| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kuje |
Posted - 17 Jul 2005 : 06:10:12
I'm going to bring this up over here as well.
What do you all think? Would paladins be allowed to have slaves? Based on the 1e box set, one of the "codes" of a paladin is liberty. To me, a paladin having slaves removes liberty from the slaves. Nor can I see someone that is LG having slaves. Most paladins, and yes there are exceptions to who paladins worship, worship the triad and Helm and I can't see those four deities allowing thier paladins to have slaves. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| WalkerNinja |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 05:07:46
A Paladin would certainly own slaves If and Only If it was morally consistent within the context of his society and religion.
I would say that even a traditional Tyran Paladin from the Heartlands could potentially own slaves (though his ownership may or may not be recognized by local laws).
A wandering Tyran Paladin is going about passing sentences in towns that have no civil justice system. He convicts some folks (rightfully) of murder--a crime that they are remorseful for. Rather than deliver the death penalty, the Tyran takes them as slaves to rehabilitate them personally. In the mean time their actions as the Paladin's slave will help repay the evil they had done with good deeds.
It might not be an orthodox position, but it has enough rationality to be viable. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 04:23:34
[/quote]Originally posted by sleyvas
The churches own the slaves in Mulhorand... which to a degree (it being a theocracy) means that the government owns all slaves in Mulhorand and not private individuals.
[/quote]
The Mulhorandi paladin might wish to reform the practice slavery in other lands to more closely resemble what they have at home. "No, you unelightened savages, that is unjust and unnatural. How can mere men own other men? Men owe their service to the gods, and slaves belong under the care of the priests."
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 21:55:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Well, looking over my AD&D 2E PHB, pages 39-40, I see a number of problems:
His henchmen and hirelings must be LG (or appear to be so to the paladin). It seems logical to apply that to slaves, as well.
This cuts down on the pool of acceptable slaves.
A paladin ‘never retains wealth.’ He is allowed to own a limited number of magic items and keep enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his ‘henchmen, men at arms, and servitors’ , and construct a small stronghold. Everything else is supposed to go to a worthy cause or to his church.
If slaves count as ‘wealth’ and not a followers, then buying and keeping slaves is pretty much limits. That is, unless he’s ransoming captives or perhaps buying young slaves to train in some useful skills before setting them free. He’ll probably want to gift any freed slaves with some start up capital, because his moral obligation doesn’t end with signing manumission papers.
Summary view:
If slaves simply count as wealth, then he may not be able to own them at all.
If slaves count as hirelings/henchmen/servitors, then he may be able to hold slaves. In this case, they must at least appear to be LG. He is obligated to treat them with mercy and justice. That means no cruel discipline, no sexual exploitation of slave girls, no overworking the slaves, no denying basic access to religious services or instruction, etc. I think it might be reasonable to require the paladin to offer his slaves the choice between freedom and service. Perhaps conditions could be attached to offer of freedom, but as a DM I’d remind the player that the paladin shouldn’t be acting out of base motives like greed.
It’s easier for most paladins to simply avoid slave-holding.
The churches own the slaves in Mulhorand... which to a degree (it being a theocracy) means that the government owns all slaves in Mulhorand and not private individuals.
Oh, and just to leave Mulhorand for a minute and just go to paladins and slaves in general. What if in a culture, slaves are only those who have lost their freedom due to breaking the law? What if the children of slaves are freemen? What if the punishment for invading the paladin's homeland is becoming a slave, since they caused the death of individuals who could have supported the paladin's country? What if these slaves can earn their freedom by performing a good deed, but until they do so they will remain slaves?
Oddly, in these situations, a paladin might be somewhat bound to actually oversee slaves. Granted, someone could make the distinction and say that these aren't slaves... they're prisoners... but then if we throw in some additional things to the above like, slaves can be bought and sold (the initial sale is from the government to the first owner... after that they can then pass between individuals). I'm not saying these paladins would be forced into this because the law is that way... I'm saying they may have a quandary because this is actually a means to punish the wicked and the other options are more harsh (death).
Just to throw in some other variables here... say the paladin's family owned slaves (who were these criminals/POW's turned slave). The paladin's family dies. The paladin now inherits the slaves. Does he free them? Does he "give" them to his church? Does he "give" them to some down on their luck family who needs help harvesting their fields because their father died? Does he keep them because "noone else will give them the good treatment that I will"?
