Slavery and evil

[The_Universe]

Slavery, in a state where it is legal, is Lawful Evil. In a state where it is not legal is CE (this sometimes happens in the real world, even now).

Being especially kind to slaves (so much that there condition is essentially not slavery) might "elevate" it to LN or CN, but probably not any better than that.

That's how it would work in DnD, as far as I can imagine - that's the reason there's a law/chaos axis, and a good/evil axis - to be able to say that, "yeah, it's not breaking the law, but it's still *evil*."

 

[DMScott]

And magic missile can be used to murder someone at least as easily as any weapon, yet it is not an Evil spell.

Magic Missile does not have to be used to murder someone (and neither does the weapon). Charm Person has no other use but to suppress a humanoid's free will. If Charm Person is not oppression, then frankly nothing is.

Again, they key part of the definition of oppression is the unjust aspect of it.

Which is just another way of saying that an individual DM gets to decide which acts of oppression are evil, and which aren't. Which brings us right back to the fact that DMs interested in an absolute alignment system have to define Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) for his or her campaign before any discussion of where slavery (or just about anything else) fits is reasonable. Thanks for demonstrating my point so nicely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Iron Sheep]

I'm not quite clear here what you mean with trying to redeem the murderer? Could I pester you for an explanation, please?

Essentially, the murderer has committed an Evil act. In the example, it is not premeditated in any sense, so it is probably a lesser Evil. One possible way that a Good character in the farmer's situation could act is to try to bring the murderer to a situation where they can understand the magnitude of what they have done and atone for it. Essentially turning the slightly Evil murderer into a Good person who can then bring more Good into the world.

In your description the farmer treats the murderer as just another worker (more or less), but does not go out of his way to make the murderer a better person. The day after the old man dies and the slave is freed, the slave could potentially kill another person in exactly the same manner as the farmer's son.

As far as D&D morality is concerned, I don't think the opinion of the slave himself plays a role in the alignment adjudication of his slave-holder?

This question was more in the nature of whether or not the slave was really a slave. To go outside your example to illustrate an extreme, if the murderer had volunteered to serve the farmer then it wouldn't be fair to call him a slave.

Corran

 

[John Morrow]

It's pretty explicit in the Players Handbook discussion of alignment that oppression is (D&D) Evil. This doesn't make the Law/Chaos distinction meaningless:

The word "oppressing" sits between "hurting" and "killing" in that definition. I guess it's a matter of what they mean by "oppression".

A Chaotic character may find a Lawful Good society oppressive in the way that heat can be oppressive; this does not mean that anyone in particular is oppressing them.

How can you feel oppressed if nobody is oppressing you? Yes, I know it happens but, no, I don't understand it.

A paladin is surely against oppression: as quoted above, it is the unjust or unfair use of force or authority. Fighting injustice is one of the basic things that define the paladin archetype.

Is slavery either unjust or unfair if it's governed by a legal code that protects the rights of slaves, imposes obligations upon slave owners, and gives slavves the opportunity to free themselves under certain circumstances?

Based of the discussion in the Players Handbook: a Neutral character would not actively participate in slavery. They would find it unpleasant and consider it wrong, but they would not disadvantage themselves to act against it unless they, or someone they cared about was enslaved.

Why wouldn't a Neutral character actively participate in slavery if they treated their slaves well and had some economic reasons for owning them? Remember that Neutral characters have compunctions against killing the innocent but are not necessarily prohibited from doing so. Wouldn't that also mean that they have compunctions against slavery but are not necessarily prohibited from owning them?

 

[John Morrow]

Magic Missile does not have to be used to murder someone (and neither does the weapon). Charm Person has no other use but to suppress a humanoid's free will. If Charm Person is not oppression, then frankly nothing is.

And even if Charm Person doesn't qualify as oppression, you've still got Suggestion, Dominate Person, and Geas to consider. Are all of those inherently Evil, as well?

Then there is also Bluff, Intimidation, etc.

 

[Fieari]

Indentured servitude has been mentioned a few times, and I'd love to hear a few more comments in that direction. In the case of Indentured Service, Person A wants a very expensive X from Person B, and in exchange for X agrees to work for Y years in order to pay the debt. During this time, Person A is not allowed to quit, seek employment elsewhere, and in these respects resembles a slave. But it was done willingly, and it was done with a fair exchange in mind.

I would probably classify this as Nuetral... as I would judge most commerce. Just giving something away for free would be Good. Indeed, in this case, I would call Person A running away and breaking the contract an Evil act (or at the very least, Chaotic, but probably CE in its entirety) as it would be an example of downright theft. Not theft of you, yourself... but theft of the item X that was recieved in the first place, and is now going unpaid.

In some societies, the above would be called Slavery. In this example, if you called this slavery (a rose by any other name...) it would not be evil just because it was CALLED slavery.

Would those of you claiming all slavery is evil by definition agree with me here? It's an interesting topic...

 

[John Morrow]

I dunno if this was mentioned ( skimmed the replies)

According to the Alignment books (BoVD and BoED) slavery is evil. Period.

How do those books describe slavery? Do they go into detail at all? Because in many forms, I do agree.

In a society where slavery is tollerated, it is still evil. Those engaged in the slave trade would be at least neutral. Good people (or at least exalted good) would fight against it even if it was legal. Either through legal means (challenging the law) or illegal means (freeing slaves in the night).

With the possible exception of the first line, I agree. Slavery is Not Good and I agree that Good characters should oppose it even where it is legal.

If you have both books (or know someone you can loan them to you) they make a good read of the Absolute nature, esp the extremes of both.

Hmmm. I keep picking them up and looking at them and keep putting them down in the store. Perhaps I need to pick them up again...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed