Don't you mean "subjective"...

Since the objectivity of what these nebulous terms mean in play are entirely subjective to the writer's understanding of such abstractions?

This is why people literally have been arguing about Alignment for 40+ years and counting.

Quote from: tenbones;1146676Don't you mean "subjective"...

Since the objectivity of what these nebulous terms mean in play are entirely subjective to the writer's understanding of such abstractions?

This is why people literally have been arguing about Alignment for 40+ years and counting.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. So when I said that all these inconsistencies are a testament to how "objective" alignment is what I was really saying is that it's the opposite. But yeah, if these terms and concepts were truly objective then every writer wouldn't have a different opinion of what any given creature's alignment is or what any of it means, and people wouldn't have been arguing about it for decades.

I've always found alignment more useful for broad Strokes of defining societies or cultures etc etc, so much so I'll even use it in game systems where there is no alignment system make a note of which societies are lawful evil and so forth.

On that note, and as mentioned above, a lawful neutral Society can be a slaveholding state but  I believe a lawful good one would not, barring outliers of prisoners of War.

Talking about nuanced alignment, in my GM notes I do a lot of emphasis on one factor..

The bronze Dragon who is assigned as protector General in my campaign, is Lg... his little sister who is an advocate for the group is lG

In other words where the 'right thing' conflicts with the law they tended to drift in opposite directions.  In other words they are 'in danger' of drifting to lawful neutral and neutral good respectively.

Time to bring that back around a lawful neutral slave owner that never questions it can start drifting into lawful evil.

In the case of dragons specific to my campaign it's questionable how much free will they have over their alignment and choices but that's a different topic.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1146614Dude, there are people with different interpretations of how to handle alignment along the Lawful/Chaotic axis right on this thread, and that's just a few out of topic comments that aren't even arguing against alignment. Plus there was a whole thread a while back dedicated to arguing about alignment that went on for dozens of pages and arguments about alignment are one of the oldest dead horses when it comes to heated D&D discussions. There demonstrably is no broad consensus about alignment, because if there was these discussions couldn't exist.

Has there been anyone on this thread who said that a LN PC can not have slaves in a society where slavery is Lawful?  Anyone, like any single one?

And yet there is supposed to be "no broad consensus".

That is a real head scratcher for sure.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146700Has there been anyone on this thread who said that a LN PC can not have slaves in a society where slavery is Lawful?  Anyone, like any single one?

And yet there is supposed to be "no broad consensus".

That is a real head scratcher for sure.

1) First reply right off the bat said that in a world where Good/Evil are objective cosmological forces that good or neutral characters shouldn't own slaves. I think there were others who made similar observations or objected to allowing PCs to get involved with slavery in general as well, but not gonna comb the entire thread since I already found your one. Granted, this one was more about the Good/Evil axis, which I already mentioned in my original post that there tends to be more consensus on, but neutral characters includes Lawful Neutral.

2) People agreeing about ONE thing regarding alignment doesn't mean that there is broad consensus if they still disagree about a whole host of other things. And the record shows that they do.

I am absolutely SHOCKED at both the quantity and quality of responses to my post! are you sure this is an RPG forum? All kidding aside. I sincerely appreciate the time everyone has taken to respond and I have genuinely enjoy reading and being informed by so many great responses. Thanks again!

Quote from: VisionStorm;11467131) First reply right off the bat said that in a world where Good/Evil are objective cosmological forces that good or neutral characters shouldn't own slaves. I think there were others who made similar observations or objected to allowing PCs to get involved with slavery in general as well, but not gonna comb the entire thread since I already found your one. Granted, this one was more about the Good/Evil axis, which I already mentioned in my original post that there tends to be more consensus on, but neutral characters includes Lawful Neutral.

2) People agreeing about ONE thing regarding alignment doesn't mean that there is broad consensus if they still disagree about a whole host of other things. And the record shows that they do.

You would be correct if the question was: Is Slavery Evil?

But that was not the question though was it.

Although it could explain why some people find Alignment confusing.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146740You would be correct if the question was: Is Slavery Evil?

But that was not the question though was it.

Although it could explain why some people find Alignment confusing.

That is because people have become moral relativists. Coupled with a crippling ignorant view of history, and lack of understanding about cognitive development, and an even worse understanding of ethics and morality... which might explain the rampant moral relativism.

There is a *lot* about things going on today that are confusing to people. Alignment by comparison is like a mote of dust on the sea of shit by comparison. But it's in the proverbial soup nevertheless.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146740You would be correct if the question was: Is Slavery Evil?

But that was not the question though was it.

Although it could explain why some people find Alignment confusing.

Except that "Is Slavery Evil?" was an implicit part of the question, since the only reason a Lawful Neutral (or ANY "Neutral") character couldn't own slaves (and presumably still remain "neutral") would be if slavery is evil*.

So this thread really is a question of morality more than Law vs Chaos.

EDIT: And if “Lawful” was really such a fundamental aspect of the question then answer me this: Would a Chaotic Evil character be able to own slaves?


