PDA

View Full Version : Good characters and slavery



Baxter Konrad
2015-02-18, 04:34 PM
Just a thought I had.

Let's suppose we have a campaign setting in the classical era - the time of Alexander the Great, the rise of Rome, the Punic Wars, all that good stuff. One thing that's very common in this era is the idea of keeping slaves, and it's important to point out that slavery != chattel slavery; not all of these people were suffering unbearably.

So here's the thing; in a setting where pretty much every side is taking slaves, where do the Good characters fit in? To help focus the discussion, here are a few core "rules" to try and keep things clear:

1) Since we're talking Good characters, we'll create a set of rules that allow for moral judgement - we'll assume slaves can't be killed without "good reason"; that they can seek sanctuary and legal protection from mistreatment; that they can (if their masters allow) earn money, own property, etc; and that they gain citizenship if freed (or, indeed, if abandoned - if their master throws them out, they're free).

2) Anyone who is wealthy, a land owner or both, has slaves. In terms of land ownership, this may be out of necessity.

3) Criminals can be enslaved as punishment.

4) Being sold to a mine is a death sentence - nobody who works in a mine, free or otherwise, expects to live very long.

So, some questions:

1) How would Good characters feel about the practice of taking slaves after battles? ie: after clearing an Orc camp the survivors are enslaved by the state.

2) How would Good characters feel about owning slaves, either by choice (ie: going out and buying them), by birth (ie: inheriting them) or by station (ie: becoming a Centurion and being given a slave as an adjutant)?

3) Does the role the slave serves in society have an impact on their outlook? (ie: a personal slave they live with and can treat as they like, vs slaves worked to death in mines)

4) Does the alignment of the slave matter?

5) Does being born into this society have an impact on their alignment-based outlook on slavery?

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 04:42 PM
The Dark Sun world is fairly "Classical" what with the gladiatorial arenas etc.

And in that:

4E Dark Sun Campaign Setting page 197: Slavery and Alignment

Keeping slaves is not compatible with a good alignment, but doing so does not necessarily make a character evil. Most slave owners are unaligned. Overseers who treat their slaves brutally are definitely engaging in evil acts that should outrage good characters.
The question is whether anything can be reasonably done about the situation. Given how commonplace slavery is on Athas, good characters can't reasonably attempt to free every slave they meet, nor should they recklessly challenge slave owners who are too powerful to overcome.
Good characters should be anguished by the abundance of human misery in civilized areas, however, and they should be dedicated to aiding however they can short of attempting suicidal actions.

Might be a good starting point.

Satinavian
2015-02-18, 05:00 PM
I simply would ignore the "slavery is evil" part of the rules. It was always strange, especially as serfdom, which is in many ways exactly the same thing (differences depend on the kind of serfdom and the kind of slavery) seems to be totally ok by RAW and at the same time widespread in all those settings with medieval feudal fluff.

Baxter Konrad
2015-02-18, 05:10 PM
I simply would ignore the "slavery is evil" part of the rules. It was always strange, especially as serfdom, which is in many ways exactly the same thing (differences depend on the kind of serfdom and the kind of slavery) seems to be totally ok by RAW and at the same time widespread in all those settings with medieval feudal fluff.

Yeah, that is something of an oddity. I suspect it may be in part cultural...

"Owning another person is wrong! But paying them so little they need to work 40 hours a week just to live in poverty is perfectly fine!"

NecroRebel
2015-02-18, 05:15 PM
In some older philosophical writings that were written when slavery was still commonplace that I have read, the taking and keeping of prisoners of war as slaves was justified basically by saying that the defeated's life belonged to the victorious, and the victor was simply letting their prisoners keep their life in exchange for their labor. This wouldn't be a justification that a Good character would likely make, but it's not an Evil one, either.

With a justification like that, it kind of comes down to a question of Law versus Chaos - a Lawful character might well think that slavery in that sense was a just and thus acceptable thing, even if they were otherwise Good, while a Chaotic character may find it unacceptable, even if Evil (though the CE thought might be "their life is mine, I should take it").



So, I would say a Good character could find taking slaves in battle to be perfectly reasonable, as it benefits everyone. The slaves keep their lives, the slavers get cheap labor, and perhaps most importantly whatever conflict precipitated the battle ends. Cruelty towards slaves would make it unacceptable, of course, and those justifications become ever more questionable the more distant the slaves are from the conflict. Perhaps Good requires limiting slavery to those captured directly in battle, with children always born free, or limiting it to the first generation, with too much beyond that getting into the "oppression" part of Evil to be called Good anymore.

Regardless, as this is an issue largely neutral with regards to Good and Evil, Good characters should seek to push it towards the Good side, which would mean limiting oppression which likely requires ending slavery.

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 05:15 PM
I think Forgotten Realms went with serfdom being rare - and only present in especially oppressive nations. The 3.0 Campaign Guide also said "Even the most wretched serf is a person - not property".

Beta Centauri
2015-02-18, 05:16 PM
Unless the game is about overthrowing the status quo, Good characters would rationalize the status quo as good, or at least not rock the boat too hard if they did have issues.

In every status quo, there are people who go far one way or another, taking it to the limit in terms of depravity or in terms of beneficence, yet without actually stepping outside the overall culture. Even if, someday, it became universally "evil" to harness horses for labor, I think it would be agreed that some people were "good" to their horses and other people were "evil" to their horses, but that they all had horses and it was, for a time, widely acceptable.

Cikomyr
2015-02-18, 05:30 PM
Roman society had slaves being paid wages and eventually able to buy back their freedom to become citizens.

Do not entrust your moral judgement solely on some sort of pseudo-universalist 20th century view of morality. You can have PEOPLE believing slavery is a bad thing in any society, but they should not be treated as automatically being in the "right". Its all about circumstances and abuse potential.

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 05:32 PM
Roman society had slaves being paid wages and eventually able to buy back their freedom to become citizens.

As well as:


4) Being sold to a mine is a death sentence - nobody who works in a mine, free or otherwise, expects to live very long.

Satinavian
2015-02-18, 05:33 PM
I think Forgotten Realms went with serfdom being rare - and only present in especially oppressive nations. The 3.0 Campaign Guide also said "Even the most wretched serf is a person - not property".
But that is just Forgotten Realms.

In addition, for most kinds of serfdom, serfs were property.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom Despite the views of certain American writers.

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 05:36 PM
In addition, for most kinds of serfdom, serfs were property
From that page:


The serf was the worst fed and rewarded, but at least he had his place and, unlike slaves, had certain rights in land and property.

A lord of the manor could not sell his serfs as a Roman might sell his slaves.

Mr Beer
2015-02-18, 05:43 PM
Where slaves are an integral part of the economy and society and not universally treated brutally, I think you need to adjust "Good" to the setting. I think a "Good" person could have slaves, they would likely treat them paternalistically, like an old timey noble or industrialist.

Of course there are plenty of potential pitfalls, having slaves around and especially owning slaves makes it much easier to do not-Good things but I don't think it's necessary to impose a strict Western 2015 standard of morality and call it the final arbiter of all that is Good.

