Exalted character and slavery

[Baldin]

Hallo Playgrounders,

I'm running a Greyhawk campaign where the party have found themselves in the Bone March. Now, 2 of the players have died and thus made a new character who are born and raised in the Bone March. In the Bone March slavery is normal and a custom.

I now have the problem that 1 of the players in the party is an exalted bard. How should he react on the 2 slaves owned by 1 of the new party members? In this country slavery is normal.

Cheers and thanks,
Baldin

[Deophaun]

That's going to depend entirely on the Bard. But from my understanding, Exalted virtues come more from the practice of mercy and the offering of redemption than inflicting punishment and pursuing justice. Your bard might well be a crusader-type that seeks to abolish slavery, but that fits a Zealous Good character, not necessarily an Exalted one. Instead, he could be humble, treating slaves he meets as social equals and bringing them comfort. His greatest weapon against evil would be his own example. He might offer to buy their freedom. The player has a lot of choices. However, slavery in the BoED is labeled as evil, regardless of how widespread or socially accepted it is. So he cannot participate in it. If he treats a slave as a slave, he's going to fall.

[Clistenes]

An Exalted character will try to find the solution that causes the least suffering to the most people, but how the character thinks he/she can achieve that depends on his/her personality, culture, personal phylosophy/ideology, religion, positioning in the Law-Chaos axis, intelligence, wisdom...etc.

The character can try to buy the slaves, try to convince the slaver that owning people is wrong, secretly help the slaves to escape, or beat the crap out of the slaver. He/she can even pretend that he/she is OK with slavery until the adventure comes to an end and then escape with the slaves.

[Rubik]

Slavery itself is entirely Lawful. That's rather then entire point of Law, after all.

Exalted Good has nothing to do with it.

[Deophaun]

He/she can even pretend that he/she is OK with slavery until the adventure comes to an end and then escape with the slaves.
That might not be possible. Exalted characters are supposed to be exemplars of good, beacons of light in a dark world. They can't do evil in good's service. Pretending to go along with an evil act seems to run counter to the philosophy, as you're no longer that symbol of hope and you might even disillusion others if you are perceived as being compromised. DM's call, but in my book the character wouldn't be acting in keeping with the ideals of an exalted character.

[Rubik]

That might not be possible. Exalted characters are supposed to be exemplars of good, beacons of light in a dark world. They can't do evil in good's service. Pretending to go along with an evil act seems to run counter to the philosophy, as you're no longer that symbol of hope and you might even disillusion others if you are perceived as being compromised. DM's call, but in my book the character wouldn't be acting in keeping with the ideals of an exalted character.Slavery is about denying freedom, not causing pain and suffering. Again, it's Lawful, not Evil.

[Deophaun]

Slavery is about denying freedom, not causing pain and suffering. Again, it's Lawful, not Evil.

Perhaps women are not viewed as men's equals or even sentient beings in their own right, slavery is widespread, testimony from serfs is only acceptable if extracted through torture, and humans of a certain skin tone (let alone nonhumans) are viewed as demonic creatures. It is vitally important to remember one thing: these factors don't change anything else said in this chapter (or in the Book of Vile Darkness) and what constitutes a good or evil deed. Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, the remain evil.
Your opinions are cute, but irrelevant to Exalted characters.

[ArcturusV]

True. The character will view Slavery as morally repugnant, even if it is quite common and accepted.

Though instead of thinking that the character must kneejerk reaction SMITE at everything slavery based, you're probably better off looking at real life Abolitionists for an example of how an Exalted Character might handle it. Especially since you're a bard you can end up being more like Federick Douglass.

[Baldin]

Hey,

Thanks for all the replies, indeed as long as he doesnt support slavery i think it will be ok, and ofcourse he can buy their freedom or convince the other that he shouldnt do so.

cheers
baldin

[Khedrac]

Probably also important is that he ensures the others treat their slaves fairly.

Looking at the real world (hopefully very carefully not to offend anyone or breach board rules) in ancient times most religions that we could consider "good" accepted it, but required that slaves be properly kept and respected as slaves. A slave was not a valueless person - they could be a very valuable asset.

An Exalted character is likely to want the slave owner to consider the slave's opinions in what they tell them to do etc - not really what we understand by slavery. Also given a considerate owner some slaves may not even want freedom - they get feed and looked after, they may get to earn money (yes some societies allowed slaves to get quite rich if in the right position) etc. If free they have to fend for themselves and pay taxes, they can get summoned to war or similar.

