Messages

Could be the WYSIWYG editor messing up the tags. Try switching to the basic text editor (icon of the A/A in top right corner of the editor window).

If you're worried about spoilers, you could also post more details in the Exploitable Bug Reports forum.

If I am a thread necromancer, why do you bother answering the posts?

Because I wanted to point out that you're making a post bemoaning slavery from a paladin's perspective while already acknowledging that slavery can be okay from a paladin's perspective.

No, it's absurd. Why? Because it would be simplier to treat slavery in FR as in RL. The people who created FR did not, for their own reasons. Reasons which I would have liked to know. Really, as another poster said:

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.                      

Committing an act against someone else is not evil. Nearly all interactions in human society are "against someone else". Loans, (lawful) imprisonment, employment. Is forcing someone to pay for food evil? Is giving someone a gift which is rejected evil?

Rather ironically, FR is a setting where the four alignments are objectified. They are not relative. This, however, means the actions of characters are relative to the objects and thus why different paladins can have different perspectives of slavery.

Wouldn't it have been simplier to be that way in FR?

No, it wouldn't be that much simpler in a fantasy setting where a huge multitude of Gods, their dogmas, and their philosophies leads to the legitimization of everything from the animation of undead to slavery.

But really, this discussion is useless, since we are simply running in circles.

Frankly, I don't see the circle. I do believe I've responded to every point you've made while you haven't done the same to my arguments.

I have no idea what this story has to do with my question. Which was:

And I'm talking about any kind of slave, not just the ones who did something to desserve it.

So, you meant "slavery in general" and not "slave trade", the latter implying people profiting from slaves in a financial and hedonistic way?

Which have nothing to do with paladins being more lawful than good. Look at this:

Sorry, I meant paladins could be more lawful than good (e.g., Knights of Holy Judgement). Depends on the character and as others have said, it's up to the player to individualize the character.

No, I didn't say that. But why bother if you said you would keep it for an ig situation anyway?

There are some aspects of this the issue of slavery that would be more enjoyable to approach from an IG situation. But I don't plan on creating a new character so soon just to have this discussion.

Why do you bother repeating your arguments again and don't read what I write? Just in case it isn't clear yet, I will repeat:

That was actually the first time I pointed out your needless thread necromancy.

- Slavery in RL is evil
- Slavery in FR, apparently, is not
- Is it absurd? Yes, completely. Like many other things in FR, but that's another story. And you face this kind of absurd situation, you must do what you think your char do and let the dms judge.

It's only absurd if you presume the first is supposed to have bearing on the second.

Disagreeing with someone you know is like you is decidely different from believing the other is an impostor because his actions directly contradicts the tenets he is supposed to hold.

Tenants of a paladin of Jergal are different than those of a paladin of Tyr, Torm, Sune, Lathander, etc.

Why would a paladin of Jergal call a paladin of Sune an imposter when the two are supposed to be fairly different?

Buying a slave to a slaver or slave trader doesn't  benefit the slave trade?

A cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves has two slaves.

A bandit attacks a paladin of Tyr. The paladin of Tyr defeats the bandit, forcing him into indentured servitude (to himself, the Paladin of Tyr) for his crimes. Later on, the Tyrran trades his slave to a farmer who requires more farm hands to help with the harvest.

The cruel, mean Banite who beats his slaves still has two slaves.

I wouldn't say that telling someone he should be enslaved is very civil.

What about telling someone s/he should be jailed? Fined? Forced to work community service? Punished?

Excuse me, where do you take that from?

Tyr's portfolio is justice. Torm is Duty, Loyalty, Obedience.

You did not rationalize anything.

I consider the following as rationalizing:

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

You simply said I was fortunate that you did not play a paladin because you would take me on. Which I doubt. Because there is simply no way a paladin could keep someone enslaved against his will (I repeat, other forms of slavery are a different matter entirely) and blame banites for being tyrants.

Why bother with this if you're going specifically note that there is "slavery" and "other forms of slavery" that paladins are okay with?

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.

If only I could :(

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.

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 :)

It doesn't matter what kind of slavery it is. Slavery represents owning someone against their will, wich is evil. lol. The question should be obvious.
 
Altough a paladin could certainly buy slaves to free them afterwards if he is not able to confront the slaver.

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

The application of behaviour on another entity falls on the lawful-chaotic slider.

:(

[tface=Callig]Cecille Amberlight[/tface]

In the old herbalism system, it was possible to create herbalism packs which weighed like, 1 lbs, I think. You could use it and then it would turn into five 0.5 lbs healing herbs.

I think these should make a return! Lugging around tones of 0.5 lbs healing herbs is such a pain :(