Just to throw in a few more interesting twists and moral quandaries. Two slaves that a paladin inherits give birth to a child. According to their societal laws, the child becomes a ward of the state and is given up to adopt to the highest bidder (the presumption being those that can spend the most have the wealth to properly care for the child). Does the paladin stand by and let this child be taken away from its parents?
As someone said, this could really make for some good storylines. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 21:34:20
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Well, looking over my AD&D 2E PHB, pages 39-40, I see a number of problems:
His henchmen and hirelings must be LG (or appear to be so to the paladin). It seems logical to apply that to slaves, as well.
This cuts down on the pool of acceptable slaves.
A paladin ‘never retains wealth.’ He is allowed to own a limited number of magic items and keep enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his ‘henchmen, men at arms, and servitors’ , and construct a small stronghold. Everything else is supposed to go to a worthy cause or to his church.
If slaves count as ‘wealth’ and not a followers, then buying and keeping slaves is pretty much limits. That is, unless he’s ransoming captives or perhaps buying young slaves to train in some useful skills before setting them free. He’ll probably want to gift any freed slaves with some start up capital, because his moral obligation doesn’t end with signing manumission papers.
Summary view:
If slaves simply count as wealth, then he may not be able to own them at all.
If slaves count as hirelings/henchmen/servitors, then he may be able to hold slaves. In this case, they must at least appear to be LG. He is obligated to treat them with mercy and justice. That means no cruel discipline, no sexual exploitation of slave girls, no overworking the slaves, no denying basic access to religious services or instruction, etc. I think it might be reasonable to require the paladin to offer his slaves the choice between freedom and service. Perhaps conditions could be attached to offer of freedom, but as a DM I’d remind the player that the paladin shouldn’t be acting out of base motives like greed.
It’s easier for most paladins to simply avoid slave-holding.
The churches own the slaves in Mulhorand... which to a degree (it being a theocracy) means that the government owns all slaves in Mulhorand and not private individuals.
Oh, and just to leave Mulhorand for a minute and just go to paladins and slaves in general. What if in a culture, slaves are only those who have lost their freedom due to breaking the law? What if the children of slaves are freemen? What if the punishment for invading the paladin's homeland is becoming a slave, since they caused the death of individuals who could have supported the paladin's country? What if these slaves can earn their freedom by performing a good deed, but until they do so they will remain slaves?
Oddly, in these situations, a paladin might be somewhat bound to actually oversee slaves. Granted, someone could make the distinction and say that these aren't slaves... they're prisoners... but then if we throw in some additional things to the above like, slaves can be bought and sold (the initial sale is from the government to the first owner... after that they can then pass between individuals). I'm not saying these paladins would be forced into this because the law is that way... I'm saying they may have a quandary because this is actually a means to punish the wicked and the other options are more harsh (death).
Just to throw in some other variables here... say the paladin's family owned slaves (who were these criminals/POW's turned slave). The paladin's family dies. The paladin now inherits the slaves. Does he free them? Does he "give" them to his church? Does he "give" them to some down on their luck family who needs help harvesting their fields because their father died? Does he keep them because "noone else will give them the good treatment that I will"? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 21:21:41
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Well, looking over my AD&D 2E PHB, pages 39-40, I see a number of problems:
His henchmen and hirelings must be LG (or appear to be so to the paladin). It seems logical to apply that to slaves, as well.
This cuts down on the pool of acceptable slaves.
A paladin ‘never retains wealth.’ He is allowed to own a limited number of magic items and keep enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his ‘henchmen, men at arms, and servitors’ , and construct a small stronghold. Everything else is supposed to go to a worthy cause or to his church.
If slaves count as ‘wealth’ and not a followers, then buying and keeping slaves is pretty much limits. That is, unless he’s ransoming captives or perhaps buying young slaves to train in some useful skills before setting them free. He’ll probably want to gift any freed slaves with some start up capital, because his moral obligation doesn’t end with signing manumission papers.
Summary view:
If slaves simply count as wealth, then he may not be able to own them at all.
If slaves count as hirelings/henchmen/servitors, then he may be able to hold slaves. In this case, they must at least appear to be LG. He is obligated to treat them with mercy and justice. That means no cruel discipline, no sexual exploitation of slave girls, no overworking the slaves, no denying basic access to religious services or instruction, etc. I think it might be reasonable to require the paladin to offer his slaves the choice between freedom and service. Perhaps conditions could be attached to offer of freedom, but as a DM I’d remind the player that the paladin shouldn’t be acting out of base motives like greed.
