PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Alignment Question (Yay)



Teapot Salty
2014-03-31, 06:22 PM
Hey guys. So, long story short, my party is a bounty hunter party, we captured a guy, and after a series of events, did not get payed. We planned to sell him into slavery and I was wondering if this would bring our alignments south of neutral. (We already are neutral) On one hand, it's a "making money" thing. Although on the other hand, greed and ruthlessness tend to be evil. (In combination) What do you guys think? And as always, go nuts.

Genth
2014-03-31, 06:26 PM
For me, Slavery=Evil

Unless it's a highly philosophical LG slavery where criminals and naturally evil creatures are enslaved but treated well in order to control and channel their abilities and tendencies into good for the community. :p

Tengu_temp
2014-03-31, 09:26 PM
Selling a captive into slavery is evil, so is killing him. But a single evil act of this magnitude is not enough to bring a neutral character down to evil.

Slipperychicken
2014-03-31, 09:58 PM
Sounds like a step down the road to evil. Keep it in mind when considering your characters alignments and the depths to which they'll sink to make a buck.


Also, have you considered releasing the captive to safety? That would probably be better for your reputation, earn you some goodwill with the captive, and also spite your renegade client (it's not about money, it's about sending a message).

Leviting
2014-04-01, 12:42 AM
Slavery=very evil. As in, selling someone into slavery is a line that once crossed, can't really be un-crossed. The only LN (as opposed to LE) slaveries I can think of are the beginning of Les Miserables and TES 3 Morrowind's "break rocks for the empire" jail.

Dorian Gray
2014-04-01, 12:51 AM
Selling a captive into slavery is evil, so is killing him. But a single evil act of this magnitude is not enough to bring a neutral character down to evil.

I think I would actually disagree with you on this point. Slavery and rape are the two things which are always, always evil in my games, and if I were the DM, either of them would instantly send a player into evil territory.
Basically, Good is "I want to improve things for myself, and will do so while helping others", Neutral is "I will make things better for myself, and won't be an ass", and Evil is "I will make things better for myself, and don't care for the lives of others while doing so". Selling someone into slavery is an act so far into the third territory that I would rule that it shapes your character.

BWR
2014-04-01, 01:42 AM
Slavery is not always evil in my games. Certain countries in certain settings are slave-based economies and not evil. It's never a good thing, but how is selling him into slavery morally different than putting him behind bars for hard labor the rest of his life (most people I've come across don't think prison systems are evil)? Or just offing him? Depending on the country and the slave system, it could function more like incarceration with the chance of being able to buy himself free eventually.
Unless your party knowingly sold this guy to a living hell of a life for monetary gain, I probably wouldn't rule it as evil. Maybe enough to tip you over if you were already on the edge but not in itself. You would certainly lose 'good' points, however.

theNater
2014-04-01, 02:30 AM
It's important to remember that concern for the dignity of sentient beings is one of the parts of Goodness explicitly listed in its definition. Treating a person like property is as antithetical to that as murder is to the respect for life; and just as Evil. In general, one act doesn't change alignment, but if your party is going to make this standard procedure(selling any person you capture but can't get paid for into slavery), then that would probably push you over the line.

It's never a good thing, but how is selling him into slavery morally different than putting him behind bars for hard labor the rest of his life (most people I've come across don't think prison systems are evil)?
Prisons usually recognize certain basic human rights that slavery systems don't. In particular, a slave owner is often free to harm their own slaves for no reason, while prison administrators are generally not free to do so to prisoners. It does, of course, vary from system to system; there are Neutral "slavery" systems out there and Evil prisons.

Mastikator
2014-04-01, 03:45 AM
What's to stop your party from just capturing people and selling them into slavery? I mean if it makes money and you don't care that slavery is evil, what's stopping you?

BWR
2014-04-01, 03:52 AM
It does, of course, vary from system to system; there are Neutral "slavery" systems out there and Evil prisons.

Exactly. And not just 'slavery' but slavery. My go-to example is the empire of Thyatis in Mystara. It's basically Rome if you give them more Greek-sounding names. Slave-based economy, and slaves are a significant portion of the population, and are continually taken and sold and whatnot but they are guarenteed certain basic rights like food, clothing, shelter, lack of abuse from masters, right to own personal property (of modest amounts, but still), right to earn and keep money of their own and right to buy their freedom when they have enough money. Considering the emperor of Thyatis started life as a gladiator slave, these laws are rather strictly enforced. This isn't to say slaves have a jolly life or don't mind being slaves, but it's certainly little or no worse than being a nominally free serf many other places. Being sold into slavery in Thyatis wouldn't be a pleasant experience, but one which you have a real chance of getting out of, especially if you're rather competant to begin with.

There are examples of places where being a slave is less pleasant and selling someone into slavery there would most definitely be an evil act (the neighboring and rival empire of Alphatia is an example).

- - - Updated - - -


What's to stop your party from just capturing people and selling them into slavery? I mean if it makes money and you don't care that slavery is evil, what's stopping you?

Good adventurers?
Taking slaves is a very common event in raiding/expansionistic cultures. Rome did it. The vikings took slaves. Heck, you can probably point to tons or RL examples of practical slavery, even if you didn't call it that. If you want to make a campaign based on PCs being slavers, fine. Once you make a career of it, especially if you are indiscriminate in your choice of victims, I'd say you definitely tip over into evil.

Mastikator
2014-04-01, 04:01 AM
Can we be sure that there are relevant good adventuring parties?

My question was mostly rhetorical, it was to point out that if your conscience doesn't stop you from selling people into slavery then you are most certainly evil. Even if you only do it once, because it proves you are evil enough to actually condemn a man into slavery.

