How would a Lawful Good slave view their "slavehood"

[BlueWitch]

Weird question, but it may be the origin of a unique character.
Basically, she's Lawful Good. So obeys the rules and is a good person, etc.
But Slavery is sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to it's oppressive nature.

So, being a slave, would she desire to be free? Or just, kind of "Okay" with it all?

Bonus Question: But what would a Lawful Good slave do with newfound freedom? They aren't likely to Crusade are they? (To free others I mean.) That's more a Chaotic thing.

[Aegis013]

Lawful Good isn't sufficiently descriptive to determine an answer to your inquiry as there wouldn't be a single way of viewing a thing that is predetermined by a LG alignment.

To drive the point here are two examples of LG servants viewing their same situation radically differently:

LG Servant 1 (LGS1 from here out) serves a master who rather than condemning LGS1 to the dungeon due to being unable to pay his debts to figures of power, determined it would be more sensible for LGS1 to still be able to provide value. LGS1 takes care of business on behalf of his master. Sometimes this is grueling physical labor, other times it's dangerous tasks like engaging in underhanded business so the master may keep plausible deniability. Usually, it's more mundane things like taking inventory of goods. LGS1 views his master as benevolent, strives to do his best to repay what he sees as his master's good will. LGS1 hopes to someday repay his debts, earn his freedom, and start a business to enrich the community at large.

LG Servant 2 (LGS2 from here out) serves a master who rather than condemning LGS2 to the dungeon due to being unable to pay his debts to figures of power, determined it would be more sensible for LGS2 to still be able to provide value. LGS2 believes his master is working in tandem with shady figures of power based on dealings he has been ordered to complete that perpetuates a system of oppression, forcing people into debt and then into servitude. LGS2 believes this is entirely unjust and thus while he won't take overt action in his situation against his master, he despises his master and works feverishly to repay his debts. His strong views have given him a powerful ambition to rise to the top of the community and root out the filth that he believes perpetuates the suffering he and other indentured servants experience for their own gain.

[Mrark]

Weird question, but it may be the origin of a unique character.
Basically, she's Lawful Good. So obeys the rules and is a good person, etc.
But Slavery is sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to it's oppressive nature.

So, being a slave, would she desire to be free? Or just, kind of "Okay" with it all?

Bonus Question: But what would a Lawful Good slave do with newfound freedom? They aren't likely to Crusade are they? (To free others I mean.) That's more a Chaotic thing.

Slavery is bad, there is no good way of seeing it. Innocent people forced to be slaves can't be seen as "okay". So being lawful good, I don't think she could be okay with that. You might argue that "the law" says that slavery is legal, but still being good she can't agree with that. The lawful part might mean she doesn't want to break good laws and that she believes in some sort of order and law, but she definetely isn't ok with the situation.

I think she might desire the freedom of all the slaves, including herself. And this could be her goal once she is free: to stop slavery, maybe joining some other kingdom or government with more civil rights. This could be a good fitting for a lawful good Paladin, for example

[SirNibbles]

Slavery is bad, there is no good way of seeing it. Innocent people forced to be slaves can't be seen as "okay". So being lawful good, I don't think she could be okay with that. You might argue that "the law" says that slavery is legal, but still being good she can't agree with that. The lawful part might mean she doesn't want to break good laws and that she believes in some sort of order and law, but she definetely isn't ok with the situation.

I think she might desire the freedom of all the slaves, including herself. And this could be her goal once she is free: to stop slavery, maybe joining some other kingdom or government with more civil rights. This could be a good fitting for a lawful good Paladin, for example

1. Slavery is not always entered unwillingly.

2. Even someone who was forced into slavery may not desire freedom. Admittedly, this is less likely for a character with class levels, i.e. someone who shouldn't have to worry about starving to death on the street if they were to become free, but there may be reasons beyond simple self-preservation that would lead someone to want to remain a slave.

It's hard to say more about this specific character because we don't have any information about them, the setting, or their situation.

[Dienekes]

Weird question, but it may be the origin of a unique character.
Basically, she's Lawful Good. So obeys the rules and is a good person, etc.
But Slavery is sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to it's oppressive nature.