Vertharrad
2015-02-18, 05:44 PM
Yeah, that is something of an oddity. I suspect it may be in part cultural...

"Owning another person is wrong! But paying them so little they need to work 40 hours a week just to live in poverty is perfectly fine!"

No it's not, this has more to do with people so enamored of the status quo that they don't acknowledge the wrong being done before them.

Either way are we talking of slavery or indetured servitude? There is a slight difference, slavery the slave has no rights and can be treated as the owner wishes indentured servitude a term that came way later is where the person is paying back some debt and/or payed something for their services and might even be allowed to pay for their freedom.

Satinavian
2015-02-18, 05:46 PM
@hamishspence

Yes. But if the lord sold the land, all serfs were sold with it as they were bound to the land. And even that was not always true, especcially in eastern europe.
Also, for most forms of slavery, slaves were allowed property.

It is correct, that cultures with boths serfs and slaves usually made the distinction via priviliges of the serfs over the slaves. Those usually have something to do with land.


But no culture counted serfs as freemen. And there is a reason that modern laws define serfdom as a form of slavery.

Cikomyr
2015-02-18, 05:47 PM
As well as:

Agreed 100%. This is why i think it is important to look at the application and enforcement of slavery, rather than making a blanket judgement call.

The upper description might be good in theory, but it hardly matters to a slave living in fine society vs. A serf being worked to death. Some might call serfdom gooder in theory, but its a matter of interpretation. I could see two "good" deities having a schism over that very argument.

My point isnt that slavery is good. My point is that there is an argument to be made, and therefore a blanket morality statement is the wrong approach to take.

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 05:48 PM
Where slaves are an integral part of the economy and society and not universally treated brutally, I think you need to adjust "Good" to the setting. I think a "Good" person could have slaves, they would likely treat them paternalistically, like an old timey noble or industrialist.

Forgotten Realms did have one LG nation that practiced slavery - Mulhorand. They minimised some of the common abuses by having them owned by the government rather than individuals - and giving them protections, even if only of the "harming government property is a crime" kind.

Baxter Konrad
2015-02-18, 05:49 PM
No it's not, this has more to do with people so enamored of the status quo that they don't acknowledge the wrong being done before them.

Either way are we talking of slavery or indetured servitude? There is a slight difference, slavery the slave has no rights and can be treated as the owner wishes indentured servitude a term that came way later is where the person is paying back some debt and/or payed something for their services and might even be allowed to pay for their freedom.

Neither.

As I said, the guidelines are set out in the first post.

Slaves are property, but they can't be killed without "good reason" and they can seek some form of sanctuary if they feel they are mistreated (what happens if the authorities disagree is another matter).

Slaves can earn money IF THEIR MASTERS ALLOW! This means they can only buy their freedom if they're allowed to earn money, and whether they're allowed to earn money has NOTHING to do with how or why they became a slave. Ergo, they are not automatically indentured workers.

Slaves can be freed by their masters, but there is no hard and fast rule. A slave might be able to buy his freedom, or he might only become free when his master dies. Even then, he might not become free. He is a slave until told otherwise.

They aren't purely property, but they aren't indentured either. They attain rights upon freedom, but they won't have as many rights as a man born free, so it's not as simple as serving time.

MrNobody
2015-02-18, 06:37 PM
So, some questions:

1) How would Good characters feel about the practice of taking slaves after battles? ie: after clearing an Orc camp the survivors are enslaved by the state.

2) How would Good characters feel about owning slaves, either by choice (ie: going out and buying them), by birth (ie: inheriting them) or by station (ie: becoming a Centurion and being given a slave as an adjutant)?

3) Does the role the slave serves in society have an impact on their outlook? (ie: a personal slave they live with and can treat as they like, vs slaves worked to death in mines)

4) Does the alignment of the slave matter?

5) Does being born into this society have an impact on their alignment-based outlook on slavery?

The first thing i want to point out is that in the classical era (and in other eras as well) there was another pretty common way to become a slave that you must want to take in account: debt.
It was pretty common that someone that could not pay back a debt would become enslaved to the creditor for a variable amount of time.

Answering to your questions.
1) This is linked to the culture/race the good creature belongs to and the one the slave comes from. A good character should refuse to have slaves that belongs to its own culture/race, while may have less problems accepting slaves that come from a different setting.
An example: Elves consider orcs to be just like animals. During war, a good elf could want to enslave orcs (it could be also seen as an rightful path, opposed to simply slay every orc) but refuse the idea to have another elf as a slave.
In general, a Good character should never have as a slave someone that sees as a peer but may (may) have less problem with enslaving someone that considers at a lower level for religion, culture, race or any other thing. (see also point 5).

2) Being comfortable or not with slavery is, in my opinion, something more linked to individual's personality that with alignment. In a setting where slavery is pretty common the difference is made by how the slave is treated. The Good "owner" should try to enstablish a friendly climate between him and ots slaves. The leading thought should be "we both know our position, lets try to do our best to live in peace so we all can live better and happily". Also, a Good character should be aware of the legal way to free a slave (in republican and imperial Rome the owners had the power to free the slaves, that became Liberti, a special kind of citizens) and strive to do so.

3) The role of the slaves should be meaningful as long as it express the way a slave became so. If all murderers are sentenced by law to be slaves in the mines a good character should feel pity but in the end be ok with it since those people are being punished for a crime (expecially a LG one, while a CG may point out that they deserved to be punished but not in that way).
Being bound deeper to a personal slave (expecially if it was the was that raised you while your father were attending its business) its more a matter of "humanity" than alignment.

4) The answer comes from 2. If a good slave owner think "we both know our position, lets try to do our best to live in peace so we all can live better and happily" but the slaves don't there should be a lot of troubles. So, while an evil owner doesn't care about peaceful cohabitation and can force to obedience every kind of slave, a good one should seek to "possess" (or educate) slaves that share this view and don't try to take advantage of him being good.
In case of conflict the good owner has two choices: punishing or selling the slave. Remember that in ancient rome the owner was the pater familias (the father, the chief of the family) and was its precise duty to protect the stability and serenity of the familiy. So even a Good pater familas could be put by an evil slave to act in a not-so-good manner in order to fulfill its role.

5) Definitely. If your society teach you that the existence of slave is ok, than you are more likely to be ok with it too. In ancient times this was often linked to culture and population. For example, no Spartan would have ever seen as evil to have a Messenian slave: they were conquered, now they are slave, this is how the world goes.

Hope it helps.:smallsmile:

Segev
2015-02-18, 06:56 PM
It really, really depends on your definition of and laws surrounding slavery.

As outlined, it's questionable, since Good people tend to think that there should always be opportunity for individuals to better themselves. That there shouldn't be de jure dead ends, barring criminal acts so heinous or incorigible as to require lifelong imprisonment or execution for the protection of society. Therefore, slavery that has no recourse to escape it would tend to be viewed as an evil.

Indentured servitude - which a lot of historical slaves more fit the definition of, particularly with the ones who had time periods for which they served rather than debts to pay off - will tend to be more morally acceptible.

However, if the society as a whole allows slavery, but good inclined people live healthilly within it, they will probably tend towards an attitude of "it's not ideal, but we can make it work."

