What D&D alignment would Romans be?

[Jokunen]

Basically, what D&D alignment ancient Romans would be as a society?

I'd probably say they were be lawful evil, as they conquered other people, and ruthlessly crushed rebellions.. but I dunno.

[hymer]

It can only be a rough guide of a rough guide. Alignment sucks at describing real things to begin with. There's also clear differences between the First Punic War Republic (where the Romans truly pulled together), the late Republic (where the state was mired in corruption and scandal), and under various emperors (from lunatics, children and morons to excellently gifted statesmen). Finally, do you see them in a modern context, or by the standards of the day?
But I'd accept LE and LN both. Their attitude was certainly very lawful and strict.

[Chronos]

It's not really possible to assign alignments to entire societies. An individual Roman emperor would certainly have an alignment (which will vary from individual to individual), and the Senate might have some bias towards some alignment, but the nation as a whole would include citizens of all alignments.

[Raven777]

I doubt you could peg an alignment on top of the entire civilization. Alignments are more of an individual thing. Most Romans, like most Humans, were probably gravitating toward True Neutral. Though the whole slavery and circus part would probably slant them a bit toward Lawful Evil, at worst, most officials and most legionaries were punch clock villains wanting to survive through the day, get paid, and feed their family.

As for the Emperors, they ran the gamut from kindly philosophers (Marcus Aurelius) to shrewd but decent guys (Augustus) to complete lunatics (Caligula). The lunatics usually didn't last very long, however.

[Hamste]

Isn't this dangerously close to the no history rule?

[Bavarian itP]

Lawful Evil sounds like a pretty good call. After all, they bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah.
LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2: Education.
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

[Scootaloo]

The empire as a whole? Lawful neutral, without a doubt. Their whole thing was spreading Rome far and wide. Yes they conquered - but they made the people they conquered Romans. They were also pretty tolerant - speak your language as you like, worship whatever cuckoo gods you like, heck, rule yourselves as you like, so long as you remember the emperor is the top dog, and pay your taxes.

In fact they're so lawful neutral that they could almost be described as Lawful Lawful. If we really want to go with D&D alignment here, Rome was evangelically anti-chaos. You could be as lawful or even neutral evil as you wanted, but if you were chaotic good, well, you were getting a pilum in the face to calm you down.

[Agincourt]

Isn't this dangerously close to the no history rule?

What rule are you referring to? This seems to steer pretty clear of the no politics rule. Other than that, I don't think anything comes close to banning talk of history.

[Jokunen]

I know it's a really gross oversimplification, but I meant the general attitude of the empire and how it went about it's business. Most of the individual people were probably quite neutral.

Also, I meant in modern context.

[Rogue Shadows]

but I meant the general attitude of the empire and how it went about it's business

Once again, it depends on where and when you were within the Empire, and who was in charge. Lawful Neutral is probably your safest bet, but it's going to be contested no matter what alignment you choose.

[Tvtyrant]

Lawful chaotic good evil. The best alignment!

Massive civil warriors punctuated by periods of peace, massive slavery alongside developing conceptions of humanity, and technology alongside mysticism and superstiution. The Romans are a people who covered too much time and space to be pinned down except in tiny areas for small amounts of time. What does Scipio Africanus and the battle for control with Carthage have to do with Leo the Isaurian battling the Ummayads for survival?

[Sir Chuckles]

"Generally Lawful"
Sounds about right.
The Roman empire was anything from corrupt to idealistic, with every grey area explored, conquered, and rewritten.

A standard Roman citizen would probably be Lawful Neutral, and one of their favorite attitudes was Stoic, so from there you can build the outliers and leaders on a case-by-case basis. Caesar was not Lawful Evil. Nero was Chaotic Batsh*t Insane.

[A Tad Insane]

Nero was Chaotic Batsh*t Insane.
He just wanted to play his fiddle! What so wrong about that? It was those Jupiter darned Jewish people who started the fire not our glorious emperor!

[Raven777]

You people do realize that Nero being insane is mostly a myth and that fiddles didn't exist in 1st century Rome, right?

[Sian]

just want to note that slavery aren't inerrently evil ... its very easily abusable by evil people, but at its core its not evil when filtering off our modern morals

IMO legalized slavery with a certain ammount of rights for the slaves (they did have some in Rome), and certain ways for slaves to be set free and become important (if locally, within their liege's house) strikes me as LN

... On the grounds of slavery Rome certainly aren't worse off, than Mediveal Europe were with Serfs

[Slipperychicken]

None. It isn't reasonable or useful to categorize a society like this.

[hymer]

just want to note that slavery aren't inerrently evil ... its very easily abusable by evil people, but at its core its not evil when filtering off our modern morals

IMO legalized slavery with a certain ammount of rights for the slaves (they did have some in Rome), and certain ways for slaves to be set free and become important (if locally, within their liege's house) strikes me as LN

... On the grounds of slavery Rome certainly aren't worse off, than Mediveal Europe were with Serfs

Oh boy... Where to start?
Slaves in republican Rome had no legal rights. Literally none. They could be (and were) killed, maimed, raped, made into jelly... Okay, I have no evidence of that last one.
Serfs had legally defined rights. They could not be sold off and taken away from their family, and their lord had an obligation to protect them and provide justice. They were certainly not well off, and calling serfdom a kind of slavery can easily be correct. But you better believe the average serf was better off than the people who were taken from their homes, separated from their families, and sent far away to work themselves to death for people who might or might not give a fig about them.

As for whether that was evil, OP has asked that this be viewed with modern glasses. As for that 'slavery could be LN'; no, it can't. Taking away people's rights and freedoms, turning them into property and forcing them to work is the definition of slavery. And it is Evil.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

It really depends on which historian you're reading. Livy and Plutarch paint a mostly-neutral, maybe tending towards good picture of things (generally speaking). Tacitus, on the other hand, paints a much more bleak, evil-tending sort of picture.

As far as the whole "conquering the world" bit, you have to remember that the Romans were the only people ever to conquer the world in self defense, so that doesn't necessarily read as evil. If you'll permit me the old joke.


As for whether that was evil, OP has asked that this be viewed with modern glasses.

Did they?


Basically, what D&D alignment ancient Romans would be as a society?

I'd probably say they were be lawful evil, as they conquered other people, and ruthlessly crushed rebellions.. but I dunno.

'Cause I'm not seeing it here.

[Xuldarinar]

True Neutral with Lawful and Evil tendencies.

[hymer]

Did they?

Yes: I thought you were serious for a moment there, btw.


Also, I meant in modern context.

@ hamishpence's ss comment below: But you were right! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

OP has asked that this be viewed with modern glasses.


Did they?

'Cause I'm not seeing it here.

The OP quote I think that was being cited was:


Also, I meant in modern context.

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[Aasimar]

On the whole they were Lawful Neutral.

Mostly concerned with maintaining order and enlarging or maintaining their empire (depending on the time)

They were aggressively expansionistic, but not cruel to the ones they did conquer, mostly just assimilating them into the empire. (which was often a net improvement over whatever had been in place before, no always though)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Yes: I thought you were serious for a moment there, btw.



@ hamishpence's ss comment below: But you were right! :smallbiggrin:

Ah, so they did. Good catch.

In that case, Lawful and Evil tendencies, for sure.

[Sylthia]

I think it was in the 3.5 Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, they always listed three alignments for various countries, and that the people there generally fell under those.

For Rome, we could say LN and LE for sure, the third might be NE, TN, or even LG depending on the era and your opinion of them.

[Taveena]

To be fair towards slavery (I can't believe I just wrote that), it isn't necessarily captured foreigners or the like. Sometimes people sold themselves into slavery - and it WAS referred to as slavery - to pay off a debt. (Though as a result of this being voluntary, they were almost always given better rights.) In such a case, given it's consensual, it's almost certainly a LN act. (It could even be LG if there was a particularly noble cause for it, but that's not related to the act itself.)

[(Un)Inspired]

What is all this lawful stuff I'm reading here? Roman as lawful? Evil? Clearly none of you have been to an orgy or a vomitorium. Chaotic Neutral all the way

[AMFV]

What is all this lawful stuff I'm reading here? Roman as lawful? Evil? Clearly none of you have been to an orgy or a vomitorium. Chaotic Neutral all the way

Orgies aren't inherently chaotic if you're in a society that embraces polyamory. In fact some orgies could be lawful if they're mandated.

[hymer]

@ Taveena: I sincerely doubt it was generally voluntary. They did it because they could find no better way to get out of their debts. If it's a choice between death and slavery, or exile and slavery, it's hardly voluntary.
It seems to me to be a lot like saying that it's allright to murder someone if they volunteered to die in a friend's place. The nobility of the sacrifice does not reduce the evilness of the act of killing.


Clearly none of you have been to an orgy or a vomitorium. Chaotic Neutral all the way

An orgy in an ancient Roman context is simply a feast. You'd like it to be lavish, but bringing children to these things were common. It wasn't sexual.
A vomitorium is an exit area from a place like the Colosseum, and is not made for throwing up in.

I'm not saying Romans didn't have a different sexual morality than I have, nor that they never vomited in public (though usually inadverdently, I'm sure). They did sometimes take stuff to make themselves vomit so they could better enjoy a big meal. But the vomitorium and the orgy were not what you think they were.

[awa]

my understanding is the orgies were largely fictive used as a propaganda tool because most Romans would have been opposed to it and besides judging a society by the excesses of its super rich is completely impractical and nonsensical. Without going into politics just look at the news i'm certain you could some politician or celebrity or other rich people doing stuff that just boggles a normal persons mind.

[(Un)Inspired]

We're judging an entire culture using the simplistic alignment system dungeons and dragons has in place. We need to paint with broad strokes. The way I see it theres gonna be some orgy strokes painted in there.

[AMFV]

We're judging an entire culture using the simplistic alignment system dungeons and dragons has in place. We need to paint with broad strokes. The way I see it theres gonna be some orgy strokes painted in there.

And as I've pointed out, Orgies aren't necessarily unlawful. In fact there were cultures with priests who doubled as prostitutes, that being the case, I think that an orgy is not necessarily in line with law or chaos. Even in modern thinking it may or may not be.

[Joe the Rat]

"Generally Lawful"
Sounds about right.
The Roman empire was anything from corrupt to idealistic, with every grey area explored, conquered, and rewritten.
Yeah, Lawful. If you were going to assign an alignment to a Roman city, rather like assigning tendencies to a species, or the general governing body or societal system to a randomly generated town (y'know, like in the DMG), I'd say they run Lawful.



You people do realize that Nero being insane is mostly a myth and that fiddles didn't exist in 1st century Rome, right?
Sanity is often an issue of perspective and propaganda. On that fiddle business though, there's a lyre.

[Sylthia]

Nero wasn't insane per se, but he was a bloodthirsty narcissist who ordered the death of his own mother.

The Rome burning while he fiddled was one area where he was actually not as bad as history made him out to be. He was just so incompetent a leader, that they later embellished it.

[bekeleven]

We need to paint with broad strokes. The way I see it theres gonna be some orgy strokes painted in there.

I'm not the type to sig quotes, but...

[Larkas]

As a society, I think it's safe to say that Romans were Neutral with slight Lawful tendencies.

The Roman Empire, however, was strongly Lawful. I don't think it would move from Neutral at all in the morality axis. Sure, specific leaders could tilt it a little, but for too little time for it to matter.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

As a society, I think it's safe to say that Romans were Neutral with slight Lawful tendencies.

The Roman Empire, however, was strongly Lawful. I don't think it would move from Neutral at all in the morality axis. Sure, specific leaders could tilt it a little, but for too little time for it to matter.

Read your Tacitus, and I think you'd come away with a different opinion on the morality axis question. Especially when considered from a modern perspective (as per the OP).

[Angelalex242]

Depends on the time. Most were Lawful Neutral. Slavery is, of course, Lawful Evil, but then again, Slavery was legal HERE till 1863, and even George Washington (LG all the way) only freed his slaves on his death, so eh. That's not enough to take them out of lawful neutral. It certainly keeps them from being Lawful Good, though. Keeping them from Lawful Evil is all those roads and aqueducts and Pax Romana and so on.

Individual Emperors run the gamut, from Caligula and Nero (CE) to Constantine (LG).

[Yahzi]

BI'd probably say they were be lawful evil, as they conquered other people, and ruthlessly crushed rebellions.. but I dunno.
Spot on, not just because of their actions, but also their beliefs. "Pacifism" was a non-existent concept; personal strength was highly valued, but the rule of law and tradition were also valued.

[Sir Chuckles]

Spot on, not just because of their actions, but also their beliefs. "Pacifism" was a non-existent concept; personal strength was highly valued, but the rule of law and tradition were also valued.
Emphasis mine.

By that count, {{scrubbed}}, Kord, {{scrubbed}}, and then some are all Lawful Evil. Possibly even Pelor and Moradin could be counted as a bit more evil than intended.
Hence the issue, and futility, to with debating the specific actions in relation to their alignment.

That said, OP wanted it through a modern lens as well a generalization of the society.
There is no doubt that they were Lawful. Steeped in traditions, obsessed with the construction of law, they are easily the prime example of a Lawful society.

Then we look at Good vs. Evil vs. That thing in between.
From a modern lens, they did many things that could be seen as evil. Slavery, warfare in the name of conquest, mild racism.
They also did things that could be seen as good, like unifying and protecting peoples and allowing religious freedom.

In honestly, I'd hesitate the mark them as truly Evil. Lawful Evil would imply that they'd throw you under a bus if it meant furthering they're own objectives. I'd say Lawful Neutral, slanted toward Evil.

[Yahzi]

Lawful Evil would imply that they'd throw you under a bus if it meant furthering they're own objectives. I'd say Lawful Neutral, slanted toward Evil.
Er.... Romans would totally throw you under a bus. Watch "Rome" (actually, everybody should watch it, it's just great television). The Romans were very pragmatic.

I think tolerating slavery is a hallmark of an Evil society. But of course LE is a broad category, so I agree the Romans weren't the evilist in that category.

Edit: I realize that places early America and Athenian Greece in the LE category, but I don't actually have a problem with that. I would put feudal societies that outlawed slavery but still have serfs as CG (King Arthur, Warring States China, and even Shogunate Japan because although the samurai had strong traditions, personal honor was more important than subserviance to the law), and modern democracies as LG. (Note that in my scale I put NG at the top of the list, above LG).

[SiuiS]

Too broad a question. Roman civilization spanned a good while and changed a lot both in time and in distance from the capital.



As a fun note, slavery in D&D isn't evil; mistreating slaves is evil. Having an unpaid working class that is subservient in return for room and board is Lawful.

[Scow2]

Lawful Evil, just like every other government, nation, and empire that existed and exists outside the borders of our enlightened time and nation, as we judge them by our values.

[AMFV]

Er.... Romans would totally throw you under a bus. Watch "Rome" (actually, everybody should watch it, it's just great television). The Romans were very pragmatic.

I think tolerating slavery is a hallmark of an Evil society. But of course LE is a broad category, so I agree the Romans weren't the evilist in that category.

I think watching Rome is probably not the best source on the culture of ancient Rome. They were much like a modern culture in most respects. Tactitus is a good source for this, although he's of questionable historicity. Being that he's not really an objective source.

[Yahzi]

I think watching Rome is probably not the best source on the culture of ancient Rome. They were much like a modern culture in most respects. Tactitus is a good source for this, although he's of questionable historicity. Being that he's not really an objective source.
The TV show "Rome" is an excellent way of really feeling how similar and how different the Romans were. Yes in many ways they were very modern - apartment buildings, wedding rings, etc. - but their attitudes towards sex,violence, and human rights were just different, and I think the show does a great job of showing that.

That said, reading Tacticus, Marcus Aurelias, and "I, Claudius" is not a waste of time either.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Possibly even Pelor and Moradin could be counted as a bit more evil than intended.
The Burning Hate has always been Evil.

I definitely agree with the Strong Lawful argument. The Roman Empire had a strict and extensive code of law, and their society placed much significance on obedience to said law and the structure of society. "But they had orgies" is not an argument against this.

[Scow2]

As a fun note, slavery in D&D isn't evil; mistreating slaves is evil. Having an unpaid working class that is subservient in return for room and board is Lawful.Actually, according to the BoED, slavery IS unilaterally evil.


@ Taveena: I sincerely doubt it was generally voluntary. They did it because they could find no better way to get out of their debts. If it's a choice between death and slavery, or exile and slavery, it's hardly voluntary.
It seems to me to be a lot like saying that it's allright to murder someone if they volunteered to die in a friend's place. The nobility of the sacrifice does not reduce the evilness of the act of killing.I wonder how many people in the modern world would rather have the option to be put to work in involuntary servitude for a few years (Where they can continue to network with others and find time to pursue hobbies, or at least experience the outside world, while having lodging feeding and healthcare paid for them) rather than serve decades or life sentences in prisons, homeless and unemployed as a bum, or deal with life-shattering bankruptcy they have no hope of recovering from.


Oh boy... Where to start?
Slaves in republican Rome had no legal rights. Literally none. They could be (and were) killed, maimed, raped, made into jelly... Okay, I have no evidence of that last one.
Serfs had legally defined rights. They could not be sold off and taken away from their family, and their lord had an obligation to protect them and provide justice. They were certainly not well off, and calling serfdom a kind of slavery can easily be correct. But you better believe the average serf was better off than the people who were taken from their homes, separated from their families, and sent far away to work themselves to death for people who might or might not give a fig about them.

As for whether that was evil, OP has asked that this be viewed with modern glasses. As for that 'slavery could be LN'; no, it can't. Taking away people's rights and freedoms, turning them into property and forcing them to work is the definition of slavery. And it is Evil.That's on the worst case of slavery. On the other side, there were cases where slavery had more perks to it than being a lower-class freeman. I had a huge list thought up (Namely through access to middle class+ lifestyle), but can't remember all of them. Slavery had its pros and cons, just as liberty does.

[SiuiS]

Actually, according to the BoED, slavery IS unilaterally evil.

According to the core three, it's not, however. *shrug*
The deed books come with some interesting takes and baggage. There's an entire lawful neutral race that's always lawful neutral and is supposed to demonstrate nonevil slavery in the monster manual...

[Pan151]

Lawful Neutral.

I think it's a good idea to compare them with another lawful ancient civilisation, just to have a reference point with which we can work with.

So, without further ado: Sparta. An imperialistic nation (same as Rome), with a strong sense of honor and strict laws (same as Rome), based on slave labor (even more than Rome). Unlike Rome, every able male child was forcefully conscripted to the army at the age of 7 and for the rest of their lives. Every child judged not able to fight was instead thrown down a cliff to be eaten by dogs.

Now that is what a Lawful Evil nation is. Rome was nothing like that.

[Sayt]

Well, 'Romans' covers, like from the doundation of the Roman republic in 509 BCE to.. well. The western roman empire lasted until 330CE, and the eastern roman empire lasted until 1453CE. So like, "Romans' is hideously broad.

During the early and high empire, which is when people tend to think of Rome, comprising mostly the first two centuries CE, lawful evil.

Roman society at the time was built off of exploitation, plain and simple. Women had no rights, at all, and were the property of their fathers or older brothers, until they were married. While debt slavery was a thing, slavery was also inheritable, and could very well be for life. Slaves could be freed, but only after they were 30 years of age or older, by which time they were likely dead, anyway, and even if they were freed, they still owed their old owner a certain amount of work per week, as agreed on their manumission.

[Actually, no, I'm going to cut this bit out. I'm just going to say that bad things happened to children in Ancient Rome]

Living conditions for the poor were atrocious, they lived in shoddy, fire prone communal buildings with little ventilation and no security or privacy, and worked for scraps.

Diverting on the subject of Spartan city-state, they actually had, ironically, some of the more progressive attitudes towards women in the ancient greece. Men and women married at the age of eighteen (Contemporary city states such as Athens had men of 22 marrying 12-year-old girls, for comparison) , and women received equal ownership of the land which the state parceled to them on maturity, and were responsible for the running of the farm and household while the men were at war, or sequestered in their barracks, which they were until they were 30 (if they wanted to see their wives before this, they had to sneak out in the night and be back by dawn).

That said, they were still probably what I'd call LE, but that doesn't mean the Romans and the Spartans can't be in the same club, so to speak.

Noo, not an undergrad classics major at all, why would you say that?

[iceman10058]

Historically, slavery was not only legal during the roman empire, it was commonplace world wide, even the bible has rules regarding the treatment of slaves. Rome did have laws regarding everything and while did a lot to improve the lives of the citizens in a time where life could easily be considered violent, cruel, and chaotic. There may have been evil rulers and practices that could be considered morally wrong or questionable now, but I feel that this is no different than american history yet we don't see ourselves as evil.

All this being said, Rome is, like most human empires, TN

[MukkTB]

The alignment system is borked. Alignment is an outgrowth of philosophy. However humans haven't 'solved' philosophy and there are multiple schools of thinking about things. The ends justify the means. An action has a morale value and betrayal is always evil no matter who you're betraying and why. As just two competing examples.

If you look out into the real world many of today's toughest questions about morality are political hot topics that polarize people like nothing else. If you want to make a rational system of morality you need to pick one system or one accomplished philosopher and stick with them. You might not be right, but at least then you're consistent.

I'm serious when I suggest taking notes from something already established. This is a situation where you are probably not going to get things right if you set off on your own. If you can write a convincing, coherent philosophy about morality on your own, then you should publish it and take your place among the great philosophers of history.

Gary Gygax was not one of these men. Unfortunately he didn't crib off of their notes. Instead of just declaring by fiat that one kind of philosophy would be the sort used in D&D, he made a muddled mess of things. One measure is used at moment and an entirely different one is used in the next.

You might think that I would now be set up to declare that classifying some society using D&D alignments is pretty silly. However in game I find it a useful shorthand for describing a culture. It serves me as a launch point for thinking about a particular culture and what I want to make them into.

The Romans were not particularly brutal for their time. They brought civilization at the edge of a sword. They demanded taxes but provided law and technology. Neither saints nor devils so neutral. They were more civilized than other people at the time. This translates into more disciplined armies, a more complex legal system, and a deep cultural identity. That registers as lawful to me. So overall a L/N civilization.

[scsimodem]

I think the main problem with this question is that alignment in a real context is that alignment in D&D, in game, is an absolute. What's good and what's evil is built into the fabric of the universe. Out of game, it's written by modern people who are writers, not philosophers and theologians. These alignments are based on prevailing moral attitudes of the time in which the books are written, and may seem backwards, antiquated, or outrageous if shown to somebody from a different time or culture. Now, would the unified, Pax Romana government/society be considered evil by the morals of the rigid D&D alignment system? Yes. They intentionally used slow and painful methods of execution, sometimes just for opposing Roman conquest. They took chattel slavery from conquered peoples, who could be used in the sex trade or summarily executed by their masters. Testimony of chattel slaves could not be used in court unless extracted by torture. Also, torture. Torture is evil.

The problem, however, with this is that calling Rome evil for performing poorly on a moral scale written in 21st century western civilization is like saying that a movie performed poorly on a ratings scale with Citizen Kane as the average. Compared to the civilizations they conquered, the Romans were fair, tolerant, diverse, merciful, and even kind. The Romans may not get good press in, say, the Bible, but they were a breath of fresh air compared to the Seleucids they replaced.

[Ravens_cry]

Very lawful neutral, especially the height of the republic. This is the society that entrusted a citizen with absolute power for a short period during times of crises, and, despite every potential to do so, almost all didn't use that power to take over long term. That requires a dedication to the well being of the whole that is as frightening as it is inspiring.

[SassyQuatch]

"...the Aristocrats!"

Because any discussion of Roman society ends up at that point eventually.

[Sayt]

"...the Aristocrats!"

Because any discussion of Roman society ends up at that point eventually.

Because, quite frankly, they wrote all the primary sources we have. They had literacy, they had respect, and they had public prominence. All we can do about the lower classis is make inferences based on archaeology and the biased writings of the wealthy.

[Ravens_cry]

Because, quite frankly, they wrote all the primary sources we have. They had literacy, they had respect, and they had public prominence. All we can do about the lower classis is make inferences based on archaeology and the biased writings of the wealthy.
To be fair, that's being the case for basically every human society ever uncovered. It's why archaeologists (real ones) squee over places like Pompeii, as so much is preserved of the ordinary experience and life of the whole social strata, down to things like graffiti. I can't really link to it (a lot is NOT safe for work) but it's still really fun to read.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Romans in general were Lawful Evil, the most successful form of evil. OP was basically right. Not all were, but if you were to pick the one that most of them fell under, it'd be LE.

Slavery, watching prisoners maul each other / get mauled by animals for fun, conquering every other land and peoples they possibly could, violently and severely punishing any form of rebellion... Cripes, if their own warriors showed cowardice in battle, they'd randomly off every 10th person in the unit regardless of whether or not he actually did anything wrong just to send the message that it would not be tolerated (Decimation).

They were the original evil empire.

[AMFV]

Romans in general were Lawful Evil, the most successful form of evil. OP was basically right. Not all were, but if you were to pick the one that most of them fell under, it'd be LE.

Slavery, watching prisoners maul each other / get mauled by animals for fun, conquering every other land and peoples they possibly could, violently and severely punishing any form of rebellion... Cripes, if their own warriors showed cowardice in battle, they'd randomly off every 10th person in the unit regardless of whether or not he actually did anything wrong just to send the message that it would not be tolerated (Decimation).

They were the original evil empire.

However even though they are evil in terms of society today, it's worth noting that they are not evil compared to any of the other societies of the time.

[SowZ]

They are closest to LE societies in D&D. LE societies give preference based on race, have slavery, are warmongerers, have gladiator arenas, utilize torture regularly and legally, etc. I think it is fairly obvious that, based on D&D examples, it's LE. This isn't that applicable to RL morality, though. It's just that D&D has pretty objective metrics for these sorts of things.

The heavy use of slavery with particularly cruel fates for many of those slaves is pretty much a game-ender.

But many commanders and military officers are probably LN and most citizens are TN. A few emperors were pretty undeniably CE, though. Some were totally insane.

[Talya]

Isn't this dangerously close to the no history rule?

If there were a "no history rule," this would definitely be over that line. However, there is no such rule. Politics & Religion are off limits. History and Philosophy are not, despite some overlap.

By D&D's objective absolute alignment standards, ancient Roman society would probably have a lawful evil slant, yes.

[StreamOfTheSky]

However even though they are evil in terms of society today, it's worth noting that they are not evil compared to any of the other societies of the time.

I disagree.

Other societies of the time managed to entertain themselves without a Coliseum. Some didn't even keep slaves, or at least treated them better than the Romans did.

Times were definitely more brutal back then, but that doesn't mean every society just gets a pass for the horrible things they did regardless of the magnitude and extent.

Salting the fields of Carthage so that nothing would grow again, or killing 10% of their own soldiers at random as a punishment weren't recorded by historians because they were "run of the mill, ho-hum events in our every day life."

[AMFV]

I disagree.

Other societies of the time managed to entertain themselves without a Coliseum. Some didn't even keep slaves, or at least treated them better than the Romans did.

Times were definitely more brutal back then, but that doesn't mean every society just gets a pass for the horrible things they did regardless of the magnitude and extent.

Salting the fields of Carthage so that nothing would grow again, or killing 10% of their own soldiers at random as a punishment weren't recorded by historians because they were "run of the mill, ho-hum events in our every day life."

Actually the Coliseum was not open for business for large swathes of Roman history, furthermore many of the fighters there were paid athletics and not slaves. While they did treat slaves poorly in some times, it wasn't throughout the history of their empire. Also, "how we treat our slaves" is hardly the only metric for judging a society as Good-Evil, it is a part of that, but we have other things. The Carthaginians practiced Infanticide and Ritual Sacrifice, they also participated in a brutal war of aggression against the Romans on Roman soil, I would say that knocks them out of the good park.

Salting the fields is pretty much normal practice for the time, as is decimation. It sounds pretty brutal by our modern standards, but in ancient times it was very different. In fact decimation is a large step up from killing all of the males, which is common practice in many ancient war societies. Or removing all of the thumbs and large toes of the entire male population (also common practice). The things you discuss which are evil by modern standards aren't even close to evil by an older standard.

While you could find systems of morality that would judge the Romans as evil, the same could be said for almost any society at any time. I think that by judging a real world culture in D&D metrics you're losing something. Furthermore no culture is only one thing or another (even in D&D) we might see tendencies or a higher likelihood, but to argue an entire culture is one thing is probably not correct.

[SowZ]

Actually the Coliseum was not open for business for large swathes of Roman history, furthermore many of the fighters there were paid athletics and not slaves. While they did treat slaves poorly in some times, it wasn't throughout the history of their empire. Also, "how we treat our slaves" is hardly the only metric for judging a society as Good-Evil, it is a part of that, but we have other things. The Carthaginians practiced Infanticide and Ritual Sacrifice, they also participated in a brutal war of aggression against the Romans on Roman soil, I would say that knocks them out of the good park.

Salting the fields is pretty much normal practice for the time, as is decimation. It sounds pretty brutal by our modern standards, but in ancient times it was very different. In fact decimation is a large step up from killing all of the males, which is common practice in many ancient war societies. Or removing all of the thumbs and large toes of the entire male population (also common practice). The things you discuss which are evil by modern standards aren't even close to evil by an older standard.

While you could find systems of morality that would judge the Romans as evil, the same could be said for almost any society at any time. I think that by judging a real world culture in D&D metrics you're losing something. Furthermore no culture is only one thing or another (even in D&D) we might see tendencies or a higher likelihood, but to argue an entire culture is one thing is probably not correct.

You can't use the argument that by the standards of their time, Romans weren't so bad, because during their time basically everyone who wasn't Roman hated Romans with a fiery passion. Even raiding cultures would steal your crap, rape your women, then go home. Few systematically tried to destroy your culture and religion and tortured you to death or threw you in front of animals ready to rip you apart to a cheering audience.

It is arguable that any other warmongering culture would have done that had they the infrastructure and power to do so, but power corrupts, after all.

And not all cultures were that militaristic.

