First in trying to break down the ages, ie Pre-Cataclysm and Post Cataclysm.
Pre-Cataclysm
If we go by the books, we can confirm that there was slavery in Istar, Ergoth, pretty much many of the "uncivlized realms". With the notable exceptions of Solamnia and Qualinesti (and probably the dwarf nations, although they have Gully Dwarves...so do they count?), it seems that most of these nations have had them to a certain extent.
BUt is it a "Evil Instution"?
First off, we have to consider our own world's ramifications of Slavery, with all the sad consequences of it in our own world that have certain impacts in race relations to this very day. I think that as a result of our own real world view of Slavery, that it has affected our own "view" into the DragonLance world.
FOr example, the way slavery was practiced in Istar before the Cataclysm, where slaves had to be treated humanely and would gain their freedom eventually. The Silvanesti had a similar policy (as revealed in ELVEN NATIONS TRILOGY #2, the KinSlayer War), where Elves would be freed after a "short" sentence of 30 or 40 years (by elf standards) but maintained that Humans were enslaved for life.
Obviously, when one views how slavery is practiced by the forces of evil, then we come to the conclusion that Slavery is the evil practice that it is, but what about when instituted by the forces of good?
I would say that slavery- as North Americans understand it- is wrong, however, there are different types of slavery. For example- indentured servitiude, and penal slavery. In the first, the person sells him/herself into slavery for a certain pre-determined period of time, in exchange for money (paid before the actual slavery). This was usually done when a person had a large debt that could not be paid off any other way. The second is to enslave criminals for a period of time according to the severity of their actions. For many, this would be a powerful deterrent, and the slaves would be people that broke the law, which might make it acceptable, depending on the treatment of the slaves.
Life-long slavery based on race or caste, into which one was born and one's children would be born, is wrong, because it shackles the slaves into jobs and positions regardless of their natural abilities or talents.
As for laws requiring humane treatment of slaves, those are neutral, not good. A healthy slave is far more productive than a sick slave. A slave that is not cruelly abused is less likely to attempt escape- or worse, attempt to revolt.
In DL, I would think the true forces of good would be working to abolish slavery wherever and whenever possible. Those who practice slavery aren't necessarily evil, they could be neutral and just doing what is accepted at the time. It's only when slavery becomes widely recognized as evil and people continue to practice it knowingly that I would classify those people as "evil."
The idea that slavery is can be beneficial to the slaves is usually one that is put forward by those that own slaves to rationalize what is a essentially a selfish action. For example, in early America slave-owners commonly asserted that by forcibly baptizing slaves and bringing Christianity to them they were saving the slaves from eternal damnation, and thus the slave's servitude on Earth was a small price to pay for so great a "gift". Naturally, many Christians, along with the slaves themselves, considered that an absurd notion.
Likewise, many truly Good people didn't share the Istaran view towards the beneficial nature of slavery.
Slavery is, however, strongly practiced amongst areas and peoples with an Evil bent. Ogres and minotaurs practice slavery. Knights of Neraka also practice it.
Slavery as an institution is anti-thetical to true Good. Indeed, this is shown as part of the moral failings of the elves, who claim to be innately Good, but whose actions often prove their alignments to be other than what they claim. Indeed, their actions are often closer to Lawful Neutral than to any Good alignment.
As an aside Neutral alignments may condone "beneficial" slavery, the Evil of slavery itself balanced against a certain Good of taking care of the slaves. It's a difficult balancing act though, as mistreatment of the slaves can quickly push on over the edge into Evil.
Yes, in our world, Slavery always has been wrong. It was wrong when the USA allowed it. It was wrong when the British, Spanish and French used it. It was wrong when the Roman's used it. And it is wrong where it is still being practiced in our own world today (allegedly in Africa and in Pacific Island nations).
And thus the dilemna. Are we taking "our own worlds" view of slavery and then saying "Ok, as a result it is an ultimately evil institution in DragonLance"?
I then had to look at the cases where I knew slavery existed in DragonLance history. We know the KingPriest "legalized it". While I imagine it had already existed for a while in some parts of Krynn, it is also possible that before the "corruption of the KingPriests of Istar", that in the day's where the KingPriests were pure in their faith, that they may have declared war on Slavery.
Which brings me to a point here.
We all know that Hidukkel has a vested interest in Slavery. As the god of Commerce and Merchants, would Shinaire similarly be "in favor of it"? Providing that slavery was lucrative and commercable?
(And let's be clear, one of the reason's that Slavery lasted so long in our own world was that it was IMMENSELY profitable for Slavers and convenient and cost effective for Slave Owner.)
I got some more points to be made, but will let these digest for now.
Solamnia- A Free realm, gaurantee's freedom to any slave whom makes it there or whom is liberated by the Knights.