That is, they're probably not going to balk at owning slaves, themselves, because they know they can be fair masters to them. They likely will seek, like a good employer, to find ways for their slaves to achieve their own happiness.

It is noteworthy that in some historical societies, slavery was not necessarily a mark of shame, but simply a social class. And it was a social class which had its own upward mobility and opportunities. There were slaves who were highly educated and valued, who lived as members of their masters' households, and who, if freed, would be in much worse shape because freedom without also taking with them some of their masters' wealth would equate to poverty.

This does reveal one of the more hidden evils of slavery: dependence. If a slave does not own his own property, then being cast out deprives him of not just future wages (as being fired would), but of his existing support. He has not even necessarily the clothes on his back.

But where dependence is just a fact of life, the idea of slavery could be acceptable to even good people. Their attitude would be similar to that of the good king: they are stewards to their slaves' well-being, and should take care of them as they would anybody in their household.

The most good-hearted individuals would, for internal purposes, probably treat their slaves as if they'd purchased adoptees. Obviously, the law likely wouldn't treat them as such, but it would still be a workable relationship. Slaves inherited by their masters' heirs would already have a brother- or uncle-like relationship with their new masters.

How good people would react to the notion of people being BORN into slavery...that's another question entirely. I suppose it depends on whether they live in a society with defined castes out of which you cannot move anyway or not.

Would a good-aligned person be able to be comfortable with such a society? If being born a peasant meant you had no hope of ever being, say, merchant-class? Being born a merchant meant you could never be nobility? Or a soldier? What is the meaning of the caste system? Is it job-based, or simply a social and political rank which you cannot escape? How would that impact it?

Because hereditary slavery is essentially a caste system: if you can be born a slave, that's a caste, even if the rest of the society lacks rigid ones.

veti
2015-02-18, 07:01 PM
As I see it, really you've got two options:

Overrule the RAW to say that "this kind of slavery isn't inherently evil".
Rule that there are zero Good people in the world, at least above a certain status, and playing a Good PC is simply not an option.

Personally I think the RAW are never more stupid than when they try to lay down a code for what constitutes "good" and "evil" that is absolute and unchanging for all time, so I wouldn't hesitate to pick option 1. But 2 is an alternative. I'm not sure if there's a third option.

Vrock_Summoner
2015-02-18, 07:16 PM
A good character should refuse to have slaves that belongs to its own culture/race, while may have less problems accepting slaves that come from a different setting.
An example: Elves consider orcs to be just like animals. During war, a good elf could want to enslave orcs (it could be also seen as an rightful path, opposed to simply slay every orc) but refuse the idea to have another elf as a slave.
In general, a Good character should never have as a slave someone that sees as a peer but may (may) have less problem with enslaving someone that considers at a lower level for religion, culture, race or any other thing. (see also point 5).

How about no? Racism and classism are pretty strongly non-Good intents for committing actions.

Tengu_temp
2015-02-18, 07:39 PM
It's possible to have a good alignment and still own slaves, or at least not be anti-slavery, if you're a part of a society that sees this as common practice. Otherwise it'd mean that for a long period of human history, in many cultures, there were no good-aligned people.

What good characters should do, though, is treat their slaves well and fairly, as well as do what they can to make others treat their slaves well and stand against slave abuse.

kardar233
2015-02-18, 07:45 PM
My experience with this subject suggests that Good characters who have been inundated in the mores of a society in which slavery is the status quo will tend to care more about the treatment of slaves than their societal status.

In general, if the slaves are treated well enough (the laws posited in the OP seem mostly sufficient) then Good characters don't necessarily have an objection to them. If slaves are a part of life and they're not treated too badly, no harm no foul. Particularly Chaotic characters might object to slaves' near-inability to raise their social standing but if they're treated alright then the characters have few things to complain about. The question is what happens when the slaves aren't treated well? In that case, Good characters will tend to split along Law/Chaos lines.

Lawful Good characters will generally be of the opinion that the slaves' mistreatment can be solved within the bounds of the status quo, by allowing slaves more rights under the law, regulating what can be done to them more heavily, screening prospective slave owners or the like. Chaotic characters will tend towards abolitionism, saying that the mistreatment of the slaves is inevitable due to the nature of slavery, and that the whole practice should be abolished.

In summary, if the characters are raised in a slavery-accepting society, if the slaves are treated well Good characters are unlikely to feel that it's wrong. If the slaves are not treated well, Lawful Good characters will try to protect them, while Chaotic Good characters will try to free them.

Karl Aegis
2015-02-18, 11:39 PM
You're engaging in racially-motivated violence and taking those who either stayed behind to buy time for non-combatants to escape or didn't have enough time to escape themselves for labor. You would use different methods if your aim was conquest. As it is, your methods are reprehensible. You should rethink your alignment.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 11:48 PM
So a classic world without the knee jerk ''slavery is evil''.



1) How would Good characters feel about the practice of taking slaves after battles? ie: after clearing an Orc camp the survivors are enslaved by the state.

They would think of it as normal, even good.



2) How would Good characters feel about owning slaves, either by choice (ie: going out and buying them), by birth (ie: inheriting them) or by station (ie: becoming a Centurion and being given a slave as an adjutant)?

They would think of it as normal, even good. They would likely treat their slaves very well, too.




3) Does the role the slave serves in society have an impact on their outlook? (ie: a personal slave they live with and can treat as they like, vs slaves worked to death in mines)

They don't like to think about it. Mostly just turn a blind eye to it. They could sure rationalize that lots of hard work is dangerous. And being a warrior has a short life too.



4) Does the alignment of the slave matter?

Not at all.



5) Does being born into this society have an impact on their alignment-based outlook on slavery?

If you were born into it, you'd think it was normal.

The mindset of a ''person in alignment past'' is very alien. They think nothing like modern people think.


A great analogy to slaves is prisons. Lots of good people don't like the ''system of prisons'', but they don't complain too much. They understand it's ''the best way to handle criminals'' for a couple reasons. And slavery would be seen the same way. It's not the ''best way'' to do things, but it is the only way the world has.

NecroRebel
2015-02-19, 12:52 AM
You're engaging in racially-motivated violence and taking those who either stayed behind to buy time for non-combatants to escape or didn't have enough time to escape themselves for labor. You would use different methods if your aim was conquest. As it is, your methods are reprehensible. You should rethink your alignment.

...Who says that the violence in question is racially motivated? Or that there were non-combatants in the camp at all? Orcs traditionally are prone to forming raiding parties to ravage civilized lands. The camps of said raiding parties would be valid targets under modern doctrines. Race needn't have anything to do with it - the fact that the warband is orcish is irrelevant beside the fact that it's a warband.

In fact, there's hardly been any mention of race in the thread... Why not replace the references to "Orcs" with references to "terrorists" or "bandits?" It works out the same, morally: dark grey, but not unreasonable for a white hat to allow if limited given the alternatives.

Karl Aegis
2015-02-19, 02:04 AM
...Who says that the violence in question is racially motivated? Or that there were non-combatants in the camp at all? Orcs traditionally are prone to forming raiding parties to ravage civilized lands. The camps of said raiding parties would be valid targets under modern doctrines. Race needn't have anything to do with it - the fact that the warband is orcish is irrelevant beside the fact that it's a warband.

