Slavery and evil

[Iron Sheep]

Correct, except that it's your argument that oppression is de facto evil in D&D. All I've done is show how your argument is inadequate to define anything as evil. I hope you're finally getting it.

Whether they were oppressed or not does not matter, because as you've agreed simple oppression isn't a good enough definition of evil for an absolute alignment system.

No, it's not my argument that oppression is de-facto evil in D&D. The rules state it quite explicitly. From the SRD:

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

I am simply arguing that by the rules as written slavery is Evil in D&D.

If you believe that I have claimed that "simple oppression" is insufficient for an absolute alignment system, you have misunderstood what I am saying. I am claiming that by any reasonable definition of the words, slavery oppresses people, and by the definitions written in the game, that makes it Evil.

I am not arguing that the D&D alignment is a perfect absolute alignment system. I am not arguing whether there are reasonable definitions of Neutral acts where slave owning may fall into that classification under some circumstances. I am simply saying that unless you are house-ruling alignment, slavery is (D&D) Evil.

You seem to be talking purely about the African slave trade to the Americas, which I would agree makes a fine model for evil slavery.

Again, if you go back and read my earlier posts, you will see that I do not consider just the American system. The Roman system strikes me as boiling down to the same three core components. You may be able to find a historical system where slavery boils down to "just" false imprisonment and forced labour. That still makes it pretty oppressive by my book.

You can be free to define Good and Evil however you want in your D&D game, but it seems to me to be a fairly straightforward argument that in the rules as written owning slaves is generally an Evil act, no matter how well society protects them.

Corran

 

[wingsandsword]

As far as the ethics of a spell like Charm Person go, you are right. Casting this spell on an unwilling subject is an evil act, although the spell itself does not utilize the quantifiable "Evil" force.

Charm Person is hardly a universally Evil spell.

Example: You are a 1st level Sorcerer, out on the town after a successful adventure drinking and carousing. You are unarmed, since you are a Lawful Good character and the town forbids those who aren't in the city guard from carrying weapons inside the walls. As you step out of a tavern into a mostly empty street, a skulking thief steps out of the shadows brandishing a hand crossbow, it's bolt visibly glistening with poison and a wicked looking dagger in the other hand. He demands your coin pouch. You know you can't fight him in melee, and if you try to run you'll catch a poisoned bolt, you're going to have to use your magic. Your two spells you know are Shocking Grasp and Charm Person. So which is the more evil action?

Casting Charm Person, and telling your new "friend" he needs to step into the tavern and get a few drinks. Or. . .

Casting Shocking Grasp and quite possibly killing the thief right there in the streets.

Robbing someone of their free will, while not exactly "good" can be the more merciful and compassionate of acts. By D&D standards was Obi-Wan Kenobi doing an evil act when he used the "Mind Trick" at the Stormtrooper roadblock? Even the very morality-heavy Star Wars game makes the point that mind-powers aren't universally evil, just very easily corrupted.

Just like making blanket pronouncements about such a broad practice as involuntary labor (i.e. slavery) cannot take into account the myriad of causes and extenuating circumstances that can arise.

Let's put this in the context of the Slavery issue. Let's say you are the King of a small kingdom. You know that a larger, but not vastly larger, kingdom is beginning to arm for war on your border and you will likely suffer an invasion in a few months. You have little in the way of defenses and not much of an army. Your kingdom is well populated, has plenty of natural resources, and has a distinct problem with petty lawlessness (bar brawls, pickpocketing, ect). What can you do?

Well, you could make enslavement (in the form of a prisoner work crew) a punishment for many minor offenses, and enslavement/conscription to the army a penalty for other offenses or repeat offenders. You use your forced labor to build fortresses and defenses, and those with any usable trades are turned towards producing goods for war, while your armies are swelled with undisciplined troops (but troops well skilled at fighting, albeit not in units). With some good officers/knights you could even shape them up a little. You've removed a criminal element from society and put them to the use of the public, some may even learn a trade and be able to take up a law-abiding life after the coming war, others might learn discipline. Those who survive the coming war are released from service with their slates wiped clean, having paid their debts to society.