Ergoth- Unconditional slavery ala- Roman Era. Bill of sales and such, huge commerece, etc.
Silvanesti- Has "limited" short term (by elven standards) for criminal or indebtedness Elves, like an indentured servitude. Based on how it was presented in KINSLAYER WAR, there is permanent slavery for any non-elf (including half elves) in their realm taken in war or via commerce.
Qualinesti- A free realm, although it was just founded in my campaign. No Slavery, same stipulation as the Solamnics.
Thorbardin and other dwarf realms- No slavery really exists, as Dwarves are nto the type that want others doing their work for them, and have Gully Dwarves to do that level in their society.
Istar- In my campaign, slavery does exist. It is relatively short term, more like indentured servitude.
Tarsis- Pretty much the same way.
obviously, evil realms or less "civilized" realms it is even more common and such.
Hiddukel will unquestionably support slavery. Shinare will only support "benign" slavery. Even then, she may not support lifetime slavery or slavery based on race or social caste. She may only support debt slavery or the enslavement of criminals and insist that slaves eventually earn their freedom through their labors. The slavery issue may be one that Hiddukel uses to corrupt Shinare's worshippers, offering great profit in return for immoral behavior.
Truth be told, I know very little about Shinare. Just what is in the DragonLance Setting and in book 3 of the KINGPRIEST TRILOGY, when Paladine (in human form) is leading Cathan to a secret meeting in an abandoned temple of Shinaire. Cathan is apprehensious, thinking it will be sacrilege for he and Paladine to enter such a temple, but Paladine reassures him that it will be ok, talking about his good relationship with Shinaire, aside from the fact he thinks Shinaire cheats at dice.
It would seem to me, that if Slavery is allowed in a realm, that Shinnaire woudl probably be OK with it. I don't think he would push for it in the first place (Hiddukel would) but once established, would probably have no problem with it. Assuming there is not inherent cruelty or evil done to slaves or such.
But even if Slavery were being done under "less then humane" circumstances, would it be Shinaires problem? Once a slaver deals his slave to the slave owner, that is pretty much the end of Shinare's dealings to that end.
Remember too that ignorance opens the door for evil.
Really, I think this is an issue to be answered by each individual DM. I know I have slavery IMC; it's how the current group of players met (they being the slaves). The only people who practice slavery are evil (mostly the ogre nations and the Dragonarmies). There might be some neutrals engaged in slavery, but they're few and far between and are usually walking the fine line of neutrality and evil. As for the gods, all the good and neutral ones pretty much oppose it. One of the key themes of DL is that the gods allow mortals to have individual choice. IMO, that theme is inherently at odds with slavery.
Human trafficking is, by it's very nature, an unethical sort of commerce. The acquisition of slaves generally involves depriving someone of their liberty, imprisoning them, abusing them and otherwise engaging in actions that Evil. That narrows the acceptable range of behavior here substantially. Simply saying that society declares something to be Lawful doesn't also neutralize the Evil component of a behavior.
This is why Krynn has two gods of wealth, not one. Shinare and Hiddukel embody the two sides of materialism. Shinare endorses legitimate enterprise while Hiddukel encourages the pursuit of wealth through any means. As I said, she may allow debt slavery or use of criminals as slaves, but would probably not support the actual maintenence of a slave class in society or the taking of prisoners to serve as slaves.
Now, Shinare's church may definitely oppose any business practice, such as slave trading, that they feel falls under Hiddukel's purview. After all, if the god of corrupt wealth benefits from something then it almost by definition is detrimental to Shinare. A society that allows things like a slave trade is skirting perilously close to the ideals of the Gods of Evil, particularly Hiddukel. That's a direct threat to Shinare.
Oh boy- we have just stepped into the moral minefield here, we have...
I would say that slavery- as North Americans understand it- is wrong, however, there are different types of slavery. For example- indentured servitiude, and penal slavery. In the first, the person sells him/herself into slavery for a certain pre-determined period of time, in exchange for money (paid before the actual slavery). This was usually done when a person had a large debt that could not be paid off any other way. The second is to enslave criminals for a period of time according to the severity of their actions. For many, this would be a powerful deterrent, and the slaves would be people that broke the law, which might make it acceptable, depending on the treatment of the slaves.
Life-long slavery based on race or caste, into which one was born and one's children would be born, is wrong, because it shackles the slaves into jobs and positions regardless of their natural abilities or talents.
As for laws requiring humane treatment of slaves, those are neutral, not good. A healthy slave is far more productive than a sick slave. A slave that is not cruelly abused is less likely to attempt escape- or worse, attempt to revolt.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head, but you are missing one very important type of slavery. War slaves. War slaves were taken by the victor after the enemy was defeated. Generally healthy males and females. These slaves were, in general, well treated and educated. The reason for taking war salves were, to show how much better the conqurers civilization is vs. the conquered and to reduce the potential of uprisings by holding the conquered children.