In fact, there's hardly been any mention of race in the thread... Why not replace the references to "Orcs" with references to "terrorists" or "bandits?" It works out the same, morally: dark grey, but not unreasonable for a white hat to allow if limited given the alternatives.

They could be persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such. Whatever they were, you forced them into servitude almost entirely because they have a different lifestyle than you. If they weren't so different from you conquest would be the best option. By forcing them to become property, you are denying them a chance to be integrated into society by choice. If they refuse to be integrated into society, maybe the society is at fault.

NecroRebel
2015-02-19, 02:21 AM
They could be persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such. Whatever they were, you forced them into servitude almost entirely because they have a different lifestyle than you.

Where are you getting this idea? No one has brought up prospective slaves being taken due to having a different lifestyle. The only real specific that we've been presented with is that a battle occurred, and prisoners were taken. No reason for that battle was given, and it's more likely that it would be because the prisoners had been threats beforehand. People have been bringing up the Roman model of slavery, where most slaves actually weren't from a significantly different culture (the whole Mediterranean was pretty heavily Hellenized prior to the rise of Rome).

Once prisoners are taken, there's kind of only three options: set them free, put them in chains, or put them to the sword. Good characters will naturally want to set them free, but that isn't always, or even usually, a reasonable option, because they'll just go back to being hostile again. Putting them in chains is the neutral option, but when resources are scarce, which historically was usually the case and would probably be so in most game worlds, keeping them prisoner without putting them to work isn't an option either. So, really, the options are usually "keep working prisoners" or "kill them all," of which the "keep working prisoners" is the less Evil of the two.

Ravens_cry
2015-02-19, 02:29 AM
Here's a question, Who is more good, someone who keeps slaves in a world where slavery is a social norm, treats them well and is willing to free them if compensated fairly, or an employer who runs his employees to the bone, takes no safety precautions he can't get away with but pays them so little that they can't afford to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

golentan
2015-02-19, 02:38 AM
Here's a question, Who is more good, someone who keeps slaves in a world where slavery is a social norm, treats them well and is willing to free them if compensated fairly, or an employer who runs his employees to the bone, takes no safety precautions he can't get away with but pays them so little that they can't afford to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

Oh, the former, clearly. The thing is alignment is really about how you treat people, the name you put on that doesn't matter so much.

The thing is, slavery is an inherently dehumanizing relationship if we're using it accurately. Chattel slavery may be the worst incarnation, but the idea of being able to own another sentient without their consent is to literally objectify them.

I'd say a good person may be able to look past that, but owning slaves and not taking steps to correct it is an inherently evil act. The fact you can take such dehumanizing acts on others more directly and without official title of property doesn't change it.

Coidzor
2015-02-19, 03:08 AM
I simply would ignore the "slavery is evil" part of the rules. It was always strange, especially as serfdom, which is in many ways exactly the same thing (differences depend on the kind of serfdom and the kind of slavery) seems to be totally ok by RAW and at the same time widespread in all those settings with medieval feudal fluff.

Serfdom is basically a form of slavery, depending upon how exactly it falls out. The default assumption that I've run into seems to be yeomen who are in their place due to economics, unless they're explicitly called out as serfs or chattel. Much like how female characters are assumed to have enough gender equality to reasonably exist in whatever quantity desired unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Especially in D&D and D&D-related systems which seem to be in focus here.

Ravens_cry
2015-02-19, 03:38 AM
Oh, the former, clearly. The thing is alignment is really about how you treat people, the name you put on that doesn't matter so much.

The thing is, slavery is an inherently dehumanizing relationship if we're using it accurately. Chattel slavery may be the worst incarnation, but the idea of being able to own another sentient without their consent is to literally objectify them.

I'd say a good person may be able to look past that, but owning slaves and not taking steps to correct it is an inherently evil act. The fact you can take such dehumanizing acts on others more directly and without official title of property doesn't change it.
Hmm, what if it is with consent, where slavery is used as a way to pay off debts. You sell yourself to your debtor, or to another who buys your debt from your debtor, and you then work off your debt to them. Upon completion of your peonage, having provided the equivalent value to your debtors, if they are to retain your services, it is as a paid worker.

Mystral
2015-02-19, 03:44 AM
A good character in such a society would treat his slaves well and as servants. He would also set them free after some time (like, the time that have worked long enough that a servants wages would have summed up to the amount the slave was bought for), supplying them with what they need to ensure that they can live as free men/women when the time has come.

Freeing slaves was common in ancient times.

Karl Aegis
2015-02-19, 04:02 AM
Hmm, what if it is with consent, where slavery is used as a way to pay off debts. You sell yourself to your debtor, or to another who buys your debt from your debtor, and you then work off your debt to them. Upon completion of your peonage, having provided the equivalent value to your debtors, if they are to retain your services, it is as a paid worker.

That sounds like an indentured servant. I would still very much prefer to believe what sounds like a pimp (platonic or otherwise) to be more good than what I believe to be equivalent to a sweatshop owner.

Obak
2015-02-19, 04:17 AM
Romans had all kind of strange beliefs, among them was that when interrogating a slave you allways had to use torture.
How would a "good" character go about the brutal and demeaning task of punishing his slaves? Or forcing them to work? Keeping them chained up so they would not escape? What if a slave did escape? Would a good character let him run or hire the not-so-good slave hunters? How would a good character set an example for the other slaves as not to run away?

What if a slave catches the "good" masters eye? Or if a slave approaches the master with intent of exchanging sexual favours for special treatment?

What if a child is born to a slave? Would it also become a slave?

What about selling your slaves? Could you do that while still being good, knowing fully well that in the end they could end up in the hands of some sadist?

Would a good character allow his slaves to learn how to read and write?
Would he allow them fair work hours, medical attention when sick or injured, nutritios food, warm beds and good hosing at his expense?

The reason I call bull**** on the idea of good aligned slave owners is that slavery is a mean to an end, namely cheap labour. But if you treat your cheap labour as even half decent folks, then they stop being cheap.

"Well what about serfs?"
Well what about them? Holding serfs would not be compatible with the good alignment either. When the good landlord tours tje villages, seeing his dirtfarmers living in abject squalor and povert and choosing not to alleviate their pains, he stops being good and starts being neutral, or just a bastard.
Just because something is engrained in culture doesent make it good in an alignment sense.
For example, "It is believed to be good to hammer nails into baby orcs heads, thus all good persons do it", in a culture where this is believed to be true, could a good aligned PC reasonably practice neonatal carpentry?

Satinavian
2015-02-19, 05:07 AM
Romans had all kind of strange beliefs, among them was that when interrogating a slave you allways had to use torture.
How would a "good" character go about the brutal and demeaning task of punishing his slaves? Or forcing them to work? Keeping them chained up so they would not escape? What if a slave did escape? Would a good character let him run or hire the not-so-good slave hunters? How would a good character set an example for the other slaves as not to run away?
"The Romans" is not a very good reference, given that we have several centuries and a lot of regional differences, that count.

