Slavery and evil

[Iron Sheep]

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Except in unusual and extreme edge cases, by the book in D&D slavery is Evil. Slavery is a situation where a person is forced to perform certain tasks, has no right of refusal, and had little or no choice in their situation.

Someone who routinely owns slaves and uses them to perform tasks for their own enrichment or comfort is (D&D) Evil, just as someone who routinely hurts others for their own enrichment or comfort is (D&D) Evil. The vast majority, if not all, slave owners in a slave-owning society are (D&D) Evil. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it (D&D) Neutral.

Roman slavery may have been better than mediaeval serfdom, but that doesn't make it (D&D) Neutral. At its heart it is still an inherently Evil (in D&D terms) practice: people were taken from their homelands against their will and forced to work. The fact that their children were not slaves, that they could purchase their manumission, that they had some rights, and that they may have been materially better off than they would have been in their original lands does not change the fact that these people were required to work against their will.

Even the Mamluks who ruled as Egypt as a fraternity of slaves relied on obtaining children as slaves to be trained in their order.

And yes, that implies that mediaeval serfdom where peasants were tied to the land is oppressive, and therefore (D&D) Evil. Even something like indentured servitude would probably count as (D&D) Evil if people are commonly forced into it by events beyond their control.

When I think of (D&D) Good agrarian societies as portrayed in D&D products (such as the Village of Hommlet or the Lendore Isles modules) serfdom is most definitely not a feature. Most farmers are either small landowners or, at worst, fairly paid workers on someone else's land. They have the freedom to leave the land and try their hand at some other line of work if that is what they wish. Nobody is using force, or the implied threat of force, to make them work. They may owe some sort of fealty to a local noble or king, but that's more a matter of (D&D) Law than Good or Evil.

And yes, there is no historical mediaeval society which comes even close to the (D&D) Good model. It's based on Tolkein's idealised English village life as portrayed in his books (and the books of fantasy authors that followed in his footsteps), particularly with hobbit society. So yes, (D&D) Good societies are completely unrealistic, but they do make for a good heroic fantasy setting.

And as I said at the beginning, you can come up with extreme situations where owning slaves might be considered (D&D) Neutral, or done by someone who is (D&D) Good, but the way in which they treat the people they own would have to be slavery in name only. For example, in a slave-owning society so dark that slaves cannot safely be freed it may be a (D&D) Good act to own a slave to protect them from society at large if they are treated with dignity and respect and are not forced to do anything against their will. But in this case the "slave" is not really a slave in anything but name. And the second they are compelled to do anything it is an (D&D) Evil act. And even then there are probably better ways that a (D&D) Good person could deal with the situation.

Similarly, some sort of forced labour as payment or punishment for crimes committed, justly applied, fairly enforced and in proportion to the severity of the crime, is probably not (D&D) Evil.

Now if you use house rules to change the alignment rules, then "Good" can be whatever you want; and for grim and gritty or "realistic" settings it may even make sense and make a more compelling game to have "Good" be more grey and nuanced. But in the rules as written, its pretty cut-and-dried that anything which deserves the name "slavery" is Evil, in the sense in which the term is used in D&D.

Corran

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Oppresion:n 1: the act of subjugating by cruelty; "the tyrant's oppression of the people" [syn: subjugation] 2: the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted"

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

op·pres·sion
The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: “There can be no really pervasive system of oppression... without the consent of the oppressed” (Florynce R. Kennedy).
The state of being oppressed.
Something that oppresses.
A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

oppress

v 1: come down on or keep down by unjust use of one's authority; "The government oppresses political activists" [syn: suppress, crush] 2: cause to suffer; "Jews were persecuted in the former Soviet Union" [syn: persecute]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Ok. Lack of freedom, and specifically lack of the vote, are not unequivocally oppression, since they are not automatically persecution, cruelty, arbitrary, or unjust. If these institutions and the people in them have protections under law, priveleges, and certain standards of treatment, that does not automatically equate to oppression under the dictionary definition.