It’s easier for most paladins to simply avoid slave-holding.
The churches own the slaves in Mulhorand... which to a degree (it being a theocracy) means that the government owns all slaves in Mulhorand and not private individuals.
Oh, and just to leave Mulhorand for a minute and just go to paladins and slaves in general. What if in a culture, slaves are only those who have lost their freedom due to breaking the law? What if the children of slaves are freemen? What if the punishment for invading the paladin's homeland is becoming a slave, since they caused the death of individuals who could have supported the paladin's country? What if these slaves can earn their freedom by performing a good deed, but until they do so they will remain slaves?
Oddly, in these situations, a paladin might be somewhat bound to actually oversee slaves. Granted, someone could make the distinction and say that these aren't slaves... they're prisoners... but then if we throw in some additional things to the above like, slaves can be bought and sold (the initial sale is from the government to the first owner... after that they can then pass between individuals). I'm not saying these paladins would be forced into this because the law is that way... I'm saying they may have a quandary because this is actually a means to punish the wicked and the other options are more harsh (death). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 20:34:00
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Well, looking over my AD&D 2E PHB, pages 39-40, I see a number of problems:
His henchmen and hirelings must be LG (or appear to be so to the paladin). It seems logical to apply that to slaves, as well.
This cuts down on the pool of acceptable slaves.
A paladin ‘never retains wealth.’ He is allowed to own a limited number of magic items and keep enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his ‘henchmen, men at arms, and servitors’ , and construct a small stronghold. Everything else is supposed to go to a worthy cause or to his church.
If slaves count as ‘wealth’ and not a followers, then buying and keeping slaves is pretty much limits. That is, unless he’s ransoming captives or perhaps buying young slaves to train in some useful skills before setting them free. He’ll probably want to gift any freed slaves with some start up capital, because his moral obligation doesn’t end with signing manumission papers.
Summary view:
If slaves simply count as wealth, then he may not be able to own them at all.
If slaves count as hirelings/henchmen/servitors, then he may be able to hold slaves. In this case, they must at least appear to be LG. He is obligated to treat them with mercy and justice. That means no cruel discipline, no sexual exploitation of slave girls, no overworking the slaves, no denying basic access to religious services or instruction, etc. I think it might be reasonable to require the paladin to offer his slaves the choice between freedom and service. Perhaps conditions could be attached to offer of freedom, but as a DM I’d remind the player that the paladin shouldn’t be acting out of base motives like greed.
It’s easier for most paladins to simply avoid slave-holding.
The churches own the slaves in Mulhorand... which to a degree (it being a theocracy) means that the government owns all slaves in Mulhorand and not private individuals. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 16:37:32
Erik that would be interest tension. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 16:29:38
I think a cool story would be about a paladin in a land where slavery is a significant part of churchly life (like Mulhorand), where the paladin cannot shake the sense that slavery is wrong, but also it would be wrong to go against his or her church. That kind of conundrum makes for good narrative tension.
I have written exactly one paladin main character in my Realms work (Shadowbane) and he can't abide slavery. No doubt this comes in part from growing up in Luskan, where he became very familiar with poverty and oppression, and being trained in Westgate, where slavery is illegal but common.
Cheers |
| Gyor |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 12:54:44
Mulhorandi Paladin's don't own slaves, thier Church/Gods do. And Mulhorandi slaves would be better off then Cormyrian serfs, no starvation, allowed to have money and property, time off, free medical care, no abuse, a chance to buy thier freedom. You also don't have to worry about being sold to cruel masters, your own by the Gods of Mulhorand.
Mulhorand usually buys slaves from Thay and thier very selective in who they buy. If your a slave in Thay and Mulhorand wants to buy you, its the best day of your life as a slave, because now you have a chance at a better, less cruel life and Mulhorand won't make you an undead.
In Mulhorand being a slave is seen as your Matt and serving the Gods and Mulhorand is seen as the highest ideal. You serve well, your rewarded with Paradise, Hieropolis, were you never have to work again.
Free peasants in many lands suffer under grinding poverty and poverty is a form of slavery too. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 08:27:26
Well, looking over my AD&D 2E PHB, pages 39-40, I see a number of problems:
His henchmen and hirelings must be LG (or appear to be so to the paladin). It seems logical to apply that to slaves, as well.
