TheRPGSite

I just stumbled on a large trove of my old campaign documents and I saw some notes about the local Lord who was using goblins as slave labor to build a wall around the settlement he owned. My question is this. From a D&D perspective only and not considering real world politics, morality, etc., if I assume that the 'default' alignment of the society is LN and slavery in one or more forms is legal in that society, should a Lawful Neutral character be allowed to own slaves without affecting his alignment? I am also making the assumption that he is not beating, raping or otherwise treating his slaves in some other unusual manner.

Depends on the moral and cosmological assumptions of the setting.

In a a black-and-white, "Good Against Evil" high fantasy world slavery should be considered inherently Evil and neither Neutral characters nor PCs should be involved in it (unless it's a "Lord of the Rings but we are the bad guys" campaign, in which case the PCs probably shouldn't be Neutral).

In a shades-of-grey Sword & Sorcery setting, where Good and Evil are not defined by objective cosmological forces and where slavery might well be accepted and practiced in various nations, it should be okay. It should be noted, though, that taking a slave, i.e. a person forcefully deprived of basic freedoms and kept in bondage, into a perilous dungeon with you might not be the smartest of ideas. Image you get cornered by monsters, or you trigger a trap and find yourself hanging from the edge of a bottomless pit with one hand, and the only person who can save you in time is your slave. Why SHOULD he save you? Why wouldn't he just leave you to your fate and run away to regain his freedom?

Yes. Neutral is not necessarily nice, nor is it "not-evil". Slavery is evil, but neutral aligned people can do some evil stuff and some good stuff. Since slavery is legal in his society it does not conflict with his lawful nature either. This character may be someone like Thomas Jefferson, who philosophically opposes slavery but still participates in the practice because of economic concerns, or it could be someone who doesn't care about the morality of it, just the law. He's as you say unlikely to be cruel for the sake of cruelty (although in my opinion slavery is cruel by nature).

In the immortal words of Ian Malcolm, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

That being said, a lawful neutral PC would be perfectly amenable to granting manumission (freeing his slaves) in exchange for X years of work or Y amount of funds earned by said slave. There's historical precedent for that sort of thing.

IIRC, in Salvatore's The Crystal Shard Bruenor kept Wulfgar as a slave for several years. Granted, Wulfgar had been part of a barbarian raid and had been captured by Bruenor personally, so it may have been less slavery and more restitution.

I'm going to go with "depends on the setting" with a side of "the nature of the slavery matters."

There were some cultures where slaves had more freedoms than some medieval serfs and held positions of some... "prestige" isn't quite the right word... let's say "respect" (ex. many Greek tutors were slaves). Some in ancient Greece were said to prefer slavery to a wealthy family because it ensured they'd be fed and housed whereas they were likely to starve in bad times if they were free. Some societies allowed slaves to keep money, marry and could buy their freedom (and conversely sell themselves into slavery). In some germanic tribes slaves could even pay fines to avoid corporal punishment for their wrongdoing.

If the particular institutions make it more akin to a social class which has some level of protection under the law then Lawful Neutral probably fits. By contrast, societies where slaves are basically livestock to be bred, worked and disposed of when no longer able to work... that's Lawful Evil at best (Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil also being possible depending on whether there are any regulations or if slaves are just anyone a group of marauders has captured and hasn't gotten around to killing yet.

Similarly, the manner in which someone becomes a slave has moral implications. As mentioned above, if the primary means of becoming a slave is to sell yourself into it (such as to pay off debts or avoid crushing poverty because the law requires masters to feed, clothe and house all their slaves) and it's possible to buy your way out then it's arguable that even a Lawful Good character could have slaves (such a character would have slaves primarily because it is primary social safety net in their culture with a disproportionate number of their slaves being those too elderly or feeble to provide for themselves as free men), but they'd probably be the exception in such a society rather than the rule.

In the specific example of the lord enslaving goblins for his construction project, a lot depends on how the goblins came to be enslaved and what their fate is to be once the lord's wall is built.

For example, if they were captured while they were raiding the lord's lands and will be turned loose once the building project is complete, I could see an argument even for lawful good where they are less slaves and more inmates serving a sentence.

Conversely, if the lord raided a goblin village, dragged them off into slavery and intends to exterminate them once the work on the building project is complete... they're lawful or even chaotic evil.

Well, it really depends on how the society views slavery at that time. It might seem a perfectly respectable thing to do. In fact, you could even be seen as laudable and doing the heathens somewhat of a favor. Also, if they are not viewed as equals or even human, that gives the owner's even more of an excuse to be nasty and try to keep them as livestock, disposable assets.