I'm not saying slavery can't be oppression. I'm saying it isn't necessarily, as defined. Thus, there's still room for debate on the subject. It isn't cut and dried, because while the rules define oppression as evil, lack of freedom is not part of the definition of oppression.

 

[Iron Sheep]

Oppresion:n ... 2: the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority

The key word here is "unjust." Forcing people who have done no wrong into a life of servitude is unjust. A typical slave has done nothing to deserve their treatment, which basically amounts to kidnapping, imprisonment and forced labour. The fact that it may be legal in some society doesn't make it fair or just.

I'm not saying slavery can't be oppression. I'm saying it isn't necessarily, as defined. Thus, there's still room for debate on the subject. It isn't cut and dried, because while the rules define oppression as evil, lack of freedom is not part of the definition of oppression.

True, lack of freedom in itself does not imply oppression. It is not oppression for a criminal, fairly tried, to be denied their freedom. It is oppression to deny someone freedom for no better reason than the fact that their forced labour is useful, because that denial of freedom is unjust.

Again, "slavery" in almost any reasonable connotation of the word, is unfairly denying people freedom and hence is Evil in the sense D&D uses.

Corran

 

[JackGiantkiller]

In a great many historical cultures, slavery was only practiced on criminals or prisoners of war, as an alternative to execution or lifetime imprisonment. Slavery in this case is more analagous to a life sentence of hard labor. But those involved are still bought and sold, making it slavery.

The aforementioned Mamluks had lives of relative luxury, lives that in most cases were far better than their lives would otherwise have been. I fail to see this as oppression.


caveat: I believe very strongly in freedom, free will, etc. As a modern person, I believe slavery of any sort is evil. This has nothing to do with my arguments re: the rules and a most often quasi-medieval mindset in D&D. It also has little to do with the definition of oppression, or the fact that what one person sees as just, another sees as unjust. As someone who might (or might not be characterized as Chaotic, I think that execution is actually both more humane and more effective in crime prevention than lifetime imprisonment, because freedom, to me, is more precious than life. This need not apply to my game worlds.

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

 

[Toben the Many]

Wow. Iron Sheep has some great points.

I'd have to say that loss of freedom would definately count as oppression in my book, because despite any luxuries that you might have, you lack basic choice in your life.

Quality of life and luxury have little to do with whether slavery is evil or not. Imagine a woman whose every need is cared for. She lives in a high-rise apartment, has no need to work, gets to play tennis, etc...but what she wears, how she speaks, who her friends are, and where she is every second of the day must meet with approval with her husband on a daily basis. Furthermore, she must have dinner on the table for her husband at a specific hour every single day, and that dinner must meet exacting standards. The house must be kept up to existing standards as well. Failure to meet these standards, any of them, leads to her abuse....

Sounds like a great life, huh? I think just about anyone in modern society would count this as abuse, and consider her husband a generally evil guy.

At the point in which you are calling your own shots and the element of choice is back in your life (like with the Mamluk example), then I think you're only a slave in name as Iron Sheep earlier stated.

Slavery is all about the removal of choice from one's life.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

"Sounds like a great life, huh? I think just about anyone in modern society would count this as abuse, and consider her husband a generally evil guy. "

Modern people, yes. Me, yes. My feudal pseudo-medieval paladin? Maybe not.

 

[Iron Sheep]

In a great many historical cultures, slavery was only practiced on criminals or prisoners of war, as an alternative to execution or lifetime imprisonment. Slavery in this case is more analagous to a life sentence of hard labor. But those involved are still bought and sold, making it slavery.

And this gets back to the sort of extreme case that I was getting at in my original post. I could envision a strictly Lawful Neutral society which had slavery but in which it was only applied to criminals fairly convicted of the most heinous crimes (just being a prisoner of war wouldn't be sufficient: you shouldn't become a slave just because you were trying to defend your home, for example), with careful safeguards in place to prevent cruel treatment of slaves and strong legal protection of slaves, and probably with the threat of force coming only from duly appointed representatives of the justice system. In such a system slaves would be very rare, and the society would certainly not be dominated by the institution.