So, being a slave, would she desire to be free? Or just, kind of "Okay" with it all?

Bonus Question: But what would a Lawful Good slave do with newfound freedom? They aren't likely to Crusade are they? (To free others I mean.) That's more a Chaotic thing.

She’d respond however she felt like responding. All Lawful good characters don’t act the same.

Lawful just means she thinks that society is better when governed by laws. Or that she follows a rigid personal code. D&D is not really consistent on that fact.

Good means they protect innocent life.

It is theoretically possible to have a LG character not find the institution of slavery as evil. It’s highly unlikely. And would probably be as a response to certain subtypes of indentured servitude with a whole heck of a lot of protections. Or as just punishment for crimes committed as better than execution.

I doubt it. But I could see a potential warped LG character try to think it. If the writer wishes to be divisive.

The far more likely option is the LG slave would think that law is good. But not -this- law. They would likely campaign against it. Perhaps violently. One of my favorite LG characters in fiction is Princess Leia. She led a rebellion. She directly opposed the established government. Not because she did not believe in laws. Her end goal was to establish a government after all. But she knew that this government was evil. And evil needs to be beaten.

She may go on Crusade. But her goal would not be to destroy the government (unless it was too evil to be salvaged). Her goal would be to bring enough force to bare to change the laws.

[False God]

Lawful applies to your general predisposition towards the law.
Good applies to your general predisposition towards the treatment of others.

You can be Lawful Good and absolutely 1000% opposed to slavery.

I am fairly suspect of any fantasy society that presents slavery as GOOD. Legal? Sure. But the legality is usually founded on the de-humanization of others, either because they've accrued a lot of debt, violated the law or are some form of human or humanoid that the primary populace of the society does not regard as equal.

What immediately comes to mind is Raphtalia from Shield Hero, a generally good and lawful person who is also a slave and seems "okay" with it because she is well treated by the MC. But her position on slavery is not one that applies to slavery as a whole or as a concept or to the way others are treated. Unfortunately the show doesn't really address slavery by-and-large, which goes back to my point above that fantasy presentations of "positive" slavery tend to be flawed.

Your character may be a privileged slave, living in relative wealth and good treatment by their "owner", with their only restrictions being they can't vote or own property; and thus may have a fairly positive outlook on their slavehood; or they could not. Your character being LG isn't going to mean they always think slavery is good and just, or not.

[NigelWalmsley]

As a general rule of thumb, people's view on being enslaved is "opposed". No one's all "man, I really feel that me being someone else's property is an ideal state of affairs". Alignment doesn't enter into it in any meaningful way.

[Biggus]

Slavery is bad, there is no good way of seeing it.

This is a very modern point of view. In many societies, slavery was so taken-for-granted that it didn't even occur to many people that it was immoral. Most people nowadays don't see it as intrinsically wrong for people to own animals; for much of history, people owning people was seen the same way.

So, to answer the OP's question, it depends on both the individual and the society they live in how slavery is perceived.

[Arkhios]

IIRC there's some evidence from ancient egyptian and greek societies that some slaves actually preferred their way of life to being free, but that's probably because the way cookie crumbled in that era. A slave essentially meant an unpaid employee, as they weren't paid for their work per sé. However, they were given a home and food in exchange for (admittedly) hard manual labor the slaveholders would not do due to their social status or the like. Not all slaveholders were tyrannical despots and oppressors. Some slaveholders may have even cared for their slaves as extended family. For example in old norse society it was relatively common to take a spouse from a thrall (slave or serf), thus rendering them karls (free men).


In any case, maybe your character's situation could be like those in greece; the character was actually quite loyal servant to their master, not because they had to be but because they want to be. Remember, having slaves means societal norms are different from ours. In our society slavery is bad, but in some other society it might not be seen that way.

[redking]

Being a slave doesn't reflect on a slave's alignment. Even a lawful neutral slave doesn't have to like being a slave.

From real history, we can see that slaves often became owners of slaves after manumission. From D&D via the Book of Exalted Deeds, we learn that there can indeed be good aligned slavery, but slavery is never exalted, because exalted are held to a higher standard.