Of course, we are talking about fictional D&D here, and not anything to do with real world where slavery which is abhorrent.

I think my views pretty much mirror what others have posted.

Certain campaigns from RPGs or literature, such as Norman's Counter-earth (Gor) series, clearly make slavery the norm in their society. Conan spends time as a slave in Howard's stories. Many older cultures in our world had slavery and they might not be viewed as evil because that's just the rules of those particular nations. Looking at Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign book from 1977 it's clear that old Blackmoor games had slaves as part of their society as well. I think that one would conclude that the early gamers had a "game world society doesn't need to mirror ours" philosophy. Clearly, slavery forms a big part of many fantasy literature sources as well as RPG campaigns.

Viewed from that lens, I can see characters of any alignment owning slaves because that's just what folks did in those cultures. On the other hand, I can see that a character of good or neutral alignment could say, "I don't care what our society says, slavery is wrong" and that could form a major plot arc in a campaign where the character might be trying to liberate the downtrodden slaves.

So long as it is the law of the land then yes.

Yes; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ANY Lawful character COULD own slaves.  This presumes a pre-industrial, manpower/animalpower IS your only truly reliable mechanical power.

Lawful Good - IIRC Wulfgar was Bruenors slave in the novels?  Wouldn't it be better to take an invading barbarian and have him rebuild/replace the damage his people has done, as long as there is a path to freedom - treat them decent, free them when 'they are ready' and treat it as punishment with a path of redemption.  They would also be leading the charge for abolition when the time is right, or when it becomes necessary.  Arguably many (most?) would choose to have NOTHING to do with the institution.  Your campaign/culture will dictate.

Lawful Neutral - Presumably there would be laws in place for the protection of, and the rights of, the slaves.  Hell, Aristotle wrote:

Quotethose who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast--and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them--are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned.

Lawful Neutral doesn't mean completely dispassionate - but I'm sure they are fair and decent bosses, so I can't imagine they'd be abusive slave owners.

Lawful Evil - Obvious.  LE cultures are often built on slavery, even if they don't call it that, there's definitely a pyramid of power.

In a prior campaign I had a dwarven culture that was terribly isolated, and dying out.  They would take warbrides and bondslaves from the invading orcs and hobgoblins; they wouldn't -mate- with the females (individuals might have, no offspring) but make them cook/clean/etc. They're LN, with members on the entire alignment spectrum.

Quote from: Premier;1146361It should be noted, though, that taking a slave, i.e. a person forcefully deprived of basic freedoms and kept in bondage, into a perilous dungeon with you might not be the smartest of ideas. Image you get cornered by monsters, or you trigger a trap and find yourself hanging from the edge of a bottomless pit with one hand, and the only person who can save you in time is your slave. Why SHOULD he save you? Why wouldn't he just leave you to your fate and run away to regain his freedom?

A remarkable number of people seem to have been comfortable being slaves, and slavery as an institution is far more nuanced than you suggest. The reaction of a particular slave depends on how they were enslaved (born to it, voluntarily agreement, punishment for a crime, prisoners of war, etc.), how they're treated, what benefits they might accrue (freedom in a few years, freedom for their children, building up a nest egg, etc.), what their other options are, the social context and expectations regarding slavery, and many other factors. Treating slavery as something everyone knows is universally evil and presuming that all slaves as constantly chafing against the yoke and will take any chance to murder their masters, is modern cinematic morality and far divorced from how it actually worked in history.

Slavery is one of those sticky subjects that most people find impossible to view except through the modern lens of chattel slaves being shipped in chains from Africa to live under their master's whip for the rest of their lives (assuming that they even survived the trip and weren't just thrown into the Atlantic if they got sick halfway through). Meanwhile in reality civilization wouldn't even exist if not for slavery, since pretty much all but the most primitive hunter-gatherer societies relied on slaves for large scale projects and taking prisoners from invading armies was common throughout history.

As many have already pointed out there used to be many kinds of slavery and people even used to sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts. It's only once we get to the miracles of industrialized society (freeing us from the need of slaves) immediately following the horrors of the mass chattel slavery practiced throughout the conquest of the Americas that slavery becomes an obviously evil institution that nobody wants to even talk about. But that depends on the cultural context and what specific types of slavery are being practiced.

If the lord in the OP's example is simply using goblin raiders as slaves in lieu of executing them to pay for the damage they've done and people they killed while invading his lands I wouldn't say that he's evil, but actually rather lenient. If he's farming the nearby caverns for goblins workers to keep as chattel slaves, though, that might be a bit more nefarious.

If slavery is legal, a Lawful Neutral character could own slaves. And if they could afford to, they almost certainly would own slaves.

Yes, and I think a very good example of this would be Gordianus the Finder from Steven Saylor's Sub Roma series (http://www.stevensaylor.com/RomaSubRosa.html). He has an Egyptian slave that eventually becomes his wife.

If you use alignment as a guide to behavior, then it would come down to treatment of slaves by the individual.

Should a lawful neutral PC be able to own slaves?

Yes, absolutely. The same for torture and human sacrifice if done for pragmatic reasons.

In particular, lawful neutral is disinterested in the consideration of good and evil, only what benefits the group.

It must be remembered that in the real world there is no such thing as "neutral", the difference between the game terms neutral and evil being one of culpability. A good example is the distinction between second degree murder and first degree murder; you can't walk into a court of law and say, "I'm not guilty of murder because I'm neutral." A perusal of the Catholic Catechism will reveal that what the game consistently calls neutral, Christianity consistently calls evil, although moral relativism has intentionally blurred the distinction.

In Dragon magazine, Gygax further clarifies the game term evil by saying that evil characters will commit the foulest act possible in a given situation -- very clearly what would be called premeditated and willful murder, as opposed to killing someone in a bar fight or a domestic dispute, which would be second degree murder.

Neutrality is a game construct. The closest parallel would be polytheism/paganism, wherein the culture has not yet come to a consensus on good/evil and the different deities represent different ideals, and moral relativism (which subsumes such neopagan religions as Wicca) which intentionally constructs a moral narrative which is orthogonal to the established good/evil norms of Christianity ("we don't believe in the Devil [predatory psychopathy], that's a Christian invention").

Further, one must consider that in the Ancient world, slavery was an economic necessity. In any society there are large numbers of people who contribute nothing, whether due to low IQ or sloth, and yet consume the society's resources; this is potentially catastrophic in a society that lives hand to mouth and is threatened by starvation. Pressing layabouts, prisoners of war, criminals, etc. into service is very pragmatic.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson....I am also making the assumption that he is not beating, raping or otherwise treating his slaves in some other unusual manner.

He will do so eventually, at least occasionally -- it is human nature.

If given a choice between eating broccoli and having a chocolate sundae, most people would prefer the sundae even though broccoli is better for you. That is called having "disordered desires" or having a "fallen nature". Of course you can use your will to force yourself to eat broccoli, but every once in a while you will slip and fall off the wagon and splurge on a sundae. It's human nature, or to say it in Christian terms, humans are addicted to sin.

Thus slavery is like letting an alcoholic operate a bar.

I would argue even good characters could own slaves. Especially the debt slavery kind.
Chattel slavery not so much. But you might wind up with a chattel slave even if you disagreed with the law. (Slay this person or make them your slave...) And they'd probably free them or let them buy themselves out of it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146400(Slay this person or make them your slave...)

This is a piece often missing from the discussion of slavery. In the classical world, many slaves were a byproduct* of warfare. If people don't all fight to the death (and in the real world they didn't), what are the victors supposed to do with the vanquished?



* An argument could be made that in the later Roman Republic and Early Empire slaves weren't simply a byproduct of war, but one of the motivators and main benefits (to the victor) of war.

Quote from: Bren;1146406This is a piece often missing from the discussion of slavery. In the classical world, many slaves were a byproduct* of warfare. If people don't all fight to the death (and in the real world they didn't), what are the victors supposed to do with the vanquished?



* An argument could be made that in the later Roman Republic and Early Empire slaves weren't simply a byproduct of war, but one of the motivators and main benefits (to the victor) of war.

Because some lawful evil suckers started gaming the system.  :)

Perhaps behind closed doors, the slaves are treated comparatively well; within a society that treats them like dirt?

I'd agree that a lawful neutral character could own slaves without violating his alignment if slavery was legal, especially if he's not abusing them beyond the basic injustice of being a slave at all. Conceivably even a lawful good character might retain possession of slaves if he was genuinely convinced that releasing them would do more overall harm than good, either to the slaves themselves (who might otherwise be chased down and executed on sight) or to the community (if the freed slaves would have no place or opportunity for taking up a peaceful lifestyle there).

