Slavery and evil

[billd91]

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

Well, it is an it isn't. Clearly, you haven't played or read much Al-Qadim. In that setting, it's OK to enslave the "unenlightened" (so that they can become enlightened) and there are a variety of levels of slavery. Ironically, certain sorts of slavery are paths to political power.
Clearly, there is a certain lack of freedom associated with slavery because there is always a master and a slave. But this doesn't imply lack of all legal rights as in the American model of slavery (using a historical example), nor does it imply constant oppression beyond the level of any other person in a generally servile profession prohibited from leaving that job (which would also include such sorts of people as conscripts, anyone doing penal labor, serfs, and a few other possibilities I'm too tired to think of).
Given different models of slavery that can be conceived in an AD&D setting, it's not hard to find that slavery need not be unequivically evil or that good characters must be prohibited from associating with it in any way. A good character may refuse to own slaves if they choose, but wouldn't be required to free all the slaves they find, for example. Good characters might find parts of their own society distasteful, but still feel that they need to have some association with them because they are a part of their own societies.
So put me down for slavery as a concept being a lot more gray than black, depending on the particulars.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

How did this thread get back onto the question of whether slavery is evil if one follows the letter of the rules.

Probably because slavery, as an institution, is not as easily cut out as it might look. There's plenty differences in "slavery", apparently. That's why the term itself cannot be easily adjudicated by the D&D alignment system, we actually have to look at each variant and judge it on it's own merits and flaws.

And if you look at it from a different point of view, today's relationships between workers and employers developed over around 3000 years from systems of slavery. Instead of providing food and shelter and care, employers simply give their workers money. Instead of having them around 24 hours, they call them in for 9 hours a day. Instead of giving negative feedback with a kick, or harsh words, they hand out negative reports, wage shortenings or simply fire people.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Within the context of D&D at least,

Oppression is evil.
Slavery is a form of oppression.
Therefore, slavery is evil.

The fact that some might not want to follow this to its logical conclusion (i.e., that charming someone to get your way is evil, even if sometimes necessary, that portions of our society are therefore evil within the D&D definition, etc.) does not commute the conclusion.

Everything else is hand-waving, semantics, and equivocation.

Yes, there may be something that a society calls "slavery" that would not fit our general definition thereof. A society could call giving food to elves "slavery," for example, and this would not make leaving Santa cookies evil.

However, I believe that most of us can agree that "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household," "The practice of owning slaves," "work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay," and "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force" all fall well within normal definitions of both oppression and evil.


RC

If "most of us" did, we wouldn't have this discussion, would we?

The point is, slavery can be a form of oppression, but it doesn't have to be. As such, it doesn't have to be (D&D) evil. Oppression, by the way, commonly being defined as

1. [n] the act of subjugating by cruelty
2. [n] a feeling of being oppressed
3. [n] kept down by unjust use of force or authority;

 

[fusangite]

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.

So, if killing and hurting others is evil, going into combat is evil. So, then, the way most people play D&D, most parties' occupation is doing evil -- but "necessary" evil.

How does "evil" retain any meaning when you get a class like the paladin whose main function is to kill and hurt people for the cause of good?

And people wonder why I think there might be problems with these alignment rules.

 

[fusangite]

Within the context of D&D at least,

Oppression is evil.
Slavery is a form of oppression.
Therefore, slavery is evil.

So, a similar syllogism might be:

Killing is evil.
Adventuring parties kill.
Therefore, going adventuring is evil.

EDIT:

I was so inspired by Iron Sheep's quoting of the SRD, I thought I would make a list of all the things in D&D that are inherently evil because evil is "hurting, oppressing and killing others."

Skills: Handle Intimidate
Feats: Blind-Fight, Combat Casting, Whirlwind Attack, Combat Reflexes, Spring Attack, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Extra Turning, Improved Critical, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Shot on the Run, Improved Precise Shot, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload, Spell Focus (Evocation), Spell Focus (Enchantment), Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization
Actions: Melee Attack, Unarmed Attack, Ranged Attack, Bull Rush, Turn Undead, Rebuke Undead, Draw a weapon, Load a crossbow, Full Attack, Charge, Deliver Coup de Grace, Grapple
Spells: Acid Fog, Acid Splash, Align Weapon, Animal Trance, Animate Dead*, Baleful Polymorph, Bane, Banishment, Bestow Curse, Binding, Blasphemy, Blight, Blindness, Deafness, Burning Hands, Call Lightning, Call Lightning Storm, Calm Animals, Calm Emotions, Cause Fear, Chain Lightning, Chaos Hammer, Charm Animal, Charm Monster, Charm Person, Chill Touch, Circle of Death, Cloudkill, Color Spray, Command, Command Plants, Command Undead, Cone of Cold, Confusion, Lesser Co0nfusion, Contagion, Control Plants, Control Undead, Create Greater Undead*, Create Undead, Creeping Doom, Crushing Despair, Curse Water*…

I decided to stop after the letter "c" in the hopes that I've made my point.

* evil due to descriptor not definition

 

[John Morrow]

And people wonder why I think there might be problems with these alignment rules.

That's why they (inconsistently) use the qualifier "innocent". Applied to the point under discussion, Good doesn't hurt, oppress, or killing innocent sentient beings. The Evil creatures that a Paladin can kill with impunity are not "innocent".

Of course that raises the question of whether simply being Evil removes one's "innocence" for these purposes. It also raises the question of whether a Paladin could exterminate the women and children of an Evil race and essentially commit genocide against them. The BoED says no, which creates the equally unsatisfying scenario of a neverending war with Evil creatures that Good can only oppress so they remain harmless but can never exterminate because they can't touch the source of new members.

 

[fusangite]

That's why they (inconsistently) use the qualifier "innocent". Applied to the point under discussion, Good doesn't hurt, oppress, or killing innocent sentient beings. The Evil creatures that a Paladin can kill with impunity are not "innocent".

The "innocent" qualifier never appears in the PHB or DMG. I think it is a mistake to discuss the core rules and rely on rules that do not appear in the core books. I would never buy BoED or BoVD; it seems unreasonable to suggest that by purchasing the core books I have not been given the equipment necessary to run the alignment system.

Although from the evidence you present about these additional books, it sounds as though by purchasing them I still wouldn't have the necessary materials.

 

[Arnwyn]

Obviously. So...each campaign makes a differing, relative moral judgment about whether specific acts are good or evil...and this is then taken as the moral absolute standard *for that campaign*?

Yes. Works for my players and I.

 

[Malic]

This 'innnocents' thing that keeps coming up bothers me, and the argument that (in D&D) it is OK to do bad things to bad people (eg hurt, kill) but not to 'innocents'. This seems to me a slippery slope because 'innocent' is a) absolutist and b) has to be judged subjectively. Even in D&D detecting someone's alignment doesn't tell you if they're 'innocent' or not.