But by the definitions of many in this thread, you'd be Evil, because you "enslaved" people by oppressing them, stripping them of dignity and freedom, and making them labor for negligible compensation. To you and the people of your nation, you'd be Good, since you protected the people from a conquering army, protected the citizens from crime by dealing with bandits and criminals who prey on the weak, and you were even a chance at redemption to those who might not have it otherwise.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[John Morrow]

So no, Thomas Jefferson is no Pol Pot, but his actions with regard to his slaves surely meet the citerion for Evil in the D&D sense.

The question I have is whether Thomas Jefferson, because he engaged in the Evil act of slavery, was himself Evil. Would Thomas Jefferson detect as Evil? Would George Washington, who only freed his slaves upon his death, detect as Evil?

I would argue that a paladin walking onto Mount Vernon and slaying George Washington to free his slaves just doesn't sound appealing while a palading stalking into Pol Pot's camp to behead him does. In the big scheme of things, Pol Pot should detect as Evil while I don't think Thomas Jefferson should.

To simplify greatly, but illustrate the distinction you are trying to draw: this is a bit like saying that if someone is kidnapped and not murdered, then it's a Neutral act because they could have been murdered.

The question I have is whether kidnapping is Evil in the sense that a paladin detects a kidnapper as Evil and can go to town on them and slay them. At what point does the crime cross the line to put one in the company of devils, demons, or clerics that sacrifice babies to their dark gods? That, to me, is what captial "E" Evil means. Does simply kidnapping a merchants son for ransom, with no intentions of killing him, put one in the same class as a devil or demon? Does owning 187 slaves?

Perhaps all of these acts are Evil -- kidnapping, slavery, etc. But then the issue is one of weight and how Evil they are. Does a single kidnapping give on an Evil alignment? Does owning a single slave and treating them humanely? At what point does a character accumulate enough Evil to radiate an Evil aura?

So compounding the (D&D) Evil of slaughtering all the Trojan men by enslaving the women and children makes the enslavement Neutral?

No. But it makes it preferable to the alternatives. My point was largely that the alternative to slavery is not always a happy and free life.

But you do have the right to change your job to one you find more appealing or where you are better treated.

Assuming that such other jobs exist. If they don't, I may not have that option and it's certainly not a totally free choice when I do. I still have to accept what others offer and can't simply write my own compensation at whim.

I read this as saying basically that the Neutral in D&D can distinguish between Good and Evil, but are not prepared to make personal sacrifices to do Good things. But neither will they perform overt Evil acts. They will act when something happens to themselves or those they care about.

It says that they have "compunctions against killing the innocent" but are not prohibited from it. That's a reluctance to kill. If Neutrality is symmetrical between Good and Evil, I think that just as a Neutral character will do Good things when they have a personal stake in it, they might do Evil things if they have a stake in it. For example, they might kidnap a rich merchant's daughter if they need the money to feed their family, much in the same way that they might work hard and make self-sacrifices to feed their family. They can do a little Good or a little Evil and still remain Neutral.

The only point of raising this example was to show that serfdom does not fit the mould of D&D Good.

Agreed. But does it fit the mould of D&D Neutral?

For me it boils down to the part of the SRD where it states that Evil people oppress others. Even in the mildest sense of slavery, keeping innocents as slaves oppresses them. Therefore anyone who does that is committing an Evil act (and a fairly serious one at that) on an ongoing basis. A slave owner had better be doing some amazingly Good acts to counteract that level of Evil.

I would agree that the point that the SRD states that Evil people oppress is a compelling argument with respect to slavery being Evil. That said, the same line of the SRD definition puts killing after oppression as something that Evil does. The definition of Neutral, on the other hand, says only that Neutral characters have "compunctions against killing the innocent", which is not a prohibition but simply some anxiety or resistence to doing it. If a Neutral character has "compunctions against killing the innocent", I think one can argue that they also simply have "compunctions against slavery", which pretty much sums up Jefferson, Washington, and a whole host of other historical Americans who owned slaves for economic reasons but felt uncomfortable about it.

Again, my argument is not that slavery is Good or that Good characters should engage in it. Quite the opposite and I've been persuaded that slavery is Evil in D&D SRD terms due to the oppression. That said, could a Neutral character or Neutral society still engage in slavery, traffic in slaves, or even enslave others?

