Quote from: jhkim;1146846To play devil's advocate here , if a person lives in a culture with human sacrifice to Lolth and has been taught all his life that it is normal, does that make him evil? To what degree is this blending into "orcs aren't really evil, just misunderstood"?

Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

Quote from: MishihariIf a person lives in a culture with slavery and has been taught all of his life that it is normal, does owning slaves make him evil? I'd say not. Ignorant by my standards, certainly, but not evil. What he does in that framework might make him evil, though. I certainly believe slavery is evil, but then I have been socialized in our current culture.

Quote from: jhkim;1146846To play devil's advocate here , if a person lives in a culture with human sacrifice to Lolth and has been taught all his life that it is normal, does that make him evil? To what degree is this blending into "orcs aren't really evil, just misunderstood"?

Quote from: Pat;1146865Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

Pat - in reality, I would agree. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate with Mishihari's claim that if a person's culture believes in slavery, then owning slaves isn't evil - which seems like a moral relativism argument. In game, I don't see a way to reflect these complexities of reality with the D&D alignment system.

Quote from: Pat;1146844My entire post was in reference to what you call edge cases, except they aren't edge case, they're the norm. The modern American view of slavery is chattel slavery with basically no rights and a clear racial basis. Except that's an extreme outlier, in historical terms. Slavery in history was most commonly the enslavement of prisoners, or slavery as a punishment for debt. Most slaves in history had substantial rights, including limitations on treatment, the right to earn wages, purchasing their own freedom or freedom after a set period of time, freedom for their children, citizenship, etc. It never had such a clear racial basis, in fact most slaves were the same race as their masters, and thus the whole racist mythology that developed in the South to rationalize and justify the institution of slavery is basically unique and never happened anywhere else.

That's what modern people miss about slavery. The modern Western conception of slavery, particularly in the US, is based on a historical aberration.

Agreed. There is a spectrum of treatment of slaves, but the U.S. chattel slavery was on the worst edge of that spectrum. That runs counter to defenses of the slave-owning Founding Fathers, though.

Quote from: Pat;1146865Evil does not require self-awareness. In fact, most evil is done with at least superficially positive intentions.

I disagree.  For a person to be evil he must understand right and wrong and choose to do what is wrong anyway.  I think most people will agree that killing a human being is an evil act outside of a narrow set of exceptions.  But is the bear that killed a camper in the news story this week evil?  Of course not.  How about COVID?  Or an earthquake?  No, because there is no moral choice for any of these events.  

That does not make killing a person right:  it's still bad action.  And this is not moral relativism:  moral relativism says that an action can be good or evil depending on the beliefs of the person doing it.  I say the action is evil regardless, but if it's done without understanding, the person doing it is not necessarily evil.

I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

The big caveat on this of course is that most people have a conscience, and if they're doing bad things they understand on some level that they are bad.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146914I disagree.  For a person to be evil he must understand right and wrong and choose to do what is wrong anyway.  I think most people will agree that killing a human being is an evil act outside of a narrow set of exceptions.  But is the bear that killed a camper in the news story this week evil?  Of course not.  How about COVID?  Or an earthquake?  No, because there is no moral choice for any of these events.  

That does not make killing a person right:  it's still bad action.  And this is not moral relativism:  moral relativism says that an action can be good or evil depending on the beliefs of the person doing it.  I say the action is evil regardless, but if it's done without understanding, the person doing it is not necessarily evil.

I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

The big caveat on this of course is that most people have a conscience, and if they're doing bad things they understand on some level that they are bad.

This is moral relativism.

You're mixing "bad"/"good" with assumptions about ones capacity to understand the difference. At this point you may as well ditch morality and ethics altogether and start talking about what does it mean to be "human" or "animal"?

Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Yet again why Alignment outside of axiomatic needs (like Divine casters/Gods etc) are stupid.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146914I think you're conflating the issues of whether an act is evil and whether a person is evil, which are actually two very different things.

No, I'm not. I never talked about people being evil. I specifically and only addressed actions ("evil is done").

I also reject the rest of your argument. Evil does not require a "gotcha!" moment. Evil is as evil does, whatever rationalizations the perpetrators try to wrap around them. That's why the whole right and wrong and deliberate choice thing fails completely, because it's not assessing the evil of an act. It's simply addressing self-awareness. That's just the first stage leading to guilt, and in a more complex way is related to things like temptation, and maybe forgiveness. It's not a definition of evil.

Quote from: Pat;1146926No, I'm not. I never talked about people being evil. I specifically and only addressed actions ("evil is done").

Perhaps not, but the premise of the thread is whether someone can be one thing and do another, so I think that's an understandable mistake.  Sorry in any case.