[Scow2]

I hate the "Buy their freedom" route being touted as 'good'. What good is accomplished by throwing more money into systematic slavery? Buying slaves from a slave-dealer/trafficker is counterproductive. However, I guess in the case of reimbursing someone who's spent their money on slaves to secure the freedom of some slaves, it's not quite as bad (As long as the person you buy the slaves from has no intention of buying/acquiring more slaves)

Of course, slavery is one of those issues I'd almost consider "Values Dissonance" more than "Moral Dissonance", and there ARE some nonevil ways to handle slavery (Such as still respecting the dignity and life of the slaves). My problem with the BoED is it's too Lawful in its attempts to define Good, labeling things as absolutely evil when Evil requires a victim to come to harm (In the case of channeling negative energy or casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor, everything on the plane is harmed).

[Rubik]

Your opinions are cute, but irrelevant to Exalted characters.So why aren't Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Psionic Dominate, Summon Monster, Summon Nature's Ally, Planar Binding, the thrallherd PrC, keeping prisoners, owning intelligent items, using mounts, and raising farm animals automatically [Evil]? Heck, enslaving Good outsiders is considered a [Good] act, according to the spell descriptors.

As with so many other things, BoED conflicts with the actual definitions of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, as well as dozens of examples spread throughout various other books (including Core, which is the primary source on these things).

[dascarletm]

So why aren't Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Psionic Dominate, the thrallherd PrC,

Well for this one, it's a little different than slavery. One it is temporary (exception thrallherd), and the person (or monster in some cases) isn't being reduced to an object. He/she is still a person, but their free will is being altered in the moment for whatever combat reason is needed. The same argument that a fireball isn't evil even though it kills you with fire. These acts aren't wholly evil, but can be used evilly. Ex: keeping someone slaved with dominate outside of a "It's you or me we are fighting," setting.


Summon Monster, Summon Nature's Ally, using mounts, and raising farm animals

Keeping pets and owning animals is only really considered evil by PETA and other such groups. I tend to think that the designers are of another philosophy. Of course an individual character can consider keeping animals is wrong, but that is up to him/her.


Planar Binding, Heck, enslaving Good outsiders is considered a [Good] act, according to the spell descriptors.

Here you work out a deal.
he spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. It goes on to say that you ask the creature to help you in exchange for payment.
You may ask the creature to perform one task in exchange for a payment from you. emphasis mine. Surely brokered deals are not evil.:smallwink:


keeping prisoners,

Prisoners are different than slaves. Prisoners hopefully did something to deserve their being locked away. It's protecting everyone from them. Completely different story. Of course prisoners can be wrongfully captured, but that is a case-by-case situation


owning intelligent items, automatically [Evil]?

The item is an item. Usually they want to be kept. Example: A highpriest of pelor is in a cudgel. If you take him and use him to purge undead from the land, he/she would love it. Of course you can go against the items wishes and semi-enslave it, but that is a case-by-case situation.

[Rubik]

Well for this one, it's a little different than slavery. One it is temporary (exception thrallherd), and the person (or monster in some cases) isn't being reduced to an object. He/she is still a person, but their free will is being altered in the moment for whatever combat reason is needed. The same argument that a fireball isn't evil even though it kills you with fire. These acts aren't wholly evil, but can be used evilly. Ex: keeping someone slaved with dominate outside of a "It's you or me we are fighting," setting.

Keeping pets and owning animals is only really considered evil by PETA and other such groups. I tend to think that the designers are of another philosophy. Of course an individual character can consider keeping animals is wrong, but that is up to him/her.

Here you work out a deal. It goes on to say that you ask the creature to help you in exchange for payment. emphasis mine. Surely brokered deals are not evil.:smallwink:

Prisoners are different than slaves. Prisoners hopefully did something to deserve their being locked away. It's protecting everyone from them. Completely different story. Of course prisoners can be wrongfully captured, but that is a case-by-case situation

The item is an item. Usually they want to be kept. Example: A highpriest of pelor is in a cudgel. If you take him and use him to purge undead from the land, he/she would love it. Of course you can go against the items wishes and semi-enslave it, but that is a case-by-case situation.But the fact remains that in every one of those cases, the being in question has no say in what you do to it. Even with Planar Binding you're kidnapping a creature and holding it against its will.

No matter how short the duration, they're all slavery, and none are inherently Evil.