Ultimately the opinion of the slave about his situation is irrelevant.

[Martin Greywolf]

{Scrubbed}

[tiercel]

I suppose I wouldn't rely too hard on historical versions of slavery unless a campaign's particular type of slavery were specifically modeled on a particular historical basis; after all, D&D is at best typically pseudo-late medieval/early Renaissance. (See, for instance, gender roles; in most D&D societies women seem completely free to be adventurers, high-ranking religious, military, civil leaders, etc., even if your stereotypical adventurers' tavern does seem to be generally higher on barmaids than barlads.)

One difference I'd imagine in the approach to slavery might be that Chaotic Good is more likely to resist slavery (certainly of self but also of others) almost reflexively as "inherently bad" because it takes away individual freedom, whereas Lawful Good is potentially more likely to delve into some of the nuances in this thread (e.g. are slaves "better off" in some sense under a particular slavery system, especially if there are rules and protections for slaves, than they would be without it?). I would also expect a Lawful Good opposition to slavery to generally be more systemic: if LG people decide that there IS a systemic problem, then they are more likely to try to change the system (e.g. abolish slavery, or at least reform it to something like an indentured servitude with rules and rights and such), whereas CG people are more likely to strike at the immediate problem (particular slaveowners or a perceived tyrant enabling slavery).

[Mordaedil]

This is a very modern point of view. In many societies, slavery was so taken-for-granted that it didn't even occur to many people that it was immoral. Most people nowadays don't see it as intrinsically wrong for people to own animals; for much of history, people owning people was seen the same way.

So, to answer the OP's question, it depends on both the individual and the society they live in how slavery is perceived.

It's not that modern when slave abolishment has records starting as far back as the 1700's, does it?

[Arkhios]

It's not that modern when slave abolishment has records starting as far back as the 1700's, does it?

Slavery has been a thing for thousands of years. In the big picture, a meager 300 years is pretty modern. Our recorded history doesn't even scrape the top of the history of mankind. Our species has always been quite despicable, even though nowadays we try to keep up a more positive facade.

[Martin Greywolf]

It's not that modern when slave abolishment has records starting as far back as the 1700's, does it?
{Scrubbed}

[ShurikVch]

Note: not everywhere slavery was equally harsh:
In some lands, slaves were counted as family members, frequently dined at the same table as their owners, sometimes even allowed to bear arms, and could be sold only if they're agreed to it
Even in the Ancient Rome, well-being of a slave strongly depended on where they worked, and who was their owner (slaves of the state, for example, lived - on average - much better than private ones)
Also, there were despotic realms, where all inhabitants were considered slaves - except for the ruler...

[Telonius]

Yeah, it depends on the person, the kind of slavery, and the situation. If we're talking chattel slavery (where the slave has no rights and is completely the property of their master) it's a lot less likely for the slave to be "okay" with it. But if it's more of a "Mamluk" situation (where the slave is a member of a particular class dedicated to the state, and in some cases even ruling the state), they might be much more all right with the situation. In those cases the slavery system was set up so that they're more like "owned persons" with rights and legal redress if they're abused; more similar to an ongoing indentured servitude they can't get out of, than chattel slavery.

Regardless of the kind of slavery, individuals in it wouldn't all be the same, even if those individuals had generally Lawful or Good outlooks. A Lawful Good person might judge that trying to overthrow their master would likely fail, so they try to make the best of a terrible situation. Or, they might try to subtly sabotage any orders by following them to the letter. Or, they might lead a revolt against the slavers, since the whole system is set up to violate the rights of the enslaved.

[I3igAl]

{Scrubbed}
- Aristotle thought some people were naturally born to be slaves and slavery fitted their natural abillities (or lack thereof) best and it would indeed make life better for them.
{Scrubbed}
- Leibniz went even further and considered the world to be the best of all possible worlds, despite all the suffering in it.
- The character could deem slavery as necessary for society to function and even take pride in the works she and other slaves participated in.
- The character could come from a really poor background maybe a country stricken by famine, where many people, who didn't sell themselves into slavery died
- the character could just be a hard and loyal worker, dreaming of earning her freedom

Last but not least the character might be a good person indivvidually, but hold quite an evil world view deeming it necessary for most people to be oppressed. She could believe slavery to be an important cog in a functioning society, while trying to linder it's effects. Helping those even more oppressed like her, sharing her food with other slaves and treating their wounds if they are hurt.
She might not even agree with slavery, but disagree with slave uprisings not wanting a lot of people to die in the following unrests.