 

[Jonny Nexus]

The question I have is whether Thomas Jefferson, because he engaged in the Evil act of slavery, was himself Evil. Would Thomas Jefferson detect as Evil? Would George Washington, who only freed his slaves upon his death, detect as Evil?

Well my take on this is that there are certain areas where "D&D logic" diverges from real-world logic and that this is one of them. Which means that until you first identify where the D&D logic has diverged, a discussion in this area makes about as much sense as arguing the merits of magic vs science.

Why do I think there is a difference between D&D logic and real-world logic in the area of morality? Well in our system of ethics we have no concept of people being good or evil. We only a concept of good actions and evil actions, and of people who do good actions and people who do evil actions.

So when we say someone is good, what we really mean is that they have performed good actions. And when we say someone is evil, what we really mean is that they have performed evil actions.

Why do I say this?

Because our entire system of justice is pedicated that you must be judged on your actions alone - and not on any vague sense of whether or not you are intrinsically good or evil. If you've committed no crimes then you will not be put in prison. If you have, then you will. But D&D is fundamentally different.

It's has a concept of intrinsic good and evil.

You can "scan" someone and find out that they are evil. They might have never yet got round to performing any evil acts, but they are still evil. So even though they've haven't yet done anything wrong, it's okay to punish them. (Or even kill them). You even get some races that are intrinsically evil.

So whilst in our world people are judged on what they do, in D&D worlds, people are judged on what they are. This is a fundamental difference which makes it impossible to apply real-world morality to a D&D world.

Back to slavery...

In our world we have people who are nice and kind. Because they are nice and kind they will not perform actions that they understand / believe / realise to be evil. But if they don't realise that something is evil then they can do it, even though they are still nice and kind. So we have a duality or discontinuity between someone's essential nature and the actions they perform.

i.e. People who had nice, kind inner natures could own slaves because they genuinely didn't realise that it was wrong.

Note:- I'm not in any way saying that what they doing wasn't wrong, and I personally believe that they should have known it was wrong. But I can accept that there were people in the early 19th century southern United States who a) owned slaves, and b) weren't violent, cruel, or psychotic.

In our world, we can only determine whether an action is good or evil by debate, logic, and philosophy. In a D&D world, people can investigate whether actions are good or evil by "scanning" those who perform them. The spectrum of Good and Evil is hardwired into a D&D universe in much the same way as the electromagnatic spectrum is hardwired into ours.

So since in our world "kind" people can perform "evil" actions, the whole question of whether George Washington would scan as "evil" makes no sense. Because if we lived in a world where Good and Evil were actual real entities independent of actions performed, then George Washington wouldn't have owned slaves.

So if you want a "shades of grey" world, where morality is a matter of opinion and not fact, then you have to ditch the concept of alignment as a "rule of the universe" and keep it only as a roleplaying guide on the character sheet. (So no detect evil spells, no magic items that only work on evil characters and so on).

 

[Quasqueton]

I saw this discussion over the weekend, but I wasn't able to post anything until today.

If alignment is absolute, is slavery evil in places where it is legal? If so, then the majority of human historical figures are evil by D&D's standards.

If not...then slavery is just lawful or chaotic, and depends on its legal status for the definition..but that seems way subjective for an absolute objective system.

[Note: I'm assuming by "If alignment is absolute," you mean "If alignment is objective."]

In D&D, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. . . . . Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." So, in D&D, slavery is Evil. I just don't understand the difficulty people have with understanding this. People who participate in slavery are probably Evil, or at best, Neutral (who turn a blind eye to the morality, or are mislead by the institution's proponents).

Throwing Real World societies and histories into the mix makes the whole discussion whacked. D&D alignment is as out-of-place in a discussion about the Real World as D&D dragons, orcs, and beholders are. Saying, "If slavery is Evil in D&D, then many of our forefathers in the Real World were evil." is like saying, "If dragons in D&D breath cold and acid as well as fire, then many of our fairy tales and myths in the Real World are wrong."

I'm rather amazed that the debate can go for 6 pages. I mean, this question is as simple as "Are dwarves Medium-size creatures?"