Though I admit a lot of the things we would be disgusted at Roman's for was pretty standard fair. Sacking a city, for example, pretty much always resulted in a lot of rape and murder.

[Ravens_cry]

The whole decimation thing wasn't done at random, at least not in the sense of 'at a whim', it was meant as disciplinary measure for pretty extreme offences done by large groups of soldiers. It was harsh, very harsh, but fair.
Sowing the fields of Cartridge with was eliminating an enemy to prevent them from ever being a threat again. The Punic Wars were basically two superpowers duking it out, and it was a bloody and costly war on multiple levels.
Sowing salt was Rome's way of saying 'Never again.'
Revenge, certainly.

[Pan151]

Evil actions in a time of war will happen - it's not something that can be avoided. If anything, salting the enemies' fields is a good thing to do - it forces the enemy to submit due to lack of recources, thus preventing further unnecessary bloodshed.

{{scrubbed}}

Rome, on the other hand, made constant efforts to improve the state of whatever lands they conquered (building roads and other works, enforcing laws and peace etc) and made sure to assimilate any positive elements of other cultures into their own. They still considered themselves better, culturally and morally, than the rest of the world - otherwise they had no reason to run their campaigns in the first place - but they did not just pillage and conquer for the sole sake of world domination.

As for the fact that they used slaves... well, everybody else used slaves too. That's how the world worked back in the day. You can call it a flawed system, but you can't call one nation specifically evil for that. It's as if someone, 1000 years in the future, called today's country X evil for embracing capitalism - well, that's how the world works, we can't change it just cause.

Thus, I just can't see Rome as an evil empire.

[Jon_Dahl]

Alignment is relative to the culture and time. Human being has the ability to know right from wrong, but in most cases the society can define them. I would say that having slaves was a neutral issue in the Roman society. Those who treated their slaves exceptionally well and emancipated them frequently were good. The ones that treated them cruelly were evil. All in all, the society was Lawful Neutral.

[SowZ]

Evil actions in a time of war will happen - it's not something that can be avoided. If anything, salting the enemies' fields is a good thing to do - it forces the enemy to submit due to lack of recources, thus preventing further unnecessary bloodshed. {{scrubbed}} Rome, on the other hand, made constant efforts to improve the state of whatever lands they conquered (building roads and other works, enforcing laws and peace etc) and made sure to assimilate any positive elements of other cultures into their own. They still considered themselves better, culturally and morally, than the rest of the world - otherwise they had no reason to run their campaigns in the first place - but they did not just pillage and conquer for the sole sake of world domination.

As for the fact that they used slaves... well, everybody else used slaves too. That's how the world worked back in the day. You can call it a flawed system, but you can't call one nation specifically evil for that. It's as if someone, 1000 years in the future, called today's country X evil for embracing capitalism - well, that's how the world works, we can't change it just cause.

Thus, I just can't see Rome as an evil empire.

By your morals, sure. But no matter how much logic you provide, Rome is LE according to the rules because alignment of cultures follows unchanging standards and a checklist style mentality, not logic. Maybe this would make my anthropologist roommate cry, but that's beside the point


Alignment is relative to the culture and time. Human being has the ability to know right from wrong, but in most cases the society can define them. I would say that having slaves was a neutral issue in the Roman society. Those who treated their slaves exceptionally well and emancipated them frequently were good. The ones that treated them cruelly were evil. All in all, the society was Lawful Neutral.

Nope. D&D has objective standards for a societies alignment. It isn't relative, because every culture and race in an entire plane can be deemed Evil or Good. There is no subjectivity to it. It's just a checklist, extenuating circumstances and environmental factors have no bearance.

Does society practice X? Yes or no.
Does society practice X? Yes or no.

By D&D standards, Rome is pretty objectively LE as it fits every definition of a LE nation that is applicable. You can say that is stupid and ignores reality, but by D&D rules Rome is certainly not LN.

Of course, you can assign Rome as whatever alignment you wish based on your own personal morals and it is no less valid. But if we are talking about what the Universal forces of Good and Evil have to say, Rome is LE.

[Kelb_Panthera]

According to the core three, it's not, however. *shrug*
The deed books come with some interesting takes and baggage. There's an entire lawful neutral race that's always lawful neutral and is supposed to demonstrate nonevil slavery in the monster manual...

There's exactly one line that -suggests- that slavery is evil by its nature in D&D ;
Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil.

Page 11, second paragraph under "being ahead of your time."

It's painfully clear from the context (and that it was never mentioned anywhere else in BoED, BoVD, or anywhere else) that both slavery and discrimination were chosen as examples of "evil" behavior without any consideration for the implications that using them that way invokes.

Even a little thought about how the game defines evil shows that neither of those is a valid example of always evil behavior.

Slavery laws can ensure, to the degree that any laws can ensure anything, that slaves are not horribly mistreated by their owners and the practice -can- be used to productive economic and legally punitive ends without causing undue harm or anguish to anyone. Being declared property under the law can certainly be embarrassing but only a bit more so than being a non-citizen or, perhaps, less so if the law makes a provision for a stint as a slave to the state being a way to earn citizenship. In any case, the core precept of slavery, social standing as someone under the control of someone else, is a much more lawful concept than an evil one.

That discrimination is evil is patently absurd. The implied variety of discrimination, racial, is much less problematic in a world where races -do- have quantitative and qualitative differences between them and especially when some races are -inherently- evil or are natural predators to intelligent humanoids. That it doesn't even specify racial discrimination makes the implied statement even more absurd. A lack of discrimination is exactly how we get lawful-stupid, smite-on-sight paladins.

On topic:

The Roman people probably didn't tend toward any particular alignment since that category of people encompasses such a wide range of social, economic, and political positions. Their strongly lawful government (that fluctuated pretty broadly between good and evil over the life of the empire) may have tilted the people slightly in the same direction, though it was never an exemplar of good or evil long enough to push them much on that axis.

[Pan151]

D&D has objective standards for a societies alignment. It isn't relative, because every culture and race in an entire plane can be deemed Evil or Good. There is no subjectivity to it. It's just a checklist, extenuating circumstances and environmental factors have no bearance.

Does society practice X? Yes or no.
Does society practice X? Yes or no.


What happns when a society practices things that are considered objecively evil and things that are objectively good then? Because you can say that an act is evil, but a society as a whole is much more complex. Rome may have practiced slavery, but they also did a lot of things solely for the common good.

[SowZ]

There's exactly one line that -suggests- that slavery is evil by its nature in D&D ;

Page 11, second paragraph under "being ahead of your time."

It's painfully clear from the context (and that it was never mentioned anywhere else in BoED, BoVD, or anywhere else) that both slavery and discrimination were chosen as examples of "evil" behavior without any consideration for the implications that using them that way invokes.

Even a little thought about how the game defines evil shows that neither of those is a valid example of always evil behavior.

Slavery laws can ensure, to the degree that any laws can ensure anything, that slaves are not horribly mistreated by their owners and the practice -can- be used to productive economic and legally punitive ends without causing undue harm or anguish to anyone. Being declared property under the law can certainly be embarrassing but only a bit more so than being a non-citizen or, perhaps, less so if the law makes a provision for a stint as a slave to the state being a way to earn citizenship. In any case, the core precept of slavery, social standing as someone under the control of someone else, is a much more lawful concept than an evil one.

That discrimination is evil is patently absurd. The implied variety of discrimination, racial, is much less problematic in a world where races -do- have quantitative and qualitative differences between them and especially when some races are -inherently- evil or are natural predators to intelligent humanoids. That it doesn't even specify racial discrimination makes the implied statement even more absurd. A lack of discrimination is exactly how we get lawful-stupid, smite-on-sight paladins.

That's not a suggestion that slavery is evil, but an outright declaration. If that creates contradictions in the rules or logical fallacies when compared to other things that aren't considered evil that's just par for the course. It's a mark of an evil society.

Anyway, I think it is pretty obvious that a society that constantly started wars, often over taxed its satellite states into poverty, had slaves which were subject to rape and torturous deaths for public amusement, coliseums, publicly tortured to death practitioners of foreign religions, and monarchs whose insanity often rivaled that of any prominent leader in history, would be listed as an evil society no matter what it's redeeming qualities if it was a fictional culture released in a D&D source book that happened to share those traits with Rome.

That most RL ancient cultures fit into D&Ds 'evil' descriptor is a non issue to answering the OPs question since D&D wouldn't factor in subjective morality.


What happns when a society practices things that are considered objecively evil and things that are objectively good then? Because you can say that an act is evil, but a society as a whole is much more complex. Rome may have practiced slavery, but they also did a lot of things solely for the common good.

Sure, but Evil trumps Good in this respect. You could fund orphanages and heal the sick and spend your free time at nursing homes, but if your job was Evil McEvilstein's Head Torturer and you enjoyed nothing more than torturing the innocent to death in your unspeakable dungeons, you'd have an Evil alignment no matter how much Good you did. And Rome did a lot of torturing the innocent to death.


This is an impossible standard, since by this standard, literally every society on Earth ever, including our modern societies, were and are evil.

(Studies have conclusively shown that, all other things being equal, people with exotic names will be discriminated against in job recruitment, and people of colour will likewise be discriminated against)

Using a single sentence to apply such an absolute standard is, at best, unreasonable.

Not necessarily. Those are objectively states as Evil things, but discrimination doesn't always make the whole society Evil. You can have some Evil things and they don't count too much against you if they are minor. It depends how much those things affect the culture. Are they minor, moderate, or severe?

[Kelb_Panthera]

What happns when a society practices things that are considered objecively evil and things that are objectively good then? Because you can say that an act is evil, but a society as a whole is much more complex. Rome may have practiced slavery, but they also did a lot of things solely for the common good.

In that case the society, as a whole, is neutral; providing that the evil and good are relatively even. In the case that a society's proclivities tend toward evil but they still express good behaviors leaves the overall evil and vice-versa

Just as evil characters are capable of -some- good acts, so too are evil societies capable of valuing -some- good ideas. The reverse is also true.

[AMFV]

That's not a suggestion that slavery is evil, but an outright declaration. If that creates contradictions in the rules or logical fallacies when compared to other things that aren't considered evil that's just par for the course. It's a mark of an evil society.

Anyway, I think it is pretty obvious that a society that constantly started wars, often over taxed its satellite states into poverty, had slaves which were subject to rape and torturous deaths for public amusement, coliseums, publicly tortured to death practitioners of foreign religions, and monarchs whose insanity often rivaled that of any prominent leader in history, would be listed as an evil society no matter what it's redeeming qualities if it was a fictional culture released in a D&D source book that happened to share those traits with Rome.

It is important to note that the slavery was not nearly so prevalent as the Sword and Sandles movie genre would suggest. Certainly it existed but not on such a mass scale as one might suspect. The majority of labor was not slave labor, but the impoverished masses, who else would have been amused by the "bread and circuses". The Gladiatorial arenas where not a constant of society, in fact they were not in operation for a large portion of the golden era of the empire. Augustus to Nero I believe, although don't quote me on that, I know that Nero reopened the games, but I don't know when they were officially stopped I believe it was Augustus or Octavian. Also many gladiators could and did win their freedom, and continued to perform, suggesting that the life was not nearly so bad as one might have thought, many in the arenas were paid performers who enjoyed it or at least picked it is a voluntary task.



Sure, but Evil trumps Good in this respect. You could fund orphanages and heal the sick and spend your free time at nursing homes, but if your job was Evil McEvilstein's Head Torturer and you enjoyed nothing more than torturing the innocent to death in your unspeakable dungeons, you'd have an Evil alignment no matter how much Good you did. And Rome did a lot of torturing the innocent to death.

Rome did some public executions as to knowingly putting the innocent to death. That's a harder case to prove. Also if Rome had more good deeds than evil it might even out, certainly for certain eras it would. In others it becomes more difficult to prove. Remember that certain leaders can be evil even in a good society, so it's not necessarily a hallmark of an evil society that somethings in it are evil.



Not necessarily. Those are objectively states as Evil things, but discrimination doesn't always make the whole society Evil. You can have some Evil things and they don't count too much against you if they are minor. It depends how much those things affect the culture. Are they minor, moderate, or severe?

Actually it doesn't qualify that in any of the BoED to my knowledge, all evil acts are pretty much equal as far as that book is concerned, so discrimination is exactly as bad as slavery, which really wasn't as big a part of Roman culture as popular history would lead people to believe.


In that case the society, as a whole, is neutral; providing that the evil and good are relatively even. In the case that a society's proclivities tend toward evil but they still express good behaviors leaves the overall evil and vice-versa

Just as evil characters are capable of -some- good acts, so too are evil societies capable of valuing -some- good ideas. The reverse is also true.


But Good societies are capable of some evil acts as well, so that's probably not always a good metric to judge a society by. Or at least is a difficult one. The Romans simply did not have the military might to have massed numbers of slaves. There are a few cases where this was economically viable, such as Sparta and the American South, but most societies have never really had as large a population of slaves as it was envisioned, and those that did lived in constant fear.

[SowZ]

It is important to note that the slavery was not nearly so prevalent as the Sword and Sandles movie genre would suggest. Certainly it existed but not on such a mass scale as one might suspect. The majority of labor was not slave labor, but the impoverished masses, who else would have been amused by the "bread and circuses". The Gladiatorial arenas where not a constant of society, in fact they were not in operation for a large portion of the golden era of the empire. Augustus to Nero I believe, although don't quote me on that, I know that Nero reopened the games, but I don't know when they were officially stopped I believe it was Augustus or Octavian. Also many gladiators could and did win their freedom, and continued to perform, suggesting that the life was not nearly so bad as one might have thought, many in the arenas were paid performers who enjoyed it or at least picked it is a voluntary task.



Rome did some public executions as to knowingly putting the innocent to death. That's a harder case to prove. Also if Rome had more good deeds than evil it might even out, certainly for certain eras it would. In others it becomes more difficult to prove. Remember that certain leaders can be evil even in a good society, so it's not necessarily a hallmark of an evil society that somethings in it are evil.



Actually it doesn't qualify that in any of the BoED to my knowledge, all evil acts are pretty much equal as far as that book is concerned, so discrimination is exactly as bad as slavery, which really wasn't as big a part of Roman culture as popular history would lead people to believe.




But Good societies are capable of some evil acts as well, so that's probably not always a good metric to judge a society by. Or at least is a difficult one. The Romans simply did not have the military might to have massed numbers of slaves. There are a few cases where this was economically viable, such as Sparta and the American South, but most societies have never really had as large a population of slaves as it was envisioned, and those that did lived in constant fear.

I'm actually not too shabby on my Roman history, and don't go into Gladiators very much because once you had a name worth knowing, half your fights were almost WWE crap anyway and you were pretty posh.

Thing is, whether or not Rome was actually moral by relative standards or not, we are trying to judge a one of the most influential real world cultures that spread across over a thousand years by a simplistic, 9 axis moral system that comes from a board game. I think it is fairly clear by those standards, it is LE. That may have some ludicrous connotations, but based on what we are doing, I'd be far more surprised if the results weren't absurd.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ SowZ:

The statement I quoted wasn't about slavery, torture, or discrimination at all.

It was a statement that evil behavior is evil, even if society condones it. The author picked three things as exemplars to illustrate the point, implying that they're evil behavior, and got two of them wrong.

Or do you actually think that it was intended that all forms of discrimination, racial, logical, emotional, etc, are to be considered evil?

By that standard every creature that thinks about the situation before acting and decides to act in a manner that doesn't cause any disruption to the activities of those other than whomever he's acting upon, that is; anyone who acts with discrimination, is evil.

This is, in all seriousness, on the same level as drown-healing for absurdity. Clearly the sentence is descriptive (and wrong) not prescriptive, at least on those three behaviors.

[georgie_leech]

Just to muddle the issue further, it's been suggested that slavery was a necessary component of the Agricultural revolution. Places with slavery tended to undergo densification and create the large population centers that are associated with "progress," whatever that means. A large slave/serf population seems to have been needed to produce enough food to support cities; inefficient farming methods demanded large scale operations such that large groups of dedicated farmers, ranchers, etc. were needed to take advantage of economies of scale.

In short, without slavery, there might not have been a Rome to judge.

[SowZ]

@ SowZ:

The statement I quoted wasn't about slavery, torture, or discrimination at all.

It was a statement that evil behavior is evil, even if society condones it. The author picked three things as exemplars to illustrate the point, implying that they're evil behavior, and got two of them wrong.

Or do you actually think that it was intended that all forms of discrimination, racial, logical, emotional, etc, are to be considered evil?

By that standard every creature that thinks about the situation before acting and decides to act in a manner that doesn't cause any disruption to the activities of those other than whomever he's acting upon, that is; anyone who acts with discrimination, is evil.

Regardless of whether the statement is absurd or not doesn't change the fact that the author didn't imply those things were wrong. He stated that they were quite plainly. Whether or not I agree with that statement is neither here nor there, but I at least agree that the author stated them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Regardless of whether the statement is absurd or not doesn't change the fact that the author didn't imply those things were wrong. He stated that they were quite plainly. Whether or not I agree with that statement is neither here nor there, but I at least agree that the author stated them.

This is, in all seriousness, on the same level as drown-healing for absurdity. Clearly the sentence is descriptive (and wrong) not prescriptive, at least on those three behaviors.

Taking them at face value, the examples are too absurd to take seriously and should be discarded from the sentence, as they're not relevant to its point. Alternately, there are (very obviously) implicit concepts behind them that must be considered. Discrimination was clearly intended to mean racial discrimination (which isn't necessarily evil either) and slavery was intended to mean the sort of miserable, they have no rights and you can treat them how you please variety.

Either way the idea that slavery and discrimination are always evil in all their forms is plainly invalid.

[AMFV]

I'm actually not too shabby on my Roman history, and don't go into Gladiators very much because once you had a name worth knowing, half your fights were almost WWE crap anyway and you were pretty posh.

Thing is, whether or not Rome was actually moral by relative standards or not, we are trying to judge a one of the most influential real world cultures that spread across over a thousand years by a simplistic, 9 axis moral system that comes from a board game. I think it is fairly clear by those standards, it is LE. That may have some ludicrous connotations, but based on what we are doing, I'd be far more surprised if the results weren't absurd.

I'm just saying having some slavery present doesn't immediately equal EVIL!!! It might push a society in that direction, but it isn't a factor that results in the immediate fall of a society. Just the same way as you can have an adventurer who discriminates but is still good.

[Drachasor]

The Romans were pretty clearly Lawful Evil.

There were a lot more Evil countries/societies back then. And there were ethical systems back then that would classify their behavior as such. For all of our talk of our modern conception of morality, the fact is that a lot of it has ancient equivalents. It's just that rather than 1% of the population, it's more like 50%-70% of the population that has a more 'modern' morality. It isn't like no one thought rape, slavery, or the like was wrong 1000 or 6000 years ago. They just weren't common, and rarely called the shots.

Now, we can compare a society to the standards at the time, sure. That's a bit like Kirk considering Kahn "the best of tyrants." The guy was still a monster; better than other monsters, but a monster even so.


I'm just saying having some slavery present doesn't immediately equal EVIL!!! It might push a society in that direction, but it isn't a factor that results in the immediate fall of a society. Just the same way as you can have an adventurer who discriminates but is still good.

Slavery is inherently evil. Sure, you could say a society might be good otherwise. Even if their slaves have no rights, can be killed without cause, beaten, raped. Even if beating a slave is part of a holiday. Etc, etc. There were also plenty of other horrible things that Rome did that had nothing to do with slavery.

I wouldn't say Rome was all bad. They had streaks of Good and definitely a good bit of Neutrality. But a few good things doesn't make someone or a society good anymore than an evil thing makes them evil. On the whole though, I'd say they were Lawful Evil.

But societies get inherently complicated to judge. You could easily have a Lawful Evil society composed of mostly Lawful Neutral individuals (who aren't going to go out of their way to stop the evil). The average Roman citizen wasn't evil, I think.

[SowZ]

This is, in all seriousness, on the same level as drown-healing for absurdity. Clearly the sentence is descriptive (and wrong) not prescriptive, at least on those three behaviors.

I'm not defending the statement, though. I'm simply stating the author didn't imply anything, he outright said it. If the author had instead said, "17 times 3 is glorrgllxyxyxyhfabf99." I would say the same thing. It's not an implication, but an outright statement. It may be wrong, but it is a blatant statement about alignment. And once we start using our judgement on one aspect of the alignment system, where do we stop?

[Pan151]

providing that the evil and good are relatively even.

And that is the whole issue here: regardless of whether an act can be objectively called good/evil or not, there's no objective scale that tells us how much good balances how much evil. And thus we 're back at square one - the strict definitions of DnD for good and evil apply to individual actions, and not to entire nations/races (barring of course things like Celestia and Baator, that are physical manifestations of specific alignments.

Therefore, one can say that they believe ancient Rome was LE or LN for X and Y reason, but they can't say that they were LE/LN by RAW.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not defending the statement, though. I'm simply stating the author didn't imply anything, he outright said it. If the author had instead said, "17 times 3 is glorrgllxyxyxyhfabf99." I would say the same thing. It's not an implication, but an outright statement. It may be wrong, but it is a blatant statement about alignment. And once we start using our judgement on one aspect of the alignment system, where do we stop?

At the risk of repeating myself, the statement was not about those behaviors. That they were used as examples of evil behavior creates an implicit statement that they're, in fact, evil but it doesn't change the fact that the statement made by that sentence is simply that evil behavior is evil, regardless of societal concerns.

[AMFV]

And that is the whole issue here: regardless of whether an act can be objectively called good/evil or not, there's no objective scale that tells us how much good balances how much evil. And thus we 're back at square one - the strict definitions of DnD for good and evil apply to individual actions, and not to entire nations/races (barring of course things like Celestia and Baator, that are physical manifestations of specific alignments.

Therefore, one can say that they believe ancient Rome was LE or LN for X and Y reason, but they can't say that they were LE/LN by RAW.

Definitely true, we have no quantitative measure of when the point changes so there is bound to be interpretational differences, we can say that this one thing pushes towards evil, but not that it makes something evil, without considerable thought, and even still two people may differently interpret the same information.

[TuggyNE]

@ SowZ:

The statement I quoted wasn't about slavery, torture, or discrimination at all.

It was a statement that evil behavior is evil, even if society condones it. The author picked three things as exemplars to illustrate the point, implying that they're evil behavior, and got two of them wrong.

Or do you actually think that it was intended that all forms of discrimination, racial, logical, emotional, etc, are to be considered evil?

By that standard every creature that thinks about the situation before acting and decides to act in a manner that doesn't cause any disruption to the activities of those other than whomever he's acting upon, that is; anyone who acts with discrimination, is evil.

While I strongly agree with you (that neither slavery nor discrimination, for given values thereof, are always wrong), I don't think anyone is likely to convinced on the issue: ideas of what is "always wrong" are pretty entrenched in basically all humans, of any philosophy or belief system, or any attempted lack thereof. Exactly what those ideas amount to, of course, varies quite a bit more, which is why a lot of people will be completely unable to accept any sort of argument that might come to "and so slavery isn't, in this set of circumstances, wrong" or the like, because ASFHJKJD SLAVERY IS WRONG YOU GUISE. (And so on.)

As such I'd recommend you drop the issue.

[Drachasor]

Hmm, one could actually argue most countries (especially world powers) are Evil given how they treat other countries.

As has been noted, alignment is vague with groups. Do you consider how they treat those outside the group? Or do you include how they treat those within the group too? The latter includes more individual alignment (or it can, anyhow), but the former is pretty important too. They can easily reflect different alignments in D&D terms.

[georgie_leech]

While I strongly agree with you (that neither slavery nor discrimination, for given values thereof, are always wrong), I don't think anyone is likely to convinced on the issue: ideas of what is "always wrong" are pretty entrenched in basically all humans, of any philosophy or belief system, or any attempted lack thereof. Exactly what those ideas amount to, of course, varies quite a bit more more, which is why a lot of people will be completely unable to accept any sort of argument that might come to "and so slavery isn't, in this set of circumstances, wrong" or the like, because SLAVERY IS WRONG YOU GUISE. (And so on.)

As such I'd recommend you drop the issue.

Hey! Don't discriminate! They're not Pit Fiends, they're Pit Friends! Sure, he's got glowing red eyes, horns, a tail, sharp teeth, plants dying around his feet, and the echo of screams follows him like a miasma, but he could be a really nice Demon!

[Drachasor]

While I strongly agree with you (that neither slavery nor discrimination, for given values thereof, are always wrong), I don't think anyone is likely to convinced on the issue: ideas of what is "always wrong" are pretty entrenched in basically all humans, of any philosophy or belief system, or any attempted lack thereof. Exactly what those ideas amount to, of course, varies quite a bit more, which is why a lot of people will be completely unable to accept any sort of argument that might come to "and so slavery isn't, in this set of circumstances, wrong" or the like, because ASFHJKJD SLAVERY IS WRONG YOU GUISE. (And so on.)

As such I'd recommend you drop the issue.

We can ignore the real world (though I'd say slavery IS always wrong in the real world. At best you'll get it being better than other more horrifying options).

In D&D slavery IS always wrong. Period. It's an inherently Evil practice, because it oppresses others. Since this thread is about D&D, if you want to make the case that treating people as property somehow doesn't oppress them, then let's see it.

I suppose it is possible for a Paladin to legally have slaves under the following conditions:
1. If there's no other way in a given country.
2. He works to end the practice in general.
3. He never, ever treats them as slaves (e.g. so far as he is able he provides pay for work, freedom to choose, etc, etc, etc).
4. Provides real freedom and escape from a country to anyone that wants it.
5. In general treats it as a legal formality...which is definitely not how slavery as a societal practice could ever work; you'd basically be gaming the system as much as possible to subvert slavery.

Basically, slavery in D&D is not evil if you essentially don't practice it.

[AMFV]

We can ignore the real world (though I'd say slavery IS always wrong in the real world. At best you'll get it being better than other more horrifying options).

In D&D slavery IS always wrong. Period. It's an inherently Evil practice, because it oppresses others. Since this thread is about D&D, if you want to make the case that treating people as property somehow doesn't oppress them, then let's see it.

The problem is still that we can't define how much of an evil thing it takes to make the society as a whole evil, or if they have various traits that could balance it. Slavery being legal might speak against the system of laws, but if slavery isn't prevalent in all aspects of culture what does that say about society. What if they keep slaves but also feed the poor and trait their slaves well? I mean the whole thing is a very complex issue since we can't say X amount of evil means that you are definitively evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While I strongly agree with you (that neither slavery nor discrimination, for given values thereof, are always wrong), I don't think anyone is likely to convinced on the issue: ideas of what is "always wrong" are pretty entrenched in basically all humans, of any philosophy or belief system, or any attempted lack thereof. Exactly what those ideas amount to, of course, varies quite a bit more, which is why a lot of people will be completely unable to accept any sort of argument that might come to "and so slavery isn't, in this set of circumstances, wrong" or the like, because ASFHJKJD SLAVERY IS WRONG YOU GUISE. (And so on.)

As such I'd recommend you drop the issue.

I'm not concerned with morality, really. As something inherently subjective, arguments about it are as pointless as arguing about what's fun.

What I'm arguing about is what's RAW. That lone statement implies something that simply isn't supported by alignment's RAW.

It's an error of the same level as drown-healing's oversight regarding what happens if the process is interrupted and it needs to be regarded with the same weight, that is; it should be ignored.

[hymer]

Actually the Coliseum was not open for business for large swathes of Roman history, furthermore many of the fighters there were paid athletics and not slaves.

While there were cases of volunteers, the vast majority of gladiators were slaves.


Salting the fields is pretty much normal practice for the time

The Romans did not salt the lands of Carthage after destroying it. It can hardly be considered 'normal practice'. Instances of ritually cursing the ground with salt (actually causing it to be useless would require a lot of expensive salt) have been known, especially in the east, but it was an old practice probably better dated to 500 years or more before Rome became a big deal (or after the fall of the western Empire, when it became a notion after 1000 CE - probably when the idea that this was done to Carthage was invented).


[Decimation] was harsh, very harsh, but fair.

Well, that depends on your definition of 'fair', I suppose. :smallwink: The six guys who had obeyed their orders were just as likely to get killed in the decimation as all the ones who broke rank - unless the lots were fixed. Caesar experienced/caused a few cases of fixed lot drawings for disciplinary punishments (though he never decimated any of his legions, there were cases of executions).


Sowing salt was Rome's way of saying 'Never again.'
Revenge, certainly.

As mentioned above, they didn't actually do that salt thing. They plowed the city over, though. Not long after, there was a productive agricultural colony at the site.
But it's worth mentioning that it was as much a case of a predatory attack on a weak state for plunder as it was a case of getting rid of a percieved threat.


I wonder how many people in the modern world would rather have the option to be put to work in involuntary servitude for a few years (Where they can continue to network with others and find time to pursue hobbies, or at least experience the outside world, while having lodging feeding and healthcare paid for them) rather than serve decades or life sentences in prisons, homeless and unemployed as a bum, or deal with life-shattering bankruptcy they have no hope of recovering from.

It can't be both an option and involuntary. What you seem to be describing is a form of indentured servitude rather than outright slavery.


That's on the worst case of slavery. On the other side, there were cases where slavery had more perks to it than being a lower-class freeman. I had a huge list thought up (Namely through access to middle class+ lifestyle), but can't remember all of them. Slavery had its pros and cons, just as liberty does.

I was describing an average case of slavery. Only a very small percentage of slaves lived with their master in his house. You seem to be describing the privileged few among the privileged few. Most Roman slaves worked themselves to death in latifundia. They were farm slaves, and never saw their master.
The worst case of slavery probably isn't fit to be described here.

[Drachasor]

The problem is still that we can't define how much of an evil thing it takes to make the society as a whole evil, or if they have various traits that could balance it. Slavery being legal might speak against the system of laws, but if slavery isn't prevalent in all aspects of culture what does that say about society. What if they keep slaves but also feed the poor and trait their slaves well? I mean the whole thing is a very complex issue since we can't say X amount of evil means that you are definitively evil.