[OttoVonBigby]

One thought:
Never underestimate humans' ability to rationalize. She may be able to convince herself that she's not actually a slave, because to acknowledge otherwise forces her to confront the existence of an evil law.

(If the character's not human, well, maybe that's irrelevant)

[Silly Name]

Being Lawful doesn't really inform your opinion of individual laws. Something legal can still be fiercely opposed by Lawful characters: a Paladin would be against a law that demands a weekly infant sacrifice to the Dukes of Hell. The Paladin doesn't care if that law is old and technically legal, the Paladin only cares that it is an unjust, brutal law and that such a tradition is harmful to innocents, so she will do anything she can to stop it.

Law (the alignment) regards Order, Stability and Cooperation as good things. Lawful characters think an ideal society is one where people live by the rules, and the rules themselves are just and fair. They value honesty and trustworthiness, and deprecate falsehoods, traitors and corruption.

Good concerns itself with altruism, respect of all life and the dignity of sentient beings. Their ideal is a world where everyone can rely on others and reciprocate without worry, and Good characters are willing to commit self-sacrifice for the good of many.

I would expect most Good characters to be opposed to slavery at least on principle: reducing one sentient being to property of someone else doesn't really mesh with the idea of "respect and dignity of all life". Even if some forms of historical slavery were more or less brutal relative to others, the very concept of slavery seems in sharp contrast with the Good alignment.

Now, of course, people aren't perfect representations of their alignment. They may falter, be inconsistent, even hypocritical in certain areas. But they certainly have a strong tendency to be in agreement, both philosophically and practically, with the core tenets of their alignment.


However, alignment doesn't give us the answer on how the hypothetical LG slave would consider their situation. They may desire freedom, resign themselves to this fate, try to make the best out of it. Maybe she willingly gave up her own freedom for someone else's and sees this is a great but worthy sacrifice.

[BlueWitch]

These posts are so effing SMART but I can't help but immerse in the answers of each one!

You guys would be incredible writers! It opened my eyes quite a bit. It seems Alignment doesn't always correlate Personality. Slave living condition types was also a factor I overlooked.

Overall, great posts, you guys! Very informative! I really appreciate it!

[Xervous]

These posts are so effing SMART but I can't help but immerse in the answers of each one!

You guys would be incredible writers! It opened my eyes quite a bit. It seems Alignment doesn't always correlate Personality. Slave living condition types was also a factor I overlooked.

Overall, great posts, you guys! Very informative! I really appreciate it!

Correct, alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. A collection of character facets may nudge you into one bin or another, but being in a specific bin doesn’t mandate a single character facet.

[denthor]

In the past some people decided the best thing for them was to be a slave. It allowed them to be relieved of the pressures of life they purposely chose who they wanted as a master. So a LG who is not an adventurer would choose a NG or another LG as their master.


I CAN NOT STRESS ENOUGH YOU ARE IN non player character category deep.

[Hish]

Every time there's a slavery thread on this forum I come away disappointed. Slavery is never okay.


As a general rule of thumb, people's view on being enslaved is "opposed". No one's all "man, I really feel that me being someone else's property is an ideal state of affairs".
This exactly. No one EVER wants to be owned.

It's very telling that the one argument that always comes up is "Being a slave meant you're housed and fed, not everyone had that." That isn't a statement on the virtues of slavery, but a shocking condemnation of the rest of society. That just means that the ruling class is keeping the working class in conditions of slavery. It in no way makes those conditions acceptable.
It's like saying that sometimes getting robbed is okay, because if someone demands your money or your life, you would hand over your money. It just means that whoever put you in that situation did a very good job of taking away all of your other options.

[GrayDeath]

A few important posts have already been made.

To addd to that, OP, check the recent thread about "is slavery always evil" for different types of Slaver, and seeking for definitions needed for it to be "Always Evil".