The neutral answer is, if you can't get the bounty for a guy you captured, you release the guy. You don't just murder him in cold blood or sell him into slavery. Even if you're an assassin and you're paid to kill someone, if the payment stops then you don't kill the guy because you at the very least don't work for free and you don't murder for your own pleasure.
OR you're evil.

BWR
2014-04-01, 04:16 AM
Or the local laws and rules mandate slavery as the punishment for certain crimes and is a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem of "what to do with this guy we don't want to murder but can't let go free".

Mastikator
2014-04-01, 04:28 AM
You don't know that is the case, you're speculating wildly with no basis.

All we know is:
they're bounty hunters
they're neutral
they captured a guy
they didn't get paid
they want to sell him for profit
they're worried it might make them evil

BWR
2014-04-01, 05:17 AM
I never said this was the case. I am presenting situations in which slavery is not evil in a game world. You don't know any more about the situation than I and I disagree with your conclusions about what is neutral and evil.

Mastikator
2014-04-01, 06:28 AM
The law does not define morality. If X is evil, and the law says X is permitted (or compelled) then the law is evil. And the evil is not excused.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-01, 08:45 AM
How is selling him into slavery morally different than putting him behind bars for hard labor the rest of his life?

Depends slightly on the exact judiciary system and laws in place, but coming from a historical perspective, the difference is simple:

A prisoner used to be free, then did something wrong, and lost their freedom as result. Loss of freedom is a punishment for them.

A slave was never free. Lack of freedom is not a punishment, it's their default state.

A prisoner needs to earn his sentence, while a slave needs to earn his freedom.

In practice, however, the fate of criminals and prisoners is often just as bad or worse than that of slaves. In modern day, we make a big deal of how slaves were abused. Maybe so, but they were also assets, part of the workforce, and hence their masters had vested interest in keeping them in shape.

Meanwhile, historically, prisoners were often treated worse than animals, being left to rot in dark cells or subject to arbitraty violence from their wardens.

Of course, there's a great deal of overlap between these groups. The most prominent (and most abused) groups of slaves often doubled as prisoners of war. Namely, those prisoners who were not valuable to anyone and couldn't be held for ransom, so they were used for manual labor.

BWR
2014-04-01, 09:26 AM
Depends slightly on the exact judiciary system and laws in place, but coming from a historical perspective, the difference is simple:

A prisoner used to be free, then did something wrong, and lost their freedom as result. Loss of freedom is a punishment for them.

A slave was never free. Lack of freedom is not a punishment, it's their default state.

A prisoner needs to earn his sentence, while a slave needs to earn his freedom.

.

Except many new slaves were gained taking them from previously free people. They used to be free, now they work for and are property of someone else, doing hard labor until they die. Sure, you have those that are born into slavery, but you have the other kind too.

Jay R
2014-04-01, 10:21 AM
Ask your DM. People do not now and never will agree about alignment. Only the DM's opinion is relevant.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-01, 10:21 AM
There's a semantical difference in how you use the word 'free' versus how it's used by slave-taking peoples. Understanding that difference is crucial if you want to understand why slavery is often considered evil.

Historically, the concept of a free person or a "freeman" was much narrower than how we think of them today. It was usually restricted to a small demographic of specific ethic or religious origin. Only these minorities had the rights to rule themselves and others.

Other peoples, even if isolated from the "freemen" demographic or living in a separate community, had no such rights. Just because they had no apparent owner, didn't mean they were "free". Rather, their freedom was alike to a rock lying on the ground: Finders keepers. Their default state was not "free", it was "unowned", which subsequently meant the first "freeman" with will and strenght to do so could own them.

As you can see, this outlook systematically denies agency and rights of living beings, which is why D&D alignment would peg it as evil - "exploiting other beings for fun and profit".

This outlook is also why your statement is both right and wrong. You're correct that many people were not born into slavery, they were collected from conquered peoples (etc.). But just because they were not born in a slaver's custody, doesn't mean the society that enslaved them ever considered them free. In fact, it is precisly this distinction between the free and the non-free that justifies and allows for slavery. In many societies that practiced slavery, enslaving a "freeman" was a heinous crime, because it violated rights and privileges of that "freeman". Only if proven guilty of a crime could a "freeman" be stripped of his position; and usually, this sentence could only be passed by other freemen. Enslaving the non-free was acceptable, because they had no such rights from the get-go.

This is also something the original poster should keep in mind. Since a bounty was apparently posted on this guy's head, it's likely he's been outlawed, which means you can do whatever you want to. But do check before you act. It is entirely possible that without a trial, the guy you've captured is still considered a lawful citizen or a freeman. This quite likely means selling him to slavery is a severe crime, and might get you in serious trouble if you ever come to light.

Also, remember: a foe who's alive and has a grudge is a foe who could come back for revenge. So before you choose where to sell him and to who, consider how likely he is to escape and do just that.

I'm not advocating killing him. Rather, if you do sell him to slavery, be sure to make it clear it's the best option for him. This is easier if his crime was severe enough to get him executed or targeted by other bounty-hunters, and if terms of his enslavement are reasonable.

theNater
2014-04-01, 10:56 AM
What's to stop your party from just capturing people and selling them into slavery? I mean if it makes money and you don't care that slavery is evil, what's stopping you?
Good adventurers?
If the only thing keeping someone from doing Evil is that they might be punished for it, that person is Evil.

Or the local laws and rules mandate slavery as the punishment for certain crimes and is a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem of "what to do with this guy we don't want to murder but can't let go free".
Letting him go free is always an option. Plus, if he's nasty enough that a Good person would think twice about it, threatening to let him go free is a good way to encourage the people who placed the bounty to settle up.

Except many new slaves were gained taking them from previously free people. They used to be free, now they work for and are property of someone else, doing hard labor until they die.
If someone's only crime is being on the losing side of a war, then enslaving or imprisoning them is Evil.