Well, they didn't treat their slaves well, so that's a moot point. Though it seems to be a popular myth that the Romans did; despite a holiday where publically beating a slave was the standard practice.

If you judge Rome by how it treated other countries, then it's evil.
If you judge Rome by how it treated non-citizens, then it's evil.
If you judge Rome by how it treated its soldiers, it's evil.

So...overall seeming pretty evil if you consider it to be an entity. Evil things are nice to themselves, generally, yes? Of course, Rome wasn't actually always nice to itself. Not at all. So...there's that.

[AMFV]

Well, they didn't treat their slaves well, so that's a moot point. Though it seems to be a popular myth that the Romans did; despite a holiday where publically beating a slave was the standard practice.

If you judge Rome by how it treated other countries, then it's evil.

Actually conquest isn't particularly evil in D&D, insofar as I can tell.



If you judge Rome by how it treated non-citizens, then it's evil.

Actually non-citizens had an amazing degree of freedom, religious freedom was a thing, as long as you didn't blaspheme against the Roman gods. They also had the freedom to travel throughout the empire on well-maintained roads.



If you judge Rome by how it treated its soldiers, it's evil.


Again, debatable. Decimation is a harsh practice, but killing soldiers to maintain discipline may or may not be evil, certainly letting the lines fall and letting Rome be overwhelmed might be seen as a greater evil



So...overall seeming pretty evil if you consider it to be an entity. Evil things are nice to themselves, generally, yes? Of course, Rome wasn't actually always nice to itself. Not at all. So...there's that.

The point is that a strong argument could be made for neutral, and several people have made it, particularly in different eras.

[Sian]

slavery (among with discrimination and torture) is automaticly evil ... okay ... going by discrimination, then it would mean that all Celestial is evil, since they hate Demons on principle ...

Like to see someone pull that off without being seen as an In Character Screwball

[Kelb_Panthera]

We can ignore the real world (though I'd say slavery IS always wrong in the real world. At best you'll get it being better than other more horrifying options).

In D&D slavery IS always wrong. Period. It's an inherently Evil practice, because it oppresses others. Since this thread is about D&D, if you want to make the case that treating people as property somehow doesn't oppress them, then let's see it.

I suppose it is possible for a Paladin to legally have slaves under the following conditions:
1. If there's no other way in a given country.
2. He works to end the practice in general.
3. He never, ever treats them as slaves (e.g. so far as he is able he provides pay for work, freedom to choose, etc, etc, etc).
4. Provides real freedom and escape from a country to anyone that wants it.
5. In general treats it as a legal formality...which is definitely not how slavery as a societal practice could ever work; you'd basically be gaming the system as much as possible to subvert slavery.

Basically, slavery in D&D is not evil if you essentially don't practice it.

Conceptual error: oppression isn't evil either. It's lawful.


... lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Sound like certain types of government?

Contrast with
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Emphasis mine. Freedom, the opposite of oppression, is a chaotic quality, not a good one, and all the traits of an oppressive regime fall under the purview of law.

Slavery carries conotations of extreme dehumanization, abuse, and exploitation in modern language. These conotations are -not- part of the idea's definition but -they- are evil. This is where the confusion stems from.

[Drachasor]

Actually conquest isn't particularly evil in D&D, insofar as I can tell.

Try harder. Murder, rape, and pillage are evil in D&D.


Actually non-citizens had an amazing degree of freedom, religious freedom was a thing, as long as you didn't blaspheme against the Roman gods. They also had the freedom to travel throughout the empire on well-maintained roads.

Yeah, they were treated great. Except that they could be tortured during a criminal investigation, summarily executed, no right to a trial by jury or appeal. In civil cases they had to use their tribal/old/local system whereas citizens used the Roman system (when the two disagreed the Roman one prevailed). Generally this was part of how the Romans screwed people out of their land (besides the murder/rape/pillage bit). Oh, and Roman judges were pretty biased towards citizens, regardless of evidence. Becoming a citizen, even if you were born in Roman territory, was very difficult, requiring you or your father to serve in the auxillia for 25 years.

The niceties (such as they were) towards non-citizens was largely done just for the purposes of trade and making money.

Super fantastic!


Again, debatable. Decimation is a harsh practice, but killing soldiers to maintain discipline may or may not be evil, certainly letting the lines fall and letting Rome be overwhelmed might be seen as a greater evil

It's not remotely debatable. There are other ways to handle troop discipline besides killing 10% of the people.


Conceptual error: oppression isn't evil either. It's lawful.

Not according to the alignment rules.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.


Emphasis mine. Freedom, the opposite of oppression, is a chaotic quality, not a good one, and all the traits of an oppressive regime fall under the purview of law.

Evil means oppressing others. The "freedom" in chaotic is about seeking freedom for yourself. Lawful types oppress themselves, and that's ok! :)


Slavery carries conotations of extreme dehumanization, abuse, and exploitation in modern language. These conotations are -not- part of the idea's definition but -they- are evil. This is where the confusion stems from.

Slavery ALWAYS has dehumanization and abuse. That's what happens when humans treat other humans as property EVERY D*** TIME. It certainly was true for the Romans.

[Sian]

Try harder. Murder, rape, and pillage are evil in D&D.

That only account for 99% of the player base if they run into a goblin lair

[Drachasor]

slavery (among with discrimination and torture) is automaticly evil ... okay ... going by discrimination, then it would mean that all Celestial is evil, since they hate Demons on principle ...

Like to see someone pull that off without being seen as an In Character Screwball

Discrimination isn't inherently evil. It depends on why you discriminate. Disliking people that punch you in the face, for instance, is discrimination. It's not evil though.



Try harder. Murder, rape, and pillage are evil in D&D.

That only account for 99% of the player base if they run into a goblin lair

Unprovoked? Then it is evil. If the goblins have been killing people and you are doing it to stop the killing, and are willing to accept surrender but the goblins fight to the death....then that's not evil and is consistent with good behavior.

[Sian]

Yeah, they were treated great. Except that they could be tortured during a criminal investigation, summarily executed, no right to a trial by jury or appeal.

Torture doing Criminal investigation (such as it is) was common a long way up into the middle ages, and was primarily due to individual evil persons, rather than the system (to the degree that the system can't be blamed for failing at stopping them)

Execution is a rather 'common' punishment in several places such as ... USA ...

no right to trial by jury ... again, Juries aren't something that was created by then ... the closest ancestral link to Juries is probably the Norse 'Things' and denial of appeal is also rather new historically speaking

[AMFV]

Try harder. Murder, rape, and pillage are evil in D&D.

Yes, but they were better or as good as most of their contemporaries.



Yeah, they were treated great. Except that they could be tortured during a criminal investigation, summarily executed, no right to a trial by jury or appeal. In civil cases they had to use their tribal/old/local system whereas citizens used the Roman system (when the two disagreed the Roman one prevailed). Generally this was part of how the Romans screwed people out of their land (besides the murder/rape/pillage bit). Oh, and Roman judges were pretty biased towards citizens, regardless of evidence. Becoming a citizen, even if you were born in Roman territory, was very difficult, requiring you or your father to serve in the auxillia for 25 years.

Fairness isn't exactly good in D&D terms, it's more lawful. Screwing people out of land is unsavory, but that's debatably evil, it certainly isn't definied as being evil. Being a biased judge is a flaw in wisdom, but may or may not have been evil. A difficult process to citizenship is clearly not evil.



The niceties (such as they were) towards non-citizens was largely done just for the purposes of trade and making money.

Greed isn't necessarily evil in D&D either, treating people well is treating them well, even if you have ulterior motives.



It's not remotely debatable. There are other ways to handle troop discipline besides killing 10% of the people.

I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where people's lives depend on your performance and the performance of those under your command, but if killing 10% of the people is necessary to keep the lines intact then that is a fair thing. Since it's you kill 10% or you lose much more than that, to certain death, and then probably the fall of your empire.



Evil means oppressing others. The "freedom" in chaotic is about seeking freedom for yourself. Lawful types oppress themselves, and that's ok! :)


Not necessarily, also oppression isn't clearly defined. Lawful societies are known to enforce their rules on everybody, not just themselves. So that would make that point at the very worst a moot point, and the best completely invalidate it.



Slavery ALWAYS has dehumanization and abuse. That's what happens when humans treat other humans as property EVERY D*** TIME. It certainly was true for the Romans.

That's a very 20th century attitude about it. Also while that one thing may have been a little evil, it hardly marks the whole society as being irredeemably evil, particularly since there was a great deal of societal change in the period we're discussing.


Torture doing Criminal investigation (such as it is) was common a long way up into the middle ages, and was primarily due to individual evil persons, rather than the system (to the degree that the system can't be blamed for failing at stopping them)

Execution is a rather 'common' punishment in several places such as ... USA ...

no right to trial by jury ... again, Juries aren't something that was created by then ... the closest ancestral link to Juries is probably the Norse 'Things' and denial of appeal is also rather new historically speaking

Also juries aren't particularly good or evil, or lawful or chaotic given that they're supposed to be representative of society as a whole.

[Sian]

Discrimination isn't inherently evil.

Lets review ... the piece of text we're debating is this


Even if slavery, torture or discrimination is condoned by the society, they remain evil.

Empasis mine

[Drachasor]

Torture doing Criminal investigation (such as it is) was common a long way up into the middle ages, and was primarily due to individual evil persons, rather than the system (to the degree that the system can't be blamed for failing at stopping them)

Execution is a rather 'common' punishment in several places such as ... USA ...

no right to trial by jury ... again, Juries aren't something that was created by then ... the closest ancestral link to Juries is probably the Norse 'Things' and denial of appeal is also rather new historically speaking

Torture was always evil. Summary execution means no proper trial. Juries are older than you think. They existed in Greece and Rome. And Roman citizens had a right to them in trials. Citizens could also appeal verdicts.

[AMFV]

Torture was always evil. Summary execution means no proper trial. Juries are older than you think. They existed in Greece and Rome. And Roman citizens had a right to them in trials. Citizens could also appeal verdicts.

But Trials aren't necessarily good in D&D terms, they're lawful and not having a proper trial system might infringe on the lawful aspects of Roman society but probably not the good aspects.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not according to the alignment rules.




Evil means oppressing others. The "freedom" in chaotic is about seeking freedom for yourself. Lawful types oppress themselves, and that's ok! :) Note that in both instances they only imply those things. The oppression discussed in relation to evil is the deliberate spread of despair, not the frustratingly finicky but ultimately impartial oppression that is lawful; another careless use of conotations and implications rather than bold statements by the authors. (frustrating bastards)




Slavery ALWAYS has dehumanization and abuse. That's what happens when humans treat other humans as property EVERY D*** TIME. It certainly was true for the Romans. This is just patently untrue. A certain degree of social degradation is unavoidable but dehumanization and abuse are functions of the practitioners not the practice.

[hamishspence]

In the context of D&D, the Cityscape splatbook also brings "slavery" and "oppression/persecution" up:

p148:
Slavery
It is possible, as in ancient Rome, for individual slaves to rise to positions of power and influence, but most slaves live in impoverished and dehumanizing conditions. The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.

p156:
Racial Conflict
Most cities that formally oppress one or more races are lawful, while those who informally allow such persecution are chaotic. No good society permits this sort of racial persecution.

[AMFV]

In the context of D&D, the Cityscape splatbook also brings "slavery" and "oppression/persecution" up:

p148:
Slavery
It is possible, as in ancient Rome, for individual slaves to rise to positions of power and influence, but most slaves live in impoverished and dehumanizing conditions. The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.

p156:
Racial Conflict
Most cities that formally oppress one or more races are lawful, while those who informally allow such persecution are chaotic. No good society permits this sort of racial persecution.

We're debating between LE and LN though which is more a question of degree and whether the one thing overwhelms others.

[georgie_leech]

Lets review ... the piece of text we're debating is this



Empasis mine

Though I was joking earlier, by that logic you can't decide that you should kill Demons like Pit Fiends without being evil, as that's discriminatory. For all the Paladin Code is dysfunctional, I don't think it's so dysfunctional as to prohibit the entire point of the class.

[hymer]

This is just patently untrue. A certain degree of social degradation is unavoidable but dehumanization and abuse are functions of the practitioners not the practice.

What does a good-aligned slavemaster do with a slave who refuses to work?

[Kelb_Panthera]

In the context of D&D, the Cityscape splatbook also brings "slavery" and "oppression/persecution" up:

p148:
Slavery
It is possible, as in ancient Rome, for individual slaves to rise to positions of power and influence, but most slaves live in impoverished and dehumanizing conditions. The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.
Again, this is a specific incarnation of slavery. It's troubling that none of the authors could divorce the concept from all the baggage associated with it.


..... Unless they were simply unwilling to put on paper anything less than critical about the practice for fear of public backlash and accusations of racism. The same likely applies to the next point.



p156:
Racial Conflict
Most cities that formally oppress one or more races are lawful, while those who informally allow such persecution are chaotic. No good society permits this sort of racial persecution.

Nope.

Here they had the good sense to use the term persecution rather than discrimination; completely different matter.

Still not -entirely- accurate (creatures of pure evil and that prey on sapient creatures) but a damn sight better than the previous hair-brained statement.

[Spiryt]

It is possible, as in ancient Rome, for individual slaves to rise to positions of power and influence, but most slaves live in impoverished and dehumanizing conditions. The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.



If they allowed themselves to be beaten, humiliated and forced to work in dehumanizing conditions, clearly, they deserve nothing more.

If they ever show some virtus, they will try to change their situation.

Then they will have to be killed, of course, before they seek revenge.

In short, I know TS wanted 'modern context' but it's pretty hard and pointless to judge someone according to rules that didn't exist yet.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What does a good-aligned slavemaster do with a slave who refuses to work?

Withhold incentives given to good workers. Move them to less comfortable but not inhumane quarters. Confine them to an isolation cell. Remind them that they can't earn their freedom if they don't work. Sell or give them to a business rival. Worst case; pay a fee for the state to take them off your hands.

It's not greatly different from an employer-employee relationship where quitting isn't an option crossed with a prison work-release program.

[AMFV]

I think the whole thing winds up being moot with regards to the ancient Romans, it's simply too big a question over too big a time span. As far as building a Rome-lite, which is suspect why the OP wanted the info...

It'd be probably LN or LE, depending on which aspects you emphasize and favor.

[hamishspence]

Again, this is a specific incarnation of slavery.

And since the OP was asking about "Rome-style slavery" - it's the one that applies in this situation.

[Spiryt]

And since the OP was asking about "Rome-style slavery" - it's the one that applies in this situation.

There was no 'Rome style' really, though.

Even narrowing it down to roughly one period, there were plenty of slaves from different sources, with different tasks, treatment, living conditions, general quality of life, social positions etc.

[hamishspence]

And Cityscape does acknowledge that it's "most" rather than "all" that live in the "impoverishing and dehumanizing" conditions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And since the OP was asking about "Rome-style slavery" - it's the one that applies in this situation.

Actually, I don't think the op said anything at all about slavery. Did he?

He wanted to know about Rome in general and the slavery discussion popped up as a relevant tangent.

[SowZ]

At the risk of repeating myself, the statement was not about those behaviors. That they were used as examples of evil behavior creates an implicit statement that they're, in fact, evil but it doesn't change the fact that the statement made by that sentence is simply that evil behavior is evil, regardless of societal concerns.

Yes, but his statement could not be interpreted in any other way except 'X behaviors are always evil.' Thus, it wasn't an implication. An implication is something that isn't said out right. The statement you quoted said that those actions are evil about as plainly as possible.

[hymer]

Withhold incentives given to good workers. Move them to less comfortable but not inhumane quarters. Confine them to an isolation cell. Remind them that they can't earn their freedom if they don't work. Sell or give them to a business rival. Worst case; pay a fee for the state to take them off your hands.

It's not greatly different from an employer-employee relationship where quitting isn't an option crossed with a prison work-release program.

It's very different. The employer can only threaten to withhold benefits agreed upon to be paid in return for work. You just threatened someone entirely innocent of blame with giving them to someone who will beat them into submission. Just because you farm out the actual pain and oppression bit doesn't mean the threat isn't there, or that you aren't responsible for using it.

Slavery runs on threats, implied or explicit, from an owner to an innocent. It is Evil.

[hamishspence]

It's possible that the BoED writers meant "Discrimination is evil" to only apply to the intelligent species that are not "Always Evil".

And that there's a sliding scale of Evilness.


The businessman who charges half-orcs higher prices on all his goods (or refuses to sell to them at all) is committing Evil acts- but very tiny ones- which may be outweighed by Good behaviour.

Still:

Eberron: The Forge of War p 108:
Bigotry/Prejudice
"You don't like, and don't trust, members of your hated group. At best, you ignore them when possible. More likely, you are actively rude and off-putting, perhaps even prone to violent outbursts. You have no interest in dealing with these people, negotiating with them, or cooperating with them; you'd rather see them all go away, or even all dead.

It cannot be stressed enough that in a game of heroism, as Dungeons and Dragons is normally played, this is not an appropriate attitude for a good-aligned character."

[AMFV]

It's possible that the BoED writers meant "Discrimination is evil" to only apply to the intelligent species that are not "Always Evil".

And that there's a sliding scale of Evilness.

This is the fundamental problem in alignment debates. There is a fundamental sliding scale, which is clearly assumed, even referenced but it's never stated, so we don't really have any way of saying that X is an evil enough thing that it makes you evil completely. Clearly discrimination isn't, and because we have LN societies that have slaves, clearly that isn't enough to push you completely into evil. So by itself I wouldn't rule that enough to make it into evil.

It's just too much a moot point. There are too many variable that cannot be accounted for to effectively prove the whole situation one way or another.

[Pan151]

It cannot be stressed enough that in a game of heroism, as Dungeons and Dragons is normally played, this is not an appropriate attitude for a good-aligned character."[/I]

Here lies a big point of the discussion we've been having: whenever an action is described as "innapropriate for good characters" or "is never a good action" that does not mean that it is necessarily evil. It means that it's not compatible with the selfless nature of what good is, and as such it could be evil or neutral.

If by descrimination we mean simply avoiding people of a certain race, then that's nothing more than the natural fear for anything different that is natural to every living being (neutral). If youctively hunt them down though, that's evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's very different. The employer can only threaten to withhold benefits agreed upon to be paid in return for work. You just threatened someone entirely innocent of blame with giving them to someone who will beat them into submission. Just because you farm out the actual pain and oppression bit doesn't mean the threat isn't there, or that you aren't responsible for using it.

Slavery runs on threats, implied or explicit, from an owner to an innocent. It is Evil.

You're trying to insert that baggage again. I didn't say word 1 about the business rival or the state being evil or abusive or anything like that. The slave sold or given is a deliberate maneuver to undercut the rival's production by getting him to accept a worker with a greater cost than return. The state can either resell them or simply incarcerate them until they change their mind. You're also assuming that all slaves are innocent when non-violent criminals are a viable source of slaves.

The only threat implicit in what I've suggested is that an unproductive slave won't be treated as nicely as a productive one. The same "threat" is an implicit part of civilization and can be said to exist for most members of most societies. That and I suppose the threat of mind-numbing boredom if they'd rather just sit in a cell instead of working.

[hamishspence]

Here lies a big point of the discussion we've been having: whenever an action is described as "innapropriate for good characters" or "is never a good action" that does not mean that it is necessarily evil. It means that it's not compatible with the selfless nature of what good is, and as such it could be evil or neutral.I see it as enough to be capable of turning Good characters into Neutral ones- and Evil in itself.

Imagine an exceptionally altruistic and compassionate elf- who has also been raised to hate dwarves. Their early career, in elven communities- has been entirely one of Good deeds. Their early alignment is Good.

Then they get out in the wide world and meet dwarves. They treat them differently from everyone else. And each time they do, they rack up another point in the Evil column. And those points don't go away.

Slowly they slide from Good to Neutral. Assuming they continue behaving in a Good fashion to everyone but dwarves, they might stop there. But the acts toward dwarves themselves, will qualify as Evil.


That's my take on it.

So... modern western civilisation is chaotic evil?

That's out of the scope of this forum, since it risks infringing on the "no "morally justified" discussions" rule.

Regarding D&D societies, similar to modern ones, that "permit informal persecution" - they're going to be Neutral at best. However, some societies might penalize those who persecute- and those will be Good.

"Not permitting something" doesn't mean one can prevent it completely- but one can penalize when it happens.

[AMFV]

I see it as enough to be capable of turning Good characters into Neutral ones- and Evil in itself.

Imagine an exceptionally altruistic and compassionate elf- who has also been raised to hate dwarves. Their early career, in elven communities- has been entirely one of Good deeds. Their early alignment is Good.

Then they get out in the wide world and meet dwarves. They treat them differently from everyone else. And each time they do, they rack up another point in the Evil column. And those points don't go away.

Slowly they slide from Good to Neutral. Assuming they continue behaving in a Good fashion to everyone but dwarves, they might stop there. But the acts toward dwarves themselves, will qualify as Evil.


That's my take on it.

But again we have a sliding scale with no quantitative qualification. It's all a judgement call at this point. There is no Karma Meter, in the game, so it's all a judgement call. We can't say slavery is evil enough to push you out of good and into evil, in fact a very good character could do evil things and still be good in the grand cosmic scheme, if they were necessary. And slavery definitely was for Roman agriculture as I am led to understand. That could wind up being neutral at worst to my reading, letting thousands starve or allowing slavery is pretty much a moral wash either way you go.

And again we don't have a scale. Period, there's no quantitative way to argue any of this. Or any real way to argue any of it, outside of gut feelings since the rules are silent on how evil something may or may not be.

[SowZ]

It's possible that the BoED writers meant "Discrimination is evil" to only apply to the intelligent species that are not "Always Evil".

And that there's a sliding scale of Evilness.


The businessman who charges half-orcs higher prices on all his goods (or refuses to sell to them at all) is committing Evil acts- but very tiny ones- which may be outweighed by Good behaviour.

Still:

Eberron: The Forge of War p 108:
Bigotry/Prejudice
"You don't like, and don't trust, members of your hated group. At best, you ignore them when possible. More likely, you are actively rude and off-putting, perhaps even prone to violent outbursts. You have no interest in dealing with these people, negotiating with them, or cooperating with them; you'd rather see them all go away, or even all dead.

It cannot be stressed enough that in a game of heroism, as Dungeons and Dragons is normally played, this is not an appropriate attitude for a good-aligned character."

That's something I'm uncomfortable with. The, "It's bad to be racist against a group but less bad when it is a group you have a good reason to be racist against," thing actually justifies all racism, because all racists think the group they dislike has earned their ire or else are born with some predisposition towards evil or stupidity or somesuch.

I realize D&D is a game with a weird alignment system and you are only speculating on author intent, not making a judgement call on if that is good or bad, but either way it normalizes racist attitudes.

[hymer]

@ KP: Let's say your business competitor is the nicest guy around, just like you. But you decided to get rid of the slave, and so will he. How many switches will it take, before that slave ends up in a place where they do abuse slaves? How many times must he say goodbye to people he thought of as friends?
The state will incarcerate the slave, you say? How is that not oppressing him for standing up for himself in a perfectly nonviolent way? How long will it take before word spreads, and more slaves stop working? Do you incarcerate them all? What good will that do, what sort of conditions will they be in when the jails start filling up? This is not a sustainable system, unless there is someone somewhere who uses force, and the threat of this can be used to uphold it.
There may very well be some nasty people who are slaves, but I can't think of a single case of a slavery system which did not include people who were slaves because they were either born to it, or were taken in wars or raids. These I would call innocent, and these would (and did) routinely come to suffer in any system of actual slavery. A system which does not include such persons is probably a penal system (which we can have various views on), not a slavery system. Slavery is Evil.

[hamishspence]

That's something I'm uncomfortable with. The, "It's bad to be racist against a group but less bad when it is a group you have a good reason to be racist against," thing actually justifies all racism, because all racists think the group they dislike has earned their ire or else are born with some predisposition towards evil or stupidity or somesuch.BoED goes out of its way to say that "usually evil" groups, such as orcs, drow, etc, should not be assumed to be Evil- should be treated as redeemable- and should not be attacked without justification like "they're raiding the neighbours".

But for "Always evil" creatures like chromatic dragons, it's a bit less firm about it- though it does mention that they can be redeemed (and MM mentions that Always X Alignment creatures can change alignment).

[SowZ]

BoED goes out of its way to say that "usually evil" groups, such as orcs, drow, etc, should not be assumed to be Evil- should be treated as redeemable- and should not be attacked without justification like "they're raiding the neighbours".

But for "Always evil" creatures like chromatic dragons, it's a bit less firm about it- though it does mention that they can be redeemed (and MM mentions that Always X Alignment creatures can change alignment).

Yeah, but there seems to be an unwritten assumption that killing orcs isn't as bad as killing, say, gnomes. And killing an innocent red dragon is even less bad then killing an orc. It's possible I'm just reading that into it, but the attitude seems there, to me, anyway. I wouldn't really mind so much if it was treated amorally, honestly. If orcs killed elves and elves killed orcs because their kingdoms were at war, and it is just how it is for both races.

But it seems when elves like to kill orcs, it's mostly okay. But the fact that Orc Paragons get a bonus to killing elves is another example of their evil and savagery.

[hamishspence]

It's probably a holdover from earlier editions.

Savage Species was one of the first 3.0 sources to raise the possibility that, in the case of "Usually Evil" and even "Always Evil" - it's not "inborn nature" that's primary.

page 103 Savage Species:

Chaotic/Accepting
In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

[Drachasor]

This is just patently untrue. A certain degree of social degradation is unavoidable but dehumanization and abuse are functions of the practitioners not the practice.

Abuses have been part of any form of slavery throughout history. They've been known about it AT BEST overlooked, but almost always entirely legal. Treating people like animals IS evil behavior in D&D and that's just what you are doing when you treat them like property, make all important decisions for them, and punish them (most often violently) when they disobey.

And it is inherently dehumanizing to be owned and treated like property. So that's kind of unavoidable with slavery.

Rome, the topic of this conversation, was no exception to this. You could beat, rape, or kill your slaves. In some cases this was part of holiday festivities the community engaged in. So as far as slavery concerns the topic of discussion, it's a very clear example of evil in Rome.


But Trials aren't necessarily good in D&D terms, they're lawful and not having a proper trial system might infringe on the lawful aspects of Roman society but probably not the good aspects.

Right. Killing captured people without determining whether they are guilty or innocent for the crime committed has nothing to do with good or evil. Please tell me you find that absurd.


Yes, but they were better or as good as most of their contemporaries.

Not really. We just don't hear about a lot of their contemporaries because they dominate history.

In any case "yeah but that other guy was more evil!" is not a defense.


Fairness isn't exactly good in D&D terms, it's more lawful. Screwing people out of land is unsavory, but that's debatably evil, it certainly isn't definied as being evil. Being a biased judge is a flaw in wisdom, but may or may not have been evil. A difficult process to citizenship is clearly not evil.

It depends on how you mean fairness. If you mean it in the sense of systematically destroying a culture, taking property from people, enriching yourself and favored persons, and not caring about what happens to the people you abuse so....then yeah, that's evil.

You are kind of ignoring some of the more unsavory elements, such as not just biased judges, but lack of equivalent legal protections. Treating people differently isn't bad or good. However, discriminating against a group in a way that results in systematic suffering and lack of legal protections is evil. It's lawful evil, but still evil.


I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where people's lives depend on your performance and the performance of those under your command, but if killing 10% of the people is necessary to keep the lines intact then that is a fair thing. Since it's you kill 10% or you lose much more than that, to certain death, and then probably the fall of your empire.

Except killing 10% is basically never necessary. Certainly this is more of an extreme exception than a rule. There's a reason modern militaries don't do this. It's a massive waste of human life for little to no gain. Don't try to dress it up as something justifiable when as a practice it is not justifiable at all.


Not necessarily, also oppression isn't clearly defined. Lawful societies are known to enforce their rules on everybody, not just themselves. So that would make that point at the very worst a moot point, and the best completely invalidate it.

There's a difference between rule of law and oppressive law. Sure there are gray areas, but a lot of the stuff doesn't require a technical definition.


That's a very 20th century attitude about it. Also while that one thing may have been a little evil, it hardly marks the whole society as being irredeemably evil, particularly since there was a great deal of societal change in the period we're discussing.

D&D generally has a "very 20th century" morality. Of course, there WERE moral teachers even 4000 years ago who had "very 20th century" morality.

It is certainly true that slavery is dehumanizing, especially Roman slavery. Seems like everyone trying to defend slavery doesn't actually want to discuss the particulars of Roman slavery. Instead you make this hypothetical slavery that doesn't work like any sort of slavery that ever existed and is run by saints (who for some reason keep slaves that I guess they mostly treat as non-slaves). Rather ridiculous.

What's this "irredeemably" evil coming from? We haven't talked about redemption at all. Just talking about the best fit alignment for a society. In fact, I've talked about how this can be a tricky thing, since an evil government could have neutral citizens (who simply do not care enough to try to change it). Or heck, even evil laws that get enforced because the neutral government and populace doesn't want to go to the effort of changing them. Of course, it doesn't seem like anyone wants to talk about nuances like that in detail.


Also juries aren't particularly good or evil, or lawful or chaotic given that they're supposed to be representative of society as a whole.

True, but it is part of how non-citizens were treated poorly, not given fair trials, given trials that wouldn't count, etc, etc. A Lawful society that makes laws which specifically discriminate against certain groups IS doing an evil thing.


Yeah, but there seems to be an unwritten assumption that killing orcs isn't as bad as killing, say, gnomes. And killing an innocent red dragon is even less bad then killing an orc. It's possible I'm just reading that into it, but the attitude seems there, to me, anyway. I wouldn't really mind so much if it was treated amorally, honestly. If orcs killed elves and elves killed orcs because their kingdoms were at war, and it is just how it is for both races.

But it seems when elves like to kill orcs, it's mostly okay. But the fact that Orc Paragons get a bonus to killing elves is another example of their evil and savagery.

I think you are reading into it. Though part of it has to do with the assumption you are only going to see Orcs come into play as enemies. In that context killing them is more ok than gnomes, who probably aren't showing up killing others.