We must remember that the treatment of slaves as we know it, was not the norm is ancient civilizations. Slaves were kept healthy, fed decently, clothed, and otherwise provided for. An beaten and unhealthy slave, while submissive, is not a productive slave.
So while the idea of slavery is horrible in our own modern thinking, it was quite acceptible, not to mention quite legal, in days gone by.
There are other examples of slavery that is fair treatment. People who dine at a restaurant and could not pay the bill would be "forced" to work it off by washing dishes, bussing tables, etc...
As far as for war slaves thei could be the choice between being POWs, or helping the conquering army.
In short, it is my opinion that as long as slavery is the choice of the slave then it is not evil.
two of my favorite not-so-bad slavery examples are the Malmuks and Janissaries (sp) ...
Actually I did mention it in my first post on this thread. The enslavement of the Kagonesti by the Silvanesti and Qualinesti was meant to illustrate how they, a people who claim to be innately Good, can in fact behave in an Evil fashion when it suits them.
Errr....
My B. Thats what I get for skimming posts.Edit: Actually, no where in yours post(s) did you metion the elves unless I'm blind.
Edit:Edit: It is mentioned in the very first post that started this thread though. Again, My Bad.
Lemme stop right there. Chattel slavery is bad because we have preconceptions of right and wrong as a society. That second type of slavery, what's so wrong with it? It's pretty much indentured servitude. Is it evil? Not so much. The slave has rights, the master will care for the slave. It is really NO different from modern situations between employees of large businesses. The slave toils for the master, and the master provides for the slave. Both are obligated to one-another.
Third type of slavery, war slavery . . . the conquereds' lives are forfeit (again with locke), so any form of slavery would likely be a middle-ground between chattel and contract slavery. In that there is no real safeguard of rights for the conquered, but the situatin of the slave does not automatically extend to the conquered's descendents. And the purpose of this slavery is reparation, so strictly speaking it could be contract slavery until it has been determined that reparations have been made, and freedom is granted.
Bottom line, I'd say chattel slavery is most likely evil. War slavery is debatable, it really depends on the manner in which it is executed. Contract slavery is not evil any more than current economic practice is evil (an entirely different debate). It's really just an act. The manner in which it is conducted determines its good or evil.
Thing is, in our (americans) society, slavery is taboo because of the civil war and the whole white man's burden fallout. The civil rights movement has made it politically incorrect to split hairs regarding the finer points of slavery, and nbody wants to be seen as the evil old whitey mc-slaver, so the issue is considered black and white for all intents and purposes
(pun definitely NOT intended). Also note that I am not in any way belittling the civil rights movement or the suffering of slavery, I'm just trying to distinguish between different types of slavery.
nic
Silvanesti- Has "limited" short term (by elven standards) for criminal or indebtedness Elves, like an indentured servitude. Based on how it was presented in KINSLAYER WAR, there is permanent slavery for any non-elf (including half elves) in their realm taken in war or via commerce.
Don't forget that the Silvanesti (and Qualinesti) both use Kagonesti elves...essentially as slaves. Indentured servants, more like. Either way...those "slaves" are for life. The Silvanesti also have House Servitor, so there's no need for rampant slavery...when they enslave their own people due to their caste.
Don't forget that the Silvanesti (and Qualinesti) both use Kagonesti elves...essentially as slaves. Indentured servants, more like. Either way...those "slaves" are for life. The Silvanesti also have House Servitor, so there's no need for rampant slavery...when they enslave their own people due to their caste.
In my campaign, set just after the KinSlayer war, the Silvanesti do maintain slavery, including the process of "purchasing them" from Istar, Tarsis as well as their own slavers. While yes, House Servitor would handle the duties needed in Silvanost itself, there is also the fact that there were mines north of Silvanost, where human and penal elf's did the work. In those areas, probably in area's that were "Out of sight/Out of mind" in the eyes of the Silvanesti, the Silvanesti would probably use slaves for those area's. These ranks would have been swelled by Kith Kanan's victory over the grand army of Ergoth, where anywhere upward of 100,000+ human's were captured and sent to the east, and I believe the books exact quote was "To spend their rest of their lives in slavery to the Silvanesti"
In those areas, probably in area's that were "Out of sight/Out of mind" in the eyes of the Silvanesti, the Silvanesti would probably use slaves for those area's.
Ah yeah, right. I remember that now...Kith Kanan (or maybe the authors) even make such reference as "out of sight/Out of mind," too, don't they? I had forgotten about that.
Ah yeah, right. I remember that now...Kith Kanan (or maybe the authors) even make such reference as "out of sight/Out of mind," too, don't they? I had forgotten about that.