Then there is the terrible fact, that most Roman slaves were prisoners of war, meaning availability and price of slaves fluctuated a lot with politics and fortune in war. Which in turn always changed the treatment of slaves.


What if a child is born to a slave? Would it also become a slave?That is the usual way. But in most cultures that was also true for most other parts of the society. Children learn the trade of their parents and are married among pears. Exceptions are possible, but difficult.
What about selling your slaves? Could you do that while still being good, knowing fully well that in the end they could end up in the hands of some sadist?Going back to the Romans, this was actually an important point in debate about ethics.

There were some very influential Romans saying that you have responsibility to your slaves and should not sell them to a bad owner. And that you should not sell your old, now useless slaves but instead care for them in your household until they die.

Of course there were other opinions too.

Would a good character allow his slaves to learn how to read and write?This depens a lot on how usual literacy is in the setting. But as a skilled slave is more worth than an unskilled one, there is hardly any reason to forbid learning this, independend of morals. Finding a teacher and motivating the slave to learn is another question.


Would he allow them fair work hours, medical attention when sick or injured, nutritios food, warm beds and good hosing at his expense?That is actually the norm. Most slaves were part of the household and treated as such. Also they were pretty expensive so people took reasonable measures to make sure their survival.


The reason I call bull**** on the idea of good aligned slave owners is that slavery is a mean to an end, namely cheap labour. But if you treat your cheap labour as even half decent folks, then they stop being cheap.In fact, in many times slaves turned out more expensive than hired workers. You could be sure about the availibility, but if hired workers got sick or had accidents, it did cost you nothing and if they didn't have enough to eat, it was not your problem.

"Well what about serfs?"
Well what about them? Holding serfs would not be compatible with the good alignment either. When the good landlord tours tje villages, seeing his dirtfarmers living in abject squalor and povert and choosing not to alleviate their pains, he stops being good and starts being neutral, or just a bastard.Why do you assume that serfs mean poverty ? There living conditions were usually not that different from free peasants. They also tended to be socially way above those wandering have-nots without land. Which is the reason, why even accepted rules like the "one year and a day in a city and you are free" did not lead to any substantial number of serfs leaving their land.

And then we also have those strange kinds of serfdom like Ministeriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis), which are a kind of unfree nobles. And not the only one by far. Generalizations are dangerous.

Mr Beer
2015-02-19, 05:12 AM
How would a "good" character go about the brutal and demeaning task of punishing his slaves? Or forcing them to work? Keeping them chained up so they would not escape? What if a slave did escape? Would a good character let him run or hire the not-so-good slave hunters? How would a good character set an example for the other slaves as not to run away?

What if a slave catches the "good" masters eye? Or if a slave approaches the master with intent of exchanging sexual favours for special treatment?

What if a child is born to a slave? Would it also become a slave?

What about selling your slaves? Could you do that while still being good, knowing fully well that in the end they could end up in the hands of some sadist?

Would a good character allow his slaves to learn how to read and write?
Would he allow them fair work hours, medical attention when sick or injured, nutritios food, warm beds and good hosing at his expense?

These are the kind of roleplaying opportunities that make situations such as a Good slave owner interesting.


The reason I call bull**** on the idea of good aligned slave owners is that slavery is a mean to an end, namely cheap labour. But if you treat your cheap labour as even half decent folks, then they stop being cheap.

So even we if accept your implied assertion that slavery is only ever entirely about obtaining the cheapest possible labour, there is literally no room between "cruel brutality" and "no financial advantage to slavery"? Despite not having to pay wages? Sounds legit.

Baxter Konrad
2015-02-19, 05:14 AM
Well, a lot of these replies are drawing to similar conclusions, which I think is a good thing. The main gist I'm getting is that the specifics matter. The generic evil "slaves have no rights" is obviously not compatible, and so it seems obvious that a clear, well-defined system would be needed.

So the gist I get is that slavery is "acceptable" so long as it is structured in such a way that slaves have some measure of protection.

Since Obak's post just raised some points where greater clarity may be required to fit with my original parameters, I'll go ahead and do that.


Romans had all kind of strange beliefs, among them was that when interrogating a slave you allways had to use torture.
This was primarily in the early republic. For the purposes of my example, assume this is no longer the case.


How would a "good" character go about the brutal and demeaning task of punishing his slaves? Or forcing them to work? Keeping them chained up so they would not escape?
I this should be better defined as "what does a good character do with someone who just doesn't want to do his job?" What does a good character do if a peasant farmer refuses to work, refuses to pay tax, refuses to obey his feudal lord, etc? And not because the feudal lord is Sir BadGuy the BabyEater, but just because he's decided he doesn't want to be a peasant farmer anymore.

In legal terms, for this example, a slave is required to work. A slave refusing to do his job is akin to a soldier deserting; and even good characters can appreciate that soldiers should not be allowed to go AWOL!


What if a slave did escape? Would a good character let him run or hire the not-so-good slave hunters? How would a good character set an example for the other slaves as not to run away?



What if a slave catches the "good" masters eye? Or if a slave approaches the master with intent of exchanging sexual favours for special treatment?

If a slave catches their master's eye, they can become a concubine, officially or otherwise. They could even be freed and married. Exchanging sex for special treatment is manipulation, which as I understand it good characters do not approve of.


What if a child is born to a slave? Would it also become a slave?
Yes, but a different kind of slave. I actually tried to look up information on this, and it's a bit vague. So for simplicity:
If your parents were a slave, you're a "better" slave - still a slave, but you're viewed as being of higher social standing than your parents.
If your parents were ex-slaves, you are a full citizen.


What about selling your slaves? Could you do that while still being good, knowing fully well that in the end they could end up in the hands of some sadist?
This is a good question. My guess is good characters cannot sell a slave to someone they suspect will treat them badly. Of course, this raises issues about what happens when you come to the mines...


Would a good character allow his slaves to learn how to read and write?
Would he allow them fair work hours, medical attention when sick or injured, nutritios food, warm beds and good hosing at his expense?
Okay, let's just go through for clarity:
1) We'll assume that, since everyone in D&D can read and write at least one language, that it is culturally normal for a slave to read and write Common, and so if they can't before becoming a slave, they are usually taught this language. But there's no requirement to do so.
2) A slave has to work as many hours as they are told to work, but if they feel they are being overworked they could attempt to seek sanctuary at a temple and appeal to a higher authority. Again, because I really can't find much info here, we'll assume that the modern 30-40 hour work week is the norm.
3) It would depend on the sickness or injury. Again, a slave can seek sanctuary from mistreatment, but they'd also likely be a cultural outlook - if your slave has a broken arm and you ignore that, you are going to be known as an utter bastard who people don't want to deal with. So if there are no laws against this, then I'd say that there are least cultural taboos, and possibly room for a good character of sufficient standing to pass a law in this regard.
4) See above. A slave doesn't have to dine in luxury, but it would be really socially deviant not to feed them to at least "labourer" standards.*
5) Again, see above. Slaves would be given living arrangements consistent with at least a labourer.*
* Important thing to note here is that, in the style of society I'm aiming at, some slaves were very well educated and of considerable value. If you own a slave who is versed in philosophy, history, politics, speaks seven languages and, this being D&D, maybe even has arcane knowledge, then the expectation would be you treat that slave accordingly. He (or she) would live in your house, he'd be well dressed, he'd probably be educating your children, or even educating you! He might accompany you to political events to provide his insight. This wouldn't be a slave you kept on bread and water!