Teapot Salty
2014-04-01, 08:31 PM
Sounds like a step down the road to evil. Keep it in mind when considering your characters alignments and the depths to which they'll sink to make a buck.


Also, have you considered releasing the captive to safety? That would probably be better for your reputation, earn you some goodwill with the captive, and also spite your renegade client (it's not about money, it's about sending a message).

He's already dead. Don't ask me the details, I wasn't there for the game. But here is the basic plot: King gives us target, (to be delivered alive) we retrieve target. Get back to town. King has been killed! Go to knew king, he stiffes us, we kill him.

Mastikator
2014-04-01, 11:14 PM
He's already dead. Don't ask me the details, I wasn't there for the game. But here is the basic plot: King gives us target, (to be delivered alive) we retrieve target. Get back to town. King has been killed! Go to knew king, he stiffes us, we kill him.

Well, at least it's not your character's soul that is heading south. The whole "we kill him" seems unnecessary, which makes it Evil.

theNater
2014-04-01, 11:20 PM
He's already dead. Don't ask me the details, I wasn't there for the game. But here is the basic plot: King gives us target, (to be delivered alive) we retrieve target. Get back to town. King has been killed! Go to knew king, he stiffes us, we kill him.
Barring further details, your party is already Evil, regardless of what you do with the prisoner. If your party intends to be Neutral, selling the prisoner into slavery isn't going to help. If your party is happy being Evil, selling the prisoner into slavery isn't going to hurt.

Teapot Salty
2014-04-01, 11:21 PM
Well, at least it's not your character's soul that is heading south. The whole "we kill him" seems unnecessary, which makes it Evil.

I'm pretty sure killing him was half "where's my money" and half self defense. If thats even possible.

theNater
2014-04-01, 11:29 PM
I'm pretty sure killing him was half "where's my money" and half self defense. If thats even possible.
I can't confirm whether or not it's possible, but without the details, it's absolutely not plausible.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-02, 12:00 AM
He's already dead. Don't ask me the details, I wasn't there for the game. But here is the basic plot: King gives us target, (to be delivered alive) we retrieve target. Get back to town. King has been killed! Go to knew king, he stiffes us, we kill him.


Well, at least it's not your character's soul that is heading south. The whole "we kill him" seems unnecessary, which makes it Evil.


I'm pretty sure killing him was half "where's my money" and half self defense. If thats even possible.

I'd give them a break for that. Even Hercules murdered his questgivers when they withheld payment (see Hercules' fifth labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augeas)).

Also, as those kings' fates can testify, regime change is no excuse for defaulting on payment obligations.

theNater
2014-04-02, 12:47 AM
I'd give them a break for that. Even Hercules murdered his questgivers when they withheld payment (see Hercules' fifth labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augeas)).
No, Augeas withheld payment at the time of the fifth labor and Herc killed him after all twelve labors were over and done with. Near as I can piece together with 20 minutes of Google, Augeas was killed while they were on opposite sides of a war being fought for other reasons(though given their history, Herc probably wasn't going out of his way to find a peaceful solution).

Nerd-o-rama
2014-04-02, 12:49 AM
I would suggest, just because this thread hasn't spiraled off into the fire bomb-strewn mess that all alignment threads do yet, that there are Evil and non-Evil institutions of slavery.

I can't cite specific examples due to board policy, but suffice to say that most people in the modern world hear slavery and think of chattel slavery, wherein slaves are considered property or livestock, to be bought, sold, bred, used, and disposed of at will by their owners, and where one is automatically a slave if born to slaves. This is Evil. Incredibly Evil, really, and any D&D kingdom in which it's even a legal option probably counts as Evil on a governmental scale.

However, there have been other historical variants of slavery, such as debt-bondage. You may remember the term "indentured servitude" from history class, in which people in the ages before credit cards would pay for expenditures beyond their means by obligating themselves to work at a lender's whim for a certain amount of time, after which their contract had been fulfilled and they were freed. When regulated and unabused, this is a harsh but probably not Evil system - it's more or less a privatized version of forced prison labor. Instead of paying a debt to society, you're paying a debt to Joe Fishmonger for a new house for your family on a different continent or something.

It depends largely on how slavery is instituted in the setting and the conditions that the unfortunate mark in question would suffer under should he join it, really.

theNater
2014-04-02, 01:38 AM
I would suggest, just because this thread hasn't spiraled off into the fire bomb-strewn mess that all alignment threads do yet, that there are Evil and non-Evil institutions of slavery.
That's reasonable enough, though I think we can safely rule that any slavery system into which someone can be sold with no questions asked and without their consent is gonna be an Evil one. It's certainly not a well-regulated and unabused debt-bondage system, for example.

Mastikator
2014-04-02, 01:39 AM
I'm pretty sure killing him was half "where's my money" and half self defense. If thats even possible.

Hey you don't need to make excuses, they did that without you present, your character's alignment is not evil as far as I'm concerned.

hamishspence
2014-04-02, 02:12 AM
You may remember the term "indentured servitude" from history class, in which people in the ages before credit cards would pay for expenditures beyond their means by obligating themselves to work at a lender's whim for a certain amount of time, after which their contract had been fulfilled and they were freed. When regulated and unabused, this is a harsh but probably not Evil system - it's more or less a privatized version of forced prison labor. Instead of paying a debt to society, you're paying a debt to Joe Fishmonger for a new house for your family on a different continent or something.

A case could be made that indentured servitude isn't exactly what's meant, when D&D books like BoED say "even if slavery etc. are accepted by society, they remain evil" or (Cityscape) "the institution of slavery should always be considered an evil by any Good-aligned characters in the campaign".

In Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Luke says of what the Yuzzem they befriend have been through "You couldn't exactly call it slavery, but indentured servitude is too polite a term."

And in Heir to the Empire, Leia, on hearing the full story of how the Noghri ended up working for the Empire, thinks "Permanent debt - one of the oldest forms of covert slavery in the galaxy."

So a case could be made that some forms of indentiture count as Evil if oppressive enough.

TuggyNE
2014-04-02, 02:12 AM
For me, Slavery=Evil

Unless it's a highly philosophical LG slavery where criminals and naturally evil creatures are enslaved but treated well in order to control and channel their abilities and tendencies into good for the community. :p

Slavery is always evil! Except when it isn't.

This sums it up pretty well, really, because there's an enormous amount of baggage associated with slavery that is not inherently tied to the most basic forms. Stuff like "no slaves have rights" and "slaves are always born that way" are assumptions that are flat-out not true of some known systems, never mind fictional ones.


A slave was never free. Lack of freedom is not a punishment, it's their default state.

This is not necessarily the case. Debt bondage systems, in particular, specifically do not fit this in any form, not even the more limited "natural state of unowned" you later mentioned.

Synar
2014-04-02, 09:26 AM
There's a semantical difference in how you use the word 'free' versus how it's used by slave-taking peoples. Understanding that difference is crucial if you want to understand why slavery is often considered evil.

Historically, the concept of a free person or a "freeman" was much narrower than how we think of them today. It was usually restricted to a small demographic of specific ethic or religious origin. Only these minorities had the rights to rule themselves and others.

Other peoples, even if isolated from the "freemen" demographic or living in a separate community, had no such rights. Just because they had no apparent owner, didn't mean they were "free". Rather, their freedom was alike to a rock lying on the ground: Finders keepers. Their default state was not "free", it was "unowned", which subsequently meant the first "freeman" with will and strenght to do so could own them.

As you can see, this outlook systematically denies agency and rights of living beings, which is why D&D alignment would peg it as evil - "exploiting other beings for fun and profit".

This outlook is also why your statement is both right and wrong. You're correct that many people were not born into slavery, they were collected from conquered peoples (etc.). But just because they were not born in a slaver's custody, doesn't mean the society that enslaved them ever considered them free. In fact, it is precisly this distinction between the free and the non-free that justifies and allows for slavery. In many societies that practiced slavery, enslaving a "freeman" was a heinous crime, because it violated rights and privileges of that "freeman". Only if proven guilty of a crime could a "freeman" be stripped of his position; and usually, this sentence could only be passed by other freemen. Enslaving the non-free was acceptable, because they had no such rights from the get-go.

This is also something the original poster should keep in mind. Since a bounty was apparently posted on this guy's head, it's likely he's been outlawed, which means you can do whatever you want to. But do check before you act. It is entirely possible that without a trial, the guy you've captured is still considered a lawful citizen or a freeman. This quite likely means selling him to slavery is a severe crime, and might get you in serious trouble if you ever come to light.

Also, remember: a foe who's alive and has a grudge is a foe who could come back for revenge. So before you choose where to sell him and to who, consider how likely he is to escape and do just that.

I'm not advocating killing him. Rather, if you do sell him to slavery, be sure to make it clear it's the best option for him. This is easier if his crime was severe enough to get him executed or targeted by other bounty-hunters, and if terms of his enslavement are reasonable.


I disagree with you on the historical definition of freemen. The only example of such a thing I can find is the way how Europeans (and European settlers) and North African considered other ethnies, but rather than thinking that other men were already captive and to take, I think they considered them more like inferiors, without the rights they conceded to they peers.

Then, going further past in history, antiquity people often took slaves, but for different reasons. Either they considered other people their inferiors (like may have done the egyptians to the nubians, but I'm not sure), or more often they just thougth slavery was in the order of things, and too bad for the losers.
Both romans and greeks considered others `barbarians`. But in Rome the condition of slavery was attached to loss in war. True, their slaves may have all been `barbarians`, but that is because those were the one conquered by Rome. And given the chance to buy their liberty, they might have suffer discrimination or racism, but their could become freemen. And a lot (most) of `barbarians` lived peacefully in the Empire without being slaves at all! (Citizenship is another issue, which I'm unsure of.) Some historians (if not most) actually believe that the fall of the Empire might have been linked to the fact that too much of Rome administration and army was composed of non-romans, whose loyalty and tradition-sticking might have been fluctuating at times.

Greeks were vastly diferent, as they often took each other as slaves, and I don't think that it is consistent with your depiction. Slavery was also linked with demise at war (or bad frequentation). Platon himself did not condemn slavery, as just a part of the system! Being taken in slavery was horrible, but it was something that greeks knew could happen to themselves. One could argue that they saw members of other cities as inferior, but I'm not sure this is enough to support your position.

Then I'm sure you do have some factual knowledges to support your point, and I know that I have a simplified vision of everything and that I overlooked a lot of people, but you did overgeneralize and it's not true to say that slavery historically come from a cast looking at others as not-yet-slaves-but-already-in-essence.


(And please excuse my poor english skills and my unintended rudeness :smallsmile:)

Nerd-o-rama
2014-04-02, 09:51 AM
That's reasonable enough, though I think we can safely rule that any slavery system into which someone can be sold with no questions asked and without their consent is gonna be an Evil one. It's certainly not a well-regulated and unabused debt-bondage system, for example.

Lacking details or context from the OP, though, it could have been a means of criminal justice, albeit one that circumvented any judicial system that might or might not have been present. It kind of depends what the deposed king wanted the guy for in the first place.

theNater
2014-04-02, 10:13 AM
Lacking details or context from the OP, though, it could have been a means of criminal justice, albeit one that circumvented any judicial system that might or might not have been present. It kind of depends what the deposed king wanted the guy for in the first place.
Can we agree that even if the prisoner is a heinous criminal, selling him into chattel slavery is still incredibly Evil?

