Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 1919063" data-attributes="member: 27012">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.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?  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. 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.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. Agreed.  But does it fit the mould of D&D Neutral?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?</blockquote>

Verification