Paladins aren't always nice

[Calixto]

Laws against murder also involved forcing people to do (or not do) things against their will.

A poor comparison. Laws against murder target, well, murderers, while slavery targets, mostly, innocent people.
 
I still find that, just as murdering innocents is as evil in FR as it is in RL, so should slavery be as evil in FR as in RL, for common sense's sake. Unless we are making a difference between forced slavery of non-evil creatures and those cases where, for example, someone sells himself as a slave, but I guess no difference is being made here.
 
But that's just my opinion, and if the DMs said that slavery is never evil in the setting, then I'm fine with it. Altough I think of some funny, absurd situations that could arise because of it. For example, a paladin slaver and a banite arguing:
 
- You banites are evil!!!! You want to force everyone to do the bidding of your god!!
- Err... You own slaves, chump. I guess they aren't doing your bidding, eh?
- ...
 
I would love to play the banite :)

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

A poor comparison. Laws against murder target, well, murderers, while slavery targets, mostly, innocent people.

It's not about who the laws target, it's about who the laws apply to and whether or not the law is applied as it should be.
 

I still find that, just as murdering innocents is as evil in FR as it is in RL, so should slavery be as evil in FR as in RL, for common sense's sake. Unless we are making a difference between forced slavery of non-evil creatures and those cases where, for example, someone sells himself as a slave, but I guess no difference is being made here.

You won't get any evil points for murdering an innocent goblin.
 

But that's just my opinion, and if the DMs said that slavery is never evil in the setting, then I'm fine with it. Altough I think of some funny, absurd situations that could arise because of it. For example, a paladin slaver and a banite arguing:
 
- You banites are evil!!!! You want to force everyone to do the bidding of your god!!
- Err... You own slaves, chump. I guess they aren't doing your bidding, eh?
- ...
 
I would love to play the banite :)

I'd gladly play the paladin and I think I could easily take you on :)

[Spiffy Has]

Paladins are LG.

Not CG.

They do not value freedom very highly. <.<

[Calixto]

It's not about who the laws target, it's about who the laws apply to and whether or not the law is applied as it should be.

I have no idea of what you mean. I said slavery should be evil, becauses it forces people to servitude against their will, wich even in FR, should be considered bad. You implied that, since laws against murder also force people not to act against their will, slavery cannot be considered any worse. Which is obviously wrong. But then this discussion is useless, since, as I just found out, slavery in FR is absurd.
 
 

You won't get any evil points for murdering an innocent goblin.

When did I mention goblins? What does this have to do with what I wrote?
 

I'd gladly play the paladin and I think I could easily take you on :)

I frankly doubt you could take me or anyone else on, but you are welcome to tell us how you would do it.

[Pigadig]

That would be a rather whiny and weak sounding Banite.

[putrid_plum]

So what if a person is poor, homeless and starving.  In return they become your slave.  You shelter them, give them food and purpose.  Now they can work under you to better themselves yet are treated well.  Is that evil?  It's still slavery.

[Porkolt]

Slavery represents owning someone against their will

Circumstantial to the extreme.

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

I have no idea of what you mean. I said slavery should be evil, becauses it forces people to servitude against their will, wich even in FR, should be considered bad. You implied that, since laws against murder also force people not to act against their will, slavery cannot be considered any worse. Which is obviously wrong. But then this discussion is useless, since, as I just found out, slavery in FR is absurd.

My point is pressure upon's one will is not inherently evil. Whether one bends or resists outside forces is a factor of order-chaos, not good-evil.
 
 

When did I mention goblins? What does this have to do with what I wrote?

You mentioned innocence. This was a point about relativity. The evil or good inherit in a creature (goblin, human, celestial) is a variable that affects whether or not the murder/killing was a good or evil act. "Murdering innocents" does not explain enough about to make it worthy of judging it good or evil. Essentially, yes there are differences that are made and need to be taken into account.
 

I frankly doubt you could take me or anyone else on, but you are welcome to tell us how you would do it.

I'd rather save it for a more IC/IG situation, frankly.

[Gotham]

Lets be 100% frank since this IS still a RL issue in many parts of the world, and obviously a sensitive one.

