Quote from: LiferGamer;1146463Not necessarily if he's lawful, he could be breaking the laws of the land...

I don't think any culture ever required its citizens to own slaves, or outlaws an owner releasing them if he chooses to.

Quote...and freeing someone just so they can be immediately and enslaved again or starve to death is hardly a good act.

Obviously not, but it doesn't take much effort to learn who can or can't be freed safely and where or when.  None of that overcomes the basic consideration: slave-owning and slave-trading, like certain criminal actions, is not something players should spend time fantasizing about doing for entertainment.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1146463Not necessarily if he's lawful, he could be breaking the laws of the land...

That gets back to the age old question: Is lawful about obeying the law of the land, or adhering to your own internal code?

Quote from: Bren;1146440So what should they do with defeated enemies?

Not enslave them and sell them for money.

Part of the acceptable breaks from reality in gaming should be that PCs aren't forced into situations which drive them towards such choices. When I ran games, any enemies who weren't killed in combat ran away, the players were perfectly happy to let them go, and nobody ever complained that it was "unrealistic".

I would see a Lawful Neutral character being fine with slavery if slavery was the law.

LN is Judge Dredd. He doesn't care about nuance. What is the law? Did you obey or disobey the law?

I also see Neutral characters being okay or not okay with slavery depending on their culture and religion. It's quite possible that enslaving your own kind (own race or own citizens) would be bad, but enslaving prisoners of war, or enemies, or creatures they consider lesser are all acceptable.

Also, much depends on the gods in a fantasy world. A lawful neutral god of civilization or rulership might be divinely okay with slavery, whereas Chaotic Evil god might be disgusted with slavery (and the slaves for allowing themselves to be caught).  

Modern people freak out about slavery because they have no concept of what captives were used for.
Slavery cultures used them for agriculture. Pre-slavery cultures used them for FOOD.

Not kidding. Our stone age ancestors ate their foes. Why raise your enemy's child when you could instead feed your own child? And your little ZugZug just loves thigh meat!

So let's all riot for Food Lives Matter! :cool:

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146467Not enslave them and sell them for money.

Part of the acceptable breaks from reality in gaming should be that PCs aren't forced into situations which drive them towards such choices. When I ran games, any enemies who weren't killed in combat ran away, the players were perfectly happy to let them go, and nobody ever complained that it was "unrealistic".

In most games, my PCs don't let enemies flee. Fleeing enemies bring back reinforcements, but dead men tell no tales.

In RuneQuest, ransoming captured enemies is part of the setting. Smart PCs even banked their own ransom at their temples and when the shit hit the fan, you would cry out that your life was worth X lunars. Smart monsters would often let you live because you had financial value beyond what you were carrying.

From a game mechanic perspective, it was a great setting addition because there's no easy Raise Dead in RuneQuest. If you liked your character, parting with 1000 gold was way better than getting butchered. It also introduced the idea that players could find value in NOT killing every enemy they met.

In OD&D, it wasn't unusual for PCs to give monsters a chance to serve or die. AKA, we killed half the orcs and corned the other half, who got the chance to work for their new benevolent human overlords instead of dying.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146464I don't think any culture ever required its citizens to own slaves, or outlaws an owner releasing them if he chooses to.

Obviously not, but it doesn't take much effort to learn who can or can't be freed safely and where or when.  None of that overcomes the basic consideration: slave-owning and slave-trading, like certain criminal actions, is not something players should spend time fantasizing about doing for entertainment.

To clarify - I wasn't implying slavery was mandatory, but freeing them COULD be illegal.

Does your campaign allow warlocks?  Evil characters?  There are lots of fucked up terrible things that PCs can and often do.

Did you read the other posts?  You're applying 21st century morality to a fictional, presumably pre-industrial world.  It's clear you wouldn't allow it in your game, fair enough, but take a few steps down from the moral high ground and take it in the proper context.

Quote from: Pat;1146466That gets back to the age old question: Is lawful about obeying the law of the land, or adhering to your own internal code?

A question best answered by the GM of the specific campaign. In Stormbringer, Law and Chaos are forces even the gods obey, and either force can drive humanity in positive direction, but adhering too much to either force brings ruin.

In my OD&D game, Lawfuls obeys laws and defends civilization. Neutrals have their own personal codes. Chaotics do whatever they want whenever they want.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146467Not enslave them and sell them for money.