[Martin Greywolf]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[Darg]

A good conceptualization is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If a slave is getting all their needs met would it still be evil?

Freedom isn't exactly a good thing in the framework of D&D as it is part of chaos. Rigid structure is a lawful construct. Good forms of either would care for and value life. Evil would do the opposite. There is major long term societal economic benefit to valuing human capital which grows in value as they gain experience.

[Xervous]

A good conceptualization is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If a slave is getting all their needs met would it still be evil?

Freedom isn't exactly a good thing in the framework of D&D as it is part of chaos. Rigid structure is a lawful construct. Good forms of either would care for and value life. Evil would do the opposite. There is major long term societal economic benefit to valuing human capital which grows in value as they gain experience.

I don’t think I’m hitting politics if I mention corporations and wage slaves, though it does send my mind wandering towards Nutrisoy and pink mohawks.

[Dienekes]

Every time there's a slavery thread on this forum I come away disappointed. Slavery is never okay.

Agreed.



This exactly. No one EVER wants to be owned.

Without getting too specific for obvious reasons. That is not strictly speaking true. In very specific circumstances there are accounts of individuals purposely putting themselves into slavery and some very tiny subset writing the virtues thereof.

I don't think I've ever seen anything of the sort ever coming from chattel slavery which is one of the most horrifying institutions in humanities long list of horrifying institutions.


It's very telling that the one argument that always comes up is "Being a slave meant you're housed and fed, not everyone had that." That isn't a statement on the virtues of slavery, but a shocking condemnation of the rest of society. That just means that the ruling class is keeping the working class in conditions of slavery. It in no way makes those conditions acceptable.
It's like saying that sometimes getting robbed is okay, because if someone demands your money or your life, you would hand over your money. It just means that whoever put you in that situation did a very good job of taking away all of your other options.

I actually don't disagree with anything in this statement. But I believe you are confusing a modern view of the situation with those of the people in history. And people in the past had a lot of ways to rationalize whatever horror happened in the day. Just because we see it now as an incorrect rationalization does not mean that the individuals in the time period did not believe it wholeheartedly.

[Zanos]

A good conceptualization is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If a slave is getting all their needs met would it still be evil?

Freedom isn't exactly a good thing in the framework of D&D as it is part of chaos. Rigid structure is a lawful construct. Good forms of either would care for and value life. Evil would do the opposite. There is major long term societal economic benefit to valuing human capital which grows in value as they gain experience.
Slavery generally involves the threat of violence to compel individuals to do what you wish, so I would say that it's Evil, even if slaves are treated well enough(or demoralized enough) that they don't resist. You can twist other forms of labor into being 'slavery' if you conduct enough mental gymnastics, but I'm not gonna call you a nice guy if your answer to me asking 'what happens if i don't pick up this rock' is 'i beat you until you die or until you do it.'

Slavery also is not inherently Lawful. Lawful societies may use slavery as an official punishment or method of trade, but Chaotic societies, especially Chaotic Evil ones, can easily say 'you will do what I want, or I will kill you.' Just because no forms were signed doesn't make that not slavery.

That said, a characters view on their own enslavement will vary. Alignment doesn't really factor into it tremendously, as just because something agrees with your alignment doesn't mean you enjoy it. LG countries can go to war with LG countries, and LE characters can enslave LE characters, but all the participants in these examples are probably unhappy with the situation, except the LE slavers. That said, you could be enslaved as any alignment and not loathe it. It will depend on the individual and the conditions they are kept in.

[KillianHawkeye]

It seems Alignment doesn't always correlate Personality.

I got news for ya, buddy. It never did.

[SirNibbles]

Every time there's a slavery thread on this forum I come away disappointed. Slavery is never okay.


This exactly. No one EVER wants to be owned.

It's very telling that the one argument that always comes up is "Being a slave meant you're housed and fed, not everyone had that." That isn't a statement on the virtues of slavery, but a shocking condemnation of the rest of society. That just means that the ruling class is keeping the working class in conditions of slavery. It in no way makes those conditions acceptable.
It's like saying that sometimes getting robbed is okay, because if someone demands your money or your life, you would hand over your money. It just means that whoever put you in that situation did a very good job of taking away all of your other options.