Whether a PC in a game should allow such a situation to go on is another question. NPCs have to do what they do to create the world the PCs live in; doing something in a game is obviously not the same as doing it in reality, but dealing in slaves and slavery strikes me as one of those things that a basically considerate player shouldn't bring into a game, "playing to alignment" or not.

My advice is to ditch the alignment mechanic.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1146383Lawful Neutral doesn't mean completely dispassionate - but I'm sure they are fair and decent bosses, so I can't imagine they'd be abusive slave owners.

Lawful Evil - Obvious.  LE cultures are often built on slavery, even if they don't call it that, there's definitely a pyramid of power.

Lawful Neutral at the extreme includes Modrons. They are (often depicted as being) completely dispassionate and also have a "pyramid of power" for their society.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146416...but dealing in slaves and slavery strikes me as one of those things that a basically considerate player shouldn't bring into a game, "playing to alignment" or not.

So what should they do with defeated enemies?

Solutions that have been used in the real world include:

A. No mercy. Accept no one's surrender so as not to be threatened with further attacks or burdened with the inconvenience of prisoners of war.
B. Just let them go right after the battle so they can fight and kill again the next day.*
C. Just let them go right after the battle, but take away their armor and weapons so it will be sometime before they can fight effectively.**
D. Parole them and trust that they keep the word of their parole.
E. Maim them so they can't ever fight effectively in future.
F. Imprison them until the war is over.
G. Enslave them.


* Might be attractive in a D&D world since it let's you earn XP for the same NPC multiple times.

** Depending on the environment (monster-filled D&D wilderness, bandit or hostile 3rd party infested country, uncivilized area where hunting is necessary for survival) not having weapons may be equivalent to a death sentence.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146416Whether a PC in a game should allow such a situation to go on is another question. NPCs have to do what they do to create the world the PCs live in; doing something in a game is obviously not the same as doing it in reality, but dealing in slaves and slavery strikes me as one of those things that a basically considerate player shouldn't bring into a game, "playing to alignment" or not.

What if slavery is a part of the setting, like Dark Sun?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1146420My advice is to ditch the alignment mechanic.

A band aid solution. We'd still have to argue the topic of whether heroes or protagonists would own slaves.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146441What if slavery is a part of the setting, like Dark Sun?

Or Conan's Hyborian Age.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146442A band aid solution. We'd still have to argue the topic of whether heroes or protagonists would own slaves.

Why?

The only question is whether such a protagonist could inherently be called 'good'. That's only relevant mechanically if alignment is relevant; it's only relevant to the in-game social context as far as its legality and how it fits into the game world; and it's only relevant to the narrative if good vs evil is one of the themes.

What gets called Good and Evil basically comes down to the in-game world. Indeed, this question might be best sorted by the characters in game, as a side narrative.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesMy advice is to ditch the alignment mechanic.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146442A band aid solution. We'd still have to argue the topic of whether heroes or protagonists would own slaves.

I think that's a significantly different question. First of all, you can just play it as it exists, and even people in the game can have different opinions about it.

For example, I had a character in a GURPS Fantasy campaign who was very pro-Roman. He was a Romanized elf who rejected his tree-hugging origins and was enthusiastic about "true civilization", including slavery. He didn't own any slaves, but he supported the institution. We didn't have to have any out-of-game debates over that - we just played it out.

For game purposes, the issue isn't "is it evil" but "is it fun to include in play"? One player might think it's evil but is still fine with it being in play. One player might think it's justified. And others.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146442A band aid solution. We'd still have to argue the topic of whether heroes or protagonists would own slaves.

Pretty much. I despise the alignment system but still replied in the spirit of the thread because it's still a viable question on how to deal with questions of morality in the game (or fictional worlds in general) even if you ignore alignment completely. Also agree that the issue of slavery in game can't easily be ignored, cuz slavery is not only a major feature in some established settings (like Dark Sun), but also real life as well if you want to play in authentic settings based specific historical periods.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146441What if slavery is a part of the setting, like Dark Sun?

Don't play a slave owner or a slave dealer, and the only reason a PC should ever buy a slave is to free him immediately. Simple enough.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1146460Don't play a slave owner or a slave dealer, and the only reason a PC should ever buy a slave is to free him immediately. Simple enough.

Not necessarily if he's lawful, he could be breaking the laws of the land, and freeing someone just so they can be immediately and enslaved again or starve to death is hardly a good act.

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.

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.