[dascarletm]

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.

you are not buying or selling people, treating them as property, and with dominate, yes, you force them to work, but it isn't slavery.

one swallow doesn't make a summer

Teleporting a planar being to you isn't enslaving it. Maybe abduction, but since they are exemplars of your alignment they probably want to help you (for good ones anyway)

[Jack_Simth]

Here you work out a deal. It goes on to say that you ask the creature to help you in exchange for payment. emphasis mine. Surely brokered deals are not evil.:smallwink:Ah... you're looking at Planar Ally, not Planar Binding. The text for Planar Binding is on page 262.

[dascarletm]

ah, yes I was. Even still, you don't have to bind a solar with the spell. Same argument as fireball. You still have to persuade it with a cha check. Insinuating you're convincing it.

[ArcturusV]

Well it all depends on setting particulars. It might be that these very things you bind were created in order to be bound for various reasons. It might be less "Slavery". It might be closer to saying it's "slavery" to have a waiter bring you your dinner at a restaurant. But that's what they're there's for. And they don't get paid by you necessarily (Though you can tip), but are payed by their management.

Thus you Planar Bind something, say a Solar. You make the solar do your bidding, sure. The Solar doesn't mind however since that's what it's there to do. And if it does what it's supposed to do on the mortal realm when Bound, the big man upstairs kicks them a reward in terms of Ambrosia, enlightenment, more powers, whatever.

[Preaplanes]

Slavery is a primarly Lawful Evil action, sometimes Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies.

An Exalted (good) Bard (non-lawful) would probably have an issue with this, yeah.

[Jack_Simth]

ah, yes I was. Even still, you don't have to bind a solar with the spell. Same argument as fireball. You still have to persuade it with a cha check. Insinuating you're convincing it.
Yes. And after drawing it into a trap, and by default you're convincing it to agree to do a potentially dangerous task for you for no payment beyond letting it go (payment just gives a bonus to the check). In what sense is that *not* kidnapping or slavery?

Sure, there are non-slave ways to make use of the spell. If you contact a specific critter by way of Sending and get permissions for the negotiations prior to using Planar Binding to Call the critter to you, and pay the critter for the time as per Planar Ally, then it's not kidnapping and slavery, it's "we have an appointment, I'm sending someone by to pick you up". But that's not inherently how the spell works.

[hamishspence]

Slavery is a primarly Lawful Evil action, sometimes Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies.

An Exalted (good) Bard (non-lawful) would probably have an issue with this, yeah.

It's rather common in CE societies too though- orcs, drow when the drow are a bit less organised than usual, etc.

[RedDragons]

Make the slavery a prison sentence, so they do eventually go free when they serve for the crimes they have committed. Dont have the bard screw up another players storyline in such a harsh way.

[dascarletm]

If you look at it like that. I think it makes more logical sense when used by a good player to play out more like this:

The Wizard, and worshiper of Heronious Julius Tarth does the requisite preparations and casts planar binding with no specific angel in mind. Meanwhile Angel Gabriel a.... solar, knows of Julius as he is a powerful member of the church. (or doesn't know him but has a general sense of what he is about.) Knowing he isn't the evil Dread Emperor, he forgoes the will save to see what is of dire importance.

Gabriel is summoned and bound to the material plane only while the summoning circle holds. Julius explains that his friends are captured by an evil dragon, too powerful for him to take alone. He asks (CHA check) if Gabriel will assit. Gabriel agrees, and through the conjuration magic is thus bound to this world until the task is completed.

Hardly enslaving him.

[Jack_Simth]

If you look at it like that. I think it makes more logical sense when used by a good player to play out more like this:

The Wizard, and worshiper of Heronious Julius Tarth does the requisite preparations and casts planar binding with no specific angel in mind. Meanwhile Angel Gabriel a.... solar, knows of Julius as he is a powerful member of the church. (or doesn't know him but has a general sense of what he is about.) Knowing he isn't the evil Dread Emperor, he forgoes the will save to see what is of dire importance.

Gabriel is summoned and bound to the material plane only while the summoning circle holds. Julius explains that his friends are captured by an evil dragon, too powerful for him to take alone. He asks (CHA check) if Gabriel will assit. Gabriel agrees, and through the conjuration magic is thus bound to this world until the task is completed.

Hardly enslaving him.
That is one way to run it, yes. If you stop and read the default fluff, however:

Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward. The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

The target creature is allowed a Will saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the creature resists the spell. If the saving throw fails, the creature is immediately drawn to the trap (spell resistance does not keep it from being called). The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you. A dimensional anchor cast on the creature prevents its escape via dimensional travel. You can also employ a calling diagram (see magic circle against evil) to make the trap more secure.