There's also a certain Tolkien pollution among gamers. This causes them to view Orcs and Goblins as irredeemably evil even as babies, despite the fact this isn't the case in D&D. Heck, despite the fact even Tolkien was on the fence about such things.

[Sian]

don't think its correct to talk about Tolkien pollution as such ... given that Tolkien is the ur-ancestor of what later became chain-mail which later became D&D ... Is there a certain pollution of people entering the world via the LotR Movies? ... sure, but to pin the blame on Tolkien's universe is questionable at best

[Drachasor]

don't think its correct to talk about Tolkien pollution as such ... given that Tolkien is the ur-ancestor of what later became chain-mail which later became D&D ... Is there a certain pollution of people entering the world via the LotR Movies? ... sure, but to pin the blame on Tolkien's universe is questionable at best

It's because of his work those races are viewed that way even though the D&D setting doesn't have them that way. Call it whatever you want. I'm not debating the ancestry of D&D (which is complicated), and I'm not particularly interested in a semantics debate either.

I point to Tolkein primarily because that's what the people I ask about it cite for their reasons why Orcs and Goblins are irredeemably evil.

[Osiris]

I'm thinking Lawful Neutral
Conquer! Pillage! Take over!
They also had an actual formation, legion commanders, etc. very lawful

I wouldn't say they're evil, evil's a very relative term

[Drachasor]

I wouldn't say they're evil, evil's a very relative term

Not in D&D.

[Scow2]

Nope. D&D has objective standards for a societies alignment. It isn't relative, because every culture and race in an entire plane can be deemed Evil or Good. There is no subjectivity to it. It's just a checklist, extenuating circumstances and environmental factors have no bearance.

Does society practice X? Yes or no.
Does society practice X? Yes or no.

By D&D standards, Rome is pretty objectively LE as it fits every definition of a LE nation that is applicable. You can say that is stupid and ignores reality, but by D&D rules Rome is certainly not LN.

Of course, you can assign Rome as whatever alignment you wish based on your own personal morals and it is no less valid. But if we are talking about what the Universal forces of Good and Evil have to say, Rome is LE.
You also have to run the checklist for Good as well as Evil, and compare the two lists.

[SowZ]

You also have to run the checklist for Good as well as Evil, and compare the two lists.

Evil trumps Good, though, going off examples in the books. Being kind to orphans and the homeless, for example, does not outweigh killing innocents for a living.

[Rogue Shadows]

Evil trumps Good, though, going off examples in the books. Being kind to orphans and the homeless, for example, does not outweigh killing innocents for a living.

I'd rather expect not, but then I don't think those are good contrasting examples.

If someone goes around killing innocents for a living, but equally spends time seeking out those who died premature, unnecessary deaths (except via him) and using raise dead or the like to bring them back from the dead, what then?

[AMFV]

Evil trumps Good, though, going off examples in the books. Being kind to orphans and the homeless, for example, does not outweigh killing innocents for a living.

That's not necessarily true, we simply don't have enough examples to form a coherent system in that regard. Also since we don't know how evil or how good anything is, we have no idea at what point evil does trump good or the reverse. It renders most of these discussions academic since a ruling in that regard will be required. It's why there are so many arguing for LN over LE in this case, because that is also a valid interpretation. Since there are two valid interpretations (possibly more for the really knowledgeable) it's a moot point at best.


Abuses have been part of any form of slavery throughout history. They've been known about it AT BEST overlooked, but almost always entirely legal. Treating people like animals IS evil behavior in D&D and that's just what you are doing when you treat them like property, make all important decisions for them, and punish them (most often violently) when they disobey.

We've already addressed this. It may be less dehumanizing than you imagine, not all slaves were physically disciplined or mistreated.




And it is inherently dehumanizing to be owned and treated like property. So that's kind of unavoidable with slavery.


Debatable, certainly a chaotic person might be inclined to feel that way, but a lawful person might simply accept it as their position in life, not dehumazing for them at all, simply the way it is.



Rome, the topic of this conversation, was no exception to this. You could beat, rape, or kill your slaves. In some cases this was part of holiday festivities the community engaged in. So as far as slavery concerns the topic of discussion, it's a very clear example of evil in Rome.


Still era dependent, also I've not really heard about the holiday festivities thing, I'm not sure if that's true, but it's certainly not as widespread as the use of slaves for agriculture. Furthermore, having one evil thing may or may not be enough to push Rome into evil.




Right. Killing captured people without determining whether they are guilty or innocent for the crime committed has nothing to do with good or evil. Please tell me you find that absurd.


It has everything to do with law. Determining guilt is a matter of law, while we have a presumption of innocence, they had a presumption of guilt. Neither is more right or more wrong. It's more lawful to have a presumption of guilt, since more guilty people will be punished even if some innocents are caught up in it, and more chaotic the other way. It's a clear Law-Chaos issue.



Not really. We just don't hear about a lot of their contemporaries because they dominate history.

In any case "yeah but that other guy was more evil!" is not a defense.


True but it is a mitigating factor which we should include.



It depends on how you mean fairness. If you mean it in the sense of systematically destroying a culture, taking property from people, enriching yourself and favored persons, and not caring about what happens to the people you abuse so....then yeah, that's evil.


It's debatable, and not ever stated to be evil in any real sense, conquest is a questionable thing, you could be LN and still want your culture to replace other cultures, that's perhaps more a function of a regulated lawful society than an evil one.



You are kind of ignoring some of the more unsavory elements, such as not just biased judges, but lack of equivalent legal protections. Treating people differently isn't bad or good. However, discriminating against a group in a way that results in systematic suffering and lack of legal protections is evil. It's lawful evil, but still evil.


That's questionable at best, it could be that those who are Roman get more privileges and the other set is the baseline. Which may be at best argued as discriminatory, but that's not really provable in any real sense. Again getting differing treatment depending on station (NOT listed as discrimination in D&D terms) is a pretty lawful thing overall.



Except killing 10% is basically never necessary. Certainly this is more of an extreme exception than a rule. There's a reason modern militaries don't do this. It's a massive waste of human life for little to no gain. Don't try to dress it up as something justifiable when as a practice it is not justifiable at all.

Not justifiable to you. Maybe the Romans had no better ways to maintain discipline, but this is clearly something that is used to enforce discipline to protect others, so again it's ten percent against possibly all, at least in the eyes of the Romans, so we are seeing a system where that is in play.

Furthermore, I doubt that any such records are accurate, since killing ten percent of your own force is a huge military loss and the Romans were simply too effective to allow that sort of thing to happen with any regularity, it's as absurd as the "I'm the only guy who survived Masada because the lots were just-so" To anybody who has been around the military that's absurd, and I'm fairly sure the Romans were probably as good soldiers as anybody.



There's a difference between rule of law and oppressive law. Sure there are gray areas, but a lot of the stuff doesn't require a technical definition.


Yes it does. You can't just say, well I feel this is defined thusly so I am right. That just doesn't work in a formal context. Our gut feelings and interpretations are likely exactly as valid as yours.



D&D generally has a "very 20th century" morality. Of course, there WERE moral teachers even 4000 years ago who had "very 20th century" morality.


Very very very debatable.



It is certainly true that slavery is dehumanizing, especially Roman slavery. Seems like everyone trying to defend slavery doesn't actually want to discuss the particulars of Roman slavery. Instead you make this hypothetical slavery that doesn't work like any sort of slavery that ever existed and is run by saints (who for some reason keep slaves that I guess they mostly treat as non-slaves). Rather ridiculous.

Roman Slavery was in the most part used for Agriculture, and was in that sense necessary, I notice nobody addressed the starving populace over slavery issue. If you free the slaves thousands starve, so that's evil, if you keep the slaves you have slaves, so that's evil. So we have a scenario where both options are evil. So that would make the society no more evil for choosing either option, because those are their options.



What's this "irredeemably" evil coming from? We haven't talked about redemption at all. Just talking about the best fit alignment for a society. In fact, I've talked about how this can be a tricky thing, since an evil government could have neutral citizens (who simply do not care enough to try to change it). Or heck, even evil laws that get enforced because the neutral government and populace doesn't want to go to the effort of changing them. Of course, it doesn't seem like anyone wants to talk about nuances like that in detail.

We have been, we've stated that it was a moot point. Not enough evidence as to how evil scales to determine if is a truly evil society or not. And really not enough historical evidence on the subject either. Since Tacitus and the like are really not good sources as far as accuracy goes, and journalistic integrity wasn't really a concept then.




True, but it is part of how non-citizens were treated poorly, not given fair trials, given trials that wouldn't count, etc, etc. A Lawful society that makes laws which specifically discriminate against certain groups IS doing an evil thing.


It's spelled out as discrimination by race or class in the books. This is discrimination based on perceived commitment to the empire. After all you could become a citizen if you worked hard enough and met the right conditions. So it's not exactly discrimination along the lines you are stating.

[SowZ]

That's not necessarily true, we simply don't have enough examples to form a coherent system in that regard. Also since we don't know how evil or how good anything is, we have no idea at what point evil does trump good or the reverse. It renders most of these discussions academic since a ruling in that regard will be required. It's why there are so many arguing for LN over LE in this case, because that is also a valid interpretation. Since there are two valid interpretations (possibly more for the really knowledgeable) it's a moot point at best.



We've already addressed this. It may be less dehumanizing than you imagine, not all slaves were physically disciplined or mistreated.




Debatable, certainly a chaotic person might be inclined to feel that way, but a lawful person might simply accept it as their position in life, not dehumazing for them at all, simply the way it is.



Still era dependent, also I've not really heard about the holiday festivities thing, I'm not sure if that's true, but it's certainly not as widespread as the use of slaves for agriculture. Furthermore, having one evil thing may or may not be enough to push Rome into evil.



It has everything to do with law. Determining guilt is a matter of law, while we have a presumption of innocence, they had a presumption of guilt. Neither is more right or more wrong. It's more lawful to have a presumption of guilt, since more guilty people will be punished even if some innocents are caught up in it, and more chaotic the other way. It's a clear Law-Chaos issue.



True but it is a mitigating factor which we should include.



It's debatable, and not ever stated to be evil in any real sense, conquest is a questionable thing, you could be LN and still want your culture to replace other cultures, that's perhaps more a function of a regulated lawful society than an evil one.



That's questionable at best, it could be that those who are Roman get more privileges and the other set is the baseline. Which may be at best argued as discriminatory, but that's not really provable in any real sense. Again getting differing treatment depending on station (NOT listed as discrimination in D&D terms) is a pretty lawful thing overall.



Not justifiable to you. Maybe the Romans had no better ways to maintain discipline, but this is clearly something that is used to enforce discipline to protect others, so again it's ten percent against possibly all, at least in the eyes of the Romans, so we are seeing a system where that is in play.

Furthermore, I doubt that any such records are accurate, since killing ten percent of your own force is a huge military loss and the Romans were simply too effective to allow that sort of thing to happen with any regularity, it's as absurd as the "I'm the only guy who survived Masada because the lots were just-so" To anybody who has been around the military that's absurd, and I'm fairly sure the Romans were probably as good soldiers as anybody.



Yes it does. You can't just say, well I feel this is defined thusly so I am right. That just doesn't work in a formal context. Our gut feelings and interpretations are likely exactly as valid as yours.



Very very very debatable.



Roman Slavery was in the most part used for Agriculture, and was in that sense necessary, I notice nobody addressed the starving populace over slavery issue. If you free the slaves thousands starve, so that's evil, if you keep the slaves you have slaves, so that's evil. So we have a scenario where both options are evil. So that would make the society no more evil for choosing either option, because those are their options.



We have been, we've stated that it was a moot point. Not enough evidence as to how evil scales to determine if is a truly evil society or not. And really not enough historical evidence on the subject either. Since Tacitus and the like are really not good sources as far as accuracy goes, and journalistic integrity wasn't really a concept then.




It's spelled out as discrimination by race or class in the books. This is discrimination based on perceived commitment to the empire. After all you could become a citizen if you worked hard enough and met the right conditions. So it's not exactly discrimination along the lines you are stating.

The only possibilities, if you accept Lawful, are LE or LN. Enough Good may be able to balance out the Evil, but doesn't erase it. There are certain things good societies and characters just plain cannot do and any amount of good deeds will only balance them out as neutral. A culture cannot do the things Rome did and be good ever. That's how the rules are. You are right that we don't have a real metric for how many evil points and good points certain actions are, so LN is a possibility. Though I find it to be a slim one. I highly doubt any D&D book would ever have a LN society with slaves that are eaten alive, religious martyrs who are burned/crucified in public, and a hugely warmongering attitude where anyone who is not them deserves to be conquered.

[georgie_leech]

Roman Slavery was in the most part used for Agriculture, and was in that sense necessary, I notice nobody addressed the starving populace over slavery issue. If you free the slaves thousands starve, so that's evil, if you keep the slaves you have slaves, so that's evil. So we have a scenario where both options are evil. So that would make the society no more evil for choosing either option, because those are their options.


I touched on it in an earlier post, but this spells it out more clearly, as I was approaching it from a "Rome wouldn't exist in the first place" viewpoint, whereas yours is "ending slavery would result in mass starvation."

[AMFV]

The only possibilities, if you accept Lawful, are LE or LN. Enough Good may be able to balance out the Evil, but doesn't erase it. There are certain things good societies and characters just lain cannot do and any amount of good deeds will only balance them out as neutral. A culture cannot do the things Rome did and be good ever. That's how the rules are. You are right that we don't have a real metric for how many evil points and good points certain actions are, so LN is a possibility. Though I find it to be a slim one. I highly doubt any D&D book would ever have a LN society with slaves that are eaten alive, religious martyrs who are burned/crucified in public, and a hugely warmongering attitude where anyone who is not them deserves to be conquered.

True, which is what we've been saying... LN is as valid a statement as LE.


I touched on it in an earlier post, but this spells it out more clearly, as I was approaching it from a "Rome wouldn't exist in the first place" viewpoint, whereas yours is "ending slavery would result in mass starvation."

It depends on what point you're discussing if it's the formation of the Empire then you're correct, but since we're looking at it through the whole breadth of its existence there are many points where my paradigm is true, since it already exists and slavery is already a thing. So removing slavery does equal starvation in those cases.

[Rogue Shadows]

I highly doubt any D&D book would ever have a LN society with slaves that are eaten alive, religious martyrs who are burned/crucified in public, and a hugely warmongering attitude where anyone who is not them deserves to be conquered.

Actually, except for the "slaves eaten alive" part, that sounds an awful lot like Mulhorand from the Forgotten Realms, which was listed as LN, LG, and LE (meaning LN was the most common alignment, LG the second-most, and LE the third-most, with the remainder not being common enough to warrant mention).

For that matter, even Unther (basically Mulhorand's "evil" Sumerian counterpart) was primarily CN, secondary CE, and tertiary N, and this was only a year after Gilgeam, its tyrannical God-king despot, was slain.

And even Calimshan is LN, N, NE, and that place "is renowned for its chauvinism, exotic markets, thieves’ guilds, decadent harems, desert landscape, and wealthy ruling class, as well as its enormous population and many slaves."

[georgie_leech]

It depends on what point you're discussing if it's the formation of the Empire then you're correct, but since we're looking at it through the whole breadth of its existence there are many points where my paradigm is true, since it already exists and slavery is already a thing. So removing slavery does equal starvation in those cases.

Exactly. The conditions not being right for a group to ascend to world power status is a moral wash, as that is the condition for most cultures. Allowing mass starvation is almost unquestionably evil.

[SowZ]

Exactly. The conditions not being right for a group to ascend to world power status is a moral wash, as that is the condition for most cultures. Allowing mass starvation is almost unquestionably evil.

If the only way to prevent mass starvation is to put a gun to a bunch of peoples heads and say, "You no longer have the right to fight for your existence, you will live for someone else's continued existence," I would have no problem taking away all those guns. If that means the people who were hostages now run away, and the people holding the guns will now starve to death by the millions because they can't do feed themselves? I think that starvation is far, far preferable to the slavery, and I'd choose it with hardly a second thought.

That isn't to say charity isn't great, and that doesn't even mean I don't think we should try and help those people eat through volunteered time and resources. But allowing mass starvation is certainly not unquestionably evil. You don't have an obligation to commit evil in order to keep people from starving.

What if the only way to feed those people is to kill off a bunch of others and offer them Soilent Green? Is it unquestionably evil not to help the cannibalism take place?

[Rogue Shadows]

What if the only way to feed those people is to kill off a bunch of others and offer them Soilent Green? Is it unquestionably evil not to help the cannibalism take place?

I feel it's worth noting that in the case of soylent green, we're dealing with a society succumbing to entropy. There are just too many people and not enough food. The choices are mass starvation of the entire populace, mass executions of swaths of the populace so that there is more food for the survivors, or cannibalism, which when you think about it is really just the second option but cutting out the middle man. In such a world, modern morality is a luxury that cannot be afforded if the species is to survive.


If the only way to prevent mass starvation is to put a gun to a bunch of peoples heads and say, "You no longer have the right to fight for your existence, you will live for someone else's continued existence," I would have no problem taking away all those guns.

That's nice, but I'm pretty sure that the greater bulk of human history shows that is the masses have to choose between rights or food, they'll pick food, and suggesting that they should choose otherwise is pretty much showing up with your own noose already tied, if you catch my drift.

[SowZ]

I feel it's worth noting that in the case of soylent green, we're dealing with a society succumbing to entropy. There are just too many people and not enough food. The choices are mass starvation of the entire populace, mass executions of swaths of the populace so that there is more food for the survivors, or cannibalism, which when you think about it is really just the second option but cutting out the middle man. In such a world, modern morality is a luxury that cannot be afforded if the species is to survive.



That's nice, but I'm pretty sure that the greater bulk of human history shows that is the masses have to choose between rights or food, they'll pick food, and suggesting that they should choose otherwise is pretty much showing up with your own noose already tied, if you catch my drift.

And that choice is a lot easier when it isn't their rights they have to give up, but someone else's via enslavement. Whether or not it is inevitable, it is far from unquestionably evil to oppose.

[Rogue Shadows]

And that choice is a lot easier when it isn't their rights they have to give up, but someone else's via enslavement. Whether or not it is inevitable, it is far from unquestionably evil to oppose.

For the greater bulk of human history, however, slavedom or at least serfdom was the only efficient way to produce enough food for there to be a civilization around that could spend time philosophizing about whether or not its own existence was morally justified. Hunter-gatherer societies simply do not have the popluation nor resources to produce Confucius, or Aristotle, or Siddhartha Gautama. They certainly couldn't produce Hawking or Einstein or Tesla.

On the other hand, they can produce Atilla or Ghenghis Khan. Make of that what you will.

[georgie_leech]

If the only way to prevent mass starvation is to put a gun to a bunch of peoples heads and say, "You no longer have the right to fight for your existence, you will live for someone else's continued existence," I would have no problem taking away all those guns. If that means the people who were hostages now run away, and the people holding the guns will now starve to death by the millions because they can't do feed themselves? I think that starvation is far, far preferable to the slavery, and I'd choose it with hardly a second thought.

But it's not just the ones holding the guns to their heads. It's everyone; their families, the homeless, the sick, the children, the humanitarians trying to help them, everyone. Where there's life there's hope; I have difficulty believing that keeping some people enslaved is more evil than letting millions die a slow and painful death from starvation.


That isn't to say charity isn't great, and that doesn't even mean I don't think we should try and help those people eat through volunteered time and resources. But allowing mass starvation is certainly not unquestionably evil. You don't have an obligation to commit evil in order to keep people from starving.

It's not a question of time or money. At the time, it's a matter of food production. Without slavery, there wouldn't be enough food. Period. Some people would be able to scrape together enough to live, but the vast majority couldn't buy food if they offered the world. If your concern is that slavery dehumanises the slaves, I'd argue that death is a lot more dehumanising.


What if the only way to feed those people is to kill off a bunch of others and offer them Soilent Green? Is it unquestionably evil not to help the cannibalism take place?

Feeding people to people doesn't work at all, and isn't the same thing; killing one person to save another (and the exchange rate is worse, because digestion isn't 100% efficient) is a net protection of 0 lives. However, I am indeed willing to say that in a survival situation, cannibalism, while distasteful, isn't evil, at least if you're taking advantage of the already deceased and not finding your own food as it were.

None of this is to say that slavery is a good thing. It might, however, have been the necessary thing. Or does little Maximus deserve to starve to death for the misfortune of having been born Roman?

[TuggyNE]

If the only way to prevent mass starvation is to put a gun to a bunch of peoples heads and say, "You no longer have the right to fight for your existence, you will live for someone else's continued existence," I would have no problem taking away all those guns. If that means the people who were hostages now run away, and the people holding the guns will now starve to death by the millions because they can't do feed themselves? I think that starvation is far, far preferable to the slavery, and I'd choose it with hardly a second thought.

It's not entirely clear what you mean by "fight for your existence"; are you assuming slave work does not go, in large part, to feeding slaves? Because generally that's a pretty substantial component. It's not merely extremely cruel to work someone to death by starving them, but highly impractical in the general case, given how valuable slaves continue to be. So it's not a question of "do you live or does someone else", it's a question of "do you do your own thing however you like, indirectly contributing to inefficiencies that cause thousands or millions of deaths, or do you work together in an organized way to keep people from dying?" Phrased that way, I hope the inherent lawfulness of slavery is more obvious: it's primarily a way to organize society by way of obligation, and was an early prototype for larger-scale civilization.


You don't have an obligation to commit evil in order to keep people from starving.

And here we see my thesis statement from a while back: slavery is [considered] just WRONG, because it just is, because depriving someone of most of their choices is evil beyond belief: not merely wrong, but so wrong it is better to die than to be involved.


What if the only way to feed those people is to kill off a bunch of others and offer them Soilent Green? Is it unquestionably evil not to help the cannibalism take place?

False dichotomy; no one, as far as I know, is saying that getting rid of slavery would be unquestionably evil. Rather, some are arguing that getting rid of slavery was impractical, and that slavery itself was not unquestionably evil; i.e., that maintaining the institution of slavery would properly be Neutral in a D&D sense, conflicting rules aside. (Since a lot of otherwise fairly rational people do and have questioned the idea that slavery is inherently evil, it seems disingenuous to consider it "unquestionably" evil, unless you consider all those people to be, a priori, irrational and their opinions and reasoning not worth considering.)

[SowZ]

Lots of cultures got by for thousands, or tens of thousands, of years without major use of slave labor. Native American cultures practiced farming on a large scale, but slavery on a small scale. Take away slavery, and they would have still been just fine. They were able to sustain their populations without slaves, because working your land was profitable.

Also, anyone who kept a slave pointed a gun to their head whether or not they were crippled or elderly or infirm. It doesn't matter. There was the threat than running away is met with punishment. Yes, I'd fight for the victims and not the oppressor even if that means the oppressor starves.

If the slaves are really better off, let them choose to pledge themselves to a lord. If they don't choose it, they should be free to go and try and make a living however they can up to and including going in the woods and trying not to starve themselves.

I'm not saying slavery is always the worse thing ever. If you are going to sack a city, it's better to enslave the populace than kill them.

It is more moral for Maximus to starve then a bunch of slaves have the ownership of their own lives stolen by him, yes. If his parents are capable of doing so, they should offer the workers a deal that seems amicable to them. I consider theivery wrong. If a slave works for food, he owns that food. There is no reason at all Maximus is entitled to it just be living. Once he takes that food from the person who produced it, he not only isn't entitled to it, but he now owes that slave that same amount of food. People will steal rather than starve, I know. That doesn't make thievery moral.

A society built on slavery is essentially a whole society made up of thieves who steal far more a piece than any common highwaymen ever could. That's a parasitic relationship. I don't see why it is necessary for most people to be parasites in order for society to advance.

Also, there was a heavy implication earlier that abolishing slavery would be unquestionably evil if it meant mass starvation.

[georgie_leech]

Lots of cultures got by for thousands, or tens of thousands, of years without major use of slave labor. Native American cultures practiced farming on a large scale, but slavery on a small scale. Take away slavery, and they would have still been just fine. They were able to sustain their populations without slaves, because working your land was profitable.

Native American's never densified in the same way that Rome did. Taking away "slavery" from the Natives wouldn't do much, but it absolutely would cause mass starvation for large metropolises like Rome


Also, anyone who kept a slave pointed a gun to their head whether or not they were crippled or elderly or infirm. It doesn't matter. There was the threat than running away is met with punishment. Yes, I'd fight for the victims and not the oppressor even if that means the oppressor starves. Most of the Lower class did not have slaves. They were still dependent on slave labour though, because slaves were used on the farms. I'd agree that slavery for convenience isn't a good thing, and likely always evil; slavery to produce food is bit more unclear. If you lived in ancient Rome, you would be dependent on that slavery to sustain you, even if you worked day and night to better their lives and free them when you could. Ending slavery would make it just as likely to kill you, as it would to kill Enslavicus Cruelus who beats his slaves for fun. Starvation doesn't discriminate based on morals.

EDIT: To put it another way, ending slavery has the entirely predictable side effect of mass starvation, likely killing plenty of people that had no direct involvement with slavery because they were dependent on slave-produced food. Why do Roman children and infants, who have never had the opportunity for life to be any other way and likely don't even understand what slavery is, deserve to die?

[Rogue Shadows]

Lots of cultures got by for thousands, or tens of thousands, of years without major use of slave labor. Native American cultures practiced farming on a large scale, but slavery on a small scale. Take away slavery, and they would have still been just fine. They were able to sustain their populations without slaves, because working your land was profitable.

Bear in mind that corn and potatoes, the staples of choice in North and South America respectively, are pretty much the best staple crops for anything less than modern farming technology. Corn in particular gives you the most amount of calories for the least amount of effort, though it's vulnerable to blight and frost; potatoes, meanwhile, are hardy as all get-out.

Corn and potatoes weren't available in the Old World; wheat and rice were the staples, which require substantially more effort to make profitable. Also, as georgie leech points out, the Native Americans didn't settle as densely as their Old World counterparts did. Sure, there are notable exceptions to this, such as Tenochtitlan, but then again, the Aztecs were big into slavery and serfdom.

Also, I'm not going to get all starry-eyed about pre-Colombian peoples in the Americas. The Aztec, Maya, and Inca were horrible people. The first thing the Lakota did when they got horses was wipe out an entire rival tribe. The Iroquois fought wars of conquest. Several native peoples believed it to be morally acceptable to leave the old and infirm to die. Human sacrifice was disturbingly prevalent in Central and South America on a scale that was not known in the Old World.

The pre-Colombian peoples weren't any better than their Old World counterparts, prevalence of slavery or no.

If you want to name a culture that largely lacked slavery but settled as densely as in Europe and the Middle East, then you'll have to look to feudal China, Japan, and Korea. Even there, though, the plight of the serf was not much different from the plight of the slave.

[SowZ]

Native American's never densified in the same way that Rome did. Taking away "slavery" from the Natives wouldn't do much, but it absolutely would cause mass starvation for large metropolises like Rome

Most of the Lower class did not have slaves. They were still dependent on slave labour though, because slaves were used on the farms. I'd agree that slavery for convenience isn't a good thing, and likely always evil; slavery to produce food is bit more unclear. If you lived in ancient Rome, you would be dependent on that slavery to sustain you, even if you worked day and night to better their lives and free them when you could. Ending slavery would make it just as likely to kill you, as it would to kill Enslavicus Cruelus who beats his slaves for fun. Starvation doesn't discriminate based on morals.

EDIT: To put it another way, ending slavery has the entirely predictable side effect of mass starvation, likely killing plenty of people that had no direct involvement with slavery because they were dependent on slave-produced food. Why do Roman children and infants, who have never had the opportunity for life to be any other way and likely don't even understand what slavery is, deserve to die?

Malarky. The Native American's by the 13th century had cities rivaling the size of almost any city in Europe at the time. They had population centers from ten to seventy thousand people. Not as many as Europe, and not as big as Rome, certainly, but they had them. The concept of a decentralized old America without big cities is a myth. Yes, there were a lot of nomadic peoples. But they lived in dense cities, too, and did it without slavery.

The 'without slaves the upper class will starve' stuff was argued in the abolitionist period in the US, and that turned out false, too. Yes, Romans would be a lot poorer. Turns out you make a lot more money when you have mass, institutionalized thievery.

Also, don't throw, "Why do babies deserve to die?" at me. I never said they did. But they don't deserve to have other peoples lives and production stolen, either. Slave societies didn't do it because it is the only way to survive. The slaves manage to produce enough for both them and their masters, the masters could work just as hard, too. Rather, slave societies want to live lavishly with as little work as they need to. You don't see many slave cultures where slaves are worked just enough to feed everyone. Rather, the slaves are worked as much as possible so the owners can be as rich and pampered as they can.


Bear in mind that corn and potatoes, the staples of choice in North and South America respectively, are pretty much the best staple crops for anything less than modern farming technology. Corn in particular gives you the most amount of calories for the least amount of effort, though it's vulnerable to blight and frost; potatoes, meanwhile, are hardy as all get-out.

Corn and potatoes weren't available in the Old World; wheat and rice were the staples, which require substantially more effort to make profitable. Also, as georgie leech points out, the Native Americans didn't settle as densely as their Old World counterparts did. Sure, there are notable exceptions to this, such as Tenochtitlan, but then again, the Aztecs were big into slavery and serfdom.

Also, I'm not going to get all starry-eyed about pre-Colombian peoples in the Americas. The Aztec, Maya, and Inca were horrible people. The first thing the Lakota did when they got horses was wipe out an entire rival tribe. The Iroquois fought wars of conquest. Several native peoples believed it to be morally acceptable to leave the old and infirm to die. Human sacrifice was disturbingly prevalent in Central and South America on a scale that was not known in the Old World.

The pre-Colombian peoples weren't any better than their Old World counterparts, prevalence of slavery or no.

If you want to name a culture that largely lacked slavery but settled as densely as in Europe and the Middle East, then you'll have to look to feudal China, Japan, and Korea. Even there, though, the plight of the serf was not much different from the plight of the slave.