1. Slavery can be okay.

2. History says otherwise.

3. It goes beyond being housed and fed. Class-based societies were the norm for a long time and even being well-off within your class wasn't as good as being a slave of someone in the upper classes. This is especially true of concubines whose children could end up inheriting the estate and becoming members of the upper classes. Is it worth enduring a form of slavery for your future generations to be better off?

__

Furthermore, it is not always the conditions that society imposes which make servitude desirable. Consider, for example, wild vs domesticated animals. Yes, a domesticated horse or dog is no longer free and must do what their master desires. The trade-off is access to things they could have never had on their own: secure food, shelter, healthcare, protection.

[Martin Greywolf]

Slavery generally involves the threat of violence to compel individuals to do what you wish, so I would say that it's Evil, even if slaves are treated well enough(or demoralized enough) that they don't resist.

You should really educate yourself on how slavery works before you start to make claims like these. Colonial era slavery sure, you're right there, but again, USA isn't the centre of the world.

Using threat of violence to make people behave along some lines is the very purpose of governments. Police is allowed to use force, and elthal force in some cases at that, armies exist for the explicit purpose of making other countries do what you want and prevent them from doing the same. You can get wrapped up at discussing on what uses of force are ethical, but use of force or threat thereof is as common an occurence as they get.

Where it relates to slavery specifically, it is no different from any other class. In a medieval kingdom, king uses force to keep nobiles in line, they use it to keep cives, iobagionnes and so forth in line, and these use to keep villani and servi in line. Slaves are just another rung on that ladder.

Let's also not forget that force alone will not work, as you need other incentives for people to not rebell, and medieval societies did provide those, in forms of social mobility by serving the class above you, either in military, administrative or judicial capacity. You had an entire calss there that pretty much jumped from slaves straight up to high nobility, servientes regis.


You can twist other forms of labor into being 'slavery' if you conduct enough mental gymnastics, but I'm not gonna call you a nice guy if your answer to me asking 'what happens if i don't pick up this rock' is 'i beat you until you die or until you do it.'

Adorably simplistic. How about I make sure you don't get employed and your family will starve? Because that's the definition of wage slavery.

And once again, beating for minor disobedience is colonial era slavery, not medieval. It was, as a matter of fact, illegal to do it in most medieval countries - unless as a punishment for certain crimes, such as theft. With medieval justice systems being punitive, beating was pretty light punishment, seeing as horse theft got you hanged if done in certain circumstances, no matter who you were.




Slavery also is not inherently Lawful. Lawful societies may use slavery as an official punishment or method of trade, but Chaotic societies, especially Chaotic Evil ones, can easily say 'you will do what I want, or I will kill you.' Just because no forms were signed doesn't make that not slavery.

Not necessarily lawful, but it will be codified, defined and restricted by laws. No functioning society works along your imagined chaotic lines, that promptly sends them into anarchy and cessation of existence as a society. Even Mongols, brutal as they were, had a set of very strict laws that were upheld pretty consistently.

[Asmotherion]

Weird question, but it may be the origin of a unique character.
Basically, she's Lawful Good. So obeys the rules and is a good person, etc.
But Slavery is sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to it's oppressive nature.

So, being a slave, would she desire to be free? Or just, kind of "Okay" with it all?

Bonus Question: But what would a Lawful Good slave do with newfound freedom? They aren't likely to Crusade are they? (To free others I mean.) That's more a Chaotic thing.

Slavery is always Evil.

A Lawful good character would probably focus on changing the system that allows for it in the first place as opposed to a chaotic one that would focus on abolishing said system.

And no, nobody likes being a slave. Some people become submissive after being disciplined, others get bribed to act in favor of it by getting special advantages (for example, excempt from beating or more food) but ultimatelly, the sole reason slaves would not dream of their freedom or fight for it, is a complex combination of stockholm syndrom and fear of change (imagine findig yourself in a situation where you have a slim yet existing supply of food and roofing and sudently having to find your way into the world with no money, academic knowlage or sure way to earn a steady income), or a general pessimism to the point of being unable to imagine their life without a master. Of course, that's disreguardig general fear of being punished or even executed for attempting to run away.