To me, the problem with defining lawful to as those who are law abiding and those who have an internal code is: What's left? There's usually some mealy-mouthed verbiage about how chaotics can "do whatever they want", but unless you're a Crowleyist, that's not a moral philosophy. No, it's just a license given to the player, not the character, to do whatever they want. And I don't think defining chaotic as chaotic random or fishmalkism works.

It's better if all alignments have a moral base, and I think the way to give chaotic a moral base is to look at barbarians. Barbarians, in D&D, have always been the iconically chaotic, or at least not lawful, class. But does it make sense for barbarians to do anything they want at any time, acting randomly and wholly in their own self interest? Of course not, that's absurd. The answer is a code of honor. A stereotypical barbarian is far more honor-bound than the most law-abiding bureaucrat, but the code is internalized not externally imposed. Adherence affects self-worth, and reputation. I think that works far better than a rudderless undefined chaotic. It even preserves the divide between law = civilization and chaotic = the wilderness of the OD&D and Basic lines, because it highlights the conflict between the rule of law, and a culture of honor.

This does have some implications for monks. Most monks are still lawful, being obedient to their superiors, but tying them strictly to lawful makes less sense.

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

Solutions that have been used in the real world include:

H. Like a Greek hero, kill all the men and enslave all the women.

Quote from: DocJones;1146568H. Like a Greek hero, kill all the men and enslave all the women.

I thought that was Conan the Schwarzenegger's solution. :D

A lawful good character might feel compelled to buy all the slaves they can so they can ensure they're treated better, they might even pauper themselves doing so, but in any case, being the slave of a lawful good character (as opposed to someone who's chaotic evil but thinks they're lawful good which is a far more common state) would probably be a pretty good thing.  It might even inspire some real loyalty once the slaves overcome their cynicism about the slave owning class.

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?

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.

Quote from: jhkim;1146514This 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: Pat;1146566To me, the problem with defining lawful to as those who are law abiding and those who have an internal code is: What's left? There's usually some mealy-mouthed verbiage about how chaotics can "do whatever they want", but unless you're a Crowleyist, that's not a moral philosophy. No, it's just a license given to the player, not the character, to do whatever they want. And I don't think defining chaotic as chaotic random or fishmalkism works.

It's better if all alignments have a moral base, and I think the way to give chaotic a moral base is to look at barbarians. Barbarians, in D&D, have always been the iconically chaotic, or at least not lawful, class. But does it make sense for barbarians to do anything they want at any time, acting randomly and wholly in their own self interest? Of course not, that's absurd. The answer is a code of honor. A stereotypical barbarian is far more honor-bound than the most law-abiding bureaucrat, but the code is internalized not externally imposed. Adherence affects self-worth, and reputation. I think that works far better than a rudderless undefined chaotic. It even preserves the divide between law = civilization and chaotic = the wilderness of the OD&D and Basic lines, because it highlights the conflict between the rule of law, and a culture of honor.

This does have some implications for monks. Most monks are still lawful, being obedient to their superiors, but tying them strictly to lawful makes less sense.

All of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means. At least Good/Evil is more clear cut, though, even that runs into issues in terms of implementation when it comes time to shift a paladin's alignment over a one time lapse (maybe the DM decided that the paladin executing some goblin prisoners cuz was an evil act, but the player thought that camping with captured raiders could put the lives of hostages that they rescued at risk when the town was days away). But generally speaking at least most people agree that unwarranted killings or acts of cruelty are just "evil" or at least "not good", while acts of kindness and compassion are "good" or at least "not evil". But when it comes to Law/Chaos, nobody even knows exactly WTF any of it means, or what happens when the chaotic guy has a "code" or the lawful guy is in lands with completely different laws than the ones he grew up with.

This is why I ditched alignment years ago and have not looked back since. It's just so fuzzy and arbitrary, and most of all completely relative (laws vary widely across lands, and characters may agree with some laws but disagree with others), and it involves too many attempts to shoehorn certain interpretations in order to make the character's personality work around alignment and vice versa. It's more effective to just define the character's loyalties and conduct on a case by case basis than apply a blanket "Lawful" or "Chaotic" label then have to fret over whether a chaotic character can have a strict personal code or a lawful character has to respect the laws of a foreign land whose legal system he's at odds with, or whether a mafia boss who obviously breaks the laws of the land but strictly follows the rules of the underworld is "lawful" or "chaotic" (or somehow "neutral"). None of this is an issue once you move past alignment and look at things more in terms of personal loyalties and personality traits.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1146603All of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means

I did not really want to get into the plus or minuses of slavery and on the other hand I could not let the narrative of "no broad consensus" go without comment.