Part of the acceptable breaks from reality in gaming should be that PCs aren't forced into situations which drive them towards such choices. When I ran games, any enemies who weren't killed in combat ran away, the players were perfectly happy to let them go, and nobody ever complained that it was "unrealistic".

Well that is one way avoid that particular moral dilemma...assuming that is, that death is better than slavery and murdering others is better than enslaving them. But if that's what your group enjoys, more power to you. I see it as yet another example of different people liking and disliking different things.

Personally, a setting where every defeated NPC opponent falls into the two simple categories of (A) dead or (B) running away in mindless panic is something I'd find incredibly unrealistic. I'd expect that some opponents would surrender, some would end up wounded and unconscious, others would be wounded and unable to run away, while a few opponents would feign a rout only to turn on their enemies, others would run away only to return with reinforcements, and of course some would run away never to be seen again if they can help it. But unless the PCs have a universally known reputation for murdering anyone who tries to surrender to them, a setting where no NPC ever even tries to surrender would seem incredibly alien to me.

And allowing situations to occur in play where PCs will need to choose between different options or encounter ethical dilemmas is part of what I enjoy about RPGs both as the GM and as a player. I see it as a feature rather than a bug to be eliminated.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1146473In most games, my PCs don't let enemies flee. Fleeing enemies bring back reinforcements, but dead men tell no tales.

Once word gets around...and almost certainly word will eventually get around...you end up with opponents who will fight like trapped rats since they have no other reasonable choice. I'd rather that turning tail or surrendering were viable options so enemies didn't feel like they had to fight so hard.

QuoteIn RuneQuest, ransoming captured enemies is part of the setting. Smart PCs even banked their own ransom at their temples and when the shit hit the fan, you would cry out that your life was worth X lunars. Smart monsters would often let you live because you had financial value beyond what you were carrying.

Yes. Just one of the many things I liked (and still like) about the original Runequest Gloranthan setting. Ransoming prisoners also works really well in an Arthurian knights type of setting like Pendragon where ransom is a thing and honor and keeping your word are considered knightly virtues.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146467Not enslave them and sell them for money.

Part of the acceptable breaks from reality in gaming should be that PCs aren't forced into situations which drive them towards such choices. When I ran games, any enemies who weren't killed in combat ran away, the players were perfectly happy to let them go, and nobody ever complained that it was "unrealistic".

Pretty big difference between "should" and could.

I agree the characters shouldn't be railroaded into anything where it's avoidable, including supporting a slave trade, but that doesn't mean I'd stop them from doing so if that's the direction they went.

In theory, nothing is stopping the characters from setting up their own little slave empire. Murder hobos regularly place themselves outside the law, and have the wherewithal to capture and enslave should they decide it's something they want to do.

You'd better believe that I'd make it hard for them, regardless the legalities. The NPC slaves would say exactly what they thought of the situation, abolitionists would conduct raids, and I'd make the whole enterprise more trouble than it's worth. But I wouldn't blanket ban them. Then again, I don't maintain friends who would repeatedly use TTRPGs as a means to act out what I'd consider consciously and intentionally immoral fantasies that aren't in service of the larger game. If, off topic example, a player decided their character was a molester of any kind, they'd be out pretty quickly. But enslaving NPCs in a game world where slavery is not uncommon? I'd probably let them give it a shot. Gaming tables vary though. As usual, whatever happens when consenting adults get together behind closed doors is their own game, and none of our business.

Who am I to say that murder is questionable, but slavery is a deal breaker?

It's a good case for something like the Sorcerer/WoD Humanity mechanic. You can do what you like, commit any atrocities you imagine, but it'll cost a little bit of your soul.

However, whether owning slaves automatically shifts a character's alignment from 'Good', to 'Evil', or even just 'Neutral' though (which I think is the question at hand), depends on a whole variety of in world contexts. If we take a a blanket position, medieval serfdom has to be scrutinised pretty closely too.

Like I said, I'd let the moral issue play out in game, and try to give some verisimilitude to the plight of the oppressed. If I was dedicated to the D&D alignment mechanic for whatever reason, I might require an alignment change based on how the character treated in game individuals, rather than their relationship to an economic power structure.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1146480You're applying 21st century morality to a fictional, presumably pre-industrial world.  It's clear you wouldn't allow it in your game, fair enough, but take a few steps down from the moral high ground and take it in the proper context.