It may not have been as densely settled in number of large cities, but they still had massive population centers and they all ate just fine. Also, the whole, "Those people were guilty of X, Y, and Z," is as valuable as me saying, "The Romans were stinky and had bad hair," when trying to decide if a society can centralize without slavery. The Native Americans could have worn their babies as shoes and it would have no bearing on the issue of whether or not they were capable of building a society without slaves.

And corn in America many hundreds of years ago wasn't a third as efficient as it is today.

[Rogue Shadows]

And corn in America many hundreds of years ago wasn't a third as efficient as it is today.

True, but it was still better than wheat or rice, and still required less effort to farm.


Complete Malarky. The Native American's by the 13th century had cities rivaling the size of literally any city in Europe at the time.

Not...quite.

Yes, Tenochtitlan, for example, may well have been the largest city in the world when Cortés arrived in it. But. Tenochtitlan was unusually large for a pre-Colombian city, and the Aztec Empire as a whole contained only about five million people. On average European cities were much larger than their New World counterparts, and there were many more of them

Let's take another example. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire) tells me that the Inca Empire had a population of about 20 million at its peak. The Roman Empire, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) by contrast, had a population of about 88 million at its peak, or more than four times that number.

[SowZ]

True, but it was still better than wheat or rice, and still required less effort to farm.



Not...quite.

Yes, Tenochtitlan, for example, may well have been the largest city in the world when Cortés arrived in it. But. Tenochtitlan was unusually large for a pre-Colombian city, and the Aztec Empire as a whole contained only about five million people. On average European cities were much larger than their New World counterparts, and there were many more of them

Let's take another example. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire) tells me that the Inca Empire had a population of about 20 million at its peak. The Roman Empire, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) by contrast, had a population of about 88 million at its peak, or more than four times that number.

How did those cities feed themselves, though, if not slavery? Why can a city of 60 thousand people feed themselves, but if it is four cities of 30 thousand it becomes impossible?

[Rogue Shadows]

How did those cities feed themselves, though, if not slavery? Why can a city of 60 thousand people feed themselves, but if it is four cities of 30 thousand it becomes impossible?

I feel it's necessary to highlight that you're really vastly overestimating the quality of life enjoyed by an Aztec commoner. You may have had some rights, but you were by no means an equal to the upper class or nobility. There was still a caste structure, and you were still at the bottom, existing for no other purpose but to serve the people above you. Only in the most technical of senses were you distinct from a Roman-style farming slave.

It's like arguing that better to be guillotined than crucified because the guillotine is faster. This is true, but either way, you're dead. Just because you have some choices doesn't mean you have any good ones.

[georgie_leech]

Malarky. The Native American's by the 13th century had cities rivaling the size of almost any city in Europe at the time. They had population centers from ten to seventy thousand people. Not as many as Europe, and not as big as Rome, certainly, but they had them. The concept of a decentralized old America without big cities is a myth. Yes, there were a lot of nomadic peoples. But they lived in dense cities, too, and did it without slavery. With access to much better crops, yes. Corn may not have been as efficient then, but was still a better crop than wheat in terms of calories. Further, do note that Rome was far larger than cities in the 13th century; at almost a million citizens, the imperial city Rome was as large as London would be in the 19th century.


The 'without slaves the upper class will starve' stuff was argued in the abolitionist period in the US, and that turned out false, too. Yes, Romans would be a lot poorer. Turns out you make a lot more money when you have mass, institutionalized thievery. Do note that this was after the industrial revolution, which was preceded by a period of massive agriculture improvements like fertiliser. Further, slavery in the US was largely not based on the production of food, but luxury products like cotton. In ancient Rome, large portions of slaves were dedicated to agriculture, and thus removing that labour would have consequences greater than a decline in shirt production. You do have a point though that the upper class would be impacted differently; having more funds would allow them to stockpile, bribe, and in some cases outright steal via mercenaries food supplies and thus would be more likely to survive famine.


Also, don't throw, "Why do babies deserve to die?" at me. I never said they did. But they don't deserve to have other peoples lives and production stolen, either. Slave societies didn't do it because it is the only way to survive. The slaves manage to produce enough for both them and their masters, the masters could work just as hard, too. Rather, slave societies want to live lavishly with as little work as they need to. You don't see many slave cultures where slaves are worked just enough to feed everyone. Rather, the slaves are worked as much as possible so the owners can be as rich and pampered as they can.

Yes, they are. I've never disputed that slavery isn't good. But when lives are literally dependent on slaves, and you argue that the slavery should be stopped, you are saying those people should die. You can't take an action with obvious consequences and then claim the moral high ground because you don't like the consequences. Ending slavery would cause famine, at least temporarily, and thus starvation. Starvation kills the weak or infirm more readily than others, so the elderly, children, and the sick would be hit the hardest. By saying that it is preferable for slaves to be free, you are also saying it is preferable for some people to die in order to free said slaves.

Again, none of this is to say that slavery is good, Good, or any other variation. In an ideal world, slavery would never exist. But the consequences of ending such slavery means that the continuation of slavery can be neutral instead of always evil, and that's why people are arguing for slavery to be a matter of Lawfulness rather than solely an issue of Good Vs. Evil.

[Rogue Shadows]

You know what this feels like, to me?

Galactus and his eating of planets.

Galactus is not a villain. He eats planets because that's what he eats. He doesn't enjoy causing suffering and has in fact been known to acquire Heralds for the specific purpose of a) warning a populace that he was coming so that they could prepare themselves for their demise in whatever manner fits their particular beliefs and b) so that his Heralds can find planets of the minimum size required to sustain Galactus, as Galactus does not eat for the sake of eating, but only when he is hungry.

Furthermore, Galactus's very existence is basically a lock on a being called Abraxus. Abraxus destroys planets because he finds it fun. Abraxus is genuinely evil; he likes to hurt people. Without Galactus, Abraxus runs loose. Abraxus cannot be killed. The only way to stop Abraxus is to have Galactus around.

Finally, it has been strongly implied that Galactus, once he has eaten the entire universe, will explode into a new Big Bang. Basically, he's the vehicle by which the universe goes through a death/rebirth cycle.

At the end of the day, though, in an immediate sense - Galactus eats entire worlds and has the blood of literally trillions of lives on his hands.

Is Galactus evil?

[SowZ]

With access to much better crops, yes. Corn may not have been as efficient then, but was still a better crop than wheat in terms of calories. Further, do note that Rome was far larger than cities in the 13th century; at almost a million citizens, the imperial city Rome was as large as London would be in the 19th century.

Do note that this was after the industrial revolution, which was preceded by a period of massive agriculture improvements like fertiliser. Further, slavery in the US was largely not based on the production of food, but luxury products like cotton. In ancient Rome, large portions of slaves were dedicated to agriculture, and thus removing that labour would have consequences greater than a decline in shirt production. You do have a point though that the upper class would be impacted differently; having more funds would allow them to stockpile, bribe, and in some cases outright steal via mercenaries food supplies and thus would be more likely to survive famine.



Yes, they are. I've never disputed that slavery isn't good. But when lives are literally dependent on slaves, and you argue that the slavery should be stopped, you are saying those people should die. You can't take an action with obvious consequences and then claim the moral high ground because you don't like the consequences. Ending slavery would cause famine, at least temporarily, and thus starvation. Starvation kills the weak or infirm more readily than others, so the elderly, children, and the sick would be hit the hardest. By saying that it is preferable for slaves to be free, you are also saying it is preferable for some people to die in order to free said slaves.

Again, none of this is to say that slavery is good, Good, or any other variation. In an ideal world, slavery would never exist. But the consequences of ending such slavery means that the continuation of slavery can be neutral instead of always evil, and that's why people are arguing for slavery to be a matter of Lawfulness rather than solely an issue of Good Vs. Evil.

If I'm responsible for every consequence of opposing slavery, you are responsible for every rape, torture and beating that slavery pretty much invariable causes.

[Rogue Shadows]

If I'm responsible for every consequence of opposing slavery, you are responsible for every rape, torture and beating that slavery pretty much invariable causes.

Except that such things are not inherent within the numbers game that slavery is, and such things happen to free citizens as well. That's not a consequence of slavery, it's a consequence of bad people abusing power.

Whereas, ending Roman slavery will result in mass starvation, because the cost to produce food will skyrocket. That is a part of the numbers game, and no amount of being a good person will prevent it.

Also, I'd like to once again stress that I really dislike how happy-go-lucky you seem to think that the immediately available alternative to slavery - serfdom - is by comparison.

[georgie_leech]

If I'm responsible for every consequence of opposing slavery, you are responsible for every rape, torture and beating that slavery pretty much invariable causes.

Tsk, I'm not claiming responsibility for anything. What I'm doing is pointing out that if ending slavery is what should be done, then what should be done involves causing starvation. Hiding from the consequences won't change what they are. I agree that rape, torture, physical abuse, and murder are Evil. Most abuses of power tend to be Evil. Slavery itself isn't the cause of that though. People are the cause of that.

[SowZ]

Except that such things are not inherent within the numbers game that slavery is, and such things happen to free citizens as well. That's not a consequence of slavery, it's a consequence of bad people abusing power.

Whereas, ending Roman slavery will result in mass starvation, because the cost to produce food will skyrocket. That is a part of the numbers game, and no amount of being a good person will prevent it.

Also, I'd like to once again stress that I really dislike how happy-go-lucky you seem to think that the immediately available alternative to slavery - serfdom - is by comparison.

And people starving isn't inherent in not having slavery. And yet, you say it will inevitably happen by ending slavery in Rome. And I say that by continuing it, it is equally inevitable that they will be tortured to death for others amusement and raped. Neither of these is inherent to slavery or lack of slavery, so if I'm accountable for the starvation, you are accountable for the rape and torture.

If the person didn't volunteer to indenture themselves, I dislike serfdom just as much.


Tsk, I'm not claiming responsibility for anything. What I'm doing is pointing out that if ending slavery is what should be done, then what should be done involves causing starvation. Hiding from the consequences won't change what they are. I agree that rape, torture, physical abuse, and murder are Evil. Most abuses of power tend to be Evil. Slavery itself isn't the cause of that though. People are the cause of that.

But you can insist that I say 'babies deserve to die?' No, if I think babies deserve to die because I would end Roman slavery, you like Roman slaves getting raped and tortured to death because you would continue the institution. Slavery does lead to rape. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[Rogue Shadows]

And people starving isn't inherent in not having slavery.

No, but it is inherent in ending slavery in the Roman Empire, as the money just isn't there to pay free citizens to farm the land.


If the person didn't volunteer to indenture themselves, I dislike serfdom just as much.

Indentured servitude is distinct from serfdom. You choose to be indentured (well, actually, more often, your parents choose to indenture you, but as you are your parent's possession in any society that allowed indenturing...); you don't choose to be a serf. You are born a serf, you live a serf, and you die a serf.

[georgie_leech]

The difference is that reducing agricultural production has the inherent result of reducing the availability of food. Less food grown means less food to eat. If you have a solution that ends slavery whilst ensuring that agricultural production doesn't decline, then it wouldn't cause starvation, but so far you've only argued for the abolition of slaver and left it at that.

[AMFV]

How did those cities feed themselves, though, if not slavery? Why can a city of 60 thousand people feed themselves, but if it is four cities of 30 thousand it becomes impossible?

Ummm the Aztecs did keep slaves, and they had a system of tributes where they would demand food from the surrounding populace, using the military if they didn't receive it... I would put that as being kind of unpleasant also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery

So there was in fact slavery present even there. Although a different agricultural system.


And people starving isn't inherent in not having slavery. And yet, you say it will inevitably happen by ending slavery in Rome. And I say that by continuing it, it is equally inevitable that they will be tortured to death for others amusement and raped. Neither of these is inherent to slavery or lack of slavery, so if I'm accountable for the starvation, you are accountable for the rape and torture.

I would say that allowing people to starve, is tantamount to rape and torture as far as the evil side goes. While the initial creation of slavery was evil, the termination of it becomes impossible.



If the person didn't volunteer to indenture themselves, I dislike serfdom just as much.

Fair enough, although I'd ask what your views regarding mandatory civil service and conscription are. Since those exist in many lawful D&D societies which are in fact good, and that is tantamount to the same thing.



But you can insist that I say 'babies deserve to die?' No, if I think babies deserve to die because I would end Roman slavery, you like Roman slaves getting raped and tortured to death because you would continue the institution. Slavery does lead to rape. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

We're not saying that babies deserve die, we're saying that if you stop slavery thousands and thousands of people will die, Rome will fall, then potentially thousands more will die as the infrastructure collapses. If it's between having a few people raped (potentially) and having thousands die (absolutely with no way to prevent it) it's pretty much a moral wash, and you could see why even a very good person might pick an option contrary to the other.

[SowZ]

The difference is that reducing agricultural production has the inherent result of reducing the availability of food. Less food grown means less food to eat. If you have a solution that ends slavery whilst ensuring that agricultural production doesn't decline, then it wouldn't cause starvation, but so far you've only argued for the abolition of slaver and left it at that.

Yeah, everybody works for their own food. Or has a trade that the farmer is willing to give food for. That was how it worked for massive cities in ancient America. There was more than enough farmland for everyone. And a rich person will sell all their jewels for one bag of grain if starving.

Reducing slavery doesn't inherently mean reducing agricultural production, either. All those slaves could still work agriculture but have a choice to leave. If abolishing slavery leads to such a wide spread lack in food, the former slaves would be happy to work in a field.

Historically, you abolish slavery, most slaves keep their old jobs but with higher standards of living and less threat of torture/rape/being killed. People said the exact rhetoric when slavery was outlawed in America. They were wrong. Name one example where slavery was outlawed and that lead to the populace all starving.

Also, it is absolutely absurd to say, "If you think slavery should have been abolished in Rome, you think babies deserve to die." That is incredibly intellectually dishonest form of debate.


Ummm the Aztecs did keep slaves, and they had a system of tributes where they would demand food from the surrounding populace, using the military if they didn't receive it... I would put that as being kind of unpleasant also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery

So there was in fact slavery present even there. Although a different agricultural system.



I would say that allowing people to starve, is tantamount to rape and torture as far as the evil side goes. While the initial creation of slavery was evil, the termination of it becomes impossible.



Fair enough, although I'd ask what your views regarding mandatory civil service and conscription are. Since those exist in many lawful D&D societies which are in fact good, and that is tantamount to the same thing.



We're not saying that babies deserve die, we're saying that if you stop slavery thousands and thousands of people will die, Rome will fall, then potentially thousands more will die as the infrastructure collapses. If it's between having a few people raped (potentially) and having thousands die (absolutely with no way to prevent it) it's pretty much a moral wash, and you could see why even a very good person might pick an option contrary to the other.

So I am morally obligated to commit one evil act just so another bad thing doesn't happen?

Again, if I have the unfortunate implications of my moral choice on my conscience, so do you.

[AMFV]

Yeah, everybody works for their own food. Or has a trade that the farmer is willing to give food for. That was how it worked for massive cities in ancient America. There was more than enough farmland for everyone. And a rich person will sell all their jewels for one bag of grain if starving

Not so, the Aztecs and the Mayans all used military might to demand tribute from the surrounding villages. And jewels become valueless in a famine. Also the Amazon and South America is much richer agriculturally than that part of Europe, probably why much of the world's agriculture is still there.

Furthermore we haven't dealt with how you deal with the problem since it already exists. The problem is you are saying, "should slavery have ever taken hold", we are saying "well it did, now what?" if you cease slavery people die.

So you're made Emperor of Rome, what do you do? Do you free the slaves and cause mass starvation? How do you react?



So I am morally obligated to commit one evil act just so another bad thing doesn't happen?

Again, if I have the unfortunate implications of my moral choice on my conscience, so do you.

There's no good answer here, is what we're saying, at this point it's a problem that exists, either option is equally bad, sometimes life is that way, without a good answer what do you do? You have to pick what you believe to be the better answer.

[SassyQuatch]

The argument that all slavery is bad is based upon... saying all slavery is bad.

Some slaves were abused, many more were not. Some had high station, even coming to be the will of nations, right hand to kings. When released many slaves begged to be returned to their positions as free but willing servants. Not to mention that all slavery was not the same, with "free" women in nearly every early culture being claimed as spoils of war or as political tools, and with some slaves living in cages while others enjoyed the same sorts of comforts as the aristocracy.

But the representation of slavery has become that of only beatings and rape and cruelty. And anyone who dares to say that it was not so for all are acussed of being pro-slavery and pro-rape and pro-beatings. Because it is easier to make the opponent appear a villain than to even slightly admit that life as a slave could be anything less than a constant torture, even if that is not what historical facts state.

Free the Roman slaves and Romans would die. But first the slaves die, either hunted down for stealing food, which has become more scarce, or through starvation. Those who survive the travel from Roman lands find themselves enslaved again by neighboring natuons when they have no way to pay for anything, or they are wiped out as a severe drain upon resources. While seemingly noble, the thought that death as a free person is better than life as a slave does not account for seeing all of your friends and family dying from being hunted down or starving to death.

Freeing the slaves before technology and resources are developed results in any great empire falling into ruin, with those who would have been slaves being the first to die. Knowing this, freeing the slaves, while having noble intentions, would still be an evil act.

[SowZ]

The argument that all slavery is bad is based upon... saying all slavery is bad.

Some slaves were abused, many more were not. Some had high station, even coming to be the will of nations, right hand to kings. When released many slaves begged to be returned to their positions as free but willing servants. Not to mention that all slavery was not the same, with "free" women in nearly every early culture being claimed as spoils of war or as political tools, and with some slaves living in cages while others enjoyed the same sorts of comforts as the aristocracy.

But the representation of slavery has become that of only beatings and rape and cruelty. And anyone who dares to say that it was not so for all are acussed of being pro-slavery and pro-rape and pro-beatings. Because it is easier to make the opponent appear a villain than to even slightly admit that life as a slave could be anything less than a constant torture, even if that is not what historical facts state.

Free the Roman slaves and Romans would die. But first the slaves die, either hunted down for stealing food, which has become more scarce, or through starvation. Those who survive the travel from Roman lands find themselves enslaved again by neighboring natuons when they have no way to pay for anything, or they are wiped out as a severe drain upon resources. While seemingly noble, the thought that death as a free person is better than life as a slave does not account for seeing all of your friends and family dying from being hunted down or starving to death.

Freeing the slaves before technology and resources are developed results in any great empire falling into ruin, with those who would have been slaves being the first to die. Knowing this, freeing the slaves, while having noble intentions, would still be an evil act.

Uhh, no? It isn't? The idea that slavery is bad can be based upon one of a hundred philosophies as well developed as any other philosophy. Don't just write off an entire philosophical perspective.

Also, the other option is that slaves retain their jobs, doing largely the same duties, but now they can't be as easily raped or murdered because they could leave if they wanted to. (Though they usually wouldn't, since having a job is better than not.) Historically, my scenario is what actually happens.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yeah, everybody works for their own food.

Which, as previously mentioned, stagnates the technological and cultural development of society. Not much time for measuring the circumference of the Earth when you have to devote most of your time towards farming, hunting, or gathering.

You can have cultures and societies under such a system, but not civilizations. And again, I know of no hunter-gatherer society that produced an Aristotle, but I know of plenty that produced a Ghenghis Khan. What does that tell you?


Or has a trade that the farmer is willing to give food for. That was how it worked for massive cities in ancient America.

As pointed out above, the Aztecs and their ilk would use military force to take food from tributary nations, so...no. Not as such.


Reducing slavery doesn't inherently mean reducing agricultural production, either. All those slaves could still work agriculture but have a choice to leave. If abolishing slavery leads to such a wide spread lack in food, the former slaves would be happy to work in a field.

But they need to be paid, don't they? Where's the money coming from? After all, we have to at bare minimum produce the same amount of food we were before but were not paying the slaves for. Now they have to be paid in some form for the fruits of their labor, or else they're still slaves, we're just not calling them that anymore.


People said the exact rhetoric when slavery was outlawed in America.

And as was pointed out, most slaves in America were farming cash crops, not staples. In point of fact there was more food produced in the North than in the South, this being one of the main reasons why Britain did not enter the war on the Confederate side (as it relied on the South for cotton, but the North for grain, and between making shirts and making bread, the British chose bread).


They were wrong. Name one example where slavery was outlawed and that lead to the populace all starving.

There are no examples that I'm aware of where slavery that was being used to acquire food was outlawed, as no sane legislator would have allowed such a law to pass.


So I am morally obligated to commit one evil act just so another bad thing doesn't happen?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

[georgie_leech]

This is getting a bit heated. To try to bring it back, all my point is that a society can continue slavery for motives other than wanting to beat and torture people. Thus, I have no problem seeing Ancient Rome as Lawful Neutral, though closer to Lawful Evil than Lawful Good by virtue of the methods used to enforce that Law. If 0 is LE, 5 LN, and 10 LG, I'd rate Rome as about a 3.5.

[SowZ]

Not so, the Aztecs and the Mayans all used military might to demand tribute from the surrounding villages. And jewels become valueless in a famine. Also the Amazon and South America is much richer agriculturally than that part of Europe, probably why much of the world's agriculture is still there.

Furthermore we haven't dealt with how you deal with the problem since it already exists. The problem is you are saying, "should slavery have ever taken hold", we are saying "well it did, now what?" if you cease slavery people die.

So you're made Emperor of Rome, what do you do? Do you free the slaves and cause mass starvation? How do you react?



There's no good answer here, is what we're saying, at this point it's a problem that exists, either option is equally bad, sometimes life is that way, without a good answer what do you do? You have to pick what you believe to be the better answer.

((North America had massive cities, too, some of the largest in the world during the middle ages. Not just aztecs.))

As to the question, I immediately outlaw slavery, but current slaves who choose to indenture themselves to keep society running and do the same jobs for the same masters, (albeit with legal protection and wages,) will be exempt from taxes for life and their children will be given Client state citizenship. Their children will be offered citizenship if their parents and grandparents were law abiding citizens.

This would encourage the infrastructure to remain the same while improving conditions for slaves and gradually moving the state to a new social paradigm.

[AMFV]

I immediately outlaw slavery, but current slaves who choose to indenture themselves to keep society running and do the same jobs for the same masters, (albeit with legal protection and wages,) will be exempt from taxes for life and their children will be given Client state citizenship. Their children will be offered citizenship if their parents and grandparents were law abiding citizens.

This would encourage the infrastructure to remain the same while improving conditions for slaves and gradually moving the state to a new social paradigm.

You don't have the money for that. Also citizenship granting creates expensive trials now, it complicates the legal system, so unable to deal with the rise in appeals, crime runs rampant. Many ex-slaves simply go off and become criminals, furthermore since they aren't getting paid, dozens leave to their countries of origin, creating the aforementioned famine, which kills many children and infants. Since their families are not being protected there are mass-desertions and the legions are starving and under supported. Rome falls.

Now this is a medium case scenario, but it's not as simple as "outlaw slavery and pay the slaves" that's not a financially tenable option in the case. It isn't the worst case, since you weren't deposed and murdered for suggesting it, which is the most likely actual outcome. And probably not even that evil a one, to avoid my likely scenario up there.

Edit: The point here is that there is no easy good option that doesn't exist, and the status quo may be the only workable option.

[Rogue Shadows]

((North America had massive cities, too, some of the largest in the world during the middle ages. Not just aztecs.))

I'd love to see some sources on that. To my knowledge, the only civilizations of note north of the Rio Grande were the Mississippians, and I do not believe that any of their sites were of comparable size to Old World cities.

[SowZ]

You don't have the money for that. Also citizenship granting creates expensive trials now, it complicates the legal system, so unable to deal with the rise in appeals, crime runs rampant. Many ex-slaves simply go off and become criminals, furthermore since they aren't getting paid, dozens leave to their countries of origin, creating the aforementioned famine, which kills many children and infants. Since their families are not being protected there are mass-desertions and the legions are starving and under supported. Rome falls.

Now this is a medium case scenario, but it's not as simple as "outlaw slavery and pay the slaves" that's not a financially tenable option in the case. It isn't the worst case, since you weren't deposed and murdered for suggesting it, which is the most likely actual outcome. And probably not even that evil a one, to avoid my likely scenario up there.

Edit: The point here is that there is no easy good option that doesn't exist, and the status quo may be the only workable option.

I thought I was the Emperor of Rome? Why do modern trials matter?

Anyway, I'm not paying the slaves. I'm encouraging them to keep their same employment and their old owners will be forced to pay them a small wage. Lots of slaves were paid, anyway, and money spent buying slaves is now spent paying them. This wouldn't cripple the economy, even if the wealthy didn't like it.


I'd love to see some sources on that. To my knowledge, the only civilizations of note north of the Rio Grande were the Mississippians, and I do not believe that any of their sites were of comparable size to Old World cities.

The largest North American native city had around 60,000 people in the thirteenth century.

[AMFV]

I thought I was the Emperor of Rome? Why do modern trials matter?

Anyway, I'm not paying the slaves. I'm encouraging them to keep their same employment and their old owners will be forced to pay them a small wage. Lots of slaves were paid, anyway, and money spent buying slaves is now spent paying them. This wouldn't cripple the economy, even if the wealthy didn't like it.

Well introducing more trails is going to cause the system to have a greater workload, and that's problematic.

The money spent buying slaves is still not enough to cover paying them, and now you can't lodge them the same way, you can't have them for life. The problem is that you are seeing an easy answer where there is none, the answer is painful in any way you go, while you might be successful, there would be significant food shortages, without a doubt.

[Rogue Shadows]

The largest North American native city had around 60,000 people in the thirteenth century.

Doing some research, the only city of note in North America I've found was Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) (reputedly the largest pre-Colombian city north of the Rio Grande), which at its height was estimated to be around 6,000 to 40,000 people. That's a rather substantial margin of error. The low end would make it totally unremarkable, while the high end would make it only 20% the size of Tenochtitlan (which was of comperable size to Paris, Constantinople, and Rome at the time) and only 4% the size of ancient Rome.

[SowZ]

Well introducing more trails is going to cause the system to have a greater workload, and that's problematic.

The money spent buying slaves is still not enough to cover paying them, and now you can't lodge them the same way, you can't have them for life. The problem is that you are seeing an easy answer where there is none, the answer is painful in any way you go, while you might be successful, there would be significant food shortages, without a doubt.

If they don't indenture themselves to their current employers, their children don't client state citizenship. It's that simple. Also, the slaves make enough profit for their owners, they can afford to pay them a modest wage. As I said, many slaves did receive money already.


Doing some research, the only city of note in North America I've found was Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) (reputedly the largest pre-Colombian city north of the Rio Grande), which at its height was estimated to be around 6,000 to 40,000 people. That's a rather substantial margin of error. The low end would make it totally unremarkable, while the high end would make it only 20% the size of Tenochtitlan (which was of comperable size to Paris, Constantinople, and Rome at the time) and only 4% the size of ancient Rome.

Some estimates put it at higher than that at its height in the 13th century, but even 40,000 is a high population center. Regardless, the South American cities weren't built on slavery when it came to agriculture as far as I know.

[Rogue Shadows]

If they don't indenture themselves to their current employers, their children don't client state citizenship. It's that simple.

So in other words you free them only to tell them that they have to choose between becoming slaves again but their children can be free; or they can remain free (as can their children) and go about their business?

Congratulations: status quo at best, famine at worst.


As I said, many slaves did receive money already.

Many more were not getting paid at all, except insofar as they were receiving what was required to keep them alive and working.

Furthermore, you are now turning the wealthy aristocracy against you. Congratulations! Best-case scenario at the moment is that you survive a few assassination attempts, realize the error, and restore the status quo, preferably in such a way that the former slaves don't actually realize that they're being re-enslaved. Worst-case scenario, out-and-out civil war.


Regardless, the South American cities weren't built on slavery when it came to agriculture as far as I know.

Even 60,000 would make it rather unimpressive by Old World standards, and that doesn't change the fact that the cities were thin on the ground by comparison to Europe.

South America, by the way, was working the the potato, the hands-down best staple crop in terms of calories to work required; hence how it was able to keep Ireland fed. Downside: prone to blights. Ireland still doesn't have a population as large as it did before the Potato Famine.

Still, if you can find a way to magic that to Rome, be my guest.

[AMFV]

If they don't indenture themselves to their current employers, their children don't client state citizenship. It's that simple. Also, the slaves make enough profit for their owners, they can afford to pay them a modest wage. As I said, many slaves did receive money already.

Yes, but how many of them would stay? Would there be enough money to pay them? It's unlikely that the Roman economy would have been able to handle that. The money was typically given as small spending money, not as the money to support a family, it's a very different thing. So we have a scenario where the economy is very likely to collapse as is the agricultural system, we're not looking at a post-agricultural revolution freeing of slaves, which notably all of the successful attempts to do that in the west were, we're looking at something different.

This is not something that can be easily solved, and assuming that there is an easy solution is probably oversimplifying the scenario.

Edit: Also the slaves that received pay were to my knowledge typically personal slaves not agricultural slaves. The ones being paid were already in better treatment, and not the ones who were responsible for the lifeblood of the empire.

[SowZ]

So in other words you free them only to tell them that they have to choose between becoming slaves again but their children can be free; or they can remain free (as can their children) and go about their business?

Congratulations: status quo at best, famine at worst.

As I said, many slaves did receive money already. [/quote]

Many more were not.

Furthermore, you are now turning the wealthy aristocracy against you. Congratulations! Best-case scenario at the moment is that you survive a few assassination attempts, realize the error, and restore the status quo, preferably in such a way that the former slaves don't actually realize that they're being re-enslaved. Worst-case scenario, out-and-out civil war.[/QUOTE]

The lives of the slaves are improved, because their employers can't do anything they want to their slaves. They can choose to be freemen, but as lowborn freemen in ancient Rome their standard of living will be just as high working for their same employer. It's a dedication to work for their same employer.

If that's so unreasonable, why did so many slaves continue to work for the same plantations when it was outlawed in America? They continued to do what they knew with the people they knew, but now they are getting paid a little bit.