Quasqueton

 

[DMScott]

No, it's not my argument that oppression is de-facto evil in D&D. The rules state it quite explicitly. From the SRD:

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

I am simply arguing that by the rules as written slavery is Evil in D&D.

And I am simply pointing out that by the exact same rules as written, Charm Person is Evil in D&D. Yet Charm Person is not treated as inherently evil in any of the source material that I'm aware of; quite the opposite, the spell is often found in the arsenal of good creatures. I don't know a single DM who claims that Charm Person is absolutely, objectively evil unless house-ruled otherwise; not even you will take that position, instead claiming that whether this completely oppressive spell is evil depends on the circumstances of its use. This shows us that the line you're so fond of quoting offers absolutely no justification for painting anything as evil. It's simply a guideline for a DM to follow when setting up their own absolute alignment system, and different DMs will put different actions on either side of the Evil line.

If you believe that I have claimed that "simple oppression" is insufficient for an absolute alignment system, you have misunderstood what I am saying.

So I misunderstood when you agreed that Charm Person was not inherently evil, or when you put forward manacles as an example of how silly the "oppression = evil" argument is? I think perhaps any misunderstanding is more likely to be due to your confusion as to what you're arguing.

I am not arguing that the D&D alignment is a perfect absolute alignment system. I am not arguing whether there are reasonable definitions of Neutral acts where slave owning may fall into that classification under some circumstances. I am simply saying that unless you are house-ruling alignment, slavery is (D&D) Evil.

And I am pointing out that since you do not follow your own quoted rules, you have not made any such case. I think perhaps you should sit down and figure out what exactly is and is not evil under the system you propose, I think that will help you come up with a somewhat coherent argument as to what is and is not evil. I think you'll find that some things that involve "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" are indeed evil, and some you'll believe do not.

Of course, at that point you'll have arrived at exactly the statement you objected to: that a DM has to define both an absolute alignment system and the form(s) of slavery in their campaign before they can make the call as to whether it's Evil or not.

Since you have done nothing but prove my point in any of your replies, we are simply spinning our wheels here, so this is my last response in this thread. Good luck, and have a good day.

 

[Spatula]

Reading some of the posts on this second page that came up as I was typing mine, I'm stunned that so many people believe slavery isn't evil in and of itself. That somehow taking away another person's freedom and declaring them your property is not utterly and completely evil. I'm...stunned

I'm not being politically correct here guys, but think about what we're talking about. One person deciding, against another's will, that he owns him, body, mind, and soul. And backing that declaration up with force. It's not just taking away a man's life in the way you do if you kill him. It's taking away a man's hopes and dreams, his desires, and forcing him to live whatever sort of life you choose. It's the rape of your entire life.

I honestly can't imagine many things more evil.

You seem to be assuming that once someone is made a slave, they're always a slave, and that as a slave they have no rights. Which isn't necessarily the case. Can you not imagine anything more evil than indentured servitude? Because I can. And yet, it's slavery. This isn't moral relativism, it's a recognition that "slavery" existed in many forms, and some of them more closely resembled current or recent penal systems than the forced enslavement of Africans.

Are you in favor of jailing convicted criminals, possibly for their entire lives? How about forcing them to perform labor while incarcerated?

 

[smetzger]

Its interesting to note that the most recent Campaign Setting from WOTC condones slavery in almost every single country. Thats right in Eberron slavery is a way of life and even the good guys accept this.

Many of the fantastical items in Eberron are powered by 'bound' elementals. Elementals are sentient beings.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

I'm sorry; I wasn't aware that this discussion was about whether or not the slave was necessarily evil. I thought it was about the one enforcing the slavery or the institution of slavery itself. Your comment certainly applies to the question of whether or not being a slave is evil. You say nothing at all about the ethical position of the person who is enriched while you are barely able to support yourself and your family.


RC

I'm sorry. I must have been unclear. I do not believe that the large company in question is evil. Not good, but not evil. I do not believe that circumstances of various sorts that force a person to do things against their willis evil, because if that were the case, the whole world is evil by its nature. Everyone has to do things they don't like or that are undesirable. Those things are not evil.