My position is that any system of slavery that would take him without applying some judicial process so that they know what the prisoner did is going to be an Evil system. Selling him to such a system is worse than just deciding to execute him, because in addition to what the party is doing to the prisoner, they are also supporting such a massively Evil system(and doing so for their own gain).

Amphetryon
2014-04-02, 10:22 AM
Slavery is always evil! Except when it isn't.

This sums it up pretty well, really, because there's an enormous amount of baggage associated with slavery that is not inherently tied to the most basic forms. Stuff like "no slaves have rights" and "slaves are always born that way" are assumptions that are flat-out not true of some known systems, never mind fictional ones.



This is not necessarily the case. Debt bondage systems, in particular, specifically do not fit this in any form, not even the more limited "natural state of unowned" you later mentioned.

Indeed, there are several real AND fictional examples of free people whose lands were conquered becoming slaves as a result of their losses in battle, either on an individual basis or applied to the entire defeated city or "state."

Cikomyr
2014-04-02, 10:30 AM
I think we side-tracked the argument into territories that are way too metaphysical and historical analysis.

Okay. To the OP: your group seems to be the pragmatic (and somewhat self-concerned) bunch. You shouldn't justify to stop yourselves from doing something just because it puts an "evil" label on it. You should have your own motivations for doing stuff. In that case; is the money made out of selling a random person into slavery really worth it?

Or maybe you could free that person up and maybe gain a potential contact/favor in the future? A good stereotype for a bounty hunter is to just keep it "professional". I understand that you might have painstakingly captured the guy, but is selling him into slavery really worth your troubles? Do you want to get a reputation of an Enslaving party?


The point of whether selling the guy to become a slave is evil in the metaphysical sense shouldn't cross your minds. Your characters either object to slavery on principle, or they don't. Your character either want to gain a reputation, or they don't. Your character are gung-ho on getting every single gold coins possible, or they don't. THESE are the questions that should matter. You are professionals, not philosophers trying to debate the Nature of Evil.

There is no good or bad answer. There are just good or bad questions. "Is this act evil?" is a bad question. "Would my character do it, and why?" are very good questions.

Jay R
2014-04-02, 11:13 AM
There are just good or bad questions. "Is this act evil?" is a bad question. "Would my character do it, and why?" are very good questions.

I agree with the idea that we've gotten distracted, but this is simply not true. The DM will certainly ask, "Is this act evil?", so the party had better consider it. Alignment can change based on these actions.

Secondly, any player whose Good character is asking "Would my character do it, and why?" must answer it in part based on the answer to "Is this act evil?"

Cikomyr
2014-04-02, 11:35 AM
I agree with the idea that we've gotten distracted, but this is simply not true. The DM will certainly ask, "Is this act evil?", so the party had better consider it. Alignment can change based on these actions.

Secondly, any player whose Good character is asking "Would my character do it, and why?" must answer it in part based on the answer to "Is this act evil?"

Except that if you are not directly related with Gods concerned with metaphysical alignment (and no offense, but no bounty hunter group would), then the alignment question is irrelevant. They are bounty hunter, and whether they perform good or evil is only relevant to the action itself, and their personal motivation. And "do good" is taking external and wanna-be-universalist morality standards to your character.

Secondly, "is this act evil?" is a silly question. The question should be: "Am I willing to go through with it?". Don't try to put a specific act on a big scale of Good vs. Evil. It's about YOU, and about YOUR CHARACTER. Guess what, you could be a murdering bastard and still not be willing to go through with it because you (or your character) have personal feelings about what slavery is. Or you could be the sort of person that helps out innocent and rights wrongs, and you would feel selling that person in to slavery is the right thing to do; because he has commited unspeakable acts and you'd rather he toils in misery the rest of his life (or you feel that forced labor is a proper behaviour methodology)?

Unless the morality of the action taken on a universal scale of Good vs. Evil is actually relevant to the story (I GMed one game where it did, follow the *), then why should you get bogged-down here? What matters is your character's motivation. If you character wants to be a "Good" person, WHY? What does he defines to be "Good"? Is it about freedom? Order? Justice? Self-fullfilment? Equality? Spirituality? There's a thousand ways to be a good person, and enlightened self-interest still can act and conflict within these definitions.

What matter is not Good vs. Evil. It's your character's views of what Good vs. Evil is. If your character is somehow persuaded that he has to fight to tilt the Great Cosmic Scale of Good vs. Evil (like a Paladin), then it still depends on WHAT he perceives that scale to be, and WHY he wants to fight that fight.


* in that case, it was relevant because the Big Bads of the overall story wanted to turn the city into one gigantic Shrine to the God of Murders. So the more violence and horrible things happened in the city, the more they got closer to their agenda. They promoted a murdery and violent atmosphere within the city. It was story-related, and I made only one morality judgment call: "Violence-related death is bad". It was straightforward.

theNater
2014-04-02, 12:06 PM
"Is this act evil?" is a bad question. "Would my character do it, and why?" are very good questions.
Whether the act is Evil is a good question for the player to think about, as it can give them insight into their own morality system and how it compares to D&D. It should generally not be the deciding factor for whether the character does it.

However, D&D has mechanical effects that are based on alignment, and this is a complicating factor. If the party has, say, a LN druid(possible in a party of Neutral bounty hunters), it is entirely reasonable for the player to want to know whether this is going remove all the druid powers. Similarly if they have magical items or use spells with alignment-dependent effects. And it's absolutely worth knowing which acts are Evil in case they ever play a paladin.