And even this blurs the line on slavery: if these "slaves" are brought and sold, but there are strong societal restrictions on their treatment, what exactly does "ownership" entail? It's certainly far less than typical property rights for inanimate objects.

And, perhaps, in such a society, a (D&D) Good person could be a slave owner if they do so with the intent to redeem the criminal; but I personally can't see a (D&D) Good person owning a slave in this society just so they can profit from the slave's labour.

I very much doubt that any historical society comes close to this standard; and such a society would be a long way from traditional fantasy tropes. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an interesting twist to throw into a game.

As for the Mamluk example, I don't know enough of the history of the situation, but my understanding is that they were enslaved against their will as children. Even if they ended up leading lives of luxury, there is an inherent injustice in the process. The ends do not justify the means.

caveat: I believe very strongly in freedom, free will, etc. As a modern person, I believe slavery of any sort is evil. This has nothing to do with my arguments re: the rules and a most often quasi-medieval mindset in D&D. It also has little to do with the definition of oppression, or the fact that what one person sees as just, another sees as unjust. As someone who might (or might not be characterized as Chaotic, I think that execution is actually both more humane and more effective in crime prevention than lifetime imprisonment, because freedom, to me, is more precious than life. This need not apply to my game worlds.

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

I understand. I'm trying myself to argue strictly from the D&D alignment system viewpoint, which is what your original question asked. I think many revered historical figures are probably (D&D) Evil people who did some notable (D&D) Good things.

Corran

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Iron Sheep, the manner and clarity of your responses is in fact exactly what I had in mind for this thread. To me, an intelligent debate is more about opening everyone's mind up to alternate views than it is convincing anyone in particular of anything in particular. Thus my caveat...i don't want anyone to mistake my sometimes devil's advocate arguments for truly espousing the POV in question. Plus, i wanted to see what people thought about this, and asking questions/challenging assertions is a good way to clarify and crystallize an opinion in others as well as in oneself.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm, an interesting point in this discussion is the fact that slavery itself, as an "institution", only constitutes the ownership and control of one individual by and through another, at least if you step down to the "personal" level of slave-holder and slave.

On a more social level, you usually had the social class "slave", which limited your rights inside this society.

Now the (D&D) alignment of the slave holder is adudicated by a few questions, like
- How did he get by his slave?
- What is his intention towards him?
- How is he treating him?

As there's enough examples of evil slaveholders, lets try and construct an example of a good slaveholder?
A farmer stands in court, accusing a man of killing one of his sons in a drunken argument. Apart from the emotional anguish and pain, he also is one pair of hands short on his farm, and he'd need them. So, instead of asking for that man's life to end, as would be his right, he asks for that man to be given to him. He takes his son's murderer as a slave, to work for him for the rest of his life, to maybe make up for part of his crime.
As our farmer is basically a (D&D) good man, he treats his new slave as any other human being, giving him enough food, the basic comfort all his farmhands enjoy, he doesn't let his slave work more than anybody else, or harder, or takes his anger and grief out of his hide. After some time (maybe long, maybe short) he allows him to walk over to the village now and then to enjoy a fair as much as he can without money, or to simply relax a little, knowing that his slave wouldn't come far anyway because the judge had him branded as slave, and because an escaped slave faces hard punishment. Furthermore, he knows his slave has become accustomed to the basically good life, and won't run away easily anyway.
After 30 years, our farmer lying on his deathbed, he finally truly forgives his slave, who's probably only 10 years from his death himself, for his crime. He decrees in his last wish that his slave shall be set free, given a modest amount of money, and dies.

How do you judge this farmer? Evil? Neutral? Or good? All in D&D terms, of course.

