GA wrote:The example you gave of greek scholars I think is disingenuous. Most people nowadays would consider such a person not as a slave but as some sort of contractor, perhaps similar to a private tutor, butler or nanny. You know this, or at least I would think you should know this. Yet you point it out as an example of slavery where most people wouldn't.
Roman law considered that person a slave. Roman society considered that person a slave; a high-value slave, yes, but a slave. Whether you, or even modern society, would consider him a slave or not is irrelevant
because he was a slave. Your ethnocentrism is appalling when considering a historical argument. It is simply silly when applied to a fantasy milleu, especially in the case of cross-species slavery... a phenomenom which the current definition of slavery only embraces if you're a member of PETA.
I think the original question asked in this post was in the spirit of my definition.
Are you the original poster? Let's look at what was actually said in the original question.
The guy who started this wrote:Do you play that characters of a good alignment own/buy slaves?
Personally I don't see why they wouldn't. I think it's simply a matter of perspective. I doubt the people of the Palladium wolrd (Well humans anyway) see slaverey as an evil practice.
Afterall much of human history is filled with long history of slavery. Like ancient Egypt, Rome and all over the Mideast.
When I think about the fact that slavery was practiced in ancient Egypt. I have to wonder if the churches of the world condone it's practice.
In truth I would expect even most principaled Knights to own slaves. Considering that they tend to be wealthy land owners, it seems almost right that they lord over the populace and enslave the enemies of his or her fifedom.
Heck in midevil europe a knight with a surfdom literally owned every thing and EVERYONE on his lands. This means every man, woman and child living on the properity went with the title.
What do you guys think? Are there any gods or socieities in PFRPG that would not allow or practice slaverey?
Now, there's some ignorance (and atrocious spelling) there. However, look at the parts I bolded. The original question in this thread
said absolutely nothing about modern definitions of slavery. In fact, all he considered was
historical context for slavery.
Your argument to my defintion seemed to be well its better than killing them which really is no argument at all against my definition of slavery. Not to mention the fact that the idea that the only choices are you either kill or enslave a defeated foe as if these are the only acceptable alternatives...jesus. Lucky for the Germans and Japanese we don't still believe that.
You remember World War I? The Treaty of Versailles that ended it? The German leadership in World War II certainly made sure that the German people did.
After World War II, the Allies took a fourth option road aside from "kill 'em all", "enslave who remains" and "let them contemplate how much they hate us." They chose to rebuild their shattered economies and governments to try and reduce any lingering hostility, without committing genocide or mass enslavement. However, that's only possible when you, yourself, have a certain level of prosperity. When your country is nearly destroyed, and you can't afford to invest heavily in repairing infrastructure, leave behind a residual force for 50 years, and encourage healthy nation-building, you're back to those three choices (if, indeed, your society has ever conceived of anything beyond those three choices)... kill, enslave, or let them hate you.
Then you say I have no idea of what slavery is because I don't understand it from a historical context, which again is not a valid argument against my definition of slavery. It may be an argument against what slavery WAS but I did not engage in specualtion of what slavery was. I only commented on what slavery IS, as I understand it, irrespective of any historical context..
It's much easier to argue when you define a the opposition's arguments for them, isn't it?
I never said you had no idea what slavery is because your don't understand it from a historical context. I said your argument is flawed... meaning that saying "slavery can't be X" when you are only including one of many kinds of slavery in your definition of slavery is a flawed argument. It is as if I were to say "Mead isn't wine. Everyone knows wine is made from grapes; since mead is made from honey, it can't be wine." Sure, if you ask most people what wine is made from, they're going to tell you grapes... but if you ask someone who actually knows wine if mead is a kind of wine, they're going to tell you yes.
Based on alignments and the conditions of slavery presented in the palladium world as I understand it, Which is obviously of people and monsters who do not want to be in that condition, I would say no on this topic and in response to the original post because "Life and freedom are the highest priority" for principled and scrupulous alignments, at least according to Page 23 of Palladium Fantasy. A slave is obviously not free so a scrupulous or principled character could not own slaves.
Bullocks.
First of all, Principled contains not such line as "Life and Freedom are the highest priority" In fact, it is right within principled (who have absolutely nothing in their alignment about freedom, but about law and authority) to own slaves if it is legal to do so... and to treat them kindly.
Now, Scrupulous characters would probably not, under usual circumstances, own slaves... "Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else, and despise those who would deprive other of them." However, which is going to take priority... saving a life, by buying a slave (or owning a slave), or taking someone's freedom away? I doubt there are many Scrupulous characters who would rather die than own a slave, if it means that the slave, too, will die (or be enslaved to someone else).
Now if you are asking could a "good" person own slaves, and sort of ignoring the alignments (which may not apply to what most people consider good and evil) then the answer gets trickier. Slavery, by my definition, is always bad. But a relatively good person might still engage in it. This is kind of how I see Washington and Jefferson. Slaveowners but they were for the most part good men.
The first question in their case is, actually, "Did they consider their slaves full people?" The prevailing attitude of the time, especially in Virginia was to consider them as somewhat sub-people... not quite animals, but not fully human.
Now imagine that, instead of a different skin tone, they'd had inhuman strength and tusks. Some of them may resemble dogs, or have the hindquarters of horses.
But again this is defintely not the system as it is presented in the Palladium Fantasy books and would be a GM reinterpretation..
But, then, we also aren't given a clear look at slavery in Palladium. We're given a look at the "sexy", adventureable parts of slavery. It's great fun to beat up slavers and return people to their homes. What do you do when the problem is a farmer selling his children one at a time, so he can feed the others? What do you do about a man who willingly sells himself into slavery in the hopes of a better life? That's not heroic adventuring... that's the seedy side of life that can be expanded upon, but hasn't been touched in our last hiatus.
So, the SLAVES had more rights and protections than the free citizens!
How is that for contributing slappy 