This cuts down on the pool of acceptable slaves.
A paladin ‘never retains wealth.’ He is allowed to own a limited number of magic items and keep enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his ‘henchmen, men at arms, and servitors’ , and construct a small stronghold. Everything else is supposed to go to a worthy cause or to his church.
If slaves count as ‘wealth’ and not a followers, then buying and keeping slaves is pretty much limits. That is, unless he’s ransoming captives or perhaps buying young slaves to train in some useful skills before setting them free. He’ll probably want to gift any freed slaves with some start up capital, because his moral obligation doesn’t end with signing manumission papers.
Summary view:
If slaves simply count as wealth, then he may not be able to own them at all.
If slaves count as hirelings/henchmen/servitors, then he may be able to hold slaves. In this case, they must at least appear to be LG. He is obligated to treat them with mercy and justice. That means no cruel discipline, no sexual exploitation of slave girls, no overworking the slaves, no denying basic access to religious services or instruction, etc. I think it might be reasonable to require the paladin to offer his slaves the choice between freedom and service. Perhaps conditions could be attached to offer of freedom, but as a DM I’d remind the player that the paladin shouldn’t be acting out of base motives like greed.
It’s easier for most paladins to simply avoid slave-holding.
|
| ode904 |
Posted - 23 Jul 2005 : 21:30:35
Depends of worship. OK no slaves for good paladins, that's certain. They are paladins, holy warriors, defenders of everything good.
But a blackguard, fallen paladins and so on could take. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 23 Jul 2005 : 18:34:47
Well Mulhorand was pretty much exempted from the discussion as being a different family of deities that have different rules for Paladinsm apparently.
It is interesting concept though that the term slave might be closer to term serf or peasant.
"Who has on his asbestos suit"
Is it helping any? |
| prototype00 |
Posted - 23 Jul 2005 : 18:25:18
There seems to be among Mulhorand slaves an upward mobility that is not common to that class. In the FRCS, it is written that slaves can rise to the level of Bureaucrat which barring clergy (which seems to be dominated by the lineage of the incarnate gods of Mulhorand) and royalty (probably off limits to most people as well) is the highest social class in Mulhorand proper.
Strangely enough, below the "Middle Classes" of Mulhorand, there are the slaves, and well, the slaves. There is no mention of a peasant or serf class to work the obviously labour intensive agricultural infrastructure in Mulhorand, leading to my belief (quite possibly erroneous) that the term "slave" in Mulhorand merely refers to the absent peasant class.
In the vein of the Biblical account of Joseph which occured in Egypt, a region bearing certain similarities to Mulhorand, during the 7 years of famine, the people in order to gain succor from pharoh "sold" themselves into bondage for grain. Thus ancient Egypt ended up with a centrally controlled peasant class that was more easily directed for intensive agriculture. Slaves, if you will.
So, if the peasant class in Mulhorand are considered as "slaves" acting under the will of the clerical bureacracy, it is quite possible that the majority of Mulhorand civilians are in effect slaves. This station however does not seem to take from them social protection, medical and clerical welfare, constant meals or the opportunity for education and upward mobility.
So what doesn't fit here? Slaves and Mulhorand seem to go pretty well together. Traditional Paladins and Mulhorand, on the other hand seems to be an idea that is a tad skewed. Holy warriors, perhaps, but paladins as the romantic knight ideal are a convention better left for the Courts of Cormyr and the Dales. And could a Mulhorand paladin rent a slave to do some heavy lifting? Why certainly, they could in Mulhorand. Their god isn't going to smite them or take their powers away for obeying a social custom that actually is to the benefit of a large subset of the population.
Though for all that, on the point of ownership, the question is moot in Mulhorand, all slaves are temple property, and thus a paladin could not "own" one. So thus the point that paladins cannot own slaves, holds. Though in some cases, they might approve if it. As is the case in Mulhorand.
prototype00
Who has on his asbestos suit |
| Beowulf |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 16:35:48
quote:
Yes, but it seems prevalent only in places of rough repute --
You wouldn't see indentured servitude or serfdom operating in a place such as Waterdeep.
Aye. But you will probably find mass poverty and all sorts of exploitation taking place ... unless of course they give away free gems to keep everyone happy and out of poverty like in bright and shiney Cormyr. 