That comment is: Fact Check - False.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146608I did not really want to get into the plus or minuses of slavery and on the other hand I could not let the narrative of "no broad consensus" go without comment.

That comment is: Fact Check - False.

Dude, 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.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;1146359I just stumbled on a large trove of my old campaign documents and I saw some notes about the local Lord who was using goblins as slave labor to build a wall around the settlement he owned. My question is this. From a D&D perspective only and not considering real world politics, morality, etc., if I assume that the 'default' alignment of the society is LN and slavery in one or more forms is legal in that society, should a Lawful Neutral character be allowed to own slaves without affecting his alignment? I am also making the assumption that he is not beating, raping or otherwise treating his slaves in some other unusual manner.

Depends on the setting but also on the meaning Law/Chaos has in it, I'll explain myself:

Law (Order) or Chaos aren't moral positions per se (unless in the setting Law = Good and Chaos = Evil). From this it follows that IF Law =/= Good it is perfectly possible for a lawful character to own slaves, on the other hand if they are one and the same then no, a lawful (good) character shouldn't own slaves without it affecting his alignment.

To avoid such ambiguities the best is to switch to Good/Evil as alignment with Law/Neutral/Chaos bringing some nuance to it.

So, I touched on it before but let's remember that people generally don't know their own alignment.  The guy who tells you he's lawful good is probably chaotic evil.  He might be lawful evil and just rationalizing his behavior.  Most people thing they're good, they think they're doing the right thing, and the people they don't like are bad.  This is a big part of the problem with alignment.  The Joker is chaotic evil incomicate he's trying to be bad.  Darkseid is lawful evil or possibly neutral evil depending on how thinking the only law that matters is his law sits with you.  But they're essentially on par with demons and devils as anthropomorphic manifestations of principles.  People make themselves out to be victims of circumstance or shift the blame to others.  I generally assume there's two circles on the alignment graph an the inner one is for mortals who always have neutral tendencies.  The outer ring is for caricatures like Joker and Darkseid.

But let's be clear.  Slavery is bad.  It's not as bad as genocide or mass murder, but it's a social evil in the best cases.  Lawful neutral doesn't care about that.  It cares about rules and structures.  The guy who tries to rationalize his slave ownership because it was legal or everyone was doing it is Lawful Evil.  The guy who doesn't care enough to rationalize it because that's the rules and that's just how it is might be lawful neutral.  The guy who earnestly believes the slavery laws are a good thing thinks he's lawful good but at best he's lawful neutral and he's probably lawful evil.  Neutral isn't about balance, it just tries to believe that.  Neutral is about lacking conviction and the will to act on it and thus is the most common and human alignment.

Quote from: VisionStormAll of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means...

Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.

QuoteLaw And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals.[DMG 1e, p. 23]

At its most basic tactical level, lawful creatures such as orcs and goblins will attack as a group, whereas ogres will attack individually and ignore the actions of their fellows. The former are organized enough to send out search parties for the PCs, the latter are not.

Ooh, I just remembered an interesting variation.

In David Eddings's Elenium and Tamuli series, there a race of humans called the Atan whose hat is being larger than the norm, and being seriously badass infantry fighters. However, they're also notoriously twitchy and prone to fighting -- to the death -- for perceived slights. To keep them from wiping themselves out, an Atan king goes to their nearest relations (the Tamuli people), and essentially sells his entire race into a kind of institutionalized slavery. Technically they ARE slaves, but it resembles the aforementioned janissaries more than anything else (it also lets the Tamuls set up their empire, as threatening people with Atans encourages them to see reason). The Tamuls get the best infantry in the world, and can keep the Atans in check ('no, you may not kill that man, even if he did insult you.')

Indeed, the Tamuls try to AVOID using the Atans, as they have to be given specific restrictions. One outlying nation started getting uppity and attacking Tamul's provinces, and the then-Tamuli emperor, in a fit of righteous anger, just unleashes the Atans with no restrictions. The result was said nation was all but wiped off the map, the survivors chased into the mountains, and it took centuries for them to recover.

Besides the obvious and many problems for the slaves (already well discussed in this topic), the institution of slavery has a long-term corrupting influence on any society in which it is practiced.  If the slavery is of the milder sort (e.g. certain instances in ancient Greece though not Sparta), then the corrupting influence may be relatively mild and relatively slow.  It will still be there.  I think it is possible that a generally LG or LN society could practice a milder slavery for a short time as the lesser of two evils (e.g. as opposed to effective genocide of a defeated foe), but only if they then assimilate the slaves into their own society and abandon the practice.