The reason I call bull**** on the idea of good aligned slave owners is that slavery is a mean to an end, namely cheap labour. But if you treat your cheap labour as even half decent folks, then they stop being cheap.
No. Classical slavery isn't about cheap labour; a lot of it was about undesirable labour. Remember, we're talking about a setting where the vast majority of the population work in agriculture. The only way society can function is if at least 80% of the population are growing crops, raising chickens and milking cows. It's not about cheap labour, it's about LABOUR, period!


"Well what about serfs?"
Well what about them? Holding serfs would not be compatible with the good alignment either. When the good landlord tours tje villages, seeing his dirtfarmers living in abject squalor and povert and choosing not to alleviate their pains, he stops being good and starts being neutral, or just a bastard.
Just because something is engrained in culture doesent make it good in an alignment sense.
For example, "It is believed to be good to hammer nails into baby orcs heads, thus all good persons do it", in a culture where this is believed to be true, could a good aligned PC reasonably practice neonatal carpentry?
Again, at least 80% of the population work in agriculture in this kind of model. Historical farming was a LOT less efficient than modern farming. One bad harvest, and the whole community goes hungry. Two bad harvests, and a quarter of the population dies of starvation.
What we think of as "society" needs a lot of invisible people working on farms to make it happen. Where exactly do you draw the line between letting a farmer do what he wants, and making him provide for others? Does a farmer have a right to be purely a subsistence farmer and not provide food to anyone else? And when people begin to starve, does the local lord have the right to ride in, kill the farmer, and give his lands to people who WILL work to provide for others?

Coidzor
2015-02-19, 05:14 AM
that they can (if their masters allow) earn money, own property, etc;

That doesn't mean anything. Of course slaves can have money if their master allows it. :smallconfused:


(or, indeed, if abandoned - if their master throws them out, they're free).

Also meaningless. If a slave is abandoned, it's because they're being left to die or being written off as dead, which means the number of slaves who actually survive that to have their freedom is going to be negligible, especially since the rare ones that survive their experience are almost assuredly going to be finagled back into slavery.


1) How would Good characters feel about the practice of taking slaves after battles? ie: after clearing an Orc camp the survivors are enslaved by the state.

Enslaving surviving orc warriors? Most likely they'd feel like they had no strong moral feelings one way or the other. Enslaving orc children? Now you might be entering into territory they might find problematic.


2) How would Good characters feel about owning slaves, either by choice (ie: going out and buying them), by birth (ie: inheriting them) or by station (ie: becoming a Centurion and being given a slave as an adjutant)?

It'll vary, but the one I haven't seen mentioned so far would be as a distasteful necessity or obligation.

Going by the D&D gold standard, they should obviously hate people being oppressed, which, hey, slavery's a definite factor in oppressing a body. Their reaction and expression of that is going to depend on more than their alignment, though.


3) Does the role the slave serves in society have an impact on their outlook? (ie: a personal slave they live with and can treat as they like, vs slaves worked to death in mines)

:smallconfused: Obviously. A slow death sentence is going to be viewed differently from a cushy civil service job.


4) Does the alignment of the slave matter?

For the individual or for the invisible hand of the place on a character sheet where alignment gets written?

Because I'm pretty sure that's a yes for the one and a no for the latter in the majority of systems that use D&D-style alignment.


5) Does being born into this society have an impact on their alignment-based outlook on slavery?

It would not have anything to do with the alignment of their outlook, alignment generally transcends culture and is more akin to some kind of objective, universal force or what have you.

Their personal outlook though? Of course. That shouldn't even be in question, really.


It's possible to have a good alignment and still own slaves, or at least not be anti-slavery, if you're a part of a society that sees this as common practice. Otherwise it'd mean that for a long period of human history, in many cultures, there were no good-aligned people.

What good characters should do, though, is treat their slaves well and fairly, as well as do what they can to make others treat their slaves well and stand against slave abuse.

Simple solution: Don't try to apply D&D alignment to real world historical societies. :smalltongue:

That or just, y'know, be disappointed by historical societies and flawed human nature.


Here's a question, Who is more good, someone who keeps slaves in a world where slavery is a social norm, treats them well and is willing to free them if compensated fairly, or an employer who runs his employees to the bone, takes no safety precautions he can't get away with but pays them so little that they can't afford to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

One is passively accepting and engaging with an evil practice in a way that tries to mitigate the cruelties inherent in the system and the other is actively being an ass.


Hmm, what if it is with consent, where slavery is used as a way to pay off debts. You sell yourself to your debtor, or to another who buys your debt from your debtor, and you then work off your debt to them. Upon completion of your peonage, having provided the equivalent value to your debtors, if they are to retain your services, it is as a paid worker.

Too much is undefined. Could easily be a way to keep someone in servitude forever by making the cost to them such that their debt never actually changes. Could actually be on the up-and-up. Could be either, depending upon how much of a rat bastard the creditor was.


No. Classical slavery isn't about cheap labour; a lot of it was about undesirable labour. Remember, we're talking about a setting where the vast majority of the population work in agriculture. The only way society can function is if at least 80% of the population are growing crops, raising chickens and milking cows. It's not about cheap labour, it's about LABOUR, period!

A rather popular notion is that the reason they never industrialized in Antiquity despite having the means to do so was because labor was so gosh-darned cheap thanks to how much of the population were slaves.

Satinavian
2015-02-19, 05:35 AM
A rather popular notion is that the reason they never industrialized in Antiquity despite having the means to do so was because labor was so gosh-darned cheap thanks to how much of the population were slaves.Yes, but that is rubbish, considering that only a small part of the population were slaves. There were a lot of other less priviledged parts of societies but actual slaves were never that common. Because the number of prisoners of war was usually small compared to total populations. There were a lot of people who had work to do as part of their taxes, but those were not slaves.

You will find some exceptions for city states when people conveniently forget to count all the farmers living around the city, but that's about it.


Yes, labor was cheap compared to machines. But not because of slaves, but because the techniques to build the machines or even to make the material to do so were so extraordinary inefficient.

Obak
2015-02-19, 06:45 AM
Even if we would imagine making the exception the rules, even if we love to read Gor novellas. This does not change the fact that slavery in itself is reducing a sentient being into an object that can be bought or sold, bereft of basic freedoms, right to self and body, whose children can be bought or sold, branded, mutilated, killed and treated like any other posession.
It does not matter weather the owner os good, evil, neutral or potato when the institution in question is evil in itself.

M Placeholder
2015-02-19, 07:29 AM
The Dark Sun world is fairly "Classical" what with the gladiatorial arenas etc.