I see no good rationale to forbid paladins from keeping "slaves". And whether or not it is evil, is of course a matter of the particular situation.
For instance, amongst the preMigration Age Teutonic folk there was a war ethic that demanded that one not allow one self to be taken as war-booty, ie. as a slave, and a similar ethic that demanded that they take none of the defeated as slaves. For all of that the rank of thrall (roughly equivalent to slave) was an essential part of the wholeness of their society, as shown in the Eddaic Rigsthula and the opening stanza of the Voluspa where the god Heimdall mingles his blood with each of the ranks and calls them each his kinsmen.
According to Tacitus, nobles, churls and thralls were all raised together until their duties seperated them, and each thrall was allowed to own his own dwelling and a small part of his masters land, which he ruled as master and lord with no exceptions. Also, far from there being any dictate coming down from some far off centralized authority regarding the treatment of thralls, it was considered *socially unacceptable* by the *peer group* to beat a thrall. Furthermore, according to all of the early law codes it was entirely possible for a, ahem, "freeman", more-or-less a self-sufficient man/household, to fall into thralldom and entirely possibly for a thrall to earn his freedom.
And also, it kind of hard to equate a thrall to property, a cow for instance, when children enjoyed a similar stature under law. No noe has ever suggested that children were mere property based upon their legal stature.
Without the rank of thrall, many groundlevel jobs in early Teutonic society would have required the attention of luckier and/or more talented men to get done, which would have had a negative impact on the culture as a whole. Likewise, the thrall would have been left without fellowship or protection, and the rest of his/her presumably short life really would have been nasty, brutish and short.
Having cities to flee or drift to ... and indeed a thrall was always free to flee and strike out on his own ... would be no safe assurence of "freedom". Afterall, the mass suffering found on the streets of Rome's trade cities not only gave rise to Christianity and its offer of salvation, but gave us urban salvation cults period, which never would have come into existence were it not for the great degree of suffering and exploitation found in the urban West. Suffering and exploitation that continues to this day despite our presumed enlightenment and freedom/passive acceptance of evil(?).
So, I see no reason why a paladin wouldn't take a thrall ... perhaps as many as he/she could, as a matter of humanitarianism. Of course, looking to uplift men, the paladin would probably cast an eye to any possible talents a thrall might have and lift them to freedom/self-sufficiency, ie. not freedom to starve and be preyed upon, by virtue of that talent. And he/she would probably work on giving practical skills to those who had none.
However, I do believe that a paladin would see an international slave trade as being an inherently evil thing. Putting a very real price tag on the enslavement of self-sufficient human beings as it does, tearing them from their native cultures and selling them to some far off land where they don't know the language or the culture, and thus have a drastically reduced chance of ever displaying any of their native genius.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 20:55:16
quote:
Originally posted by Faramicos
Regarding the slaves being held for their own good and being cared for and looked after by a clergy. It isnt for their own good as long as they dont have the freedom to walk away when they want to. Slavery is an undefendable act...
The only posible exception (which can occur) is when they do not want to walk away or they want to be a slave because of cultural training.
There are examples of this kind of thing in todays society.
The abused spouse that continues the cycle of abuse instead of getting out. They (for the most part) know it is wrong in their minds, however emotionaly they cling to a relationship that can result in their death or the death of their children.
There are various religious sects of all major religions that teach female them to obey the male.
In the event that Clergy should run into such a person that believes they should be a slave (including a Paladin) there is justification for taking them into service. Though of course with the major goal to change the world view of the person to understand that not only they desrve to be free, but are entitled to be free. To teach them that their culture and/or religion either was evil or some twisted their treatment into an Evil practice.
Such situations should be rare in the RPing game, just sometimes it can occur that one needs to own a slave long enough to teach them how to be free should be justifiable.
No Paladin should walk past a batter wife knowing that when she goes home again she will be battered. The killing of the husband certainly would stop that husband and might work sometimes. However without support many battered wives even if they get enough personal courage to divoice a battering husband, often remarry a person that is a batterer or can be turned into one by the wives interaction expectations.
There are studies that prove this out and alas I know personally a few that second choice perhaps a little better then first, but was very bad for her or her children.