As long as you don't make eye-contact.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1146637Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.

If you change your code from day to day based on your personal whims, you don't have a code.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1146637Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.



At its most basic tactical level, lawful creatures such as orcs and goblins will attack as a group, whereas ogres will attack individually and ignore the actions of their fellows. The former are organized enough to send out search parties for the PCs, the latter are not.

That would pretty much discard monks as being Lawful, since their alignment requirement is about strict personal conduct and achieving self-perfection rather than adhering to groups or organizations. And it would also discard honor-bound and self-disciplined criminals (such as Drizzt's nemesis, Artemis Entreri, who's a self-disciplined "lawful evil" lone wolf assassin), who are invariably described as "Lawful Evil" in D&D. I also wasn't aware that orcs and goblins were Lawful, or that ogres were incapable of sending out search parties if you messed around their homes, but then again D&D has constantly flipped flopped around creature alignment throughout editions. Which is a testament to how objective alignment truly is.

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. :p

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. :p

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*. :p

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.:D

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 :p , 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.

Quote from: jhkim;1146846To play devil's advocate here :p , 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"?

Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

Quote from: MishihariIf 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.

Quote from: jhkim;1146846To play devil's advocate here :p , 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"?

Quote from: Pat;1146865Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

Pat - in reality, I would agree. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate with Mishihari's claim that if a person's culture believes in slavery, then owning slaves isn't evil - which seems like a moral relativism argument. In game, I don't see a way to reflect these complexities of reality with the D&D alignment system.

Quote from: Pat;1146844My 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.

Agreed. There is a spectrum of treatment of slaves, but the U.S. chattel slavery was on the worst edge of that spectrum. That runs counter to defenses of the slave-owning Founding Fathers, though.

Quote from: Pat;1146865Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

I disagree.  For a person to be evil he must understand right and wrong and choose to do what is wrong anyway.  I think most people will agree that killing a human being is an evil act outside of a narrow set of exceptions.  But is the bear that killed a camper in the news story this week evil?  Of course not.  How about COVID?  Or an earthquake?  No, because there is no moral choice for any of these events.  

That does not make killing a person right:  it's still bad action.  And this is not moral relativism:  moral relativism says that an action can be good or evil depending on the beliefs of the person doing it.  I say the action is evil regardless, but if it's done without understanding, the person doing it is not necessarily evil.

I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

The big caveat on this of course is that most people have a conscience, and if they're doing bad things they understand on some level that they are bad.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146914I disagree.  For a person to be evil he must understand right and wrong and choose to do what is wrong anyway.  I think most people will agree that killing a human being is an evil act outside of a narrow set of exceptions.  But is the bear that killed a camper in the news story this week evil?  Of course not.  How about COVID?  Or an earthquake?  No, because there is no moral choice for any of these events.  

That does not make killing a person right:  it's still bad action.  And this is not moral relativism:  moral relativism says that an action can be good or evil depending on the beliefs of the person doing it.  I say the action is evil regardless, but if it's done without understanding, the person doing it is not necessarily evil.

I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

The big caveat on this of course is that most people have a conscience, and if they're doing bad things they understand on some level that they are bad.

This is moral relativism.

You're mixing "bad"/"good" with assumptions about ones capacity to understand the difference. At this point you may as well ditch morality and ethics altogether and start talking about what does it mean to be "human" or "animal"?

Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Yet again why Alignment outside of axiomatic needs (like Divine casters/Gods etc) are stupid.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146914I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

No, I'm not. I never talked about people being evil. I specifically and only addressed actions ("evil is done").

I also reject the rest of your argument. Evil does not require a "gotcha!" moment. Evil is as evil does, whatever rationalizations the perpetrators try to wrap around them. That's why the whole right and wrong and deliberate choice thing fails completely, because it's not assessing the evil of an act. It's simply addressing self-awareness. That's just the first stage leading to guilt, and in a more complex way is related to things like temptation, and maybe forgiveness. It's not a definition of evil.

Quote from: Pat;1146926No, I'm not. I never talked about people being evil. I specifically and only addressed actions ("evil is done").

Perhaps not, but the premise of the thread is whether someone can be one thing and do another, so I think that's an understandable mistake.  Sorry in any case.