And in that:

4E Dark Sun Campaign Setting page 197: Slavery and Alignment

Keeping slaves is not compatible with a good alignment, but doing so does not necessarily make a character evil. Most slave owners are unaligned. Overseers who treat their slaves brutally are definitely engaging in evil acts that should outrage good characters.
The question is whether anything can be reasonably done about the situation. Given how commonplace slavery is on Athas, good characters can't reasonably attempt to free every slave they meet, nor should they recklessly challenge slave owners who are too powerful to overcome.
Good characters should be anguished by the abundance of human misery in civilized areas, however, and they should be dedicated to aiding however they can short of attempting suicidal actions.

Might be a good starting point.

I wouldn't describe Athas as "fairly classical". Hell, using the word "fairly" in relation to Athas is like using the word "Cuddily" to describe anything to do with Tharzidun. Id use the phrase "Hellishly early Iron age Mesopotamia meets post apocalyptic earth meets Zothique"

Otherwise, I would agree that its a good starting point, as Athas is damn near the bottom of the barrel.

Satinavian
2015-02-19, 08:35 AM
Even if we would imagine making the exception the rules, even if we love to read Gor novellas. This does not change the fact that slavery in itself is reducing a sentient being into an object that can be bought or sold, bereft of basic freedoms, right to self and body, whose children can be bought or sold, branded, mutilated, killed and treated like any other posession.
It does not matter weather the owner os good, evil, neutral or potato when the institution in question is evil in itself.True.

But i find the whoole concept of "basic freedom, right to self and body" and pretty much all of the modern human right ideas to be pretty anachronistic for most tabletop setting. Thus the should not define any morality of inhabitants in those settings.
There ae some precursors to those ideas dealing with religious stuff and the right to one's soul. Those might be just acceptable.


But maybe that is just part of my idea of roleplaying.

In the same way as the players are not allowed to bring their knowledge of modern physics into a medieval game and build cars or tanks, they shopuld be not allowed to bring their knowledge of modern ethics and politics into a medieval game and build western democracy based on equal rights.
This kind of knowledge, of ideas is simple not accessible.

kaoskonfety
2015-02-19, 08:35 AM
A quick pipe up in amongst the various reasoned out arguments: it fails the "would Belkar do it?" alignment test:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0523.html

It probably also fails the "Would you have to lie to paladins about it" test:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html

It could be morally neutral depending on treatment and rights. It is likely evil as abuses to rights are common from those in authority, and you don't get much more authority than legal ownership.

A Lawful Good character might KEEP slaves as servants (family retainers, indentured servants who know no other life, criminals assigned to them for a fixed period by the state, serfs they are sworn to protect), but would not peruse escapees (probably report the criminal escape, variant on personal codes/the crimes in question) or purchase new ones and would certainly free any they had the authority to free who request it. Conditions for them would be the best that could be managed within reason and budget and they would be not be denied opportunity to better themselves.

A Chaotic Good character would likely be horrified by the whole idea (Yes Jeeves, your family has served mine faithfully for generations, you are fired, take your wife and kids and go do something with your life - here is your severance pay, open a hotel or something).

Segev
2015-02-19, 08:54 AM
Here's a question, Who is more good, someone who keeps slaves in a world where slavery is a social norm, treats them well and is willing to free them if compensated fairly, or an employer who runs his employees to the bone, takes no safety precautions he can't get away with but pays them so little that they can't afford to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

This is a red herring, because it doesn't happen the way it's portrayed here. In order to create the serf- or slave-like conditions, it requires more than simply "paying too little." If that's all you're doing, your employees will quit working and go find better-paying jobs. Even if they're going hand-to-mouth, going hungry for a day or two while you find better prospects is not impossible.

No, the times when this kind of situation really occurred involved a far greater monopoly on all sources of all things needed, and an illusion of fair trade which was actually violated by the contracts set up. Generally termed "company towns," the company that employed everybody in town also owned all the land, all the housing, and all the sources of food and most of the other goods people need to survive. They artificially set the prices, because they had a monopoly. They set the prices such that wages were lower than subsistance living, and then offered "loans" to cover the difference. Loans whose payments were deferred as long as you worked for the company, and which came due immediately if you quit.

This truly was indentured servitude under a different name, and nowadays would, in the US, fall firmly into the "unconscionable contract" rules if brought into a court of law. (Affording lawyers is still an issue, but there's a reason it doesn't actually happen in the US anymore.)

Even then, with bankruptsy laws, people can escape it.

Slaves, on the other hand, literally have no legal choice but to work as long as their master wants, and at whatever task he sets. (Barring laws forbidding slaves from being required to engage in some form of labor. e.g. if murder is illegal, having assassin-slaves is probably not cool. Also possible that sex slavery is illegal, and thus having concubines who don't have a choice in the matter is illegal. Heck, with a modern sensibility towards sexual harassment and intra-office relationships, if slavery were legal, it might be considered unethical to illegal to have a sexual relationship at all with one's slaves.)

Anyway, the point is, if a worker in even the worst of "paid too little to survive" situations chose to just leave and hope he can find something better, there is no legal recourse to drag him back and use threat of corporal punishment or imprisonment to compel him to work for the employer. If a slave tries to refuse to work, they can be punished, and if he tries to leave, he's a runaway slave and will be treated as such.

Slavery really is different than any of the "worse" treatments people like to hold up. To some, it may seem preferable, but it is different.

Frozen_Feet
2015-02-19, 09:26 AM
It depends on how the slaves are treated. People focus on how owning sentient creatures is bad, but really, you don't have to talk about slaves at all to examine the point of owning and what responsibilities it brings. You could just as well talk about animals.

Attitudes have varied throughout the years, but for most of history, how a person treated their livestock and pets was considered a good indicator of that person's morality - even though no-one would've questioned the status of animals as property. Did you beat your dog? Were your cows ill fed and sickly? Did you kill game wantonly, without respect for your prey? Then you were a bad person and no-one liked you.

So yeah. You can tell apart a good person in a slave-owning setting based on how they treat their slaves. A good person will think of slavery as exchange of goods and services, first and foremost, and be generally supportive of their slaves. By contrast, an evil person will treat other free men and hired labor as chattel and seek to rip them off. Slavery under a good master is indistinguishable from just having a job, while being hired work for a bad employer is indistinguishable from being a slave.

As a sidenote, basically all prisoners double as slaves (even today!) and their treatment has been and is generally awful. It's seen as justified because they're paying off a moral debt to society. In other words, breaking the rights of others nullifies some of yours. Only the most vapidly Chaotic persons (regardless of good or evil) would argue against labor during imprisonment on principle, regardless of the conditions of the imprisoned.

Satinavian
2015-02-19, 09:29 AM
Slaves, on the other hand, literally have no legal choice but to work as long as their master wants, and at whatever task he sets. (Barring laws forbidding slaves from being required to engage in some form of labor. e.g. if murder is illegal, having assassin-slaves is probably not cool. Also possible that sex slavery is illegal, and thus having concubines who don't have a choice in the matter is illegal. Heck, with a modern sensibility towards sexual harassment and intra-office relationships, if slavery were legal, it might be considered unethical to illegal to have a sexual relationship at all with one's slaves.)And still one has to face the truths, that slave labor was often more expensive than paid labor. You don't need to have corporate towns. It's enough to have certain class structures to create situations that are similar enough to a monopoly to really leave the laborers hardly any choice.