As a matter of normal Paladin activities their goal should be to end slavery whereever they find it. They certainly should not in the business of slave trading. To say that a Paladin only a special case slave is evil is all I have a problem with, because special cases do exist.
|
| Faramicos |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 20:02:20
Regarding the slaves being held for their own good and being cared for and looked after by a clergy. It isnt for their own good as long as they dont have the freedom to walk away when they want to. Slavery is an undefendable act... |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 13:45:17
Paladins are the embodyment of all that is good. Among these spheres of conduct are as mentioned the fact that one of the most basic pleasures and privileges for anybody of the good faiths and general believes are freedom from oppresion and the right to have a personal free will. Being able to make your own desitions. Paladins cant have slaves. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 13:37:46
I think that the specific case of slavery is a very ambiguous theme. Yes, generally speaking, slavery is a very evil act (ownership of another sentient being). Anyway, to kill is a very evil act, too. Kill to save yourself, to save another´s life, don´t matter the purpose: it is, basically, an evil act. But the paladins continue to killing, "for the greater good" - is the general saying. Using this way of thinking, specifically in the Mulhorand lands, slavery happen "for the greater good". The slaves are property of the temple. The priests, monks and paladins tend, care, heal and manage the slaves to have very happy, produtive and growing lifes. One Mulhorand paladin will stay shocked with the treatment given to the slaves for the ocidental nations/organizations. And one ocidental paladin, inside Mulhorand, will try to "stop that wrongdoers", and stay face to face with some very good religions that take care of the slaves (Horus-Re, Hathor, Isis, and others...) |
| Sariss Eldariss |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 21:19:24
Well met,
If reducing a living being to nothing more than a piece of property has ANYTHING to do with how a paladin conducts himself or is in ANYWAY a GOOD act we are in a lot of trouble. The freedom to choose ones own destiny is a desire shared by all, from simple peasants to mighty kings and queens, to infringe upon this basic right of sentient beings would by an evil act. I feel that as long as a paladin enslaves or keeps a slave the paladins diety is sure to remove any favour that was bestowed to the paladin.
Sweet water and light laughter until Next,
Sariss Eldariss
|
| Zimeros |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 19:35:59
I think in the realms, even with the culture influence, a paladin shouldn't have slaves, as I've said a long time ago in an ancient topic called "capoerist"(can someone remenber), when a paladin is against the will of a good and inoccent creature, he(or she) is being evil. But as all things, it depends of the DM point of view... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 06:48:24
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
What we should try and do is track down the 2ed Old empires author (I believe his name is Scott something)and get his thoughts on the matter Im not sure if he has ever visited candlekeep but I know hes posted a few times over on the WOTC forums
Scott Bennie. I don't believe he has an active email address any more, or at least he didn't the last time I tried to contact him. The WotC message boards are likely the more appropriate option given the fact that he occasional drops by to help out with questions.
|
| Dargoth |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 06:41:04
What we should try and do is track down the 2ed Old empires author (I believe his name is Scott something)and get his thoughts on the matter Im not sure if he has ever visited candlekeep but I know hes posted a few times over on the WOTC forums |
| DDH_101 |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 06:26:27
Hmm... I can't really see using the Mulhorandi paladins as an example for justifying slavery. After all, the Mulhorandi have a different view of slavery compared to the rest of Faerun. In Faerun, slavery is usually something like dragging some poor sod in chains and whip him whenever the master feels like it.
Even if Mulhorandi paladins do keep slaves, they probably do not view them like how the Zhentarim or Red Wizards would view their slaves.
It's kind of like how when Brunenor defeated Wulfgar and made the young barbarian his "slave". The dwarf king did even say that Wulfgar was his slave, but did he ever treated him like one? Bruenor gave Wulfgar freedom, allowing him to work in the forges and eventually even crafting him Aegis-Fang. Not bad for a slave... |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 04:29:21
quote:
I'm not saying that the Mulhorandi couldn't slip into thinking that their slaves are better off becuase they are taken care of, especially the more the Mulhorandi see of the slaves in Thay and other regions of Faerun, but rationalization doesn't mean that they are right. They can have the best of intentions, but that still doesn't change the idea that they own another sentient creature.
Now keep in mind, that is one aspect of their culture, and while I do think that the act of slavery is evil, a culture is made up of many parts. Depending on your background, you may think that capital punishment is evil, but even if you do, you are not likely to see Cormyr as an evil nation, becuase it is one part of the whole.