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh, also on the subject of the Inca and slavery: (http://www.worldtrek.org/odyssey/teachers/peruexcerpts/slaveexcerpt.html)

The Incas would certainly have been able to pre-empt part of each village's crops, but they preferred to draw on a far richer tribute, the work and energy of their people. The Incas, as local country chieftains, had had a right to the corvée and to the personal services of the peasants. Being masters of a great empire, they maintained the right to press the inhabitants into their service on a vast scale and to their own profit, as they had done in former times on a smaller scale.

You'll forgive me for saying that this really doesn't sound much better. The Inca didn't practice slavery largely because they didn't seem to conceive of the idea that their subjects were anything other than their property, to do with as they pleased.

[Rogue Shadows]

If that's so unreasonable, why did so many slaves continue to work for the same plantations when it was outlawed in America?

Because they had literally no other choice. They had no other useful skills, their ability to travel even from one town to the next was severely restricted, and no one would hire them.

You're also handily ignoring that what few rights the former slaves did get were imposed by the victorious North, and that the South was defiled and bankrupt as a result of the war. Everyone's life sucked, the former slaves just had particularly sucky lives. Even still, the life of an African-American in 1870 was not substantially different from his life in 1860 and it wouldn't substantially change for decades yet. They were still slaves, they just weren't called slaves.

That change, further, happened largely as a result of even their jobs as farmers being taken away by the advancement of technology. It was only when left with literally no option that they began to seek other options. Even still, it is no coincidence that crime rate and poverty both in America today are highest amongst African-Americans; they are still living in the fallout of the end of slavery.

And finally, once again, food production was concentrated largely in the North, not the South. There are entirely different mechanisms and considerations when talking about the end of slave-driven cotton and tobacco farming, verses the end of slave-driven agricultural production.

[SassyQuatch]

Uhh, no? It isn't?
Causing the deaths of a large percentage of your poulation when you don't have to isn't evil?

I don't believe you.

The idea that slavery is bad can be based upon one of a hundred philosophies as well developed as any other philosophy. Don't just write off an entire philosophical perspective.
Philosophy is nice when backed up by facts. Yet a civilization that grew to power simply by the work of it's citizenry isn't a fact. It hasn't happened.

And feel free to support your position at any time. Because you haven't used any of "a hundred" different philosophies, but have kept repeating exactly what I said, some bad things happened to some dlaves therefore all slavery is bad. Which is simplistic and, when it comes to advancing cultures, is wrong.


Also, the other option is that slaves retain their jobs, doing largely the same duties, but now they can't be as easily raped or murdered because they could leave if they wanted to. (Though they usually wouldn't, since having a job is better than not.) Historically, my scenario is what actually happens.
No, it isn't. What happened is that since labor was provided by slaves there were others free to innovate. After enough innovation slavery was no longer necessary and was abolished. Never once did a society just up and free the slaves unless they had the surplus capacity to carry on without slaves.

You are arguing a point completely devoid of facts.

[awa]

corve labor is basically just taxes. peasants have no money we could take your food but we would rather have you build roads instead it's very different then slavery.

[Raven777]

On a fictionnal angle, what about Seanchan's (from The Wheel of Time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheWheelOfTime?from=Main.TheWheelOfTime)) model for slavery? The slaves have basic rights and some So'jhin in the higher up noble houses have enough authority to order regular citizens around, oversee organizations and projects, or tell military officials and other nobles to shut up and behave. Their model for slavery feels pretty non-evil to me.

[georgie_leech]

On a fictionnal angle, what about Seanchan's (from The Wheel of Time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheWheelOfTime?from=Main.TheWheelOfTime)) model for slavery? The slaves have basic rights and some So'jhin in the higher up noble houses have enough authority to order regular citizens around, oversee organizations and projects, or tell military officials and other nobles to shut up and behave. Their model for slavery feels pretty non-evil to me.

Helped along by the fact that it's also quasi-voluntary, yeah. It plays a significant role in their culture.

[SassyQuatch]

On a fictionnal angle, what about Seanchan's (from The Wheel of Time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheWheelOfTime?from=Main.TheWheelOfTime)) model for slavery? The slaves have basic rights and some So'jhin in the higher up noble houses have enough authority to order regular citizens around, oversee organizations and projects, or tell military officials and other nobles to shut up and behave. Their model for slavery feels pretty non-evil to me.
This is already modelled in some forms of historical slavery. A slave was to be treated fairly and released after a period of time, if the slave was harmed they would be immediately released from all obligation and often compensated monetarily. If a slave died through direct action or negligence the owner was tried as a murderer (death penalty offense) and the family compensated.

Not the Roman system, but it existed and both shows that ownership of another being is not always evil and that slavery in itself is not bad and automatically a sentence to rape and cruelty.

[TuggyNE]

corve labor is basically just taxes. peasants have no money we could take your food but we would rather have you build roads instead it's very different then slavery.

Slavery to the government ("you are required to work without pay and without choice on tasks we assign you and we will use force if necessary to ensure compliance") does not seem meaningfully different from regular slavery, except that perhaps you are responsible for managing your own housing and food, or perhaps you aren't.

Since you correctly note that it is more or less interchangeable with various institutions we consider perfectly acceptable (taxes, in particular), I hope you can see why I reason that such forms of slavery can likewise be acceptable, at least in principle.

[SassyQuatch]

If we look at incarceration (varies by location) we can actually see a lot of correlation with slavery.

No freedom to leave? Check.
Often has poor living conditions? Check.
Often has expectation of service (labor)? Check.
Often said service receives little or no compensation? Check.
If compensated, it is a trivial amount that is eaten up by basic necessities? Check.
Conditions often involve beatings, rape and murder? Check.

Seems like the problem is more of who does the owning, a person or a state. Unless pretty much every country with a prison system is now judged as evil and the prisoners should all be set free among the populace because slavery is bad.

[SowZ]

Causing the deaths of a large percentage of your poulation when you don't have to isn't evil?

I don't believe you.

Philosophy is nice when backed up by facts. Yet a civilization that grew to power simply by the work of it's citizenry isn't a fact. It hasn't happened.

And feel free to support your position at any time. Because you haven't used any of "a hundred" different philosophies, but have kept repeating exactly what I said, some bad things happened to some dlaves therefore all slavery is bad. Which is simplistic and, when it comes to advancing cultures, is wrong.


No, it isn't. What happened is that since labor was provided by slaves there were others free to innovate. After enough innovation slavery was no longer necessary and was abolished. Never once did a society just up and free the slaves unless they had the surplus capacity to carry on without slaves.

You are arguing a point completely devoid of facts.

Causing a large portion of your population to be open to torture, murder, and rape when you don't have to isn't evil?

I haven't gone into my reasons for disliking slavery is bad because I've instead decided to argue that slavery isn't necessary. That point seemed more important to me. Plus, the philosophies I believe which cause me to condemn slavery are nearly impossible to get into without getting political. I've also been too busy responding to, "If you think that, you must think it is good to let babies starve!" and "The only reason people think that is because its proper, they have no reasons, too."

On so far as what would happen in Rome if slavery went away, we are equally devoid of facts because we can't know if the slaves would be fine retaining their previous positions without pay or not. There's no good example. I brought up one example that showed slaves staying at there old jobs. Yes, it wasn't the same situation. No, there isn't an equivalent example. We are both speculating.

Also, you are intentionally reducing my argument and saying, "This is all you've said," when you know very well I've said more than that. But feel free to keep insisting I don't have valid reasons for my beliefs because I haven't responded to every argument posited against me in a 6 on 1 debate. That's fair.

You haven't given facts on how Rome would starve without slaves, either. a lot of Roman slaves were in completely unnecessary jobs and household servantry that could easily be done away with. I happen to think were all those slaves freed, the agricultural jobs would still be necessary and those jobs would be eagerly filled.

[SowZ]

I'm stepping away from this thread for a day or two. If anyone wants to say something to me, I'll read it for the next hour or so. Then I won't. While I'm not angry, the direction of the thread has upset me a bit which I don't like to happen, there's no call for it.

I've returned insult and condescension with insult and condescension, and was also the first person to start being dismissive of the other persons point in a few of the exchanges, which is inconducive for a good discussion. I apologize to anyone I've insulted or talked down to.

I realize it hasn't gotten that bad, all things considered, hence why I'm trying to put a stop to it here.

I may rejoin the discussion when none of my emotions are involved. Happy New Years, everybody.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So it appears my statements have been too nebulous to make my point. Let's try something a bit more concrete.

Here is a prototype for articles of slavery that creates a -lawful- institution that is not -inherently- evil.

Note that in the society that this is for there are four classes of people; the citizen, the non-citizen, the slave, and the non-person. Citizens enjoy the full rights and responsibilities of their society. Non-citizens are protected under the law but receive fewer rights and responsibilities than citizens. Slaves are outlined by the articles below. Non-persons are not protected under the law and have no rights or responsibilities in this society.



A slave is defined as a person who has sold or had seized their freedom either of their own accord or to repay a legally recognized debt or crime. The following articles define their position within <the society>.

It is a slave's responsibility to do the work for which that slave is sold. Failure to uphold this responsibility is punishable by whatever means his master sees fit, insofar as it does not violate any other part of these articles. If the slave is owned by the state, this punishment is a period of incarceration not to exceed <X> days. If a state-owned slave is incarcerated <Y> times within <Z> period his freedom is returned, he is declared a non-person, and he is branded as outlined in <law defining non-person status>. Any state-owned slave found guilty of trying to flee from ownership by the state more than once or of fleeing from ownership by citizens more than <n> times is similarly punished. No slave shall be required to perform work under conditions that would have great likelihood to result in maiming or death.

A slave is protected under the law from physical assault in the same manner as all other persons. To do physical harm to a slave is punishable by fine, seizing of assets, enslavement or, if the harm is great, other penalties under <law defining punishment of violent crimes> up to and including being declared a non-person or execution.

A slave is required to visibly wear a slave collar. A slave collar is a band of leather or steel, at least two inches wide, that can be fastened to the slave's person and locked into position such that the slave is incapable of removing it without either destroying the collar, the lock, or using a key or similar device. A slave collar must not be manufactured such that it does harm to the slave wearing it. The mark of the slave <image of said mark> must be printed, embossed, stitched, or otherwise permanently emblazoned on all slave collars. A collar need not be an actual collar around the neck as long as it otherwise fits the above criteria.

All slaves are to be registered with the state's law enforcement.

A slave is entitled to own property, not including other slaves. A slave's master has the right to disallow a slave the use of that slave's property in the event that the slave should fail to uphold a slave's legal responsibility to work for his master. The slave's property is to be returned to the slave upon that slave's purchase of his freedom. A master cannot seize ownership of his slave's property nor can he demand that a slave turn over any piece of property without suitable compensation.

A slave is entitled to a percentage of the value of the work that slave does for his master, not to be less than <X>%. A slave's master may not inflict punishment on that slave by fine or wage lien for any reason.

A slave may not be demanded to work for more than 11 hours on any given day, wherein a day is defined as the period beginning at midnight and ending at one minute prior to midnight of the same day; nor may he be demanded to work for more than 6 days of any given week, wherein a week is defined as the period beginning at midnight on <sunday equivalent> and ending at one minute prior to midnight on the following <sunday equivalent>.

A slave may not be confined except as punishment for failure to uphold a slave's legal responsibility to work. If a slave is absent from the housing provided for or owned by his master for a period longer than <X> days then that slave is declared a run-away slave as described elsewhere in these articles. An exception to this is made for a slave that owns housing of his own.

Female slaves that become pregnant are not to be assigned heavy labor for the final third of their pregnancy and for a period half that length after the child is born, wherein heavy labor is defined as any task that requires lifting or pushing more than one third their normal, non-pregnant body weight for more than four hours of the day. No child can be a slave but if the mother or parents are unwilling or unable to provide for their child that child becomes a ward to any local religious or other institution that will accept them or, barring the existence of such institutions, wards to the state until such time as they reach the age of majority.

To be a master to slaves, a person must be a citizen. Neither slaves nor non-citizens may own slaves.

A master must provide housing for his slaves, wherein housing is defined as nothing less than a roofed structure with four walls that are or can easily be enclosed, at least one door and one window, and a hearth or some other heat source suitable for heating the entire structure to a comfortable temperature. A particular building used for housing slaves must not cover an area less than 30 square feet per adult slave to be housed within. The slaves that occupy a given structure may bar from entry to that structure anyone except their master. A master may not make or enforce rules that would force his slaves to leave opened or closed the housing's door(s) or window(s) except in the case that they would bar him entry. An exception to the requirement to provide housing is made for any slave that owns housing. A master may also choose to offer his slaves the opportunity to rent any living quarters that the master owns if they do not wish to live in the housing provided. A master need not own the housing for his slaves but must provide it by renting it from or otherwise making arrangements with its owner if he does not.

A master must provide food for his slaves, wherein food is defined as no less than two meals each day, comprised of no less than one 5 inch wide, 3 inch deep bowl or one 7 inch plate at least two-thirds filled or covered by a foodstuff made of grain and/or vegetables and, at least once per week, a foodstuff made primarily from or with meat and/or beans, unless a slave purchases his own meal from any vendor sanctioned by the state to sell food to slaves. A master can choose to withhold one day's worth of meals in lieu of confinement for failure to work but must never deny a slave food for more than 3 consecutive days.

The state's law enforcement is to review the housing and food provisions of each citizen that owns slaves once every six months or whenever a master is accused of wrong-doing by at least 3 slaves or 1 citizen.

If the state's law enforcement finds a master's provisions to be lacking, that master will be given 30 days to correct any problems found or to sell off a number of slaves such that their provisions meet the legal standards. Failure to do so will result in the state seizing the number of slaves determined to be in excess of the master's provisional capacity.

All punishments that result in food withholding or confinement must be recorded and reported to the state during the semi-annual inspections.

If a citizen that owns slaves becomes a slave or is found guilty of abusing a slave more than <X> times, wherein abuse is defined as violating any of the rules outlined in these articles, the state law enforcement will seize all of his slaves and, if the citizen owns it, the housing provided to those slaves. Once that person's enslavement is ended the housing will be returned, provided it was seized from him, and he will be given the opportunity to repurchase his slaves, providing they were not seized because the master was found to be abusive and assuming any of them remain under the state's ownership.

A slave is not allowed to flee from ownership. Any slave that attempts to do so is declared a run-away slave. A run-away slave is any slave found in a settlement other than the one in which that slave is registered, a settlement other than the one in which either his master or any of his master's vassals can currently be found, or any slave who hasn't been in the housing provided for him or owned by his master or his own home in the last three days. A run-away slave is subject to immediate arrest and confinement until such time as he can be returned to his master.

If a slave will not or cannot work or is declared a run-away, that slave's master may pay a processing fee and attempt to give that slave to the state. For the state to accept, the slave must have been punished by confinement and/or food withholding every day for at least three weeks or must be shown to be useless to the owner by virtue of incompetence or lack of work to be done for the same period or must be found guilty of attempting to flee from ownership. Any slave given to the state in this manner will have his property seized and its value weighed against his value as a slave. If the seized property is of sufficient value the slave is given his freedom and the master a portion of the seized property not to exceed <X>%. If not, the slave will be sold or worked by the state. If a run-away slave is processed in this manner without being captured prior to evaluating his property and is to be freed as a result, he must still be captured and will not be given his freedom until such time as he has spent <X> days in confinement, at which time he will be informed of the legal actions taken in his absence.



There you go. I don't think I missed anything glaringly obvious there.\

The things in <> brackets are variable and dependent on the society that actually employs the document and there would likely be quite a number of fiddly bits added onto the document over time if the society employing it survived for any length of time; thus the note on it being abridged.

Like any system there will be people who try to abuse or skirt the system but that's not a flaw inherent to the system itself.

The above fits the definition of slavery by the standard of any dictionary but -doesn't- allow for the abuses commonly associated with the term. This should, hopefully, exemplify my point that slavery is a matter of Law vs Chaos rather than Good vs Evil. It's the baggage associated with slavery that gives it the appearance of being a Good vs Evil matter.

Edit: oops, I did miss something pretty obvious. Provisions for pregnant slaves and slaves' children. Gimme a minute.

Edit 2: There we go.

[Scow2]

If the only way to prevent mass starvation is to put a gun to a bunch of peoples heads and say, "You no longer have the right to fight for your existence, you will live for someone else's continued existence," I would have no problem taking away all those guns. If that means the people who were hostages now run away, and the people holding the guns will now starve to death by the millions because they can't do feed themselves? I think that starvation is far, far preferable to the slavery, and I'd choose it with hardly a second thought.
Nothing can revoke the right to fight for your existence - all that can be taken away are things that subsidize life. The thing about inalienable rights is that you always have them, no matter how much someone else wants to take them away: "COME AND GET THEM!" is always a possible answer. The question is, "What are your life and rights worth to you?"

[georgie_leech]

Snip

That's a pretty good wright up for LN Enslavement, yeah*. Incidentally, I'm no expert, but it looks as though the housing section puts a soft upper limit on the size of the housing provided. A slave couldn't be housed in lavish mansions (surprisingly common when it comes to concubines in certain cultures) without some form of prohibitively large fireplace, because the language specifies a hearth does the heating. Maybe specify that in addition to a hearth, alternate sources of heat may be used to heat larger buildings?

Also, I'm totally using this for a culture in a homebrew setting of mine. It has been a pain to make it clear that a large portion of the population are fundamentally slaves, but are still protected under law.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's a pretty good wright up for LN Enslavement, yeah*. Incidentally, I'm no expert, but it looks as though the housing section puts a soft upper limit on the size of the housing provided. A slave couldn't be housed in lavish mansions (surprisingly common when it comes to concubines in certain cultures) without some form of prohibitively large fireplace, because the language specifies a hearth does the heating. Maybe specify that in addition to a hearth, alternate sources of heat may be used to heat larger buildings?

Also, I'm totally using this for a culture in a homebrew setting of mine. It has been a pain to make it clear that a large portion of the population are fundamentally slaves, but are still protected under law.

Meh. Concubines aren't really the kind of slaves that was meant to apply to. The requirement to pay slaves for their services makes concubines into defacto prostitutes anyway and that industry, unless it's outlawed, doesn't need slavery to be ridiculously profitable. It's also not a type of work that could be forced on the workers under the laws governing assault, meaning that you only get willing workers to boot.

Nevermind the presumption that there is a ruling or noble class above the average citizen that would even be able to demand a harem. There can still be relative equality amongst the 3 castes of people.

I suppose I could add a clause to the sentence regarding hearths "or some other form of heating" for completeness sake.

You and anyone else that cares to are welcome to use it if you like. I would only ask that you let me know if you or your players find any nasty holes in it that I somehow overlooked.

[georgie_leech]

Meh. Concubines aren't really the kind of slaves that was meant to apply to. The requirement to pay slaves for their services makes concubines into defacto prostitutes anyway and that industry, unless it's outlawed, doesn't need slavery to be ridiculously profitable. It's also not a type of work that could be forced on the workers under the laws governing assault, meaning that you only get willing workers to boot.

Nevermind the presumption that there is a ruling or noble class above the average citizen that would even be able to demand a harem. There can still be relative equality amongst the 3 castes of people.

I suppose I could add a clause to the sentence regarding hearths "or some other form of heating" for completeness sake.

You and anyone else that cares to are welcome to use it if you like. I would only ask that you let me know if you or your players find any nasty holes in it that I somehow overlooked.

Much obliged, it's a fantastic write-up either way, much better than what I was using :smalltongue:

[hymer]

@ KP: That's an impressive writeup, certainly. But it's a penal system you're describing, not a slavery system. Being a slave means being owned by someone; being property. This institution you describe can only (legally) be gotten into by one's own actions or inactions. You can't get sold off at someone's whim, you retain plenty of rights - it's a jail sentence with mandatory work being included (which can be hotly contested, but isn't part of this debate). It is not slavery, which is Evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ KP: That's an impressive writeup, certainly. But it's a penal system you're describing, not a slavery system. Being a slave means being owned by someone; being property. This institution you describe can only (legally) be gotten into by one's own actions or inactions. You can't get sold off at someone's whim, you retain plenty of rights - it's a jail sentence with mandatory work being included (which can be hotly contested, but isn't part of this debate). It is not slavery, which is Evil.

That you refuse to acknowledge it as slavery doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Those that are defined under that document as slaves fit the plain English definition for being a slave; being completely under the dominion of another person. They -can- be sold at a whim to any citizen willing to buy them. They must work or face dire consequences; the ultimate penalty for consistent failure to work as a slave is being declared a non-person, at which point you can be slain out-of-hand by anyone and the law won't bat an eyelash. This is on the same level as being exiled or even executed depending on the society in question.

That slaves are afforded basic human rights and a way out of bondage under the law that document outlines makes it non-evil. It doesn't make it "not slavery."

Calling it a penal system is absurd. How many penal systems have you ever heard of that people can voluntarily enter, much less get paid for it?

[TuggyNE]

That slaves are afforded basic human rights and a way out of bondage under the law that document outlines makes it non-evil. It doesn't make it "not slavery."

Of course it does, because slavery is always evil, and this isn't evil, so it's not slavery!

[hymer]

@ KP: I'm sorry I missed the parts about selling them on and the threat of getting killed for any or no reason. Those parts are evil, and include the threats that make slavery work. I should have read it more closely.

The plain English definition of slavery? I presume we're not talking about 'slaving' over the stove to cook dinner. I've looked around and seen a few different versions. OED is pretty neutral ('the state of being a slave', a slave being 'a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them'). The Free Dictionary is rather harsher ('A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another'). There seems to be no such thing as a plain definition.
If you decide that being property isn't so bad (I think it is), you only have to take a few steps along the thought process to see where the Evil enters. What good is owning someone who won't do what you tell them to? Lack of consent can be overcome by threats and eventually violence - how else do you force someone? You got there yourself. Entirely disproportionately, you can get killed for owing money away - presumably fairly small sums, if one can judge the attitude of a society by its implementing a system like the one you constructed.
The slavery system cannot work for long without the slaves believing the threats, and believing that the threats are worse than being forced to work, forced to stay in a certain place, and forced to live one's life as indicated by a master. Believing them means they believe they are carried out - a threat to their lives. That, as you probably guessed by now, is Evil.

Edit @ Tuggy: Thanks for the cheap shot, nice colours. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

the threat of getting killed for any or no reason.

Which part is that? The only way you can legally be killed is if you "consistently" refuse to work, and are then ultimately declared a non-person. While the details of the wording may need work in some areas*, that concept is not even close to "getting killed for any or no reason".


Edit @ Tuggy: Thanks for the cheap shot, nice colours. :smalltongue:

You're welcome? I do try.


*For example, there's no explicit prohibition against modifying a collar to harm a slave, nor indeed buying one from somewhere else, only manufacturing one. Stuff like that would get ironed out in the process of adopting the law, one assumes.

[hymer]

Which part is that? The only way you can legally be killed is if you "consistently" refuse to work, and are then ultimately declared a non-person.

That is what I'm referring to. You think it's a decent punishment? How long should you refuse to work (while being forced to stay) before capital punishment seems reasonable to you? :smallfrown:

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ KP: I'm sorry I missed the parts about selling them on and the threat of getting killed for any or no reason. Those parts are evil, and include the threats that make slavery work. I should have read it more closely. ..... I can only conclude from this response that you still didn't actually read it in detail. That or you're really tired, maybe?

The ultimate threat is not death or any variation of torture or anything else like that. It's a change in legally recognized social status, specifically to the status of "You've proven yourself useless to society and we no longer concern ourselves with you. Good luck." Anything that happens to the former-slave-turned-non-person after that is outside of the law's purview or concern. By the standards of most civilizations though, that is comparable to a death sentence or exile.

The legally sanctioned punishments for slaves are withholding food, confinement, disallowing the slave the use of his property for pleasure or profit, and possibly shaming. No physical harm to the slave is a legal punishment, beyond a few hunger pangs.


The plain English definition of slavery? I presume we're not talking about 'slaving' over the stove to cook dinner. I've looked around and seen a few different versions. OED is pretty neutral ('the state of being a slave', a slave being 'a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them'). The Free Dictionary is rather harsher ('A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another'). There seems to be no such thing as a plain definition.

There is one common thread amongst all of them. There is a situation of one or more persons owning one or more different persons.


If you decide that being property isn't so bad, you only have to take a few steps along the thought process to see where the Evil enters. What good is owning someone who won't do what you tell them to? Lack of consent can be overcome by threats and eventually violence - how else do you force someone? You got there yourself. Entirely disproportionately, you can get killed for owing money away - presumably fairly small sums, if one can judge the attitude of a society by its implementing a system like the one you constructed.

Exactly. Whether a society is good or evil, using this model, is dependent entirely on how they implement it. The system itself is not inherently good or evil.



The slavery system cannot work for long without the slaves believing the threats, and believing that the threats are worse than being forced to work, forced to stay in a certain place, and forced to live one's life as indicated by a master. Believing them means they believe they are carried out - a threat to their lives. That, as you probably gussed by now, is Evil.

I think you're -dramatically- underestimating the weight of a threat to social standing and the even greater weight of the fear of being told "You're no longer one of us," in a societal sense. Threats to a person's physical well being can be trivial next to these. Human(oid)s are social animals after all.

Try and imagine it for a moment. You've been physically branded as worthless by the ruling body of the land. Every person you meet sees this brand and knows that by the standards of the society they grew up in, you're quite literally worth nothing. You're treated as little better than a stray dog by all but the nicest of folks; folks who still distance themselves from you for fear of becoming social pariahs themselves. You're only safe from harm as long as you commit absolutely no crimes and don't piss off anyone enough for them to want to harm you. You can only get the lowest of work to feed yourself and have to trust in the decency of your employer that you'll even be paid instead of simply used and discarded. Except for the brand, no harm was done to you by the system. You failed to do what your society expects of you and now you are reaping the consequences of that failure.

It's not evil. It's certainly not good but the malice necessary for it to qualify as evil simply isn't there.

[hymer]

..... I can only conclude from this response that you still didn't actually read it in detail. That or you're really tired, maybe?

Let's take a look at what you're writing and see who's reading in detail, shall we?


The ultimate threat is not death or any variation of torture or anything else like that. It's a change in legally recognized social status, specifically to the status of "You've proven yourself useless to society and we no longer concern ourselves with you. Good luck." Anything that happens to the former-slave-turned-non-person after that is outside of the law's purview or concern. By the standards of most civilizations though, that is comparable to a death sentence or exile.

I agree with the last part. It doesn't seem to agree with the first part, though.


There is one common thread amongst all of them. There is a situation of one or more persons owning one or more different persons.

Allright, we'll go with that.


Whether a society is good or evil, using this model, is dependent entirely on how they implement it. The system itself is not inherently good or evil.

My claim is that there is no implementation of slavery which does not rely on threats. For the threats to be effective, they have to be sufficiently disproportionate, sufficiently nasty, so they outweigh basic freedoms - they have to be Evil. I have yet to see anything to make me think otherwise.
Your claim seems to me to be a lot like saying it isn't wrong to smack people in the face, it's only wrong if doing so inflicts harm on them. Well, smacking them in the face should be expected to lead to harm. If you want to avoid harm, not smacking people in the face is the clear path forward.
Instituting slavery would cause suffering proportional to the amount of people subjected to it, because you can't get away from legal ownership needing threats to get such a system to be usefully profitable.


I think you're -dramatically- underestimating the weight of a threat to social standing and the even greater weight of the fear of being told "You're no longer one of us," in a societal sense. Threats to a person's physical well being can be trivial next to these. Human(oid)s are social animals after all.

So, if this is such a horrible threat (and I agree that it is), how is using it better than a threat of violence, pain or death?

[AMFV]

My claim is that there is no implementation of slavery which does not rely on threats. For the threats to be effective, they have to be sufficiently disproportionate, sufficiently nasty, so they outweigh basic freedoms - they have to be Evil. I have yet to see anything to make me think otherwise.
Your claim seems to me to be a lot like saying it isn't wrong to smack people in the face, it's only wrong if doing so inflicts harm on them. Well, smacking them in the face should be expected to lead to harm. If you want to avoid harm, not smacking people in the face is the clear path forward.
Instituting slavery would cause suffering proportional to the amount of people subjected to it, because you can't get away from legal ownership needing threats to get such a system to be usefully profitable.

I was in the military, I had no basic freedoms, no freedom of speech, no freedom of expression, no ability to go where I wanted when I wanted, no privacy. If I was accused of a crime I had no right to a jury trial. I could be punished for the same crime twice. Fundamentally it was very similar to slavery (although I was paid, so that is different, and I'm not saying the military is slavery), I'm just saying that it takes far less for people to give up freedoms than you imagine.

People did after all go and live in the towns run by the coal barons, where they were trapped by the pigeon currencies used forever and in debt forever. They gave up their freedoms for security and food, it's not uncommon.

People agreed to indentured servitude to start a new life in the Americas, where they were basically treated like property for a short period of time, possibly a long period of time.

People give up freedoms for all sorts of reasons and suggesting that threatening violence is the only thing that will do it, is just not historically accurate.

[TuggyNE]

My claim is that there is no implementation of slavery which does not rely on threats. For the threats to be effective, they have to be sufficiently disproportionate, sufficiently nasty, so they outweigh basic freedoms - they have to be Evil.

All but the last clause is obviously true. It is also true of society as a whole, though, which is why things like jails and death sentences exist, and have existed for a very long time. If life imprisonment or execution is not automatically evil when used as a (somewhat) disproportionate threat to keep people from committing very serious crimes*, how then are similar punishments enough to make enforcing slavery automatically evil? And if they are enough, well, at any rate slavery seems not particularly worse (in principle) than any civilization yet devised, which is good enough for me.

Practice is a bit of a different matter; slavery has a lot of implementation problems, and a lot of ways that abuses can be made trickier to prevent. That doesn't mean it's evil, though, just problematic.


*Such as treason. Which is mostly acting against the interests of the state as a whole in its military and governmental capacity. Since slavery is in the interests of the state as a whole in its economic capacity… inciting slaves to revolt would be similarly punished, one supposes. (And it was.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I agree with the last part. It doesn't seem to agree with the first part, though.

