Non-cliche slavery in fantasy campaign settings?

[Obryn]

If the concern is about innocent people suffering, then why not just enslave races that are inherently evil like orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc? If it's already okay to break into their homes, slaughter them en masse, and steal their valuables... then what exactly is the problem with enslaving the walking pieces of garbage so they're actually helping our good societies instead of attacking our villages, killing our men, eating our children and raping our women? These creatures were created by evil gods with evil literally in their DNA. The only thing you can do with them is either kill them or make them do something useful, because if you don't kill them or enslave them or brainwash them with sanctify the wicked they will try to eat you.

So you want to take a morally grey stance on slavery, but not one on orcs' free will or lack thereof?

 

[ExploderWizard]

If the concern is about innocent people suffering, then why not just enslave races that are inherently evil like orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc? If it's already okay to break into their homes, slaughter them en masse, and steal their valuables... then what exactly is the problem with enslaving the walking pieces of garbage so they're actually helping our good societies instead of attacking our villages, killing our men, eating our children and raping our women? These creatures were created by evil gods with evil literally in their DNA. The only thing you can do with them is either kill them or make them do something useful, because if you don't kill them or enslave them or brainwash them with sanctify the wicked they will try to eat you.

Ah the old nature vs nurture debate. Who says evil is in their DNA? Their society might be evil from a human veiwpoint but human societies can be that way too. Why can't a humanoid brought up in a human community be good? One of the characters I am playing in an ongoing campaign now is a NG bugbear fighter. He was raised by human parents and acts very much like a human.

Humans are very tribal and historically have looked on other humans not of their culture as walking pieces of garbage, so it is quite natural for them to look at another sentient species as such. Humanity is every bit as inherently evil as orcs or gnolls. Humans never cease to come up with new justifications for perpetrating violence on one another, yet every tribe or culture will self identify as "the good guys".

 

[VelvetViolet]

My point is, not every society with the institution of slavery is going to be evil gits that abuse their slaves, because the crux of the argument is the suffering of the slaves (which is most of the reason it's considered evil, and less because they aren't being paid). The lawful neutral alignment, being midway between good and evil, would permit the use of slaves (which is not good) but not their abuse (which is evil). Domestic animals are technically slaves, but it's considered horrifically evil to abuse them even though they're not people. It stands to reason that a society could exist where intelligent beings can be slaves and yet are still treated with dignity. A society where labor is performed by (cheap) constructs or undead would free slaves from having to perform back-breaking labor (aside from maintaining the workers). In such a society, slaves could be considered a sign of prestige, since the owner is shown to be rich enough to provide for their needs in addition to his own. Heck, the slaves might be allowed to enter government/military positions and own their own slaves if you want to get even more ambiguous.

With enough thought put into the execution, I don't think it's impossible to create a system of slavery that is morally grey.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Ah the old nature vs nurture debate. Who says evil is in their DNA? Their society might be evil from a human veiwpoint but human societies can be that way too. Why can't a humanoid brought up in a human community be good? One of the characters I am playing in an ongoing campaign now is a NG bugbear fighter. He was raised by human parents and acts very much like a human.

Humans are very tribal and historically have looked on other humans not of their culture as walking pieces of garbage, so it is quite natural for them to look at another sentient species as such. Humanity is every bit as inherently evil as orcs or gnolls. Humans never cease to come up with new justifications for perpetrating violence on one another, yet every tribe or culture will self identify as "the good guys".

That's explicitly not how canon D&D works. D&D is morally black and white, not grey unless you count certain campaign settings where being gray is the point. D&D's black and white morality is also incredibly warped, since "good" is just evil multiplied by negative one. It's considered morally good to do things that would be considered evil in the real world, such as mass murder against communities of evil alignment. D&D morality is cartoonish and revolting.

In LotR, which D&D heavily rips-off, the only reason the good guys are slaughtering orcs in the first place is because the orcs are attacking them. They aren't going on a crusade to conquer Mordor.