 

[John Morrow]

Claiming that one type of slave had it better off than another type of slave does not constitute evidence that slavery is not evil. Nor does it constitute evidence that the better slavery in itself is good.

If you are using evidence of the elements of the worst form of slavery to define it as Evil, then pointing out that other forms of slavery did not have those elements is certainly a valid rebuttal. And I'll say it in bold so that nobody misses it, I am not arguing that slavery is Good. I am arguing that slavery can be Neutral or it can be Evil.

Mr. Twain's A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court borrows much from Medieval sources, and has a good bit on slavery in it as practiced in the Middle Ages.

And even if Mr. Twain got his details right, slavery as it was practiced in the Middle Ages is hardly the only form of slavery, just as slavery in the American South was hardly the only form of slavery. Many forms of historical slavery better resembled Medieval serfdom which, by modern standards, is slavery.

In the D&D core rules, as in most real-world systems of ethics, oppression is equal to evil.

If that's true, then I would argue that the Law/Chaos axis of the D&D alignment tree is meaningless and all Paladins should be Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good. I think you are letting your own perspective of Good (illustrated more clearly below) get in the way here.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would seriously make the argument that slavery is not oppression.

I am not making the argument that slavery is not oppression. I am making the argument that oppression comes in many forms and it not inherently Evil. And, again, not that I am not arguing that opression is good.

If you define "Evil" as "Not Good", then (A) there is no room for Neutrality in the alignment system and (B) it waters down the definition of what Evil is such that minor human rights violations become grouped alongside rape, murder, and torture as Evil.

There is plenty of evidence that slavery was considered undesirable throughout human history. Roman citizens weren't lining up to become slaves. The Greeks believed that the state of slavery dulled your body heat, and by extension your wits and very humanity.

There are plenty of undesirable lifestyles in our country that have been considered undesirable throughout human history. Most children don't say that they want to be a garbage collector, maid, or McDonalds clerk when they grow up but that doesn't mean that the presence of such jobs in a society is Evil. Perhaps you think it does. I don't agree. And I think it's absurd to call that Evil when compared to the real Evil that has walked the world historically, from the Moche to the Khmer Rouge.

(And, yes, I know there were people in ancient Rome who did give themselves into slavery rather than take responsibility for their own lives. There are plenty of people in any age who would rather take the easy way out, given the choice.[/I]

And is keeping such people as slaves any less Evil than any other solution?

Personally, I think the current moral relativist attitudes about slavery that we are witnessing here have a lot to do with supressing guilt related to our own modern society, both in terms of how individual workers are treated (wage slaves) and in terms of more literally enslaving Third-World workers to produce cheap consumables for the North American market.

I'm not guilty about it at all because, frankly, I don't agree with your characterization of things. I don't consider the fact that people are required to do things that they don't necessarily want to do in order to survive inherently Evil or wrong. I also have enough historical perspective to know what the alternatives are and what's often happened when people try to reshape society along other lines.

Surely you can see that there is a difference between a society that guarantees reasonable civil liberties (and holds to that guarantee) and one which treats human beings like meat robots.

In many ancient law codes including Ancient Near East codes (e.g., Summerian, Hittite, etc.) as well as the Roman law codes, slaves were hardly "meat robots" and did have rights. Again, I agree that any form of slavery that gives a master the unrestricted right to do whatever they want to their slaves is Evil.

Further, as has been pointed out on this thread (and others) previously, and as is made manifest in the core rules as far as D&D goes, alignment is based upon the preponderance of one's actions. A good society can have evil institutions within it. The prevelance of the temples of evil gods in many D&D worlds is one such example -- they are a known, and for the most part tolerated, evil, so long as they remain within certain bounds.

That's fine, but where does Neutral fit into this argument, then? I keep hearing people talk about Good and Evil and Evil and Good and how if you aren't Good, you are Evil and if you aren't Evil you are Good. Where does that leave Neutral?

Let me put it this way...

How would a Neutral character view slavery, in your opinion?