Jay R
2014-04-02, 12:32 PM
Except that if you are not directly related with Gods concerned with metaphysical alignment (and no offense, but no bounty hunter group would), then the alignment question is irrelevant.

I'm not sure where you get this conclusion. It seems to me to be clearly false, about every act by every human being in truth or fiction or game-play.


They are bounty hunter, and whether they perform good or evil is only relevant to the action itself, and their personal motivation.

But their personal motivation is directly involved in asking whether the action is evil.


And "do good" is taking external and wanna-be-universalist morality standards to your character.

Um ... right. And since that is at the core of most fantasy literature, it is a crucial aspect of a game simulating fantasy literature. Frodo isn't a partisan who prefers Gondor to Mordor, he is fighting the explicitly evil Sauron. Determining the right thing to do is at the heart of many Arthurian tales. The White Witch is evil; it's not just a preference for a Narnia that isn't always winter.


Secondly, "is this act evil?" is a silly question. The question should be: "Am I willing to go through with it?". Don't try to put a specific act on a big scale of Good vs. Evil. It's about YOU, and about YOUR CHARACTER.

Yes, being Good is about any Good character. That's what I said. For some reason you seem to believe it's wrong for me to run my Good character as I believe that Good character should be run is wrong


Guess what, you could be a murdering bastard and still not be willing to go through with it because you (or your character) have personal feelings about what slavery is. Or you could be the sort of person that helps out innocent and rights wrongs, and you would feel selling that person in to slavery is the right thing to do; because he has commited unspeakable acts and you'd rather he toils in misery the rest of his life (or you feel that forced labor is a proper behaviour methodology)?

All of this is true, and all of it requires asking if this action is Good. It's not a simple question, or an easy one, or one that doesn't involve lots of issues. But is remains an important and relevant question.


Unless the morality of the action taken on a universal scale of Good vs. Evil is actually relevant to the story...

I guess this is where we disagree. The morality of character's actions taken on a universal scale of Good vs. Evil is always relevant to any story above the level of a street brawl.


... then why should you get bogged-down here? What matters is your character's motivation.

Make up your mind. You are trying to say both that my character's motivation is relevant, and that a question deeply rooted in my character's motivation is a bad question. It can't be both, unless you are trying to say that playing characters that appeal to me is not acceptable, since that isn't how you play.


If you character wants to be a "Good" person, WHY? What does he defines to be "Good"? Is it about freedom? Order? Justice? Self-fullfilment? Equality? Spirituality? There's a thousand ways to be a good person, and enlightened self-interest still can act and conflict within these definitions.

Yes, and every single one of them involves being a good person, which involves choosing not to do Evil acts.


What matter is not Good vs. Evil. What matters to you and your characters is not Good vs. Evil. It's your character's views of what Good vs. Evil is. If your character is somehow persuaded that he has to fight to tilt the Great Cosmic Scale of Good vs. Evil (like a Paladin), then it still depends on WHAT he perceives that scale to be, and WHY he wants to fight that fight.

This relativistic approach to morality is modern, and does not fit into the pseudo-medieval world that my friends are trying to re-create.

Your argument appears to be that what's actually Good or Evil doesn't matter, only what my character's views of what Good vs. Evil is. Therefore my character's approach to the issues of Good vs. Evil is wrong, and has to be thrown out.

The logic escapes me. You cannot defend an absolutist position with a relativistic argument.

Cikomyr
2014-04-02, 01:15 PM
All right. Let's get on that baby. Thanks for the reply, by the way, I enjoy this conversation. But I think you got a few of my points wrong.


I'm not sure where you get this conclusion. It seems to me to be clearly false, about every act by every human being in truth or fiction or game-play.

That is wrong. What about the anti-hero protagonists like Rorschach? How about violent protagonists of Film Noir, cyberpunks? Or even the questionable morality progatonists of Game of Thrones? It's all about character motivation, and none of them actually stop pondering the morality of good or evil; it's all about what THEY feel is right and wrong.



But their personal motivation is directly involved in asking whether the action is evil.

Only if it's relevant to the character. The question is only asked if you are willing to do it, but are wondering if there are omniscient moral standards that you should be abiding by. The very fact that you have to wrestle by that question IS a character trait in the first place. It might be of an ex-sociopath who has had an epiphany and is now trying to abide by this "universal" good standards?

The guidelines of your character defines if they are good or not. It's not the guidelines who are settled by whether you are good nor not.


Um ... right. And since that is at the core of most fantasy literature, it is a crucial aspect of a game simulating fantasy literature. Frodo isn't a partisan who prefers Gondor to Mordor, he is fighting the explicitly evil Sauron. Determining the right thing to do is at the heart of many Arthurian tales. The White Witch is evil; it's not just a preference for a Narnia that isn't always winter.

Agreed. But the entire POINT of those stories if one of conflict against Manifest Evil. It's the crux of the struggle of all characters; they have to strive against Evil, and thus stand as Champion of Good.

But unless the story context of the OP described is one of a massive struggle of Good vs. Evil, then your comparison falls flat. Just because it's in a medieval setting doesn't mean it has to follow medieval story standards. Game of Thrones is a good example of multipolar medieval setting where "Good vs. Evil" is but a silly veils that quickly gets torned to shred by reality.



Yes, being Good is about any Good character. That's what I said. For some reason you seem to believe it's wrong for me to run my Good character as I believe that Good character should be run is wrong

Actually, no. That's not what I said. I said the exact opposite, in fact: you should run your Good character as you believe what Good is.

but just because YOUR interpretation of what Good is exist, doesn't mean it's valid for everyone. Run your character the way you want, just don't be trouble for the rest of your group of the story as a whole. And yet, you should understand your character enough to say why he wants to be a "good" person, and where he got his ideas of what is "good", even if it's merely from his personal experience or upbringing.