 

[ExploderWizard]

My point is, not every society with the institution of slavery is going to be evil gits that abuse their slaves, because the crux of the argument is the suffering of the slaves (which is most of the reason it's considered evil, and less because they aren't being paid). The lawful neutral alignment, being midway between good and evil, would permit the use of slaves (which is not good) but not their abuse (which is evil). Domestic animals are technically slaves, but it's considered horrifically evil to abuse them even though they're not people. It stands to reason that a society could exist where intelligent beings can be slaves and yet are still treated with dignity. A society where labor is performed by (cheap) constructs or undead would free slaves from having to perform back-breaking labor (aside from maintaining the workers). In such a society, slaves could be considered a sign of prestige, since the owner is shown to be rich enough to provide for their needs in addition to his own. Heck, the slaves might be allowed to enter government/military positions and own their own slaves if you want to get even more ambiguous.

With enough thought put into the execution, I don't think it's impossible to create a system of slavery that is morally grey.

Umm......no. The act of claiming ownership of a free-willed sentient being is evil. With regard to slavery and other more gruesome alternatives, there can be a situation in which slavery becomes the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean it isn't still evil.

Some circumstances make slavery the least objectionable option. For example the slave/serf farmer. If the serf's lord decides to "free" him by kicking him off of the land then the serf and his family have the option of becoming the slave of another lord, becoming a criminal, or starving to death as a free person. Life as a serf is thus the least horrible of these options but that doesn't mean that it isn't bad.

 

[Obryn]

Umm......no. The act of claiming ownership of a free-willed sentient being is evil. With regard to slavery and other more gruesome alternatives, there can be a situation in which slavery becomes the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean it isn't still evil.

Some circumstances make slavery the least objectionable option. For example the slave/serf farmer. If the serf's lord decides to "free" him by kicking him off of the land then the serf and his family have the option of becoming the slave of another lord, becoming a criminal, or starving to death as a free person. Life as a serf is thus the least horrible of these options but that doesn't mean that it isn't bad.

This x100.

Also, D&D alignments cause brain damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Umm......no. The act of claiming ownership of a free-willed sentient being is evil. With regard to slavery and other more gruesome alternatives, there can be a situation in which slavery becomes the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean it isn't still evil.

I think for me, this is kind of how it plays out.

The idea is that in D&D, "good" is associated with valuing the autonomous personhood of another. Forcing someone into any act against their will is "not good."

Making someone legally bound to obey your commands is "not good," regardless of how well you treat them and how nice you are to their families and how many "outs" you give them.

It doesn't have to be cartoonishly evil, of course, but the very principle upon which slavery is based: "you can own people," violates the typical D&D Good-alignment tenet of "lives -- and the choices people make with them -- are precious and sacred." Evil isn't just cartoonish. It's often banal, even utilitarian.

In D&D, "evil" is typically associated with the idea of disregarding that sacredness for life and the choices people make in them. CE and LE folks don't care at all about what you want to do with your life (in the former case, you're irrelevant, in the latter case, you're a useful tool). Slavery fits right into that model -- it turns the lives of people into nothing more than labor and property.

What's more is that it dehumanizes those people you own, which is always a great way to turn a blind eye to the fact that you're pretending that these people aren't as worthy of free action as their "owners" (whoever those happen to be).

When I think of a Lawful Good society, and how slavery might go down there, I don't see slavery. I see sort of an idealized communism -- a central authority tells everyone what to do. Everyone who trusts that central authority (which is most everyone, because this is an LG society that believes in central authority) does the work confident that their labor is being used to benefit all the people around them. The central authority legitimately looks out for the good of every member of that society (because it is an LG authority). Those who don't want to be a part of that society, who don't trust that central authority, are given permission to seek their lives in the "wilds."

If such a society goes to war (something that I'm sure would sadden them greatly, but which might occasionally be necessary for the Greater Good), slaves wouldn't be in the cards. It'd be more of a "conversion at sword-point" kind of system, where they would allow people to become willing members of their society, or allow them to get the heck out of dodge. People who join the society are treated no better or worse than any other member of society, and are expected to contribute the same. Those falling outside the society are in the "not our problem" bucket.

Now, tetch that down to a Lawful Neutral society, and you might have a version of slavery. But it is a very legalistic vision of slavery, and it is something that happens internally as much as externally (debt bondage and whatnot).

And then you have the Lawful Evil societies that delight in making their slaves suffer.

 

[Celebrim]

That's explicitly not how canon D&D works.

You have some strange ideas about what is canon D&D. Repeatedly, you seem to not be arguing against canon D&D, but against a warped perception of it that for me at least looks like a straw man.

D&D is morally black and white...

Nuetral is feeling very left out here.

It's considered morally good to do things that would be considered evil in the real world, such as mass murder against communities of evil alignment.