As I recall, Sithas visit's the CLan Oakberry's mines, located to the north. THe mines are essential to upkeep the war output of weapons and armor. At the mines are slaves, both human and elf. Sithas initially is shocked that there are elf slaves there, working side by side with the human ones. His Wife's brother (his in-law, but cannot remember his name) is giving him the tour. Sithas specifically thinks that he has absolutely no problem with human slaves there, and actually find's it redeeming. While he wanted all humans out of Silvanesti, that was the exception to it, where humans were kept well away from the major populations of the Silvanesti.
And then, later, while pondering it, he comes up with the idea of freeing thousands of elf slaves that are there (mostly for criminal/legal/indebtedness reasons) to form a penal-regiment to help relieve the seige of Sithelbec. And comes up with the idea of imprisoning the captives that Kith and the new alliance almost certainly would take. As there were upward of 500,000+ Ergothian's present, and were defeated by a combination of Elves and Dwarf Army, as well as the newly formed WindRider's. It mentions at some point that huge columns were formed, where countless humans would be marched back to Silvanesti, to spend the rest of their lives in bondage to the Silvanesti.
I have noticed that a lot of the RPG supplements go out of their way to "cover up" for the Elves attitudes, and at times go out of their way to cover up or ignore the shortcomings of the elves.
For Elves.
I'd see this form of slavery as the only solution seen by the Elves. Humans were seen as a threat - because they were encroaching the vast elven lands. Even if this sounds a bit at odds with the elven trilogy, Elves do not take lives lightly. Humans caught in elven territory had to be punished. While exiling them is a good thing if caught near the frontier, the deeper within the territory one's caught, the more harsh a punishement must be. Serving in the mines and doing other strenous tasks is a way of "penitent/criminal slavery". If humans wage war against the elves, this is the only way, one may ensure that those humans captured won't return with weapons and more of their kind.
I do think that House Servitor is viewed more than a servant's caste than a slave caste. They are for menial tasks but to be paid for it as workers from other Houses. This may have degenerated, but the mindset of elves is - IMO - not envisioning this as slavery but service/servitude.
Pretty the same goes for the kagonesti. They were in fact enslaved, but the elves surely viewed this as method to educate, civilize and make them benefit the glory of the two elven kingdoms. Sure, the Kagonestis had a totally different opinion about it.
In the end, the practice have to be deemed more than questionable, but without the intention of enslavement.
Well, my thoughts about it
Regards
M's Claw
I don't think Shinare would tolerate or even support the slightest form of slavery. Not because of mercantile ethics or efficiency - those may further back up her disgust - but because of her being the goddess of freedom and self-determination. That's why I can't see her acknowledge any kind of slavery. It's an anathema for her, strictly alleged with Hiddukel.
Actually, she's not a goddess of freedom - she's lawful neutral. All that matters to her is a fair contract that is upheld and adhered to. Being enslaved isn't an example of a fair contract, though, unless it's willing (such as is the case when somebody voluntarily enters into slavery in order to grant a benefit to their children or family). If the slave is considered chattel, and is not intelligent, then they're not actually part of the contract and it doesn't matter (such as is the case with the sale and transfer of animals).
Cheers,
Cam
Actually, she's not a goddess of freedom - she's lawful neutral. [...]
Oh. After checking the DLCs, yes I have to admit, that this aspect doesn't stick to her any longer...
In TotL freedom was still an area of control of Shinare....well that was further emphasized in Dragon Annual 4.
I thought it to be adequate because it's the individual's own doing and it's himself holding his happiness in his hands... I thought her to be very "smithian". She couldn't care for those "losing" because of their lack of determination and their lack of work. Only if cheated, tricked or enslaved someone can't help to his situation cause it's not fair competition but domination by another (which was the driving intention of the evil gods in DLA anyway...)
I think the principle of free will introduced by the gods of neutrality is something that can't be discarded by adherence to laws, especially if someone like Shinare just loves the self-determining, industrious individual more than the whole bunch...
But in the end, we agree upon her NOT supporting slavery, which was what I wanted to say in the first place. So...Cam is with me!
Regards,
M's Claw
I think the principle of free will introduced by the gods of neutrality is something that can't be discarded by adherence to laws, especially if someone like Shinare just loves the self-determining, industrious individual more than the whole bunch...
It would be a mistake to equate free will with chaotic alignment, yeah. One can be lawful and believe in free will, especially as a measure of culpability in terms of punishment for breaking laws.
Free will is one of the three things that differentiates the mortal races from the gods, the other two being a living body and the threat of death. These are the gifts of the gods to the souls of Krynn, and figure prominently in the way the gods relate to and depend upon mortals to do their works and achieve their goals. Of course, free will doesn't rule out slavery, but it does make slavery something of an anaethema to mortal existence.
Cheers,
Cam