Slavery, in real life, is 100% evil all day every day. Particularly MODERN slavery, which is illegal, heinous, and generally targets women and children.

Slavery in FANTASY LIFE is a grey area as defined by the Forgotten Realms source materials and rule books.

Fantasy is not real life, real life is not fantasy, the Forgotten Realms is not earth. Let us maintain this distinction and our cool, because our attitudes about issues in one will not necessarily reflect the other.

[Gotham]

PS: Paladins aren't always nice, but they are required to be courteous

[Calixto]

So what if a person is poor, homeless and starving. In return they become your slave. You shelter them, give them food and purpose. Now they can work under you to better themselves yet are treated well. Is that evil? It's still slavery.

Read again what I wrote. I stated there were several kinds of slavery, and this kind, a paladin could, imo, be relatively okay with.
 

Circumstantial to the extreme.

Excuse me? I don't understand what you mean.
 

My point is pressure upon's one will is not inherently evil. Whether one bends or resists outside forces is a factor of order-chaos, not good-evil.

Of course. Such is the way it is in FR apparently. Which is complete nonsense. According to this, if a paladin owns a kid who was stolen away from his home, he is not evil. If he beats the kid for trying to escape or if he has , he is not evil, since the law allows him to keep the kid, who is nothing but a stupid brat who is unable to understand the laws of society and must be showed his place.
 
Because of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be against the law.
 
I already said there would be no point in arguing about that, since this is absurd. If the dms want it that way, this is fine. They have their reasons. The problem is, as I stated above, the absurd situations that could arise from it. Because, to put another example, if I play a paladin and I encounter another paladin who supports enslavement of half-orcs, the first reaction my character will have is to deny the other is a paladin, refuse to work with him, and possibly try to stop him by any means necessary, since he would believe he is evil. Another absurd situation. And there are countless more:
 
- The paladin loses his status when he commits one evil act, yet does not lose his status for benefitting evil-doers (the slavers / slave traders)
 
- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc. (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is repugnant and should be enslaved)
 
- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr, Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or not.
 
- Etc.
 
I will repeat that I am right now not concerned about how slavery is seen in FR, but rather about how my characters should behave according to this point of view towards a paladin.
 

I'd rather save it for a more IC/IG situation, frankly.

You couldn't. This wouldn't hold water. Honestly.

[Erwin the German]

I fail to see how anyone can consider forced servitude to not be an act that is inherently evil, no matter who you're enslaving. It's not relevant, as it's an act that the enslaver is committing against someone(thing) else.

And don't give me that it's circumstantial. One can always choose to be the bigger, better person and not force another being to work for them without pay.

[Spiffy Has]

Because of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a  Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice  random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be  against the law.

I am not even going to justify that with a response.

- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a  half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc.  (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is  repugnant and should be enslaved)

It depends on how the Paladin views half orcs. The Paladin in question viewed them as beasts and on par as goblins. Would she be courteous to a goblin? No. If a DM disagreed, she could lose powers. However, she did not, which means it is perfectly okay. Paladins are flawed and the gods understand this, and I would believe that even the gods would not mind a few discrepancies and double standards when it comes to a clearly bigoted world.

- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like  their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr,  Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or  not.

These deities are very open to interpretation and Tyr would infact support slavery if the enslaved were criminals and were given a recourse in forced labor.

Jergal, on another hand, is an LN deity who is ultra-conservative and often uses undead himself, but has paladins. These paladins are extremely draconian, and solely concern themselves with the destruction of necromancers and those who upset the balance between the forces of life and death. They will not make themselves a target for any government by actively pursuing slavers or evil villains not relevant to their jurisdiction and oaths to pursue undeath. They would own slaves if it supported their cause.

A paladin does not need to oppose ALL evil, he simply cannot or he is in for a short life. In my opinion, a paladin can be themed against certain evils  of the world, like we see paladin orders that hunt down criminals, infernalists and devils, and more, we even had a Paladin organization known as the "Pallid Mask" who battled undeath more than any other evil, truthfully.

It is clear you have very strong feelings about the issue, and you're correct, a PALADIN would more than likely see Slavery as an EVIL institution and abuse of law.