Murder is I'm pretty sure never considered morally aligned with good by anyone, and there is plenty of evidence that D&D good has always rejected killing indescrimently as good - prohibition against the assassin class, prohibition against poison, etc. Any killing by good done within even the D&D framework is framed within the context of 'just warfare'. I think very few would sympathize with a DM that protrayed good in the context you claim is default.

D&D morality is cartoonish and revolting.

I suspect that may well depend on just how cartoonish people's approach to it is. Certainly the actual D&D cartoon was not nearly as cartoonish as you claim, much less people's actual mature campaigns.

In LotR, which D&D heavily rips-off, the only reason the good guys are slaughtering orcs in the first place is because the orcs are attacking them. They aren't going on a crusade to conquer Mordor.

Mainly because they lack the power to do so. And yet, had they the power to do so, is it your contention that a crusade against the power of Sauron would have been morally unjustifiable?

Would you condemn the Valar for waging war against Morgoth, or praise Morgoth as just because the Noldor launched a war of agression against him? Surely if the Valar deserve condemnation, it's not for refraining from crusading against Morgoth, but for not heeding the Wisdom of Orome or the Suspicion of Tulkas and prosecuting the crusade against Morgoth sooner. Much suffering might have well been avoided had the Valar been bolder.

Speaking of cartoonish morality, gird yourself and answer me. I presume you are at least somewhat aware of Harry Potter? In the 3rd book, Harry Potter, Remus Lupin and Sirious Black debate the morality of executing the mass murderer Peter Pettigrew without. Both Lupin and Black favor killing Pettigrew on the spot, but Harry ultimately decides that this would be murder for murder - vegeance and not justice. Is Harry correct, or is Harry just being cowardly? Keep in mind that as a result of Harry's decision, both Lupin and Black - along with many many others, including Cedric Diggory - are going to be murdered. If Harry had the power to warn himself against his decision, should he have done so? Is Harry motivated by compassion or by cowardice to put into someone else's hands something he himself knows must be done (Harry isn't actually against Pettigrew being killed)?

 

[pemerton]

My point is, not every society with the institution of slavery is going to be evil gits that abuse their slaves, because the crux of the argument is the suffering of the slaves (which is most of the reason it's considered evil, and less because they aren't being paid).

Umm......no. The act of claiming ownership of a free-willed sentient being is evil.

I agree that the deprivation of freedom is a pretty serious wrong that is inherent in slavery.

There are moral theories that might prioritise the question of suffering over the questin of freedom, but I don't think D&D defaults to such theories.

D&D alignments cause brain damage.

Hey, the thread that proves this still has openings!

 

[tomBitonti]

Speaking of cartoonish morality, gird yourself and answer me. I presume you are at least somewhat aware of Harry Potter? In the 3rd book, Harry Potter, Remus Lupin and Sirious Black debate the morality of executing the mass murderer Peter Pettigrew without. Both Lupin and Black favor killing Pettigrew on the spot, but Harry ultimately decides that this would be murder for murder - vegeance and not justice. Is Harry correct, or is Harry just being cowardly? Keep in mind that as a result of Harry's decision, both Lupin and Black - along with many many others, including Cedric Diggory - are going to be murdered. If Harry had the power to warn himself against his decision, should he have done so? Is Harry motivated by compassion or by cowardice to put into someone else's hands something he himself knows must be done (Harry isn't actually against Pettigrew being killed)?

Well, you don't know what else might have transpired had Pettigrew been killed. I'd say, to follow fantasy tropes, the dark blot on their souls would have let to equal or worse evil. Remember, Harry's mercy was instrumental in defeating the dark lord. With a darkened heart, would Harry been as likely to a similar act of mercy?

On other notions: Tolkien, while depicting a detailed and realistic world, might be faulted for portraying Orcs as corrupted, and, based on the absence of the contrary in the stories, irredemable. In LOTR, Orcs are simply to be slaughtered, the same as mad dogs must be put down. Being corrupted fits a fantasy story, but can be hardly be seen as presenting moral depth. If anything, it perpetuates a pattern of racism, although, placed behind a mask of fantasy.

And: Slavery involves a lot worse than many many folks imagine. To present it, thinly, doesn't do it justice. To present it realistically (looking, say, at the many modern and continuing examples), is well beyond the bounds of this board.

Thx!

TomB