Could you be more specific here? Is it the statement that the proposed status change is roughly equal to exile or execution that you agree with? If so, stop focusing on the execution and look at exile. They're of equal weight as threats but they are not equivalent, at all, in how they actually affect the person subjected to them.



My claim is that there is no implementation of slavery which does not rely on threats. For the threats to be effective, they have to be sufficiently disproportionate, sufficiently nasty, so they outweigh basic freedoms - they have to be Evil. I have yet to see anything to make me think otherwise.
Your claim seems to me to be a lot like saying it isn't wrong to smack people in the face, it's only wrong if doing so inflicts harm on them. Well, smacking them in the face should be expected to lead to harm. If you want to avoid harm, not smacking people in the face is the clear path forward.

There's the core of the dispute right there. What are basic freedoms and what are they worth? Why are they automatically so valuable as to only be something given up on pain of horrendous suffering? Do they even really exist in the context of society? It seems that those who oppose slavery on principle have certain assumptions about the answers to these questions which are dramatically less obvious than they seem.

If I may make some presumptions; such freedoms seem to include the right to choose where to live, the right to choose whether or not to work for a given employer, and perhaps the right to own property(?).

Only the first is almost definitely lost in the system I outlined but what is it really worth? Most people will be completely unable to afford to leave their home town in a pre-industrial society. For them, only an idea is lost. It's a fine idea but is it really worth the substantial amount of money to be had in giving it up? Is it worth risking the tremendous social degradation to -steal- it back once it's sold? Those that could afford to actually act on this right needn't ever become slaves unless they commit non-violent criminal acts or do something tremendously foolish with their money. Even so, there is provision in the law that allows them to live wherever they like in the same settlement as their master or one of his vassals as long as they're willing to purchase their own home.

The second isn't really lost, just modified. Just as with free persons, choosing not to work for those who would put you to work has consequences. In a free society that consequence is often starvation. Under the proposed law the consequence becomes being passed off to some other party that would put you to work. Unless you're not willing to work for anyone but yourself, which is certain death if you fail in a free society, you never really find yourself at risk for the ultimate consequence which is -still- better than dying, if only just, and unless you're enslaved for committing a non-violent crime you still get to choose who you sell yourself to or even -if- you're willing to sell yourself to anyone. Since a slave can only be confined as punishment for failure to work, he can freely petition citizens other than his master to purchase him, either by virtue of his skills or offering to pay a portion of the cost himself or in exchange for some specific piece of property he owns, or any other way he can think of to make himself seem more appealing to the citizen he petitions and simultaneously is able to do what he can to make the coin he'd fetch more appealing to his current master than keeping him.

The third isn't lost either. A slave specifically reserves the right to own property though he may not always have access to all his property.



Instituting slavery would cause suffering proportional to the amount of people subjected to it, because you can't get away from legal ownership needing threats to get such a system to be usefully profitable.

That threats, either explicit or implicit, are required for slavery to exist is true enough. That those threats have to be threats that evil will be done against the disobedient slave is not. Moreover, -all- societies exist in a state of implicit threat to all members of that society. Take the old axiom, "If you don't work, you don't eat," for example. In most societies this is simply an accepted truth. An implicit threat that if you don't earn your keep you won't be kept. In a society that employs the proposed laws it becomes more explicit but is no different than it ever was and is even subverted to some extent in the fact that a slave owner cannot intentionally cause a slave to starve to death.

Ultimately the proposed system only threatens a person's social standing in the society that employs it. It works because the threat leveled against that social standing is extraordinarily dire and if it is actually executed it promises a much more unpleasant life than would otherwise be reasonably expected.




So, if this is such a horrible threat (and I agree that it is), how is using it better than a threat of violence, pain or death?

From a moral perspective? Maybe it's not. The value of social standing as compared to the value of physical comfort or the value of life is an inherently subjective thing.

From an alignment perspective, however, it's much clearer. Having your social standing reduced, or more accurately erased, as a consequence of your own action or inaction simply doesn't fit the criteria used to describe evil. There's no malice in it; only a concern for the upholding of social order. Its systematic nature certainly makes it lawful but it only becomes evil if it is intentionally slanted in such a way as to greatly increase the likelihood of people falling into it through no fault of their own, greatly decrease the likelihood of people being able to get out of the system, and greatly increase the likelihood of people having that ultimate penalty executed on them. This is, as I said before, a function of the practitioners, not the practice.

[hymer]

I'm just saying that it takes far less for people to give up freedoms than you imagine.

How many injustices does it take? The system has to account for everyone. If it is particularly harsh on those with great intelligence, courage, or moral integrity, that reflects poorly on the system.


[lots of examples of people giving up their freedom]

All true enough, which could be said to be unfortunate for humanity. But it has no bearing on the discussion. That most slaves would be obedient, for whatever reason, doesn't change the fundamental nature of slavery. A law along the lines of which we're talking about would also pertain to people, who would be unwilling to cooperate. This whole argument started with my asking KP what a good-aligned slave-owner should do with a slave who refuses to work.

@ Tuggy: I don’t know if we live in different societies, or view our societies differently. I’m not sure we can get into it here, as it’s pretty political, and I wouldn’t say that you don’t have a point, even though I wouldn’t agree entirely. So I’ll try to sidestep that whole issue with a more general statement:
A just punishment has to be proportionate with the crime committed. It may be harsher than the crime committed, but not to any great extent. Refusing to work would seem to me to be a minor crime, especially if used as a means of protest. You may disagree, of course.

@ KP:
Being more specific, here:

The ultimate threat is not death or any variation of torture […]By the standards of most civilizations though, that is comparable to a death sentence or exile.
I took it to mean “Don’t complain about capital punishment, it isn’t. It’s something else which is about the same level of threat.” Which we needn’t quarrel over, as I see further down in your post that we agree on that.

About freedom ideals, I agree it can be argued either way. In such an absolutist system as D&D alignment, however, I see nothing wrong with being entirely idealistic, and saying that having the freedom is more important than using it. (I also see nothing wrong with arguing that IRL, but this reply is already getting needlessly cumbersome, so I’ll restrain myself as best I can. :smallwink:)
You left out a couple of good ones, though: Expression and assembly. Having these freedoms would increase the likelihood of escape, revolt and political activity. You could allow them, but I don’t think it would help stabilize the system.


From an alignment perspective, however, it's much clearer. Having your social standing reduced, or more accurately erased, as a consequence of your own action or inaction simply doesn't fit the criteria used to describe evil. There's no malice in it; only a concern for the upholding of social order. Its systematic nature certainly makes it lawful but it only becomes evil if it is intentionally slanted in such a way as to greatly increase the likelihood of people falling into it through no fault of their own, greatly decrease the likelihood of people being able to get out of the system, and greatly increase the likelihood of people having that ultimate penalty executed on them. This is, as I said before, a function of the practitioners, not the practice.
This is nicely constructed, and it reminds me that we’re talking D&D alignment here. So I accept that as a strong, coherent argument, and if my DM said he ruled it like that, I would accept it. If forced to rule on it as a DM, I’d still say that slavery goes against the integrity of the individual, nullifying his personhood attacks his dignity, and intentionally (threatening with) putting him in a legal vacuum for minor things shows (IMO) malice towards him. IE: It is Evil. :smallbiggrin:

[Drachasor]

I'm sick and tired of running into slavery apologists lately. Seems like they are all over the place. You guys can paint all the lovely pictures of idealized slavery you want. IT HAS NEVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN LIKE THAT IN ANY SOCIETY IN RECORDED HISTORY. And frankly, it is completely against human nature for slavery to ever be pleasant or nice. To give objects rights is to erode slavery and once you have in sufficient protections so that people can stay friends with those they care about, stay with their families, not be beaten, not be sold off whenever their owner doesn't like it, change jobs if they don't like the situation, don't have to worry about rape, don't have to worry about how the owner has Priviledge, etc, etc....well, that's not slavery anymore.

Without those changes and more like it, there will be horrific abuses. Always have been, always will be.

And yes, AMFV, slavery is by definition dehumanizing, because being treated as an OBJECT or ANIMAL is by definition dehumanizing.


I was in the military, I had no basic freedoms, no freedom of speech, no freedom of expression, no ability to go where I wanted when I wanted, no privacy. If I was accused of a crime I had no right to a jury trial. I could be punished for the same crime twice. Fundamentally it was very similar to slavery (although I was paid, so that is different, and I'm not saying the military is slavery), I'm just saying that it takes far less for people to give up freedoms than you imagine.

You could quit and did have numerous other freedoms. You DID have freedom of expression. Not absolute, but certainly more than a slave could expect. You had the right to worship or not worship as you chose. If accused of a crime there WOULD be a trial, which is something slaves didn't have. You couldn't be killed without punishment, raping you would be illegal (though granted the military has a major a problem with enforcement). You were paid. You were able to own your own property. Barring extreme conditions you'd have time off and leave.

Saying it was like slavery just indicates you have no idea what slavery is actually like. Then again, that seems to be a common thread among slavery apologists.

I mean, crap guys, the fact you think slavery can somehow work out ok when we have major problems with just boss-employee relationships is mind-boggling. And let's also consider domestic abuse. And in both of those cases we're talking about people with a heck of a lot more rights, who actually have a say in the laws and how they are governed. "Legal rights" of a slave are largely going to be a pretty fiction when they have someone who controls so much of their life. To say nothing of the fact they have zero ability to get out of a bad situation if they can't prove something in court (assuming they could get a court case, handle paying for a decent lawyer compared to the owner, etc, etc, etc).

In D&D this is certainly going to be an inherently evil institution because it encourages evil behavior, it is dehumanizing, and it is oppressive on many levels (especially psychological).

[hymer]

@ Drachasor: I don't think (I could be wrong, but I've I made the first reply and I'm still here) anyone in this thread has been advocating slavery, nor claimed that IRL it ever was or will be a good thing. KP has been arguing about theoretical slavery, I presume because in a D&D context, some beings might view slavery different from what real humans do, and act differently. A Modron, for instance.
You forgot the important one to AMFV: The military couldn't sell him. But I think he was talking about freedom in general, not with regards to slavery.

[Drachasor]

@ Drachasor: I don't think (I could be wrong, but I've I made the first reply and I'm still here) anyone in this thread has been advocating slavery, nor claimed that IRL it ever was or will be a good thing. KP has been arguing about theoretical slavery, I presume because in a D&D context, some beings might view slavery different from what real humans do, and act differently. A Modron, for instance.
You forgot the important one to AMFV: The military couldn't sell him. But I think he was talking about freedom in general, not with regards to slavery.

And why is it that this has constantly been coming up every time I see a thread on the Romans? Let's remember the context, we're talking about whether the alignment of their society. Slavery came up, Roman slavery, and here we have a bunch of people talking about how slavery isn't necessarily bad.

Except...
1. Slavery in Rome was horrific throughout its entire history.
2. Slavery is a power structure that will ALWAYS have horrific abuses in it. Painting some sort of idealized picture is ridiculously unrealistic. Why do that? I suppose they might just be ignorant of how power structures, privilege, and so forth work. They must ignore domestic abuse, civil rights, sexual harassment, and other things that involve a lot less power disparity....all to defend the "noble" ideal of slavery.

Pardon me for taking a dim view on this.

And regarding AMFV I was pointing out he had a heck of a lot more freedom than any slave ever would. Heck, he could quit at any time. He was certainly comparing his situation to that of a slave incorrectly stating they weren't that different. When in fact it was even more different than people agreeing to take training to resist torture and actual torture (which is vastly different).

[hymer]

Could you point to a specific post which lauds the ideal of slavery, please?

[Drachasor]

Could you point to a specific post which lauds the ideal of slavery, please?

Why do I need to do that? Because I said people were being slavery apologists? All that requires is for people to defend slavery, which people here are clearly doing. Saying slavery isn't inherently bad and can be perfectly fine is a defense of slavery.

Regarding idealized slavery, we see that when people are defending slavery, because that's the sort of slavery they are trying to defend. An idealized version that ignores the realities of such an institution and the power disparity it entails. It isn't necessary to laud something to defend an idealized version of the thing. We have seen a great deal of this. We've also seen false equivalences.

Does that answer your question?

[hymer]

Never mind, then.

[hamishspence]

Could you point to a specific post which lauds the ideal of slavery, please?

Don't know about lauding it- but you've got at least one post saying that "the core precept of slavery is far more Lawful than Evil:


Slavery laws can ensure, to the degree that any laws can ensure anything, that slaves are not horribly mistreated by their owners and the practice -can- be used to productive economic and legally punitive ends without causing undue harm or anguish to anyone. Being declared property under the law can certainly be embarrassing but only a bit more so than being a non-citizen or, perhaps, less so if the law makes a provision for a stint as a slave to the state being a way to earn citizenship. In any case, the core precept of slavery, social standing as someone under the control of someone else, is a much more lawful concept than an evil one.

And Kelb_Panthera creates a version of slavery that he declares is "non-evil"


Those that are defined under that document as slaves fit the plain English definition for being a slave; being completely under the dominion of another person. They -can- be sold at a whim to any citizen willing to buy them. They must work or face dire consequences; the ultimate penalty for consistent failure to work as a slave is being declared a non-person, at which point you can be slain out-of-hand by anyone and the law won't bat an eyelash. This is on the same level as being exiled or even executed depending on the society in question.

That slaves are afforded basic human rights and a way out of bondage under the law that document outlines makes it non-evil.

Yet- to me- the underlined bit denies a basic human right. Any system that says "People who do not work can be declared nonpersons who can be slain out of hand" is going to be problematic.

[hymer]

Thanks, hamishspence. It was actually a poor attempt on my part to get Drachasor to actually read the posts, rather than just generally rant. But it didn't work, of course. :smallsmile:
The given text-piece doesn't say that slavery is good, though. And as the debate rolled on, I found out that KP was referring to theories, not reality. We'd have to ask him, of course, but I think he'd be very much against slavery being legalized.

[Kaeso]

Eight pages? And there still isn't a deletion/ban for the topic being too political?

[hamishspence]

Eight pages? And there still isn't a deletion/ban for the topic being too political?

If we're talking about the alignment of a D&D society based on the Romans - it might possibly be OK.

In D&D, there are books that mention the possibility of Good people owning slaves (and not ceasing to be good)- Forgotten Realms ones:

Champions of Ruin (p5):

"What might be considered the darkest taboo in one place might be a perfectly acceptable practice elsewhere. For example, slavery is illegal in many parts of Faerun but is fairly common in Thay, where even a good person might keep a slave or two simply because it is a societal norm."

And the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3.0) book has some things to say:

"Indentured servitude and serfdom are relatively common practices that approach the brutality of slavery in some lands, but even the most wretched serf or servant is considered a human being, not property."

"Conditions of slavery vary wildly between different lands. Slaves in Mulhorand outnumber the free citizens - and, not surprisingly, the life of a slave is little worse than the life of a peasant in most other lands. Slaves in Thay and Unther endure far harsher treatment, both by callous masters and a society that considers them to be nonentities."

And Mulhorand's ruler is, specifically, a paladin.

In Mulhorand:

"the temples own all the nation's slaves, who are rented out to others"

"Bureaucrats (people of status) shave their heads and paint circles upon their foreheads. One circle indicates a freeman, two a wizard, and three a cleric. The middle class consists of artisans, craftsfolk, traders, and scribes. Below the middle class are the slaves, who are treated well; harming a slave is considered vandalism of temple property. It is possible for a slave to rise to the status of a bureaucrat if given sufficient education."

Whereas in Thay:

"Many slaves last only a few years before dying or being put to death. Thayans frown on those who treat slaves with wanton cruelty (crippling or weakening punishments are bad for business, wasting valuable property). Nevertheless, slaves are put to death for minor infractions, to guard against the greatest fear of all noble Thayans- a bloody and countywide slave uprising."

[Drachasor]

Thanks, hamishspence. It was actually a poor attempt on my part to get Drachasor to actually read the posts, rather than just generally rant. But it didn't work, of course. :smallsmile:
The given text-piece doesn't say that slavery is good, though. And as the debate rolled on, I found out that KP was referring to theories, not reality. We'd have to ask him, of course, but I think he'd be very much against slavery being legalized.

I've read the posts. I never said people were saying that slavery was GOOD. I said they were being apologists for the institution. I said they were painting "pretty pictures" of idealized slavery institutions that would not remotely represent any reality.

This is also like the 3rd time in the past two weeks I've seen a conversation like this (between this forum and PF's forum). In all of them there have been people that gloss over slavery without really paying attention to how such institutions would work in practical terms...all to claim it isn't evil. All of them involved Roman slavery, ironically, but this thread has had the least actual discussion of slavery in Roman times...funnily enough.

I think you misinterpreted what I said.


Eight pages? And there still isn't a deletion/ban for the topic being too political?

It does seem to have gotten completely off-topic. Heck, we aren't even talking about Roman slavery. I have attempted a few times to refocus the conversation on that, but to no avail.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ KP:
Being more specific, here:

I took it to mean “Don’t complain about capital punishment, it isn’t. It’s something else which is about the same level of threat.” Which we needn’t quarrel over, as I see further down in your post that we agree on that.Ah, got that one right then. As I said, having similar psychological weight doesn't equate to having equivalent effects on the subject. Someone who is executed is just dead. Someone who is exiled cannot return to his home but is free to make a new home elsewhere. Someone who is branded and declared a non-person is free to leave the realm or not at his discretion but will not be recognized in any legal matters as anything other than a culprit in a crime if that is the matter in question. His corpse will be cleaned up if he is slain, starves, or has a lethal accident but that's the extent of the state's obligation to non-persons and even then only because it's rather unsanitary to leave dead bodies laying about.


About freedom ideals, I agree it can be argued either way. In such an absolutist system as D&D alignment, however, I see nothing wrong with being entirely idealistic, and saying that having the freedom is more important than using it. (I also see nothing wrong with arguing that IRL, but this reply is already getting needlessly cumbersome, so I’ll restrain myself as best I can. :smallwink:)

In the game's rules regarding alignment freedom is associated with chaos, not good. For this discussion that's all I really care about.



You left out a couple of good ones, though: Expression and assembly. Having these freedoms would increase the likelihood of escape, revolt and political activity. You could allow them, but I don’t think it would help stabilize the system. Neither of those have any significant impact on the institution of slavery that I described but are, instead, concerns of the society as a whole. If I were designing an entire government I'd almost certainly have made some comment on them.



This is nicely constructed, and it reminds me that we’re talking D&D alignment here. So I accept that as a strong, coherent argument, and if my DM said he ruled it like that, I would accept it. If forced to rule on it as a DM, I’d still say that slavery goes against the integrity of the individual, nullifying his personhood attacks his dignity, and intentionally (threatening with) putting him in a legal vacuum for minor things shows (IMO) malice towards him. IE: It is Evil. :smallbiggrin:

Ultimately a society must have laws to govern the punishment and deterrence of non-violent crimes. Eye-for-an-eye type laws are fine for punishment but generally pretty lousy for deterrence. Deterrence requires penalties that outweigh the crime by a margin proportional to the perceived necessity of that same crime by those who are likely to commit it, typically those in the lowest financial strata of the society.

Slavery as both a legal means of avoiding destitution and punishment for the most common crimes that result from the same as well as a means of assuring the acquisition of basic necessities has the simultaneous effect of making such crimes completely unnecessary in the perception of those who might otherwise commit them -and- an obvious result of committing them anyway. This acts as a powerful deterrent to such crimes and leaves only the intersection of those who value the idea of freedom, that they largely cannot exercise, above their well-being and those who are desperate enough to commit those crimes as the major portion of the criminal element; the remainder being comprised of those foolish enough to commit crime for the thrill and those deranged or amoral enough to commit violent crimes.

In theory, this should significantly reduce the stress against law-enforcement institutions on the whole but also leaves a larger proportion of the criminal element as actually dangerous persons; requiring smaller but better trained police forces.

This is contrasted by its alternatives:

Long periods of incarceration typically results in similar degrees of dehumanization and -greater- suffering and do little to actually deter crime unless it's coupled with corporal punishments and, unless prisoners are kept in isolation, typically gives criminals ample opportunity to "compare notes" and learn how to be more efficient at committing crimes in the future.

Severe corporal punishments, lashing, maiming, etc, tend to qualify as torturous more often than not and while they tend to make strong deterrents they also leave criminals no better off than before and sometimes less able-bodied; increasing the incidence of repeat offenses.

Fining, while easily the least dehumanizing option, is absurd in the majority of cases since financial stress is the stressor that most commonly precipitates criminal acts in the first place.

Simple shaming or shunning is woefully inadequate as both an appropriate punishment in larger communities and as a deterrent in all cases and is largely unenforceable in any but the smallest of communities.



Yet- to me- the underlined bit denies a basic human right. Any system that says "People who do not work can be declared nonpersons who can be slain out of hand" is going to be problematic.

I can see how that might look more than a little bad out of context. To be fair, though, I've found myself in the unenviable position of both having to defend what I've outlined as a humane version of slavery while simultaneously having to defend it as actually being slavery in the first place. It's a weird position to be stuck in.

I really should've used the phrase "escalating consequences" in that sentence to clearly indicate that being declared a non-person is an ultimate punishment rather than a default and should've been clearer about -why- that makes them vulnerable to being slain without legal consequence rather than inadvertently suggest that such designation is equivalent to a death sentence. It's not. It is, potentially, just as undesirable though.


Thanks, hamishspence. It was actually a poor attempt on my part to get Drachasor to actually read the posts, rather than just generally rant. But it didn't work, of course. :smallsmile:
The given text-piece doesn't say that slavery is good, though. And as the debate rolled on, I found out that KP was referring to theories, not reality. We'd have to ask him, of course, but I think he'd be very much against slavery being legalized.

Indeed. Slavery has too much baggage to have any chance of being well implemented, even in the modern era. Such a system would have to be setup relatively early in a society's rise to have a chance of success. If a new society were founded somewhere in the modern world and, for some reason, the collective nations of the globalized world didn't sanction them into the stone age, it -could- work. The likelihood of that is, at best, slim.


Eight pages? And there still isn't a deletion/ban for the topic being too political?

Real life politics is forbidden. Political science and political theory are not as long as you avoid the points where they intersect with real life politics. If you're not sure where a subject falls on those lines, err with caution.

@Drachasor:

I'm definitely -not- saying that slavery is good or Good. I don't see any point in passing a moral judgement over the topic. I'm only arguing that the core of slavery, the owning of people by other people, is Lawful rather than Evil in the context of the rules of the game. It's knee-jerk labeled as evil because of all the historical and emotional baggage that accompanies the term.

Just because a thing never has been done well doesn't mean that thing can't be done well in the right circumstances.

[Shadowknight12]

I'd call them extremely Lawful Evil, but I'm Chaotic, so I might be biased.

[Rogue Shadows]

In D&D, there are books that mention the possibility of Good people owning slaves (and not ceasing to be good)- Forgotten Realms ones

As a further example, Calimshan is noted for, among other things, its many slaves, yet the two most common alignments in Calimshan are Lawful Neutral and True Neutral. And Mulhorand's two most common alignments are Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good.

Then again, this might only be an argument that even if slavery is Evil, a society that keeps slaves can still be considered Neutral or even Good in spite of that. The keeping of a slave is not in and of itself enough to drag you down the alignment grid, though it's probably a ping against it.

[SassyQuatch]

I've read the posts. I never said people were saying that slavery was GOOD. I said they were being apologists for the institution. I said they were painting "pretty pictures" of idealized slavery institutions that would not remotely represent any reality.
You just confirmed that you haven't bothered to read the thread and are just upset that every post isn't a rant on the inherent eeevilness of any civilization that ever had slavery.


This is also like the 3rd time in the past two weeks I've seen a conversation like this (between this forum and PF's forum). In all of them there have been people that gloss over slavery without really paying attention to how such institutions would work in practical terms...all to claim it isn't evil. All of them involved Roman slavery, ironically, but this thread has had the least actual discussion of slavery in Roman times...funnily enough.
Again, you haven't been reading the thread. The discussion of slavery has been on two things; 1) does allowing an evil act to happen make the society evil, even if abolishing the act would result in many more people coming to harm?; and 2) is there a form of slavery that has existed or could exist that does not immediately garner the [Evil] descriptor. What you say has been happening in this thread has not happened.


It does seem to have gotten completely off-topic. Heck, we aren't even talking about Roman slavery. I have attempted a few times to refocus the conversation on that, but to no avail.
Because this isn't a discussion about Roman slavery? It is a discussion of whether or not a civilization (of which Rome was one of many) is evil if slavery is not abolished. Or in some places a question as to whether it is as evil to cause suffering to an entire nation by abolishing slavery as it would be to continue to allow the slavery itself. Your attempts to refocus are onto a topic that is not relevant to the discussion, that of the difficulty in assigning alignment to a civilization.

Anyways, no more responses to you unless you actually begin to pay attention to what has been said instead of just ranting about what you think has been said.

[Talya]

All this talk about slavery and what-not is missing the point.

Ancient Rome had mimes.

It doesn't get more evil than that.

[Scow2]

Well, Rome also had Sanitation, Representation, Freedom of Religion (To a greater extent than its peers), degrees of Self-determination in its provinces (Someone held that up as a negative of all things! How dare they let people govern themselves by their own traditions?) advanced healthcare, accessible entertainment and leisure time, welfare, strong distributions of food, water, and other goods, teachings and values that tried to emphasize moral behavior (Though they weren't always put into practice. Slaves were SUPPOSED to be treated as part of their owner's family, for instance. But that didn't happen in practice for the vast majority of them), widespread education... and while it eventually was replaced by Nativism, it was initially Culturalist but not Racist.

You have to tick the Good checklist as well as the bad.

[SassyQuatch]

All this talk about slavery and what-not is missing the point.

Ancient Rome had mimes.

It doesn't get more evil than that.
Well, sure mimes are evil, but does the presence of mimes mean that the state as a whole is evil? There could be reasons for not exterminating the mimes, like a lack of manpower or even weaponizing mimes for mass deployments into trouble areas where mutual destruction of the legions were sure to take place or as a deterrent measure.

Sure, the argument for evil exists, but you could also say that Rome was neutral and that the mimes were an essential part of their growth as a civilization.

[Talya]

Well, Rome also had Sanitation, Representation, Freedom of Religion, degrees of Self-determination in its provinces, advanced healthcare, accessible entertainment and leisure time, welfare, strong distributions of food, water, and other goods, teachings and values that tried to emphasize moral behavior, widespread education...

Yes, but apart from the Sanitation, Representation, Freedom of Religion, degrees of Self-determination in its provinces, advanced healthcare, accessible entertainment and leisure time, welfare, strong distributions of food, water, and other goods, teachings and values that tried to emphasize moral behavior, widespread education, what have the Romans ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)

[SassyQuatch]

Yes, but besides Sanitation, Representation, Freedom of Religion, degrees of Self-determination in its provinces, advanced healthcare, accessible entertainment and leisure time, welfare, strong distributions of food, water, and other goods, teachings and values that tried to emphasize moral behavior, widespread education, what have the Romans ever done for us?
The Latin alphabet, concrete, newspapers, welfare, the codex, advanced road and bridge building, the basis for law in most of the world, battlefield surgery, customs (including holidays) used in most of the world, better metallurgy, the crank, pumps to do many things including help fighting fires, mills, hard soap... so apparently nothing.

[Drachasor]

Again, you haven't been reading the thread. The discussion of slavery has been on two things; 1) does allowing an evil act to happen make the society evil, even if abolishing the act would result in many more people coming to harm?; and 2) is there a form of slavery that has existed or could exist that does not immediately garner the [Evil] descriptor. What you say has been happening in this thread has not happened.

Considering my rant was a response to people arguing slavery isn't inherently evil, which is part of (2), I am not sure what your point is. With all due respect to the people here, arguing that slavery isn't inherently evil and can somehow be a decent institution is profoundly naive. And I mentioned why this was above, but apparently rather than respond to what I said, people find it easier to pretend it wasn't on topic. If there were words I used in ways you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain them.

Like I said, I have been reading the thread. I've been posting in it since early on, in fact.


Because this isn't a discussion about Roman slavery? It is a discussion of whether or not a civilization (of which Rome was one of many) is evil if slavery is not abolished. Or in some places a question as to whether it is as evil to cause suffering to an entire nation by abolishing slavery as it would be to continue to allow the slavery itself. Your attempts to refocus are onto a topic that is not relevant to the discussion, that of the difficulty in assigning alignment to a civilization.

Oh right, because this thread isn't about the Roman civ's alignment. OH WAIT IT IS! It's hilarious that you are accusing me of being off-topic because I have tried to refocus the conversation back to the actual topic of the thread.

Here's an idea, if people want to have a conversation about something only tangentially related to the thread then maybe a new topic is in order. Because we've ventured pretty far afield from the actual topic of Rome.


Anyways, no more responses to you unless you actually begin to pay attention to what has been said instead of just ranting about what you think has been said.

Considering you don't seem to have understood what I wrote, maybe you should apply that to yourself.


Long periods of incarceration typically results in similar degrees of dehumanization and -greater- suffering and do little to actually deter crime unless it's coupled with corporal punishments and, unless prisoners are kept in isolation, typically gives criminals ample opportunity to "compare notes" and learn how to be more efficient at committing crimes in the future.

Hey, if you're arguing a lot of current penal systems, particularly the one in the US are evil institutions, then I agree 100%.

Though, like I have said before in this thread, there's a big difference between an institution being evil and the people who compose it being evil. Neutral types can easily do all or most of the day to day operations in an Evil institution. Part of how institution can be Evil is just because it creates an environment where evil fosters and grows. Neutrals aren't going to go to any special effort to stop that evil if it isn't affecting them personally. So they can easily support it just by ensuring nothing changes because they don't really pay attention or care enough to try.

So while I've said Rome was probably LE, that doesn't necessarily mean the vast majority of its citizens were of the evil alignment. In D&D terms I think most were likely neutral.


I can see how that might look more than a little bad out of context. To be fair, though, I've found myself in the unenviable position of both having to defend what I've outlined as a humane version of slavery while simultaneously having to defend it as actually being slavery in the first place. It's a weird position to be stuck in.

