprehensible to abuse, desecrate, or torture them, but massacre an entire goblin warren and nobody who isn't a green-skinned Cuisinart will care.
I imagine that in the Pact worlds there probably ARE several laws against needlessly cruel acts, in the same skein as animal cruelty laws in the US if a bit more broad.
I also think that the Pact Worlds work much like the UN, in that signatories of the Pact still retain their own laws and customs on their home worlds, but there are certain limits placed on how they can interact with one another. Eoxians are mentioned as openly hostile to other worlds in the starship section, and I'd be absolutely flabbergasted if the Drow weren't playing some sort of long-con political game with an imperialistic bent.
Some local governments might be more tolerant about goblins, but the Committee determines the status of species across the Pact as a whole. Members of these species must be given some minimal rights in the jurisdictions of all member nations - their governments cannot declare them "un-persons" and do what they want with them.
We should also keep in mind that the legal statuses of various races are not purely philosophical constructs but practical decisions guided by specific goals. For example, since the undead of Eox were founding members of the Absalom Pact, their personhood could not be in doubt. On the other hand, since nobody in a position of power wants goblins around, they would probably try to game the system any way they could to deny basic rights to that race.
|
I wouldn’t count the goblins out as citizens. I would imagine any playable race will be considered a”person”.
I’m sure that Drow will hire them to cause issues, I’m sure that the will also happily sell the weapons too.
And since the are part of an over all larger race group, I’m pretty sure Hobgoblins and bugbears aren’t going like the idea of their personhood potentially being invalidated.
My opinion is that most Goblins are considered irredeemable outlaws, rather than non-persons.
Starfinder for the most part has its race of people that can’t be reasoned with in the Hive,
So who gets to decide which species are "irredeemable outlaws"? And how precisely should "irredeemable outlaws" be treated by the law - or at least in the interplanetary regions that are within the jurisdiction of the Pact Worlds law enforcement (as opposed to member nations)?
So who gets to decide which species are "irredeemable outlaws"? And how precisely should "irredeemable outlaws" be treated by the law - or at least in the interplanetary regions that are within the jurisdiction of the Pact Worlds law enforcement (as opposed to member nations)?
Presumably the Pact Worlds "government" functions much like the United Nations. Each government represented in the Pact Worlds would send individuals to the Pact Worlds Assembly, and each government would get an individual vote on matters. For important matters, it would probably require 2/3's majority of votes and for less important matters a simple majority would likely suffice.
|
|
So who gets to decide which species are "irredeemable outlaws"? And how precisely should "irredeemable outlaws" be treated by the law - or at least in the interplanetary regions that are within the jurisdiction of the Pact Worlds law enforcement (as opposed to member nations)?
I doubt that would actually be a legal term used to describe species, but rather just a societal prejudice put upon the goblins.
But it wouldn't be hard to assume that a whole group of goblins, even tribes could be judged as a group of outlaws much like an outlaw gang.
From a standpoint of telling stories, I don't think that taking away personhood from goblins is a good idea as a game mechanic. The one thing I wouldn't want is characters just massacring every goblin they come across in broad daylight. That sort of activity becomes background noise in a story then.
Zombies on the other hand, mow them down.
There are many foundational questions we'd need to ask before getting to these nuanced questions.
It's similar to how homosexuality (et al) isn't a PF-Golarion issue because there was no dominant anti-homosexual culture. Are the questions raised here even ones that occur in SF? Maybe it's a given that species capable of reason may join and maybe it's a given goblins can't be reasonable. Or it's an ongoing policy/ethical debate. Or maybe it's about value, as a trade partner or ally or even just as "not an enemy" vs. exploitable or lacking political force. Maybe it isn't even a question at all, with hostile vs. non-hostile being the main characteristic of acceptability even more than intelligence or internal goods/evils.
A different history means their vocabulary would lack some words we have. In turn, what words does English lack to describe types of sentient creatures and their social statuses? What great philosophers have they had to sway public opinion?
Was there a philosophical movement akin to the Enlightenment promoting humanism (sentient-ism?), a.k.a. valuing one's fellow person inherently rather than for personal or religious reasons?
Did it spread or was it nixed? Is arguing based on reason and empathy effective across many species, or does the wallet & self-preservation carry the day? And is that due to physiological or just situational pressures?
Imperialism, both cultural and financial, seems to still be a thing so what rights do the natives have? If natives attack (for reasonable reasons) do they all get labeled as hostile? Would whether a species had souls be a factor? What about having actual gods vs. false?
And how malleable are the temperaments of species as a norm?
Heck, even the Shirren broke away, right? Are there anti-Shirren movements driven by fear of infiltration? Anti-Vesk? How much does fear of "the other" drive society in a society with such a vast array of species & aliens? Wouldn't such diversity lead to more liberal/progressive values (as demonstrated in pluralistic areas on Earth)? Or would the practicality of survival prevent that?
I suspect...
...Pact Worlds is more a practical political collective than a force to uphold ideals. It exists for its own benefit & safety, so one's ability to contribute to that is likely the strongest factor in obtaining citizenship.
...citizenship still doesn't guarantee much, with personal power and influence being more important. So a wealthy, reasonable "monster" could be better off than a Pact citizen, even in Pact circles. Are basic rights even wired into the Pact governments, much less the whole?
...species might tend to hold others in their species accountable because everyone would get judged by the actions of their peers (at least the way the human mind is wired). Success & efforts would vary. A smart goblin may be aware other goblins have ruined any chance they have of intermingling with society unless they present themselves in a much different fashion.
...with all those alignments still going strong (right?) it seems there is little moral or ethical common ground upon which to base an all-inclusive society, and definitely no singular objective morality to reference, but a framework of competing ones. So the amoral ability to trade would be a valuable indicator of a race's worth (in Pact terms). The Pact would likely skew firmly neutral. This would irk outliers (i.e. Paladins), but allow for a plethora of adventuring options even within society.
...the astounding volume of cultures would lead to a default acceptance (or at least tolerance) of pluralism & differences, at least by socially viable peoples. Isolationist cultures would have difficulty keeping isolated, and likely be seen as hostile.
So in summary, I'd guess the Pact Worlds would develop as a capitalist, neutral, pluralistic meta-culture whose best unifying threads are trade & self-preservation in a hostile universe. This level of practicality over idealism or cultural identity would push the Pact to abstain from ruling too strongly on personhood, except as far as being worthy of citizenship is concerned. So non-hostile should be enough of a qualifier, even if as with Eox there are conditions.
Arguments re: personhood in a setting where alignments, a.k.a. religious doctrine or divine decree, determine morality (rather than empathy) make such moral/ethical questions more subjective than perhaps we Earthlings would like. Religions & academia in SF probably engage in such debate regularly, with the Pact Worlds simply being content if they don't elevate it to open hostility, a.k.a. disruption of Pact society.
Just occurred to me the Pact Worlds mirror Sigil from Planescape, just without the Lady of Pain ensuring the safety of the whole from invasive or disruptive forces.
Cheers