Quote from: Pat;1146926I also reject the rest of your argument. Evil does not require a "gotcha!" moment. Evil is as evil does, whatever rationalizations the perpetrators try to wrap around them. That's why the whole right and wrong and deliberate choice thing fails completely, because it's not assessing the evil of an act. It's simply addressing self-awareness. That's just the first stage leading to guilt, and in a more complex way is related to things like temptation, and maybe forgiveness. It's not a definition of evil.

And all you said there is "no I don't agree."  Do you have any reason why you think your definition of being an evil person is better than mine?

Quote from: tenbones;1146925This is moral relativism.

You're mixing "bad"/"good" with assumptions about ones capacity to understand the difference. At this point you may as well ditch morality and ethics altogether and start talking about what does it mean to be "human" or "animal"?

Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Yet again why Alignment outside of axiomatic needs (like Divine casters/Gods etc) are stupid.

This is not moral relativism and you are again missing the point.  I can't really think of a simpler way to explain it, though.  I will agree, however, that alignment is mostly stupid, especially when used to address real world issues.

Quote from: Mishihari;1146928And all you said there is "no I don't agree."  Do you have any reason why you think your definition of being an evil person is better than mine?

I don't think labeling people as evil is particularly useful, outside of a game. We each decide what actions we believe are evil, and apply those standards to others. If you want to set a threshold and say a certain number and degree of actions make someone evil, it's going to be pretty arbitrary.

The standards for what constitutes an evil act will vary from person to person, and over time, but don't mistake that for the type of moral relativism that claims all actions are equal. They're not, and the process by which we as individuals and societies refine our definitions of evil acts is important.

Quote from: tenbones;1146925Are animals that kill for pleasure - like dolphins evil?

Of course dolphins are evil, but for those that doubt, we should start a thread on Pundit's forum.

Quote from: Pat;1146844The modern American view of slavery is chattel slavery with basically no rights and a clear racial basis. Except that's an extreme outlier, in historical terms.

Some slaves in ancient in Greece and Rome had lives that weren't completely awful and some were certainly materially better off than the Urban Roman poor. But slaves who worked in the mines weren't any better off (and likely lived even shorter lives) than the vast majority of slaves anywhere and anywhen, including the U.S.

The above isn't intended as a refutation that there is some nuance to the matter of slavery.

Quote from: Pat;1146935I don't think labeling people as evil is particularly useful, outside of a game. We each decide what actions we believe are evil, and apply those standards to others. If you want to set a threshold and say a certain number and degree of actions make someone evil, it's going to be pretty arbitrary.

The standards for what constitutes an evil act will vary from person to person, and over time, but don't mistake that for the type of moral relativism that claims all actions are equal. They're not, and the process by which we as individuals and societies refine our definitions of evil acts is important.

Huh.  I'm actually in complete agreement with you here.

In order to answer the original question, you need to firmly establish how each alignment views slavery. In order to do that, you need to define slavery. Furthermore, where do serfdom, indentured servitude, wage slavery, etc fit in?

Any answer I give would be an approximation. For example:
Lawful Good characters only allow conditional slavery to reduce unemployment.
Lawful Neutral characters accept slavery within the boundaries of "slave welfare" to maximize work efficiency.
Lawful Evil characters will happily abuse their slaves, even if that is grossly inefficient.

Quote from: Bren;1147026Some slaves in ancient in Greece and Rome had lives that weren't completely awful and some were certainly materially better off than the Urban Roman poor. But slaves who worked in the mines weren't any better off (and likely lived even shorter lives) than the vast majority of slaves anywhere and anywhen, including the U.S.

Mines are an interesting example. Mining was vital to the growth of civilization, but pre-modern mines were insanely dangerous. It wasn't just the risk or collapse, all the toxins could kill people in a few years. Galley slaves are another example of slaves that were worked to death, sometimes.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 31, 2020, 02:16:46 PM
In order to answer the original question, you need to firmly establish how each alignment views slavery. In order to do that, you need to define slavery. Furthermore, where do serfdom, indentured servitude, wage slavery, etc fit in?...

Rather than reinventing the wheel, it is easier just to go with what has already been established: Western society since ancient times permitted involuntary servitude imposed on criminals or prisoners of war. This is in the American Constitution, which permits slavery and indentured servitude for the purposes of punishment.

The abolition of slavery in Imperial Rome was unthinkable and impractical. Despite this, the Church made no distinction between slaves and freedmen in its membership. The equality of believers in a class-stratified society was one of the attractions that the Church held for the people of Rome. After the Church was legalized, Church funds were used by Christians to redeem slaves, especially prisoners of war. As the Church increased in its power, slavery decreased until it was completely eradicated.

In other words, good ALWAYS treats all humans as human persons no matter what society says, and that is what distinguishes good from non-good.