Quote from: Pat;1146926I also reject the rest of your argument. Evil does not require a "gotcha!" moment. Evil is as evil does, whatever rationalizations the perpetrators try to wrap around them. That's why the whole right and wrong and deliberate choice thing fails completely, because it's not assessing the evil of an act. It's simply addressing self-awareness. That's just the first stage leading to guilt, and in a more complex way is related to things like temptation, and maybe forgiveness. It's not a definition of evil.

And all you said there is "no I don't agree."  Do you have any reason why you think your definition of being an evil person is better than mine?

Quote from: tenbones;1146925This is moral relativism.

You're mixing "bad"/"good" with assumptions about ones capacity to understand the difference. At this point you may as well ditch morality and ethics altogether and start talking about what does it mean to be "human" or "animal"?

Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Yet again why Alignment outside of axiomatic needs (like Divine casters/Gods etc) are stupid.

This is not moral relativism and you are again missing the point.  I can't really think of a simpler way to explain it, though.  I will agree, however, that alignment is mostly stupid, especially when used to address real world issues.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146928And all you said there is "no I don't agree."  Do you have any reason why you think your definition of being an evil person is better than mine?

I don't think labeling people as evil is particularly useful, outside of a game. We each decide what actions we believe are evil, and apply those standards to others. If you want to set a threshold and say a certain number and degree of actions make someone evil, it's going to be pretty arbitrary.

The standards for what constitutes an evil act will vary from person to person, and over time, but don't mistake that for the type of moral relativism that claims all actions are equal. They're not, and the process by which we as individuals and societies refine our definitions of evil acts is important.

Quote from: tenbones;1146925Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Of course dolphins are evil, but for those that doubt, we should start a thread on Pundit's forum.

Quote from: Pat;1146844The 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.

Some slaves in ancient in Greece and Rome had lives that weren't completely awful and some were certainly materially better off than the Urban Roman poor. But slaves who worked in the mines weren't any better off (and likely lived even shorter lives) than the vast majority of slaves anywhere and anywhen, including the U.S.

The above isn't intended as a refutation that there is some nuance to the matter of slavery.

Quote from: Pat;1146935I don't think labeling people as evil is particularly useful, outside of a game. We each decide what actions we believe are evil, and apply those standards to others. If you want to set a threshold and say a certain number and degree of actions make someone evil, it's going to be pretty arbitrary.

The standards for what constitutes an evil act will vary from person to person, and over time, but don't mistake that for the type of moral relativism that claims all actions are equal. They're not, and the process by which we as individuals and societies refine our definitions of evil acts is important.

Huh.  I'm actually in complete agreement with you here.

In order to answer the original question, you need to firmly establish how each alignment views slavery. In order to do that, you need to define slavery. Furthermore, where do serfdom, indentured servitude, wage slavery, etc fit in?

Any answer I give would be an approximation. For example:
Lawful Good characters only allow conditional slavery to reduce unemployment.
Lawful Neutral characters accept slavery within the boundaries of "slave welfare" to maximize work efficiency.
Lawful Evil characters will happily abuse their slaves, even if that is grossly inefficient.

Quote from: Bren;1147026Some slaves in ancient in Greece and Rome had lives that weren't completely awful and some were certainly materially better off than the Urban Roman poor. But slaves who worked in the mines weren't any better off (and likely lived even shorter lives) than the vast majority of slaves anywhere and anywhen, including the U.S.

Mines are an interesting example. Mining was vital to the growth of civilization, but pre-modern mines were insanely dangerous. It wasn't just the risk or collapse, all the toxins could kill people in a few years. Galley slaves are another example of slaves that were worked to death, sometimes.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 31, 2020, 02:16:46 PM
In order to answer the original question, you need to firmly establish how each alignment views slavery. In order to do that, you need to define slavery. Furthermore, where do serfdom, indentured servitude, wage slavery, etc fit in?...

Rather than reinventing the wheel, it is easier just to go with what has already been established: Western society since ancient times permitted involuntary servitude imposed on criminals or prisoners of war. This is in the American Constitution, which permits slavery and indentured servitude for the purposes of punishment.

The abolition of slavery in Imperial Rome was unthinkable and impractical. Despite this, the Church made no distinction between slaves and freedmen in its membership. The equality of believers in a class-stratified society was one of the attractions that the Church held for the people of Rome. After the Church was legalized, Church funds were used by Christians to redeem slaves, especially prisoners of war. As the Church increased in its power, slavery decreased until it was completely eradicated.

In other words, good ALWAYS treats all humans as human persons no matter what society says, and that is what distinguishes good from non-good.