Slavery [My player's stay out !]

[Kichwas]

What standards that we accept at this very moment will be labelled as Evil in 200+ years? Is there any way we can abide by the standards of that future time?

Poverty, unequal distribution of wealth and resources, classism, racism, and ethnic bias and conflict, nationalism, exploitation of environmental and animal resources.

Many of these violate modern moral principles as well as likely future ones.

The alignment system does not work for the RealWorld (tm). Don't even try to apply it. Keep it where it belongs, in pure fantasy books.

It doesn't work in 99% of all fantasy either. It only works in fantasy inspired by DnD -what I call Gygaxian fantasy. And even then it fails unless some editor came in and changed enough of the writing to make it match.

It also fails to work for most people's actual gaming environment.

 

[Jovu]

I think Imperial Rome is definitely a Lawful Neutral--Lawful Evil mix even by ancient standards. Slavery was especially opressive for the day, and look at what happened to enemy populations in Palestine and Carthage. Nevermind, the Roman method of execution for rebellion against the state a truly inhumane method.

 

[Trainz]

Nevermind, the Roman method of execution for rebellion against the state a truly inhumane method.

Which was ... ?

 

[Jovu]

Which was ... ?

That execution device from the book of vile darkness- the Crucifixion Cross.

 

[Trainz]

Oh yeah... I knew that...

Ugh.

 

[Nifft]

As a whole, I'd regard the Roman Empire as Lawful Neutral, with wide swaths tending towards LG, LE and apathetic N.

-- Nifft

 

[CRGreathouse]

As a whole, I'd regard the Roman Empire as Lawful Neutral, with wide swaths tending towards LG, LE and apathetic N.

I agree completely. For the sake of the thread, though, I'll say no more on that topic.

*****

My campaign has a great deal of slavery as well, also along the Roman model. It is common even in the (otherwise?) good- and neutral-aligned countries. A small minority justify this for some of the reasons mentioned above (feeds/shelters those who couldn't do so, not cruel treatment, etc.) but most have no reason to justify it at all -- there's simply no reason for them to believe that it's wrong (let along 'evil'!).

 

[MaxKaladin]

The idea that the Celts were a bunch of happy-clappy peace & love hippy types is what really bugs me.

It bugs me too.

Nevermind, the Roman method of execution for rebellion against the state a truly inhumane method.

Actually, that was a punishment for rebellious slaves and it could be applied to other crimes as we see both in the case of Jesus (political dissident) and the pirates Caesar had cruicified in his youth. The Romans recognized that it was a pretty terrible punishment and reserved it for cases where they really wanted to make a point. In fact, they used two "degrees" of crucifying people. In some cases, they would break your legs, but in others they would leave them unbroken. Unbroken was considered worse because, if your legs were intact, you could use them to relieve the pressure on the rest of your body and prolong your death.

Punishments for rebellion varied a lot. In some cases, they would kill everyone, but in others they would enslave entire populations. In some cases, rebellious cities "got off" by paying really hefty fines. The famous colliseum in Rome was built with the help of Jews enslaved by the emperor when he was putting down one of their rebellions.

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions and partial truths about the Romans going around.

 

[Nifft]

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions and partial truths about the Romans going around.

The Roman Empire was a big place, and lasted for a while. Many true things can be said about parts of it which do not hold in other parts of it, and the same goes double for all the different rulers.

A virgin and her sack of gold may have made it across unmolested, but the truth splinters easily.

-- Nifft

 

[Ezrael]

to briefly hijack the thread: the Celts sacked Rome in 387 BC. At the same time, the Galatians (also Celtic, the Keltoi of greek writers) were rampaging around the edges of Greece. Not many observers at the time would have pegged Rome for the ones who would take down the Celts, a very bellicose people. There's a lot to like about Celtic society, especially the deep resemblances between it, the Vedic, and the barrow people found all over Eurasia as far as Mongolia and China...but it wasn't a fairy tale. They killed people and took their heads to gain power. They were a military machine dedicated to the idea of constant distribution of wealth from the heads of tribes to his warriors via seizure as well as trade. If the Romans are to be considered Lawful Evil, you'd have to consider the Celts to at least be Chaotic Neutral, and I'd give them Chaotic Evil status in the case that Rome is defined as Lawful Evil (Celtic tribes often sold *other* Celts *to* the Romans to be used as slaves, if they defeated them in war.).

I don't think societies can be aligned in the same way people can, and I wouldn't encourage going further than saying 'the rulership tends towards LG behavior' or 'there's a strong element of oppression, a Lawful Neutral bias, in Zhayalor'. The points that have been made about changing standards were apt enough.