I don't think saying "Not everything that happens in a game or gameworld should be regarded as a desireable and entertaining option for player characters to pursue, even if historically it was a real phenomenon" is taking things out of context. The world is fictional; the players aren't.

For that matter, I've never been a big fan of the warlock or of evil PCs, either -- I would have to really trust a player who came to me wanting to play such a thing, and that's based on both moral and practical concerns: the supply of players who can be trusted not to be a dick in practice with a morally questionable PC is far exceeded by the demand for morally questionable PC options.

Consider, by analogy, that while it's perfectly feasible by RAW for a Shadowrun PC to be a dealer in illicit BTL chips, absolutely none of the PC-building material suggests or supports this because even the rogues and violent criminals of that setting are still supposed to be (at least semi-)plausibly heroic figures, whose crimes are carried out to defy massively corrupt enemies much worse than they are. If it's difficult to do this for drug dealers, it should be even harder to do for slave traders. That doesn't mean drug dealing or slavery doesn't happen -- but it means that players who want their PCs to get into it as a business, rather than take it on as an enemy, should have to make a much more convincing case for it than normal.

Quote from: Pat;1146466That gets back to the age old question: Is lawful about obeying the law of the land, or adhering to your own internal code?

That is a fascinating question, though I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the answer.  I don't find either answer satisfactory.  Even a madman, the definition of chaos, can have a personal code.  And if one travels to another society with different laws and still adheres to one's own cultural norms, I would consider that lawful even if it is in opposition to the laws of the land.  To me, law implies being part of a society.  So my own personal definition of lawful is that a character adheres to the norms, formal or otherwise, of the group to which he is the most loyal.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146508I don't think saying "Not everything that happens in a game or gameworld should be regarded as a desireable and entertaining option for player characters to pursue, even if historically it was a real phenomenon" is taking things out of context. The world is fictional; the players aren't.

For that matter, I've never been a big fan of the warlock or of evil PCs, either -- I would have to really trust a player who came to me wanting to play such a thing, and that's based on both moral and practical concerns: the supply of players who can be trusted not to be a dick in practice with a morally questionable PC is far exceeded by the demand for morally questionable PC options.

To be clear, I'm a firm believer that a harsher setting leads to greater heroics.  Darker shadows, brighter light yadda yadda yadda.*   I'm also a bit of a cynic.  To be fair, I wouldn't have any interest in running a slavers campaign, and damn sure wouldn't want my psycho players to start seeing GP value over every NPCs head - the game would devolve into a nightmare of logistics and slave-trading routes.**

Focusing on the original question was about LN ownership of slaves; attacking a weaker foe for the goal of taking slaves is an evil act.  No argument.  Chattel slavery, generational slavery, etc. not a good thing.  Could a LN character own slaves?  Yes.  Should?  Probably not, but it's not binary.  I raised the point that -could- a LG character own slaves - I stand by my take on it - yes, in specific circumstances.  

A case can be made, and I believe you feel that everyone taking part in slavery = Evil.  

However, slavery isn't one thing.  It's not just picking cash crops or dying in a Roman mine.  

I previously mentioned prisoners of war, but also consider debt slavery, the quasi-official status of the Satraps of the Persian empire as 'slaves', Roman slaves owning property, money of their own and supervising businesses, 18th and 19th century indentured servitude (i.e. slavery with an expiration date), hell, Kalisi's army?  A PC in one of my old games had an NPC bodyguard slave; loyal from birth - he had more 'freedom' respect and wealth than most - essentially he was a Janissary.  (It was a convenient way to not have to babysit or GM take over when the NPC was being abused, since he wasn't as far as he was concerned.)  All of these can add story opportunities and yes, most often provide foes for the players to overcome.  

It won't fit in every campaign, and some tables will find it squicky.

QuoteConsider, by analogy, that while it's perfectly feasible by RAW for a Shadowrun PC to be a dealer in illicit BTL chips, absolutely none of the PC-building material suggests or supports this because even the rogues and violent criminals of that setting are still supposed to be (at least semi-)plausibly heroic figures, whose crimes are carried out to defy massively corrupt enemies much worse than they are. If it's difficult to do this for drug dealers, it should be even harder to do for slave traders. That doesn't mean drug dealing or slavery doesn't happen -- but it means that players who want their PCs to get into it as a business, rather than take it on as an enemy, should have to make a much more convincing case for it than normal.