Yes, in a society were slaves are a thing, the social norms are different. Yes, historically social classes are a thing. Yet, I cannot imagin such a society being called anything but evil when objectivelly observed, as slavery means that a person has ultimate control over an other's life or death, even in situations were the slave has not breached any contract (verbal or otherwise), his owner is entitled to terminate the slave's life on a whim. And that's not ok.

[Jack_Simth]

Slavery is bad, there is no good way of seeing it.Keep in mind:
Not all slavery was the utter abomination seen in the deep south USA prior to the civil war, where slavery was a hereditary state, a lifetime sentence of non-personhood, and done to folks who hadn't necessarily done anything. At other times and places, it's been a fixed-term sentence (that you get out of if you take any major injury - loss of an eye, hand, tooth, foot, et cetera) for committing crimes or for defaulting on debts - and killing your own slave was still illegal (although not on par with killing a free man).

Among other things, this means that "how does person X feel about slavery" depends in part on the specific implementation.

[Asmotherion]

Keep in mind:
Not all slavery was the utter abomination seen in the deep south USA prior to the civil war, where slavery was a hereditary state, a lifetime sentence of non-personhood, and done to folks who hadn't necessarily done anything. At other times and places, it's been a fixed-term sentence for committing crimes or for defaulting on debts - and killing your own slave was still illegal (although not on par with killing a free man).

Among other things, this means that "how does person X feel about slavery" depends in part on the specific implementation.

Historically slaves usually were war prisoners after the war ended, or bought in mass from other counties similar supplies.

In any case, even if there was a penalty for killing your slave (indeed present in some societies) it was usually not more severe than killing an other's livestock for example, and punishment of any other form excempting death was fair game. A slave owner had for example every right to mutilate his slave, or have him fight a lion for his entrertainment.

What you are describing is more close to what was a servant in many societies. Servants were not always paid, and in some societies servants would be housed and fed instead of compensated for their services with money (or money was kept as a seccondary benefit, usually a very small token wage for settling their personal affairs). However a servant was always a free man or woman, and at any time they desided to leave the services of the lord, chiftain or other fancy social title, they were free to take their belongings (provided they had belongings) and go.

[Red Fel]

Weird question, but it may be the origin of a unique character.
Basically, she's Lawful Good. So obeys the rules and is a good person, etc.
But Slavery is sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to it's oppressive nature.

So, being a slave, would she desire to be free? Or just, kind of "Okay" with it all?

Bonus Question: But what would a Lawful Good slave do with newfound freedom? They aren't likely to Crusade are they? (To free others I mean.) That's more a Chaotic thing.

Okay. A few things to unpack.

First: Just because a character is Lawful Good does not mean they "obey the rules." Some rules are intolerable to a Lawful Good person. I don't know how many times it can be said: Lawful does not mean "must respect all laws." Slavery is a perfect example of that. No Good character simply accepts slavery, because...

Second: Slavery is not "sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to its oppressive nature." Per D&D rules, slavery is Always Evil. Regardless of your societal justifications, the ownership of an intelligent being as a piece of property is an Evil thing. No Good character would be okay with it.

Third: Whether she is "okay" with it is a personal thing. A slave might desire to be free. Or might have no concept of freedom. She might or might not have "accepted" her lot in life, she might or might not be "okay" with it, she might or might not even see a possibility of it ever ending. That part is personality, not alignment.

Yes, we can debate slavery. We can examine the historical and sociological uses of slavery across cultures; how in some cultures it was a means to pay off debts and slavery was limited to seven years; how in some cultures a slave was merely a servant who was compensated with room and board instead of salary; how in some cultures it was simply a consequence of war; how in some cultures slaves were treated kindly and seen as a responsibility and not mere property; but the bottom line is that in D&D, slavery is an Always Evil act.

Does your particular slave want to be free? Maybe. Maybe she has a particularly kind master and lives in a particularly brutal society. You could legitimately argue that she's better off where she is. Or not. That's personal to her.

