Slavery and evil

[ptolemy18]

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.

I'm running a pseudo-historical ancient Egyptian game, and there's slavery. But I'm not using alignments so who knows whether it's "evil". There's a few kindly slaveowners, a lot of indifferent ones, a few blatantly cruel ones, and a very small number of idealistic people who are opposed to slavery (a pretty modern conceit, but who knows. Magic didn't really exist in ancient Egypt either.)

However, I *am* personally going to portray slave-TRADERS as more evil than good, since this fits my own mindset and makes for a better heroic adventure. I'm thinking of putting some (disguised) devils and worshippers of "evil" gods among their ranks....

Jason

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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*?

Right. Now, since you're asking for opinions and individual DM spin, mine:

Yes, slavery is evil. Claiming ownership on a person's life is always evil. There is never any ambiguity regarding the institution: always evil.

Slavers are always evil. They profit on the enslavement of others. No matter how much good they do in other parts of their lives, they cannot overcome the great evil they're doing by actively propagating slavery. Evil.

Slave owners are another matter. A slave owner might treat his slaves well. He might want to free them, because he knows it's the right thing to do, but be too cowardly to act against society at large, fearing the reactions of his community should he take that final step. He might do a lot of good things in his life, which at least partially mitigate his participation in an evil institution. So depending on the circumstances, a slave owner might be Neutral or even Good. (Not paladin-good, but borderline good.) Of course, many slave owners will treat their slaves like property, showing no respect for life, no desire to give up the domination of a fellow living being, and a complete lack of compassion. These are obviously evil.

The law never figures into Good and Evil.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

 

[Starglim]

Sticks and stones. The SRD definition of evil deliberately refers to hurting and killing others, and even to disrespecting their dignity as sentient beings, not just declaring one thing or another. That seems to be entirely covered by wingsandsword's distinction between Neutral and Evil forms of slavery, to my reading.

If alignment is absolute, it cannot take much interest in things so culturally relative as identity, social status and contract relations. You might as well say that you claim another person as property and oppress him by naming him your feudal vassal .. or her your wife.


edit: Maybe I can put it more clearly: I'm not convinced that the relationship called "slavery" is different in kind, rather than degree, to many other social and economic relationships known to history.

 

[Ace]

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.

Opinions?

IMC slavery is perfectly legal in most areas.

It is not considered to be a good act under most circumstances -- Lawful Goods permit it only as an alternative form of resitution for serious crimes Neutral Goods only when it is the "best thing" i.e rarely

FREX Chaotic goods and and Chaotic Neutrals consider it abhorent -- the rest of the neutrals and evils are fine with it

Most societies IMC (and IMO) are Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral (rare) , Neutral, or Neutral Evil -- The mirrors what I thing real life societies were/are. I won't go farther on that (no polotics in the thread thanks) but this provides a decent distribution

Generally Lawful Good is too rare to have whole societies .Neutral Good socities might exist in a Fantasy setting if not in real life (I am not sure there are that many neutral good people) -- Chaotics generrally can't do the stability thing that well -- small tribes of Chaotic types can work, anarchist (levelers in historical providence) communes that sort of thing -- and no jokes about schimitars please

The heroic contries IMC have outlawed slavery -- it is a meta plot I am interested in tackling with a different group. Since we have two African American players now I am staying away from the issue just in case real life polotics come into play

Issue wise its facinating stuff if handled with tact and understanding with the right group and slvers make great bad guys

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Sticks and stones.

I'm not trying to start a fight, or call people names. I'm honestly surprised and dismayed. I'm struck, not for the first time, by the thought that in our modern quest for Grays in all things moral, we sometimes forget that there are still some things in the world that are Black and White.

The SRD definition of evil deliberately refers to hurting and killing others, and even to disrespecting their dignity as sentient beings, not just declaring one thing or another.

Just declaring it is one thing. Backing up that declaration with force is another. If I declare a random woman my property, it's meaningless. If I force her into my bed, it's another. In the same way, if I declare a man my property, it's meaningless. If I forcibly take him from his home and make him work for me and punish him for doing anything other than exactly what I want, it's another.

If alignment is absolute, it cannot take much interest in things so culturally relative as identity, social status and contract relations.

I disagree. When you introduce an absolute, such things as identity, social status, and contract relations are no longer culturally relative. They're absolute. And as such are defined through absolute alignment.

You might as well say that you claim another person as property and oppress him by naming ... her your wife.

Are you seriously arguing against slavery as being evil...by trying to claim that slavery is no worse than marriage? If you are referring to modern marriage, your argument is going to need a lot more clarification. If you're referring to medieval marriage, I don't think your comment disproves my position. Marriage was very close to slavery back then, and yes, forcing a woman to marry against her will was evil.

edit: Maybe I can put it more clearly: I'm not convinced that the relationship called "slavery" is different in kind, rather than degree, to many other social and economic relationships known to history.

Fair enough, and to put it more clearly from my perspective: I am convinced that slavery is evil. I see a very distinct difference between slavery and other historical institutions.

 

[Fenes]

A lot of what people do as good characters in D&D is wrong in my book - f.e. the death penalty, aristocratic governments, feudalism, exorting hirelings by paying them minimal wages while making millions in looted items for a few select party members, killing people and taking their stuff instead of looking for the rightful owner... the list goes on. It does not mean I treat it as evil in game.

So, while I strongly believe slavery is wrong, I do not classify it as evil in the game - that is, imho, reserved for stronger wrongs, like torturing and murdering people for fun etc.

Modern morals have not much of a place in my game, where characters come from a fantasy background rooted in our historic examples, not our modern world.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Yeah, slavery probably counts as evil in D&D, though a slave owner wouldn't necesarily be so. In the D&D alignment system one looks at the totality of a person's behaviour. A single evil act is not sufficient to determine alignment unless it's something absolutely horrendous.

The other thing you have to bear in mind is that D&D is not a historical simulation. It's a game set in a world that never was as imagined by the inhabitants of the 20th/21st centuries. In some respects the morality is that of our own era, while in others it is whatever is required to make the game work. That's why paladins have no problem killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Thanks for all the replies, people. Enlightening stuff.


Lord Pendragon, first let me say, that IRL, I agree, slavery is evil. But then, many things are, even large parts of our own society.

"It's taking away a man's hopes and dreams, his desires, and forcing him to live whatever sort of life you choose."

This phrase describes corporate America pretty well too.



For me, D&D is about heroism, as I posted on another thread. Fairly often, it's about being able to take positive action against evil...whereas in real life evil is monolithic, entrenched, and unopposable. Or so it often seems.

Sorry for the randomness. i just woke up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed