Quote Originally Posted by Chauncymancer View Post
Considering the fostering and mentorship relationships that were necessary for the healthy functioning of the roman empire, I await your full-throated defense of child rape with baited breath.
The child rape was both not a commonality as basically any pre-1800s society would define it, quite largely as their age of majority in literally all respects could at times go back to 13 years old so they literally did not see many victims of it as children, and was also effectively an externality of the function of mentorship. To say nothing of "consent" being of vanishingly little consideration all over the place before the Enlightenment. Meanwhile, forced labor was itself the thing that was necessary.

The "bad" thing of the mentorship and fostering was not at all intrinsic to the process. Meanwhile, the "bad" thing of slavery is literally why it was needed. This comparison is wildly nonsensical as a result. And, in both cases, the majority of reason to see it as "bad" is very specific to very recent worldviews. Elfgame does not work if you insist on imposing modern Western morality, it is extensively built to run on phenomena done away with by this morality, and normally divorces personal liberties from Good vs. Evil because those are actually a still quite active question, usually as liberty vs. security.

Also, animal cruelty is very comprehensively excluded from D&D alignment, because it simultaneously goes out of its way to place the maintenance of nature as one of the few specifically Neutral positions, and virtually never mentions cruelty without the qualifier of personhood as defined by having an afterlife or sapience. Because in many respects, this is an ongoing question, and Elfgame needs to operate for a broad spectrum of IRL people while also working for its outdated trappings.

Are the lot of you just unable to agree to disagree? Are you wholly unable to stomach the idea that people are willing to play in a setting where "Good" allows for mass torturous slaughter of feral cats, because Good only cares about people? Are you incapable of tolerating moral ambiguities from changing norms being shunted off into a separate area from the archetypal Good vs. Evil conflict so that arguing over what is "good" can be tossed in the trash by making the vaguely common points of argument an entirely different in-universe subject?

Why slavery is seen as wrong today cannot apply when you're dealing with routine famines and manpower being a constrained resource. Good being a bit difficult is fine, as such does fit well with many of the narrative trappings. Good being literally impossible for anyone involved in the power structure that comes with the medieval trappings, however, is not. You can't just say "Slavery Evil" and leave it at that, slavery needs to be defined in a fashion that allows for serfdom, and this simply doesn't hold up without defining it as so far beyond the pale as to render it non-functional.

Well, at least without mind control or it just being a bonus of beating up those weaker than you. Which do comprise the bulk of D&D "slavery", but even the most utterly egregious exceptions still get called slavery and noted to be incompatible with Good when they're literally just a formality of how the social strata are legislated. And the Drow's situation would, in any sensible follow-up of events, last for very little time before being strictly limited to stop the revolts from wrecking large chunks of cities, or to keep it to a sustainable rate despite the obscene attrition of slaves instead of suffering crippling labor shortages after each revolt.

It is rather telling that Drow society is frequently summarized as "Because Lolth", on the explicit basis that it does not work without routine divine intervention.