But is the act of keeping her a slave anything but Evil? No. Does her being Lawful Good mean she has to accept it, because it's the rule? Again no. She should be offended by the existence of slavery, per her alignment. But that doesn't mean she sees any possibility for change, let alone harbors a desire to change her lot personally.

Bonus question: Again personal. Trying to free slaves isn't a "Chaotic" thing, here, it's a Good thing. Seriously, do you see anyone other than LG volunteering for a "crusade?" That doesn't mean she will. It doesn't mean the first thing she does after winning freedom is wage a war on slavery. But it does likely mean that this was a formative event for her. Think of how many stories have the hero promising, "Someday, I'll come back for you. I swear it." Again, alignment doesn't dictate action - if she sees no possibility of overturning the slaver system in her home, she isn't obligated to engage in a suicide mission. But she is likely to want to do something.

[Quertus]

As a general rule of thumb, people's view on being enslaved is "opposed". No one's all "man, I really feel that me being someone else's property is an ideal state of affairs". Alignment doesn't enter into it in any meaningful way.

As a general rule of thumb, nobody wants to work, either. :smallbiggrin:


Our species has always been quite despicable, even though nowadays we try to keep up a more positive facade.

That gave me quite the laugh. Thanks!


It seems Alignment doesn't always correlate Personality.

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. Alignment <> personality.

[SirNibbles]

Okay. A few things to unpack.

First: Just because a character is Lawful Good does not mean they "obey the rules." Some rules are intolerable to a Lawful Good person. I don't know how many times it can be said: Lawful does not mean "must respect all laws." Slavery is a perfect example of that. No Good character simply accepts slavery, because...

Second: Slavery is not "sometimes viewed as inherently Evil due to its oppressive nature." Per D&D rules, slavery is Always Evil. Regardless of your societal justifications, the ownership of an intelligent being as a piece of property is an Evil thing. No Good character would be okay with it.

Third: Whether she is "okay" with it is a personal thing. A slave might desire to be free. Or might have no concept of freedom. She might or might not have "accepted" her lot in life, she might or might not be "okay" with it, she might or might not even see a possibility of it ever ending. That part is personality, not alignment.

Yes, we can debate slavery. We can examine the historical and sociological uses of slavery across cultures; how in some cultures it was a means to pay off debts and slavery was limited to seven years; how in some cultures a slave was merely a servant who was compensated with room and board instead of salary; how in some cultures it was simply a consequence of war; how in some cultures slaves were treated kindly and seen as a responsibility and not mere property; but the bottom line is that in D&D, slavery is an Always Evil act.

Does your particular slave want to be free? Maybe. Maybe she has a particularly kind master and lives in a particularly brutal society. You could legitimately argue that she's better off where she is. Or not. That's personal to her.

But is the act of keeping her a slave anything but Evil? No. Does her being Lawful Good mean she has to accept it, because it's the rule? Again no. She should be offended by the existence of slavery, per her alignment. But that doesn't mean she sees any possibility for change, let alone harbors a desire to change her lot personally.

Bonus question: Again personal. Trying to free slaves isn't a "Chaotic" thing, here, it's a Good thing. Seriously, do you see anyone other than LG volunteering for a "crusade?" That doesn't mean she will. It doesn't mean the first thing she does after winning freedom is wage a war on slavery. But it does likely mean that this was a formative event for her. Think of how many stories have the hero promising, "Someday, I'll come back for you. I swear it." Again, alignment doesn't dictate action - if she sees no possibility of overturning the slaver system in her home, she isn't obligated to engage in a suicide mission. But she is likely to want to do something.

1. Yes, some rules are intolerable and being lawful doesn't mean you will obey them all- you can't just generalise (like the way you're making generalisations about all forms of slavery).

2. If you're going to invoke The Rules, you should quote/source Them.

3. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and yet you claim that "She should be offended by the existence of slavery, per her alignment." Why should she be, even assuming alignment were prescriptive?

Is keeping a slave anything but Evil? I'd go so far as to argue that keeping a slave could even be an act of Good, though it is more often neutral.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread closed. The question is answered, and there's almost no way to discuss this topic in any depth that doesn't run afoul of at least one of the Forum Rules.