I really should've used the phrase "escalating consequences" in that sentence to clearly indicate that being declared a non-person is an ultimate punishment rather than a default and should've been clearer about -why- that makes them vulnerable to being slain without legal consequence rather than inadvertently suggest that such designation is equivalent to a death sentence. It's not. It is, potentially, just as undesirable though.


@Drachasor:

I'm definitely -not- saying that slavery is good or Good. I don't see any point in passing a moral judgement over the topic. I'm only arguing that the core of slavery, the owning of people by other people, is Lawful rather than Evil in the context of the rules of the game. It's knee-jerk labeled as evil because of all the historical and emotional baggage that accompanies the term.

Just because a thing never has been done well doesn't mean that thing can't be done well in the right circumstances.

I never said anyone said slavery was good or Good. Again, I NEVER SAID THAT.

I'm just saying that no matter how "humane" you dress it up, the fact is that as a institution in practice you're going to have horrible abuses that do not get rectified. That's what happens when you have an underclass with little resources or rights with "bosses" that control almost every aspect of their life. Even if legal protections exist (as they did towards the end of the Roman Empire) you will still have the following problems:

1. Lack of enforcement since the people accussed of abuse will have lots of money and influence (and slaves do not).
2. Slaves unwilling to come forth, out of fear of what it might mean for the friends, family, and even their own lives.
3. Slaves who simply don't know what their rights are and so don't come forth.
4. Education issues for the children of slaves.

And that's the tip of the iceberg. Just look at all the problems we have in countries today where everyone is legally equal. We still have a great deal of discrimination and horrible events that never see the light of day or just get swept under the rug. Any society with slavery is going to have what we have...and much, much worse.

And given that...you really have to ask "what is the point of such an institution then?" And I don't think there are any pretty answers.

And again, just because people defending the concept of slavery really rankles me, doesn't mean I am saying or have said that anyone was advocating we should have slavery or that slavery was good. I think my term "slavery apologist" was severely misunderstood. It does not imply people are advocating slavery or saying it is good. Though beyond that I didn't mean to imply anyone was being an apologist for past institutions of slavery either. I thought I was fairly clear that I meant it in the context of the concept of slavery itself. I believe that's what people have been talking about, yes? Everyone seems to be saying I am wrong in that sense, though my suspicious is that some people don't understand what I was saying.


Yes, but apart from the Sanitation, Representation, Freedom of Religion, degrees of Self-determination in its provinces, advanced healthcare, accessible entertainment and leisure time, welfare, strong distributions of food, water, and other goods, teachings and values that tried to emphasize moral behavior, widespread education, what have the Romans ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)

To be fair, they didn't have Freedom of Religion as we understand it. They got pretty ticked off if you didn't honor the Roman gods, as the Jews and Christians found out. Representation was also pretty different, considering how citizenship worked, to say nothing of how the rise of Emperors messed up the practice of that.

Anyhoo, to rephrase what I've said a few times before, there are a lot of ways to look at the alignment of a society.

You can look at how that society treats others (Rome is pretty clearly Evil here).
You can look at the average alignment of a citizen.
You can look at the average alignment of the people in charge.
You can look at how non-citizens within the society are treated (Rome isn't that great here either).
You can look at how it treats citizens.
And so forth. Point is with groups there are a lot more ways to look at alignment than with an individual. I think a fair degree of disagreement is stemming from different perspectives on this.

I do agree that Rome treated its citizens very well. But from the perspective of a society as one entity, that's like saying the LE person treats himself very well. Doesn't necessarily say all that much from that point of view.

Anyhow, to play Devil's Advocate regarding Roman advances (which were pretty great), I'd point out that evil people and cultures can certainly come up with advances that make life better. They could even use very evil means to discover them. So producing nice stuff isn't inherently relevant.

[Talya]

What's particularly disturbing is being quoted twice in this thread - where I'm quoting the best Monty Python movie ever - and still having my statement treated as if it had some value other than the chuckle it's giving anyone with a standard geeky sense of humor. :smallwink:

[SassyQuatch]

What's particularly disturbing is being quoted twice in this thread - where I'm quoting the best Monty Python movie ever - and still having my statement treated as if it had some value other than the chuckle it's giving anyone with a standard geeky sense of humor. :smallwink:
Don't be gloomy. Always look on the bright side of life. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ)

[Scow2]

Saying a society not treating non-citizens as well as its citizens is Evil is declaring every nation ever evil.

[Talya]

Anyhow, to play Devil's Advocate regarding Roman advances (which were pretty great), I'd point out that evil people and cultures can certainly come up with advances that make life better. They could even use very evil means to discover them. So producing nice stuff isn't inherently relevant.


My problem with a statement like this, is it really looks as if you're treating the point of discussion in this thread as if it has some relevance in real life. It does not. Good and Evil are only real, substantial, objective things in the game. That's why we're talking about alignment.

In real life, Rome was neither objectively good, nor evil. Nor is any other culture or man or action ever taken, because objective good and evil do not exist. We make it up. Morality is in our minds, it's a human invention, and it is a subjective thing perceived at least slightly differently by every human being who has ever lived. There's nothing that makes our perception of good or evil more valid than the people of Ancient Rome. Conversely, in a thousand years, if there are still humans on this planet, they'll look back at us as if we were monstrous barbarians... possibly because of behavioral differences that would make us look at them as if they were the monstrous barbarians.

Now, in game terms, you're absolutely right. The good things Rome did do not change the fact that they fit the bill of a Lawful Evil society, exactly.

Except for the Mimes. Those move them toward Chaotic Evil.

[AMFV]

Now, in game terms, you're absolutely right. The good things Rome did do not change the fact that they fit the bill of a Lawful Evil society, exactly.

Except for the Mimes. Those move them toward Chaotic Evil.

I disagree, the whole premise is too big to get an exact read on the society. There are certainly periods where Rome moved one way or the other, but the society over hundreds of years, it evolved too much to be effectively measured that way. Furthermore we have no way to know if the good things did change the bill there, the presence of evil things and some good things means that there must be some balance point, which may fall into neutral or not, but it's certainly a moot point, rather than a solid fact.


Considering my rant was a response to people arguing slavery isn't inherently evil, which is part of (2), I am not sure what your point is. With all due respect to the people here, arguing that slavery isn't inherently evil and can somehow be a decent institution is profoundly naive. And I mentioned why this was above, but apparently rather than respond to what I said, people find it easier to pretend it wasn't on topic. If there were words I used in ways you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain them.

Is it? There are many institutions where you lose personal freedoms, the military was a pointed example. In the military you have no personal freedoms. Another person can order you to do almost anything, with very few limitations, and even those are sometimes violated, so I'm not sure how that's different from slavery. Being property of a government isn't that much different than being property of an individual.






Here's an idea, if people want to have a conversation about something only tangentially related to the thread then maybe a new topic is in order. Because we've ventured pretty far afield from the actual topic of Rome.


Well the degree of good and evil in a particular institution is not tangential to the debate of how evil or good Rome is or is not..




Hey, if you're arguing a lot of current penal systems, particularly the one in the US are evil institutions, then I agree 100%.


So the US in unequivocally evil in D&D terms because it has a prison system you disagree with? That seems a stretch.



Though, like I have said before in this thread, there's a big difference between an institution being evil and the people who compose it being evil. Neutral types can easily do all or most of the day to day operations in an Evil institution. Part of how institution can be Evil is just because it creates an environment where evil fosters and grows. Neutrals aren't going to go to any special effort to stop that evil if it isn't affecting them personally. So they can easily support it just by ensuring nothing changes because they don't really pay attention or care enough to try.

Well or because change would be drastic and result in starvation for thousands as people have been pointing out. There is no easy-fix button for the people who are born after slavery for agriculture has been invented. This is pre-agricultural revolution, and stopping slavery would likely cause starvation and civil war, making it now necessary, while potentially evil.



So while I've said Rome was probably LE, that doesn't necessarily mean the vast majority of its citizens were of the evil alignment. In D&D terms I think most were likely neutral.

That would make it by definition LN. At least in the methodology D&D uses to define it's society's alignments.



I can see how that might look more than a little bad out of context. To be fair, though, I've found myself in the unenviable position of both having to defend what I've outlined as a humane version of slavery while simultaneously having to defend it as actually being slavery in the first place. It's a weird position to be stuck in.

As I've said the military is very close to a real slave system, as are prisons, they are necessary at this point in our society.




I never said anyone said slavery was good or Good. Again, I NEVER SAID THAT.

I'm just saying that no matter how "humane" you dress it up, the fact is that as a institution in practice you're going to have horrible abuses that do not get rectified. That's what happens when you have an underclass with little resources or rights with "bosses" that control almost every aspect of their life. Even if legal protections exist (as they did towards the end of the Roman Empire) you will still have the following problems:

Well there is a question as to whether starvation is a good thing or not. In this case we have a problem that simply can't be fixed easily. Most of the people arguing that the slavery makes the nation evil no matter what, have not yet managed to provide a workable solution to ending it. Which is the problem if you can't end it without self-sacrifice (which would be good) it's probably neutral.




1. Lack of enforcement since the people accussed of abuse will have lots of money and influence (and slaves do not).
2. Slaves unwilling to come forth, out of fear of what it might mean for the friends, family, and even their own lives.
3. Slaves who simply don't know what their rights are and so don't come forth.
4. Education issues for the children of slaves.

1. Lack of equality in a society does not equate to an evil society.

2. That is potentially a problem, but if that's a problem in modern 21st century workforces and it is, then it's certainly not going to stop being a problem. It's something there is simply no fix for.

3. Ignorance of your rights doesn't mean you don't have rights.

4. There is no "right to education" not educating a populace isn't evil, particularly in a non-democratic system.




And that's the tip of the iceberg. Just look at all the problems we have in countries today where everyone is legally equal. We still have a great deal of discrimination and horrible events that never see the light of day or just get swept under the rug. Any society with slavery is going to have what we have...and much, much worse.

Those are all debatably non-problems.




And given that...you really have to ask "what is the point of such an institution then?" And I don't think there are any pretty answers.


To prevent thousands of people from dying of starvation? Is that good enough for you?






To be fair, they didn't have Freedom of Religion as we understand it. They got pretty ticked off if you didn't honor the Roman gods, as the Jews and Christians found out. Representation was also pretty different, considering how citizenship worked, to say nothing of how the rise of Emperors messed up the practice of that.

Representation and freedom of religion are concepts of law and chaos, not good and evil.




Anyhoo, to rephrase what I've said a few times before, there are a lot of ways to look at the alignment of a society.

You can look at how that society treats others (Rome is pretty clearly Evil here).

Debatably, many people have argued for alignment to be neutral as written, an they're pretty smart folks, myself included.



You can look at the average alignment of a citizen.

Probably LN by this metric.



You can look at the average alignment of the people in charge.

It depends completely on era, and varies drastically even in small periods of time, so not really a good metric overall.



You can look at how non-citizens within the society are treated (Rome isn't that great here either).

This is absolutely not a D&D alignment metric, and certainly not one for the Evil-Good Axis. That'd be law vs. Chaos, since a lawful society may not treat people equally, since that isn't tantamount to treating them lawfully, Chaotic folks are obsessed with treating people equally, that's their bag.




You can look at how it treats citizens.

They might even come out good by this metric...



And so forth. Point is with groups there are a lot more ways to look at alignment than with an individual. I think a fair degree of disagreement is stemming from different perspectives on this.

Yes, and that means that your ruling is no more valid than anybody elses' ruling in this particular case.




I do agree that Rome treated its citizens very well. But from the perspective of a society as one entity, that's like saying the LE person treats himself very well. Doesn't necessarily say all that much from that point of view.

Anyhow, to play Devil's Advocate regarding Roman advances (which were pretty great), I'd point out that evil people and cultures can certainly come up with advances that make life better. They could even use very evil means to discover them. So producing nice stuff isn't inherently relevant.

True, but they did feed many people, brought education to many (a metric which you yourself stated).

I think the problem is that you're conflating a certain type of freedom loving good with the general good. Freedom is not a metric of good in D&D it just isn't. You can be oppressive and good, Totalitarian and good. Freedom is chaos, which nobody has been arguing for.

[Talya]

I disagree, the whole premise is too big to get an exact read on the society. There are certainly periods where Rome moved one way or the other, but the society over hundreds of years, it evolved too much to be effectively measured that way. Furthermore we have no way to know if the good things did change the bill there, the presence of evil things and some good things means that there must be some balance point, which may fall into neutral or not, but it's certainly a moot point, rather than a solid fact.

A man who murders one child every year, but spends the rest of the year doing good things for charity, saving people's lives, and being an all around upstanding, wonderful person is still absolutely evil. You can't cover over evil that is currently being practiced by performing a greater number of good actions. The only way to change from evil to good is to both do good and STOP doing evil.

Slavery alone is enough to make ancient Rome evil by D&D standards. As were the gladiatorial games...perhaps, especially the gladiatorial games. Death-as-entertainment is pretty much textbook D&D evil.

[AMFV]

A man who murders one child every year, but spends the rest of the year doing good things for charity, saving people's lives, and being an all around upstanding, wonderful person is still absolutely evil. You can't cover over evil that is currently being practiced by performing a greater number of good actions. The only way to change from evil to good is to both do good and STOP doing evil.

Cite your source. There is no proof of that in D&D and no proof that redemption is impossible, you're looking at things in a particular view that isn't even agreed on morally in large part of the world. So as such this at best an interpretation of the D&D alignment system, it certainly is not RAW.



Slavery alone is enough to make ancient Rome evil by D&D standards. As were the gladiatorial games...perhaps, especially the gladiatorial games. Death-as-entertainment is pretty much textbook D&D evil.

The Gladiatorial games were closed for much of Rome's rule and were typically only open during times of extreme riots and unrest, so that's a social fix, definitely an evil one, but probably not enough to rate the whole empire as evil. Slavery is necessary to prevent starvation at this point, so at any point after it's inception as an agricultural method, we're stuck with it, that sounds much more neutral than evil to me.

[Rogue Shadows]

Slavery alone is enough to make ancient Rome evil by D&D standards.

Except it isn't because Mulhorand. The ruler of Mulhorand throughout 3.5 was a Paladin, but he didn't fall for abiding by slavery, and when Mulhorand conquered Unther under his aegis, all the Untheric slaves were immediately made Mulhorandi slaves, not freed.

The two most common alignments in Mulhorand were Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good, with, granted, Lawful Evil being the third-most common, but it was still third. Thayans and Zhents aren't evil because they keep slaves, they're evil because they keep and mistreat slaves.

Now it's fine to say "in my game, slavery is evil," but the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was an actual, published-by-Wizards-of-the-Coast product, and their official line seems to be that slavery is not enough to render a nation as evil in and of itself.

Other nations or regions that practice slavery but do not have Evil as a primary alignment include Amn, Calimshan, Unther, Sembia, Chentessa (which doesn't even have any evil alignment at all!), Sembia if you take its import line ("anything it can trade to anyone else") at face value, The Shaar (another area tht doesn't have any evil alignment), and others I've almost certainly missed.

[Talya]

Cite your source. There is no proof of that in D&D and no proof that redemption is impossible, you're looking at things in a particular view that isn't even agreed on morally in large part of the world. So as such this at best an interpretation of the D&D alignment system, it certainly is not RAW.

I didn't say redemption is impossible. I said it requires you to stop doing the evil before any good that you do matters. As long as the evil is being practiced, no good deed matters. Now, if you emancipated the slaves and closed the games, offered citizenship to all peoples in the empire, and stopped trying to conquer more land, well, you're well on your way to redemption.

Edit: I was sure slavery was mentioned in the alignment section here somewhere, but today I can't find it in the SRD. It's in Pathfinder's alignment section, but I only started using pathfinder recently...

In any event, if slavery is not considered evil, that helps Rome's case, but there's still an awful lot of other evil to atone for, which they can't do while they still have bloodsport and imperialistic expansion. Also, on slavery being necessary, D&D's alignment does clearly spell out that the consequences do not change the nature of the act. There's no "doing it for the greater good," it would still be an evil act. (that is, if it's an evil act to start with, and I don't feel like going book diving right now.)

[Rogue Shadows]

I didn't say redemption is impossible. I said it requires you to stop doing the evil before any good that you do matters. As long as the evil is being practiced, no good deed matters. Now, if you emancipated the slaves and closed the games, offered citizenship to all peoples in the empire, and stopped trying to conquer more land, well, you're well on your way to redemption.

Please see my post above yours. It is all kinds of relevant.

[AMFV]

I didn't say redemption is impossible. I said it requires you to stop doing the evil before any good that you do matters. As long as the evil is being practiced, no good deed matters. Now, if you emancipated the slaves and closed the games, offered citizenship to all peoples in the empire, and stopped trying to conquer more land, well, you're well on your way to redemption.

However stopping slavery results in mass starvation, as we've pointed out. Causing mass starvation is evil, slavery is evil. In a situation with no other options, a necessary evil is likely to be at best a neutral situation. Since it's evil under duress. Furthermore there is still no evidence that evil cannot be balanced out by good or even neutral acts.

Again there are other societies that had slavery that were classified as good in Forgotten Realms, which should be enough to suggest that simply having slavery isn't falling off the slippery slope. And we've had several people defending the idea as more of a Lawful one in theory, although generally an Evil one in practice, so we definitely have some wiggle room for debate here.

[Rogue Shadows]

Edit: I was sure slavery was mentioned in the alignment section here somewhere, but today I can't find it in the SRD. It's in Pathfinder's alignment section, but I only started using pathfinder recently...

Where, (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html) pray tell? A ctrl+F on my part doesn't turn up any hits for the word "slave."

It says that Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others; however, it only implies that, and besides which, I can hurt and kill without being evil, such as in a war fighting goblins or something, so doesn't it follow that I can oppress without being evil?

Similarly, nowhere under "good" does it say that a good person does not keep slaves. Good implies (there's that word again) altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

I can respect the life of my slave and be concerned for the dignity of my slave. I can even be altruistic with regards to my slave.


In any event, if slavery is not considered evil, that helps Rome's case, but there's still an awful lot of other evil to atone for, which they can't do while they still have bloodsport and imperialistic expansion.

Again, I've got nothing for bloodsport, but - Mulhorand, again. It expanded into Unther for the specific purpose of defeating a long-time rival in its moment of weakness (with Gilgeam dead via Tiamat's claws) and expanding its geopolitical power; it was, in other words, a war of conquest. Still, we see Horustep III as a Clr 4/Paladin 6 of Horus-Re. And for his war of conquest over Unther, he was "Greatly aided by the Gold Swords, a skilled foreign mercenary company led by Kendera Steeldice (LG female human Pal11 of the Red Knight)." Also of interest: "Mulhorand’s military energy is currently being used to end or divert slave revolts and train former Untheric slaves in the service of the temples of Mulhorand."

[SassyQuatch]

Why don't we actually look at what is said in the game about alignments? So far I don't recall it actually being brought up(EDIT: until the previous post :smallyuk: ), only that certain acts have been labelled [Evil] in some resources.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
That one is out for Roman society, though it may apply to some individuals.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Again may apply to individuals, but as a society Rome did not kill without qualms. Punishment for breaking law? Yes. But the casual killing or for sport was still an individualistic thing.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Which fits most of Roman society. Execution of the convicted, fine. Killing of the innocent, no (at least not for the vast majority). Making personal sacrifices to protect or help, no. Looking out for yourself and those close to you, yes. Pretty much the classic definition of Roman culture.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Absolutely fits Roman culture. Do your thing, don't make waves, anybody who gets caught doing wrong deserves their fate. Even the "evil" pleasures of the games can fall under this since those participating were generally either volunteers or convicted of some sort of crime (whether or not the law itself was just) or at least assumed to be such.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
No. Not even close. Not even the criminal elements. No.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Hello, Rome! The only wiggle room you get is with the often backstabbing nature, but even then it was all part of an unspoken set of rules as to how to get ahead, or at least to not be ground under. Closed-minded, traditional, inflexible, those are generally considered hallmarks of the culture, even if the system of rule was at times chaotic.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
"I am free to do as I want!" *quickly shanked* Even talk of that sort, promoting lawlessness, was unacceptable to the culture, and even Emperors were "removed" for overstepping.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Rome had a compulsion to obey and not rebel. Lots of compulsions. And even if an individual may try to break away from that mode of thinking they could be ratted out by close companions who don't want to go down alongside the idiot who tries to be independent.


That's the breakdown. A bit in flux on the individual level, but on a societal level Rome stayed fairly consistent, at least in alignment terms.

[Talya]

Where, (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html) pray tell? A ctrl+F on my part doesn't turn up any hits for the word "slave."


Try this one. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

Turns up 6 hits, none directly reference evil, but one mentions all good characters "abhor" slavery and would fight against it. Good doesn't abhor neutral.

[AMFV]

Try this one. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

Turns up 6 hits, none directly reference evil, but one mentions all good characters abhor slavery and would fight against it.

And we're not arguing that Rome is Good, only that LN is a good example. Furthermore we're using D&D alignment as opposed to Pathfinder alignment and at least in those cases there's a strong case to be made for LN. I suspect even with Pathfinder alignments that keeping the evil institution that's keeping your people alive when there are no other options is probably not evil only a very pragmatic neutral, and a very painful good.

[Talya]

And we're not arguing that Rome is Good, only that LN is a good example. Furthermore we're using D&D alignment as opposed to Pathfinder alignment and at least in those cases there's a strong case to be made for LN. I suspect even with Pathfinder alignments that keeping the evil institution that's keeping your people alive when there are no other options is probably not evil only a very pragmatic neutral, and a very painful good.

As I said, Good does not "abhor" Neutral... in pathfinder it's clearly evil. But I only linked that because someone questioned what it said in pathfinder. As I stated before you did, I know we're discussing D&D. I'm sure I've seen it there, but I'm conceding that it's possible it isn't there because I'm not in the mood for splatbook diving.

[Rogue Shadows]

Try this one. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

Turns up 6 hits, none directly reference evil, but one mentions all good characters "abhor" slavery and would fight against it. Good doesn't abhor neutral.

What is this from? It's not the PFCR or the Advanced Player's Guide...I dislike something this key not being available in printed form.

In any event, it says right up front that it's only a series of examples, and slavery isn't mentioned as evil, only something that some good characters don't like or oppose.

[AMFV]

As I said, Good does not "abhor" Neutral... in pathfinder it's clearly evil. But I only linked that because someone questioned what it said in pathfinder. As I stated before you did, I know we're discussing D&D. I'm sure I've seen it there, but I'm conceding that it's possible it isn't there because I'm not in the mood for splatbook diving.

Slavery is defined as evil in at least one place in either edition. However one can have one evil aspect and remain neutral. Or even Good as the Forgotten Realms cases demonstrate. There are simply enough cases to refute the assertion that having slavery as an institution makes one into an evil empire.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hey, if you're arguing a lot of current penal systems, particularly the one in the US are evil institutions, then I agree 100%.

I'm not commenting on the practices of any specific nation, RL or otherwise. Commenting on RL nations penal codes and practices would be a violation of the forum rules.

That said, this is just naive. Taken to its logical conclusion this is basically saying that penalizing crimes is evil. Unless you can think of some penalty that is actually meaningful and simultaneously not evil by this absurdly strict definition of evil.

D&D's alignment rules specifically call out legally conducted execution as a non-evil action, providing that the convict is actually guilty of a crime worthy of execution. If -death- as a penalty isn't inherently evil and freedom isn't inherently good then how can taking away freedom be inherently evil?


Though, like I have said before in this thread, there's a big difference between an institution being evil and the people who compose it being evil. Neutral types can easily do all or most of the day to day operations in an Evil institution. Part of how institution can be Evil is just because it creates an environment where evil fosters and grows. Neutrals aren't going to go to any special effort to stop that evil if it isn't affecting them personally. So they can easily support it just by ensuring nothing changes because they don't really pay attention or care enough to try.

All penal systems are vulnerable to abuse. Saying that such vulnerability makes a practice inherently evil is, at best, disingenuous. Even without it being part of a penal code, differences in economic and social positions between large groups of people creates a vulnerability to abuse in any social system.

Take the feudal system for example. In a feudal system there are nobles above everyone. There are citizens or some equivalent rank that are beneath the nobles. However, people of both of these first two ranks are generally divided on economic lines within their rank with the wealthy standing above the poor. Then there's the lowest strata; the peasants, serfs, etc below the citizens. Sometimes there's also a level even below the peasant/serfs; those that are not considered people by the rest of society. In a feudal society no one necessarily owns anyone else and movement between social stations may or may not be possible but the differences in how people are treated because of their social and/or economic station are very much present and clearly visible.

This is, as a system, lawful. Any abuse of the lower ranking people by their betters is a result of abusive people, not the system itself. How common or easy such abuses actually are is a function of the system's legal codes.

In the slavery system I outlined, abusing a slave is punishable by becoming a slave and losing ownership of -all- of your slaves, with a small margin for accidental overstepping. Most reasonable people will see this as a more than strong enough incentive not to abuse their slaves. Will abuses happen; yes. Abuses happen in -all- social systems. Will they, necessarily, be highly prevalent; only if failings of the law and its enforcement agencies allow it, just as in any other system.



So while I've said Rome was probably LE, that doesn't necessarily mean the vast majority of its citizens were of the evil alignment. In D&D terms I think most were likely neutral.

One of the problems with this discussion, and this is not directed at you in particular Drachosar, is the presumption that an entire society actually is judged as a single unit by the game. This is simply not true. Generally a society is divided into three, or more, portions; the power structure of the society, the people of the society, and the political system under which those operate.

For ancient Rome, the powers fluctuated pretty heavily during different eras of the empire's life. There may have been some leaning toward lawful as a general trend but not necessarily a strong one. The people, being comprised of such a massive group over such a massive area would've been grounded in the race of predominance; humans. Humans, by the rules of the game, don't tend toward any alignment at all and so would be represented by roughly equal distribution for all nine points. The system of government these people lived under... To be completely honest, I'm not overly familiar with ancient Roman law. I understand it tended towards lawful pretty strongly but I have no idea how much institutionalized good or evil was actually prevalent except perhaps that slavery, under the roman laws, probably ran towards evil though not necessarily very strongly.




I never said anyone said slavery was good or Good. Again, I NEVER SAID THAT.

I'm just saying that no matter how "humane" you dress it up, the fact is that as a institution in practice you're going to have horrible abuses that do not get rectified. That's what happens when you have an underclass with little resources or rights with "bosses" that control almost every aspect of their life. Even if legal protections exist (as they did towards the end of the Roman Empire) you will still have the following problems:

1. Lack of enforcement since the people accussed of abuse will have lots of money and influence (and slaves do not).
2. Slaves unwilling to come forth, out of fear of what it might mean for the friends, family, and even their own lives.
3. Slaves who simply don't know what their rights are and so don't come forth.
4. Education issues for the children of slaves.

And that's the tip of the iceberg. Just look at all the problems we have in countries today where everyone is legally equal. We still have a great deal of discrimination and horrible events that never see the light of day or just get swept under the rug. Any society with slavery is going to have what we have...and much, much worse.

And given that...you really have to ask "what is the point of such an institution then?" And I don't think there are any pretty answers.

And again, just because people defending the concept of slavery really rankles me, doesn't mean I am saying or have said that anyone was advocating we should have slavery or that slavery was good. I think my term "slavery apologist" was severely misunderstood. It does not imply people are advocating slavery or saying it is good. Though beyond that I didn't mean to imply anyone was being an apologist for past institutions of slavery either. I thought I was fairly clear that I meant it in the context of the concept of slavery itself. I believe that's what people have been talking about, yes? Everyone seems to be saying I am wrong in that sense, though my suspicious is that some people don't understand what I was saying.

As I said above, abuses are present in -all- social systems. How many and how prevalent those abuses are is a function of failings in the law and its enforcement.




To be fair, they didn't have Freedom of Religion as we understand it. They got pretty ticked off if you didn't honor the Roman gods, as the Jews and Christians found out. Representation was also pretty different, considering how citizenship worked, to say nothing of how the rise of Emperors messed up the practice of that.

I've heard that before. It's accurate enough, as far as I know. It's also pretty irrelevant for the most part. None of that falls on the good/evil axis except where there is intersection between good and evil religions that are legally sanctioned or opposed. Remember that in D&D, the thing we're ultimately talking about here, some religions are inherently good, evil, or neither and opposing or supporting them is dependent on the religion itself. The same is also largely true of the law/chaos axis on that particular point.


Anyhoo, to rephrase what I've said a few times before, there are a lot of ways to look at the alignment of a society. No matter which one you pick it's an oversimplification, but for funsies;


You can look at how that society treats others (Rome is pretty clearly Evil here).

That's politics. Good and Evil take a distant back seat to Lawful with chaos being actively opposed all the way around in virtually all cases. Rome is no different.


You can look at the average alignment of a citizen.

Then Rome balances to either N or just edges into LN.


You can look at the average alignment of the people in charge.

This yields inconclusive results since we have no idea which period in ancient Rome is being discussed. The OP didn't specify.


You can look at how non-citizens within the society are treated (Rome isn't that great here either).

Nowhere is. Being treated poorly, however, is different from being deliberately and systematically made to suffer. With the alignment of the citizenry being all over the chart the treatment of non-citizens likely was too. Though, again, there may have been a slight tendency toward discrimination against such persons tilting the whole slightly toward evil, though not necessarily enough to actually label the society, as a whole, evil.


You can look at how it treats citizens.

Again, I honestly don't know enough about ancient roman law to comment.


And so forth. Point is with groups there are a lot more ways to look at alignment than with an individual. I think a fair degree of disagreement is stemming from different perspectives on this.

And, as I said, trying to label the whole society is a mostly less-than-useful thing to do in the first place.


Anyhow, to play Devil's Advocate regarding Roman advances (which were pretty great), I'd point out that evil people and cultures can certainly come up with advances that make life better. They could even use very evil means to discover them. So producing nice stuff isn't inherently relevant.

This I can certainly agree with for the most part.

Edit for Rogueshadows;

I believe that is from the PF Game Mastering supplement. I could be wrong though.