However, a paladin who GREW UP with it, such as one in THAY, or MULHORAND, would see it as a part of life. However, they would more than likely see the OLD PORT version of slavery is villainous, where pirates raid the coastline for victims. This is not the version of slavery we are discussing, that is clearly evil.

We are discussing a slave caste, where one is born into that state, or did some wrong against society and was demoted to it. As well, if you read the Dominion Charter, children BORN to slaves were allowed to become full citizens, clearly, slavery in the Dominion was merely a form of PUNISHMENT in most cases.


Slavery is a moral grey area.

It is widely interpreted and can be both supported and opposed depending on the paladin.

Not all paladins are the same.

Given the deity, a Paladins views, interests, and pursuits may well change.

A paladin would oppose ANY wrong if it occurs in front of them, but as mortals, they simply cannot pursue every minor in fraction and petty criminal or slaver, they simply have GREATER things to worry about (like, the Zulkir of Necromancy in Thay being a Lich, or a rampaging horde of goblins in the countryside...)

If you're paladin wants to pursue, end, and kill slavers, he is more than welcome to, and is more than likely doing a GOOD thing. However, it does not mean he is doing a LAWFUL deed (however, he may be following his own code of conduct, which is another matter entirely).



You are welcome to play a paladin as you are want, and what you consider is amazing conflict between the same classes of the same alignment, which is something rarely seen, however, keep in mind, that on an OOC level, the DMs ultimately hand out the judgment on who keeps their paladin status and who does not.

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

Of course. Such is the way it is in FR apparently. Which is complete nonsense. According to this, if a paladin owns a kid who was stolen away from his home, he is not evil. If he beats the kid for trying to escape or if he has , he is not evil, since the law allows him to keep the kid, who is nothing but a stupid brat who is unable to understand the laws of society and must be showed his place.

There are laws (both secular and religious) that govern how slaves should be treated.
 

Because of this principle, if the paladin was, let's say, in a Banite-ruled land, and there was a law who allowed banites to sacrifice random people, the paladin couldn't intervene, because it would be against the law.

The paladin could still work against the law in other means however.
 

I already said there would be no point in arguing about that, since this is absurd. If the dms want it that way, this is fine. They have their reasons. The problem is, as I stated above, the absurd situations that could arise from it. Because, to put another example, if I play a paladin and I encounter another paladin who supports enslavement of half-orcs, the first reaction my character will have is to deny the other is a paladin, refuse to work with him, and possibly try to stop him by any means necessary, since he would believe he is evil. Another absurd situation. And there are countless more:

Just because two PCs are of the same class and alignment doesn't mean they have to agree on everything. Differences in faiths is just as important to giving a character individuality.
 

- The paladin loses his status when he commits one evil act, yet does not lose his status for benefitting evil-doers (the slavers / slave traders)

Benefiting evil-doers how? Owning a slave in a region that is predominately evil doesn't necessarily benefit the slave trade.
 

- The paladin could lose his status for being discourteous to a half-orc, but not for advocating the enslavement of said half-orc. (Excuse me dear sir, I must tell you, very politely, that your kind is repugnant and should be enslaved)

There's a difference between spitting on someone and discussing legal issues in a civil manner.
 

- The paladins, afaik, are supposed to do their best to behave like their patron would behave if they were mortal, yet I don't see Tyr, Ilmater, or Torm as slave owners, whether slavery is considered evil or not.

Paladins of Tyr and Torm I could see as slave-owners as they're more lawful than good. Hoar is another example that comes to mind. Paladins of Lathander, Sune, and Ilmater would be examples, I think, of paladins who wouldn't be pro-slavery.

- Etc.

Etc.
 

I will repeat that I am right now not concerned about how slavery is seen in FR, but rather about how my characters should behave according to this point of view towards a paladin.

Well if you're just going to go with "eh, my PC aint' gonna char and will do what s/he wants", then why bother with this thread necromancy? >_>

You couldn't. This wouldn't hold water. Honestly.

Fortunately for you I'm not playing a paladin. I just provided some examples above on how the "absurd situations" can be rationalized.

[CelestialCondescension]

As some would say:
JUST GO WITH IT! Do what your character would believe right. Sure there are some weird circumstances but don't overcomplicate. Giving me a damn headache.