All of this is true, and all of it requires asking if this action is Good. It's not a simple question, or an easy one, or one that doesn't involve lots of issues. But is remains an important and relevant question.

No. It's Schrodinger's morality. It's a source of conflict within a group more than it's an interesting plot point. It's the sort of question you should try to avoid for the sake of the group's well being. This is the kind of moment when your own personal take on your character should take a backseat on the group's cohesion. Avoid discussing the morality of the action, and simply go with the much less disruptive pragmatic arguments.

It's always important to remember that arguing morality at a table will rarely get you anything and is more likely to create tensions than anything else. Either between characters, or between players.


I guess this is where we disagree. The morality of character's actions taken on a universal scale of Good vs. Evil is always relevant to any story above the level of a street brawl.

No, it is only relevant if the point of the story is a Good vs. Evil background. Like the aforementionned Lord of the Ring, or the Arthurian Tales, or the Legend of Roland, or Harry Potter.

But in Game of Thrones, Dresden Files, etc... where the crux of the conflict is not necessarily Good vs. Evil, then the morality of character only involves interpersonal relationships, not Grandiose Application of Good vs. Evil.


Make up your mind. You are trying to say both that my character's motivation is relevant, and that a question deeply rooted in my character's motivation is a bad question. It can't be both, unless you are trying to say that playing characters that appeal to me is not acceptable, since that isn't how you play.

No. I am saying that if that question is deeply rooted in your character's motivation, then you should understand why.

No offense, but if the only thing that stops a Paladin from doing evil deeds is that he will lose his paladin status, he doesn't deserve to be a Paladin. That's not being "good". A Paladin should not struggle over whether an act is good or evil; he should know. Because he is a good person. But guess what? Maybe he KNOWS slavery is not evil, because he knows slaves have rights and are usually well treated by their owners. Or he KNOWS slavery is evil, because they are worked to death in plantations. (just using 2 extremes of slavery here)

Or he KNOWS slavery is not evil, but it's because he's been fed lies all his life and truly believe he is doing good by enslaving a criminal. His beliefs should be challenged if he discover the truth, obviously. And he should then repent for doing previously evil act he thought were good.


Yes, and every single one of them involves being a good person, which involves choosing not to do Evil acts.

All of these values fit the "generic" good morality, but you still have to pick us values you hold above others. And guess what? It's possible to be Good and not believe in some of these values.


This relativistic approach to morality is modern, and does not fit into the pseudo-medieval world that my friends are trying to re-create.

But you are modern people, living in a modern world. your perspective is modern, your beliefs are modern. I do not think you subscribe to middle-age view of morality, and you shouldn't standardize your game to follow propagandist standards of morality that were hardly followed at the time they were spewed.


Your argument appears to be that what's actually Good or Evil doesn't matter, only what my character's views of what Good vs. Evil is. Therefore my character's approach to the issues of Good vs. Evil is wrong, and has to be thrown out.

My argument is that Good and Evil don't matter, unless it actually matter. While it seems like totology, just understand: If the story you are trying to make, if the crux of the thematic of your game is a struggle against Evil, then it matters.

But if it's about a bunch of bounty hunters trying to get by in this world, a la Far West, then what exactly is the point of bringing morality into the mix? Just think of the main character of "For a Few Dollars"; while he did the occasional selfless deeds, he was still a manipulative selfish bastard who was in for the greed.


The logic escapes me. You cannot defend an absolutist position with a relativistic argument.

I am not defending an absolutist position mate. I am defending a Narrative-based approach. Morality is important if your story is centred around morality.

imaloony
2014-04-02, 02:32 PM
If it is a matter of being paid for a job, and the person who you captured was not a good person (A fair assumption to make, given that they had a bounty on their head), I'd say that in that context, the action could be considered Chaotic, and not Evil. As such, I would rule that a Chaotic Neutral character or any flavor of Evil character would be in-character with that action. Any other character would either set him free (Which I could also see a Chaotic Neutral character doing) or find someone else to take him into custody.

Amphetryon
2014-04-02, 03:58 PM
If it is a matter of being paid for a job, and the person who you captured was not a good person (A fair assumption to make, given that they had a bounty on their head), I'd say that in that context, the action could be considered Chaotic, and not Evil. As such, I would rule that a Chaotic Neutral character or any flavor of Evil character would be in-character with that action. Any other character would either set him free (Which I could also see a Chaotic Neutral character doing) or find someone else to take him into custody.

Doing a job because you are being paid for it (or, put another way, because you're under contract) can easily be the description of LN, rather than CN, behavior, without additional parameters.

imaloony
2014-04-02, 04:16 PM
Doing a job because you are being paid for it (or, put another way, because you're under contract) can easily be the description of LN, rather than CN, behavior, without additional parameters.

Yeah, but the contract was broken the second he didn't get paid. At that point, a Lawful character would either find a way to turn him in, or set him free, depending on if he valued his Bounty Hunter Contracts or his Politics of the World more. The only Lawful character I could see selling someone into slavery is Lawful Evil.
As for the implication that Bounty Hunter would be more of a LN thing, while I wouldn't see a problem with a LN character being a Bounty Hunter (Or a Merc for that matter), I would bet that there are more CN people in the business. Bounty Hunters tend to be more "As long as I get the money anything goes" which is more up the alley of a CN character.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-03, 08:59 AM
This is not necessarily the case. Debt bondage systems, in particular, specifically do not fit this in any form, not even the more limited "natural state of unowned" you later mentioned.

Which is a good reason to stick to calling it debt bondage instead of slavery.

Don't get me wrong, as with prisoners, the practical conditions of a slave and a debt-bonded can be just as poor. There can also be overlap between the conditions. The distinction isn't in practical conditions or evilness, it's semantic and occasionally legal one.