In my experience, Shadowrunners do it to get paid; sticking it 'to the man' is a pleasant side benefit.  You're playing criminals who are zeroed... they can't get regular jobs, government dole or legal protection... how noble do you think a starving man actually acts?






*In my campaign, I explained tieflings are KoS in civilization.  Player still makes tiefling PC; finds out that even on the wild frontier they're not trusted or liked.  The one prominent NPC tiefling was murdered by a mob... for being a tiefling.
***That said, I'll usually let PCs -try- anything once.  When the dipshits realize that 5-6 murder hobos can't change the wurld on their own well, the next characters will have some earned wisdom.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1146367In the immortal words of Ian Malcolm, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

Well, in reality we are all slaves.

Quote from: PatThat gets back to the age old question: Is lawful about obeying the law of the land, or adhering to your own internal code?

Quote from: Mishihari;1146510That is a fascinating question, though I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the answer.  I don't find either answer satisfactory.  Even a madman, the definition of chaos, can have a personal code.  And if one travels to another society with different laws and still adheres to one's own cultural norms, I would consider that lawful even if it is in opposition to the laws of the land.  To me, law implies being part of a society.  So my own personal definition of lawful is that a character adheres to the norms, formal or otherwise, of the group to which he is the most loyal.

This seems very fuzzy for me - especially in the AD&D where good and evil are supposed to be independent of lawful. Even if I accept that slavery isn't necessarily evil, there are some behaviors that surely *are* evil like torture and human sacrifice. However, they could be legal according to the society, especially if it is an evil group. For example, the kingdom of Iuz in Greyhawk is ruled by an evil god. Can someone raised in Iuz even be lawful good? What would that mean for them?

I'm just raising it as a question. I don't generally use alignment, so if raising these questions is off-topic, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1146511A case can be made, and I believe you feel that everyone taking part in slavery = Evil.  

However, slavery isn't one thing.  It's not just picking cash crops or dying in a Roman mine.  

I previously mentioned prisoners of war, but also consider debt slavery, the quasi-official status of the Satraps of the Persian empire as 'slaves', Roman slaves owning property, money of their own and supervising businesses, 18th and 19th century indentured servitude (i.e. slavery with an expiration date), hell, Kalisi's army?  A PC in one of my old games had an NPC bodyguard slave; loyal from birth - he had more 'freedom' respect and wealth than most - essentially he was a Janissary.  (It was a convenient way to not have to babysit or GM take over when the NPC was being abused, since he wasn't as far as he was concerned.)  All of these can add story opportunities and yes, most often provide foes for the players to overcome.  

I think it has a lot to do with the character's personal distance from the system of slavery.

Is the character personally capturing, trading in, or overseeing, slaves? I'd start pushing their alignment into Evil, and maybe a quiet word with the player, depending on the overall tone and how the rest of the table was going with it.

Are they more distant perhaps slave owners, whose underlings deal directly with the slaves? Or they hire contractors, who they know subsequently use slave labour, and though they have an abstract idea of what's happening, they continue to profit from it?  This is the level of real world fashion labels and electronics manufacturers. I'd let them remain Neutral, though I'd grief their businesses horribly.

Are they quite a few steps removed from slavery, yet still benefit? Like the progeny of a noble family whose indentured serfs toil the surrounding farmland. They rarely even see the slaves, and are fed stories about the happy simple people who do all the work. I'd say they can still be Good. Otherwise every single one of us participating in modern consumer culture could be considered only, at best, Neutral.

As far as Lawful vs Chaotic, I tend to look on the scale more as structured vs unstructured. Organised crime vs anarchy. Lawful Evil knowingly commits atrocities, and does so not necessarily within the law, but using the law, or at the very least in a highly systematised methodical manner. Whereas 'Chaotic' characters eschew structure, and pursue their goals with more thought for the 'why' than the 'how'.

So a Lawful Evil NPC may own slaves regardless of the law of the land, but as a way of enforcing the power structures of their own demesne.

A Chaotic Evil NPC might own A slave, but is unlikely to participate in organised slave trading.

Just my own view on the alignments. YMMV.