*And not just "evil", but so fundamentally evil it would make any character who engaged in it evil as well.

Quote from: tenbones;1146784That is because people have become moral relativists. Coupled with a crippling ignorant view of history, and lack of understanding about cognitive development, and an even worse understanding of ethics and morality... which might explain the rampant moral relativism.

There is a *lot* about things going on today that are confusing to people. Alignment by comparison is like a mote of dust on the sea of shit by comparison. But it's in the proverbial soup nevertheless.

Ironically, I'd argue the problem with the view of slavery today is moral absolutism, not moral relativism. It's the prevailing view that that slavery is 100% evil, with no nuance or gradation. Which can make it very difficult to talk about all the forms slavery took, or its near-universal prevalence throughout history.

Quote from: Pat;1146794Ironically, I'd argue the problem with the view of slavery today is moral absolutism, not moral relativism. It's the prevailing view that that slavery is 100% evil, with no nuance or gradation. Which can make it very difficult to talk about all the forms slavery took, or its near-universal prevalence throughout history.

I agree with both of you, to an extent.  If a person lives in a culture with slavery and has been taught all of his life that it is normal, does owning slaves make him evil?  I'd say not.  Ignorant by my standards, certainly, but not evil.  What he does in that framework might make him evil, though.  I certainly believe slavery is evil, but then I have been socialized in our current culture.  Does that make me better than him?  Probably not, just luckier to have been born in a more enlightened age.  So while I am a moral absolutist, and believe that slavery is absolutely evil, my judgement of the hypothetical slave owner is relative to his environment.  As in most things, I think the truth here is somewhere in the middle.

There are edge cases, too, which seem much less bad.  Indenture, where one voluntarily enters into service in return for money or some other benefit is one.  Punishment for crimes is another; it seems to be a lesser punishment in some ways as compared to death or long term incarceration.

Greetings!

Yes, Lawful Neutral people can own slaves. In the World of Thandor, slavery is ubiquitous. Many civilizations embrace slavery, and implement slavery in various ways.

There are also entire peoples, whole tribes raised from infancy in chains. They are taught from birth that slavery is good and proper for them, and that being a slave is their destiny, which is mandated by the gods. Many people passionately love being slaves.

That's what happens in a harsh and brutal world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari;1146837I agree with both of you, to an extent.  If a person lives in a culture with slavery and has been taught all of his life that it is normal, does owning slaves make him evil?  I'd say not.  Ignorant by my standards, certainly, but not evil.  What he does in that framework might make him evil, though.  I certainly believe slavery is evil, but then I have been socialized in our current culture.  Does that make me better than him?  Probably not, just luckier to have been born in a more enlightened age.  So while I am a moral absolutist, and believe that slavery is absolutely evil, my judgement of the hypothetical slave owner is relative to his environment.  As in most things, I think the truth here is somewhere in the middle.

There are edge cases, too, which seem much less bad.  Indenture, where one voluntarily enters into service in return for money or some other benefit is one.  Punishment for crimes is another; it seems to be a lesser punishment in some ways as compared to death or long term incarceration.

My entire post was in reference to what you call edge cases, except they aren't edge case, they're the norm. The modern American view of slavery is chattel slavery with basically no rights and a clear racial basis. Except that's an extreme outlier, in historical terms. Slavery in history was most commonly the enslavement of prisoners, or slavery as a punishment for debt. Most slaves in history had substantial rights, including limitations on treatment, the right to earn wages, purchasing their own freedom or freedom after a set period of time, freedom for their children, citizenship, etc. It never had such a clear racial basis, in fact most slaves were the same race as their masters, and thus the whole racist mythology that developed in the South to rationalize and justify the institution of slavery is basically unique and never happened anywhere else.

That's what modern people miss about slavery. The modern Western conception of slavery, particularly in the US, is based on a historical aberration.

Quote from: Pat;1146794Ironically, I'd argue the problem with the view of slavery today is moral absolutism, not moral relativism. It's the prevailing view that that slavery is 100% evil, with no nuance or gradation. Which can make it very difficult to talk about all the forms slavery took, or its near-universal prevalence throughout history.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146837I agree with both of you, to an extent.  If a person lives in a culture with slavery and has been taught all of his life that it is normal, does owning slaves make him evil?  I'd say not.  Ignorant by my standards, certainly, but not evil.  What he does in that framework might make him evil, though.  I certainly believe slavery is evil, but then I have been socialized in our current culture.

To play devil's advocate here , if a person lives in a culture with human sacrifice to Lolth and has been taught all his life that it is normal, does that make him evil? To what degree is this blending into "orcs aren't really evil, just misunderstood"?

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  For any given brand of slavery, tell me how much power it grants, and I'll tell you how much it corrupts.  

It's kind of like the rich man, heaven, and the camel fitting through the eye of the needle thing.  Not impossible, but when it comes to being involved in slavery and staying good, the deck is stacked heavily against you.