I would agree with you on a very personal level. Let us understand that, I view slavery as a strong evil.
*stepping away from FR for a short time*
Back in the early 1990's, their was a large degree of Columbus bashing going on for his part in the destruction of the Indian culture. The editor of Analog science fiction magazine, Dr. Schmidt, if I remember, wrote an editorial about this. He called it ex post facto morals, or something to that effect. You are applying the morals of today as opposed to what was current in previous times. What Columbus did with the Indian question, and it wasn't wholesale slaughter as some would believe, was by that day's morals very noble. He could have instituted death and slavery, but didn't. He didn't take as high a ground as we today would have liked, but he didn't know better. Today, we would still view his acts as evil, even though he would be considered good by his times standards. Consider now, what goes on in this current time. Two hundred or three hundred years from now, how will people view such hot topics that are in our news. The future moral standards may view us as evil for allowing some items as capital punishment, poverty, or abortion to happen, but I would doubt few people defending those actions today would view themselves as evil. On the flip side, the morals could swing the other way, and may wonder why we allowed so many criminals running free, or defending womens rights would be so fought against. We cannot know the future, we can only do as our moral code this day allows us to do.
*stepping back in to FR*
yep, playing a Tiefling can be tough with a different cultural background, but that is why I think a new sourcebook on the Old Empires is in order. I found this topic because I have tried to put the slavery question in context, but have problems with a good society allowing it. I had to take the position as Sir Luther put it quite well. I would like it if the Mulhorand pharoah Horustep III (a paladin of Horus-re, also) would outlaw slavery, but if he doesn't then I can only do what I can do.
Mkhai Wati |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 03:54:37
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
Wow! what a discussion and a chance for my first post!
Greetings to you Mkhai Wati and welcome to Candlekeep.
Please visit this section of Candlekeep for a more appropriate introduction.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 03:41:21
I guess the only thing that keeps nibbling at the back of my mind in this whole discussion is that the arguement here is that the Mulhorandi are different becuase they expect slaves to be treated well. I guess PART of what makes slavery evil is how a slave is treated, but you are telling a sentient creature that you OWN it, it has no life, no right of its own, even if you treat them very well.
I'm not saying that the Mulhorandi couldn't slip into thinking that their slaves are better off becuase they are taken care of, especially the more the Mulhorandi see of the slaves in Thay and other regions of Faerun, but rationalization doesn't mean that they are right. They can have the best of intentions, but that still doesn't change the idea that they own another sentient creature.
Now keep in mind, that is one aspect of their culture, and while I do think that the act of slavery is evil, a culture is made up of many parts. Depending on your background, you may think that capital punishment is evil, but even if you do, you are not likely to see Cormyr as an evil nation, becuase it is one part of the whole.
But slavery, in and of itself, divorced of a cultural explanation, is evil. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 03:35:06
Wow! what a discussion and a chance for my first post!
I actually have to agree with the Mulhorand slavery view. But a few technical points should be made:
1) Ed has said that Faerunian deities don't allow paladins to have slaves, but the Mulhorandi have their own pantheon.
2) Mulhorandi paladins wouldn't actually own the slaves anyway, since they are the property of the temples.
3) A new good Mulhorandi sourcebook might clear up some of this confusion by addressing the issues of good, evil, slaves, paladins, and the Mulhorandi culture. (always hopeful!)
I see no problem with the earlier post with the Mulhorandi view of slaves. That is how I play my Tiefling (non-paladin) who journeys in the Heartlands. Yes, serfs are free, but they are also free to starve. A proper master would take care of them so they could reach their full potential. Of course, this makes me have conflicts with the other party members, but it is part of my characters culture.
The Western Heartlands view of slavery as evil is very valid, as it is based on a more modern view of slavery as evil. It is the same tact taken by the Book of Exalted Deeds, which would apply in a perfect world. The Mulhorandi culture, however, does throw a wrench (more like a wrecking ball) into the perfect world.
Mkhai Wati |
| Melfius |
Posted - 18 Jul 2005 : 23:16:13
Be my guest! |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 18 Jul 2005 : 18:55:00
Melfius, THAT IS GOLDEN. I hope you don't mind if I carry it! |
| Melfius |
Posted - 18 Jul 2005 : 18:51:26
As I tell my players:
"Even if it is the local law, a Paladin cannot view babies as a good source of protein." |
|
|