I disagree with you on the historical definition of freemen. The only example of such a thing I can find is the way how Europeans (and European settlers) and North African considered other ethnies, but rather than thinking that other men were already captive and to take, I think they considered them more like inferiors, without the rights they conceded to they peers.

Considering other people "inferior" was just part of the justification for some people having less rights than others. It's merely the "why" for the "what" I just described. The attitude also was considerably more widespread, but we don't need to dwell on that.


Then, going further past in history, antiquity people often took slaves, but for different reasons. Either they considered other people their inferiors (like may have done the egyptians to the nubians, but I'm not sure), or more often they just thougth slavery was in the order of things, and too bad for the losers.
That is precisely the "finders, keepers" mentality I talked of before. If you can conquer them, they're yours. Freedom of a rock, not of a human.


...romans and greeks...

Greeks definitely fell into the category I decribed. Romans are a more nuanced example. They definitely had shades of the attitude I descibred, but they also had a pretty nuanced legalese for slavery, being the practical inventors of the Greco-Roman justice system.

Synar
2014-04-03, 11:12 AM
Greeks definitely fell into the category I decribed. Romans are a more nuanced example. They definitely had shades of the attitude I descibred, but they also had a pretty nuanced legalese for slavery, being the practical inventors of the Greco-Roman justice system.

How could greeks fall in this category, when they precisely enslaved each other?
I mean, to have such a mentality, you must consider other inferiors, but how could they think of themselves as inferior to themselves?

Cikomyr
2014-04-03, 11:52 AM
How could greeks fall in this category, when they precisely enslaved each other?
I mean, to have such a mentality, you must consider other inferiors, but how could they think of themselves as inferior to themselves?

You do realize Greece wasn't one massive monolithic culture or nationality?

Marcelinari
2014-04-03, 01:18 PM
Ignoring the larger question over the morality of evil - there is an alternative option, where you very definitely remain neutral, and still get paid. You ransom your bounty.

Clearly this person was an individual of some power, to be a threat or at least nuisance to a king. This means that, in all likelihood, he or somebody near him has significant resources to draw on. Find a way to 'sell' him to himself, or his family and friends. This way, you don't instigate bad blood between yourselves and him, as it remains 'just business'. Additionally, you get paid, so score. Last but not least, it means that if somebody (maybe the next sovereign in line) wants to renew the bounty on this person, you get paid twice.

By ransoming him, you get the best of both worlds. He remains free and alive. You get paid, and remain staunchly neutral. Win-win (except for the part where he pays you, and also where now you're guilty of regicide. Good luck!).

TuggyNE
2014-04-03, 09:13 PM
Which is a good reason to stick to calling it debt bondage instead of slavery.

Um... what? Why isn't it slavery, other than because slavery is defined arbitrarily as being hereditary?

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-04, 07:48 AM
For the same reason manslaughter, murder and negligent homicide are different entries in law. Sometimes we need to make distinctions between similar things happening for different reasons. You might as well be asking me when is punching someone in the face violence and when is it use of force.

Amphetryon
2014-04-04, 08:33 AM
For the same reason manslaughter, murder and negligent homicide are different entries in law. Sometimes we need to make distinctions between similar things happening for different reasons. You might as well be asking me when is punching someone in the face violence and when is it use of force.

So, the fact that those cultures used the term 'slavery' (or its translated equivalent) should have no bearing on the discussion?

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-04, 08:55 AM
Mu.

Whether or not language-specific terms are useful or not depends on their semantic clarity. Natural languages are full of poor semantics, both intentional and unintentional. Just because a word is used, doesn't mean its use is very sensible. Personally, I hated having to use "negligent homicide" in my previous post instead of the Finnish term "kuolemantuottamus", because I feel our native term captures the difference between that crime and manslaughter much better.

For a different example, consider the semantic mess of "age racism", or how colloquial Finnish speech uses "rasismi" ("racism") as synonym for "syrjintä" ("discrimination").

Teapot Salty
2014-04-04, 10:54 AM
I think we side-tracked the argument into territories that are way too metaphysical and historical analysis.

Okay. To the OP: your group seems to be the pragmatic (and somewhat self-concerned) bunch. You shouldn't justify to stop yourselves from doing something just because it puts an "evil" label on it. You should have your own motivations for doing stuff. In that case; is the money made out of selling a random person into slavery really worth it?

Or maybe you could free that person up and maybe gain a potential contact/favor in the future? A good stereotype for a bounty hunter is to just keep it "professional". I understand that you might have painstakingly captured the guy, but is selling him into slavery really worth your troubles? Do you want to get a reputation of an Enslaving party?


The point of whether selling the guy to become a slave is evil in the metaphysical sense shouldn't cross your minds. Your characters either object to slavery on principle, or they don't. Your character either want to gain a reputation, or they don't. Your character are gung-ho on getting every single gold coins possible, or they don't. THESE are the questions that should matter. You are professionals, not philosophers trying to debate the Nature of Evil.

There is no good or bad answer. There are just good or bad questions. "Is this act evil?" is a bad question. "Would my character do it, and why?" are very good questions.

Excellent point. I think my character would do it if everybody else did. He has low charisma, which is represented by very little force of personality instead of just not talking well. We do have a CE member of the party, and he has high charisma, (tied with our greedy rogue at the highest score) so I assume everybody would do it if he did.

Cikomyr
2014-04-04, 11:18 AM
So you are telling me, you would be willing to do abhorrent acts just for the extra gold piece?

Is selling him into slavery really worth it?

(btw; forewarning. The same reason I dislike someone justifying his actions by stating he is "good", I also dislike a player justifying his actions by "I'm evil". And I have a big personal dislike for players who play psychopaths just for the lolz of it)