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. (emphasis added)

So... yes, while there are ways to make it less kidnapping and slavery and more making an appointment, that is very much not the default.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Even still, you don't have to bind a solar with the spell.
Correction, you don't want to bind a Solar with the spell. Luring a creature that's more powerful than you, smarter than you and has access to 9th level spells and SLAs for the explicit reason of extorting its cooperation is an extremely bad idea.

Especially since both Wish and Antimagic Field can make your pitifully inadequate trap go bye bye or circumvent it.

[Gildedragon]

Make the slavery a prison sentence, so they do eventually go free when they serve for the crimes they have committed. Dont have the bard screw up another players storyline in such a harsh way.

+1 to this.
The slavery needn't be of the chatel type. It could be closer to indentured servitude; or people selling themselves for some amount of time. To prevent it being evil there mustn't be a coercion of people into slavery.

[Jack_Simth]

Especially since both Wish and Antimagic Field can make your pitifully inadequate trap go bye bye or circumvent it.
That's debatable if you use a Calling Diagram, due to the clause "none of its abilities or attacks can cross the diagram" for the trapped critter.

But yeah, Solars are on the do not call list for a couple of different reasons. You might be able to get away with a Planetar... but it's still not a good idea.

[hamishspence]

In Forgotten Realms, Mulhorand is ruled over by a paladin- but they still practice slavery- although they have much more legal protections than in other empires.

Though that was written before BOED.

[RedDragons]

Exalted deeds were done long before they were written.

[Spuddles]

Slavery itself is entirely Lawful. That's rather then entire point of Law, after all.

Exalted Good has nothing to do with it.

Depends on the nature of the slavery. If it was like the slaves of new world indians, yes. But Roman or antebellum American style slavery is unequivically evil.

[thethird]

slavery is unequivically evil.

By your modern morals and values perhaps.

By the morals and values of the society that partake in those activities, no, it wasn't evil, it was lawful.

So... when transplanting that in a fantasy setting you can argue that the society is generally evil, but most of the time slavery won't be evil in itself, unless you are judging it from a really specific point of view.

[Phelix-Mu]

The problem is that someone that is trying to use BoED fluff and benefits has to stick to the BoED definitions of what constitutes good and evil. By BoED argument, the DM might well punish an exalted wizard for planar binding a solar, unless the player goes to lengths to fluff the binding as a plea for assistance (entirely plausible...exalted wizards are noticed by the powers of good for their virtue, so allowance to spells usable by a wizard would probably be made). BoED characters should cleave to the BoED concepts on which those benefits are based. This could and probably should lead to some friction between the characters. An exalted bard should have much better tools than violence or outright conflict to solve the issue, especially considering the services that the bard regularly renders the rest of the party.

Back to the actual slavery issue of one mortal owning another, the issue isn't so much about the society and norms, but that a sentient being has an innate right to self-determination. Treating people as a means to an end (my slave is mine to command to achieve whatever) is pretty much textbook evil. Just because some calling spells don't get the evil descriptor doesn't mean that evil isn't a thing in the normal D&D setting.

Are there complicated issues regarding just what constitutes evil? Yes. Is owning a person one of these complicated issues. No.

[hamishspence]

Exactly how do we define "oppression" if not by modern standards?

[RedDragons]

By mystical standards of the game you are playing.

[hamishspence]

Which are written in books like PHB, BoED, and BoVD.

[Phelix-Mu]

A game that sets up an objective good v evil paradigm divorced from historical context of any kind (aside from the vestiges of faux medieval that crop up in the core rulebooks)

Just because it was acceptable in real-world ancient times to have slaves doesn't mean that, say, a Greek slave holder wasn't depriving the slave (proceeds of a war) from having his or her right to his or her own life. Socially acceptable behavior doesn't define what is morally right or wrong; see "I was ordered to do it." Not a valid excuse. Neither is "everyone else was doing it."

[Spuddles]

By your modern morals and values perhaps.

By the morals and values of the society that partake in those activities, no, it wasn't evil, it was lawful.

So... when transplanting that in a fantasy setting you can argue that the society is generally evil, but most of the time slavery won't be evil in itself, unless you are judging it from a really specific point of view.

That's a cute, edgy belief system you have there, but in a game like D&D with a ruleset that underlies the foundation of its metaphysics, there's no room for post-modern subjectivity.