Also, motivating slaves was harder than motivating laborers. That is one of the reasons, why premiums for good work given to slaves were so popular and common. If the laborer didn't work well, he would find himself without a job and hungry. If a slave didn't, well, what could the slaveholder do without damaging his own property ?

We have enough evidence from the Roman time to know the economical implications of ancient slavery and how it compared to free workers.
[quote]Anyway, the point is, if a worker in even the worst of "paid too little to survive" situations chose to just leave and hope he can find something better, there is no legal recourse to drag him back and use threat of corporal punishment or imprisonment to compel him to work for the employer. If a slave tries to refuse to work, they can be punished, and if he tries to leave, he's a runaway slave and will be treated as such.[/qoute]That is why land ownership plays such an important role in European history. You couldn't just "go somewhere else" and find better conditions. You could either work for very few money on a latifundium or something similar or you could become a beggar. Sometimes you could go to the armies, but most armies hat certain citizenship requirements, so that was not always an option. And you would have to pay for your gear. The cities were for craftsmen and merchants. Also citizenship was important there. If you hadn't any of it, you wouldn't get a job with a good wage.

Segev
2015-02-19, 09:55 AM
Economic opportunity is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad we have as much of it as we do. (I would like to see more, but...well. This isn't the thread to discuss that.)

I fully agree: paid labor is cheaper, more efficient, and more profitable than slave labor. For a whole host of reasons, largely rooted in human nature.

D+1
2015-02-19, 12:53 PM
So here's the thing; in a setting where pretty much every side is taking slaves, where do the Good characters fit in?Where do YOU want them to fit in?


1) How would Good characters feel about the practice of taking slaves after battles? ie: after clearing an Orc camp the survivors are enslaved by the state.
You're being nice to them by not killing them in battle or executing them after having taken them prisoner.


2) How would Good characters feel about owning slaves, either by choice (ie: going out and buying them), by birth (ie: inheriting them) or by station (ie: becoming a Centurion and being given a slave as an adjutant)?
That this is simply the way the world works. Your obligation as a good-aligned slave owner is to treat your living property with care, dignity and respect despite their station/lot in life. There, but for the grace of God, go I.


3) Does the role the slave serves in society have an impact on their outlook? (ie: a personal slave they live with and can treat as they like, vs slaves worked to death in mines)
Of course. Slaves sent to the mines or sold for gladiator fodder are going to be understandably resentful to say the least. The better your treatment the more likely you are to ACCEPT your situation and appreciate it in light of the possible alternatives. However, the fundamental loss of freedom will understandably always grate on some people no matter how gilded their cage is. You simply have to accept as DM's and Players that the philosophers and theologians and sociologists in the game setting have simply not yet sorted out this fundamental inequity.


4) Does the alignment of the slave matter?
Of course. Evil people exhibit evil behavior regardless of whether they are slaves or not. They'll still murder and steal and destroy. Evil slaves will be evil to EACH OTHER insofar as they can, even if they spend their lives literally in chains. That has obvious implications for how you handle such slaves.


5) Does being born into this society have an impact on their alignment-based outlook on slavery?
Slavery is not just a moral issue - it's a sociological and economic problem. Just a few hundred years ago many people had begun to understand that slavery was monstrous, but even knowing that didn't enable them to figure out how to end slavery as an institution. Even if you free your own slaves you send yourself AND THEM into even worse circumstances when the social and economic infrastructure around you doesn't exist to facilitate it.

Synovia
2015-02-19, 01:16 PM
As I see it, really you've got two options:

Overrule the RAW to say that "this kind of slavery isn't inherently evil".
Rule that there are zero Good people in the world, at least above a certain status, and playing a Good PC is simply not an option.

Personally I think the RAW are never more stupid than when they try to lay down a code for what constitutes "good" and "evil" that is absolute and unchanging for all time, so I wouldn't hesitate to pick option 1. But 2 is an alternative. I'm not sure if there's a third option.

That's silly. Being good doesn't mean your every day life's duty has to be overthrowing the current world order. PCs (and NPCs) don't have to be martyrs - there's nothing wrong with a good character saying "I don't like that, but there's nothing I can really do about it" - and realizing that killing the slave master is going to cause more damage than it prevents, and move on.

There's a little more jeopardy for a paladin, but killing someone for doing something that's a legal, societally accepted thing isn't really paladinnly.

Frozen_Feet
2015-02-20, 08:52 AM
Paladins are a special case. They're champions of Law and Good well beyond that which is required from lesser good characters. If you pick up and play a Paladin, that's effectively a statement that you will spend the game fighting for rights and justice for the downtrodden. Commoners can do much less and still get away with it.

PersonMan
2015-02-20, 01:53 PM
That's silly. Being good doesn't mean your every day life's duty has to be overthrowing the current world order. PCs (and NPCs) don't have to be martyrs - there's nothing wrong with a good character saying "I don't like that, but there's nothing I can really do about it" - and realizing that killing the slave master is going to cause more damage than it prevents, and move on.

This.

Especially since, in many games, adventurers and such people make a lot of money, they can actually work to make a change within society. Acquire riches, purchase land and slaves, treat them well. Use massive income gained by adventuring to offset extra costs that might come from treating them well. Use growing power (granted by wealth and land) to motivate social change.

Good can mean 'revolutionary reformer who works to better society'.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 02:00 PM
Or, as BoED puts it:

In an evil culture or one that tolerates evil, lawful good characters are in a difficult position. On the one hand, they abhor evil and cannot stand to see it institutionalized. On the other hand, they believe in legitimate authority and will not overthrow a kingdom because of evil practices within it. Lawful good characters usually try to work to change flawed social structures from within, using whatever political power is available to them rather than toppling those structures by force.

Synovia
2015-02-20, 02:26 PM
Paladins are a special case. They're champions of Law and Good well beyond that which is required from lesser good characters. If you pick up and play a Paladin, that's effectively a statement that you will spend the game fighting for rights and justice for the downtrodden. Commoners can do much less and still get away with it.

Fighting for the rights of the downtrodden means making decisions on what is effective - attacking every slave owner in a country is just going to get you killed, and not help anyone. A good paladin works toward things that will actually make a difference - Being a paladin doesn't mean you have to be stupid.

Segev
2015-02-20, 02:48 PM
It's worth noting that, if you feel slavery is wosre than having hired workers, you can choose to buy slaves and pay them a wage, even allow them choices you would allow free workers (such as whether to accept a given job). Either free them outright or let them have their freedom, legally, after a time.

One possible plan would be to treat them well, consider the wage you would offer them to stay working for you, and keep that wage less what it costs to support them in a running tally. Give them their freedom when they've "paid it off," and then offer them that wage and the option to stay in their lodgings for the costs you were deducting from it when calculating how long they'd have to work for you before you granted them their freedom.

There are other ways to go about it, but the point is that there are ways to exploit the idea that employees are more profitable than slaves, even if the infrastructure for "just freeing" slaves isn't there. Nothing stops a slave owner from selling or gifting a slave to himself, barring there being legal structures forbidding a given person from freedom. (e.g. if slaves are slaves because they are serving the equivalent of a prison sentence, it may be illegal to free them.)