Today I learned a Chaotic Evi character can work with the party.

[MadBear]

I find it funny that the word slavery leads you to instantly believe it to be evil, no matter the form. Roman slavery had many restrictions that, in my mind, make it no longer evil. Among those are:
Forced time limits on the slavery. In the contract, an end date has to be specified. The duration of the slavery cannot legally exceed this.
Slaves had to have a decent quality of life while they were slaves. The owner had to provide decent living quarters and food, and in some cases also had to provide the above for any family of the slave.
Cruelty of any kind was strictly forbidden, and would lead to immediate cancellation of the contract, and the slave could sue his former owner for damages.
When the contract was signed, the nature of the work the slave was expected to do was spelled out. Anything not on that list, the slave could legally say no to.

In addition to those, slaves were not considered second-rate citizens by any governing body. The Roman slavery contracts were essentially work contracts where the slave was paid up front for their work, and the owner had to provide for them. It was generally used as a way for poor people to pay off debts that they couldn't otherwise pay. They got to work off their debt without having to worry about earning enough money to pay the loan and also provide for their family.

Now, they most likely did also have an evil kind of slavery, where non-citizens were enslaved with basically no rights. But that's not the kind I'm talking about.
I don't see how the Roman slavery I'm talking about can be considered evil, unless you take issue with the word "owner".

A couple of major issues.

1. Slaves in Rome were not necessarily treated as well as you state. What you're describing is debt slavery. Other worse versions were absolutely a part of Rome, where you were a slave for life, you could be beaten and harmed, you weren't given any legal rights, and you absolutely were a second class citizen. You had women forced into prostitution, men sent to mines to live out short horrible lives. So you really need to classify that you're talking about debt bondage slavery and not just Roman slavery because they are not at all the same.

2. Even debt slavery included selling your child into slavery to help pay off debt, and many atrocities were still committed even under this form. There's a reason that even this practice was eventually abolished. If the people who lived through it found it so bad that it needed abolishing then I'd say that's a good indicator that it probably would fall under "evil". I'm a little shocked that you are here defending the owning of another person as property as not being evil.

3. Out of sheer curiosity, we you be in favor of the US instituting Roman debt slavery, since you don't see it as evil?

[Dr.Samurai]

I feel like he was pretty clear he was talking about a specific type of Roman slavery, even if he didn't call it "debt slavery".

And people are defending killing *twenty* innocent people in cold blood as not necessarily evil. So I'm not sure why you're surprised that someone is saying "some forms of slavery weren't the evil brutal types of slavery that everyone thinks of".

[Bohandas]

I don't think the item triggered on its own. The barbarian chose to use it. It doesn't sound like the barbarian was surprised that it killed all the people it did, or that he much cared.

The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even thouh metagame knowledge tells us he was

[hamishspence]

It's reasonable to conclude IMO though, that he knew that the spell would hit civilians along with cultists and didn't care - writing them off as "acceptable collateral damage".

[xanderh]

A couple of major issues.

1. Slaves in Rome were not necessarily treated as well as you state. What you're describing is debt slavery. Other worse versions were absolutely a part of Rome, where you were a slave for life, you could be beaten and harmed, you weren't given any legal rights, and you absolutely were a second class citizen. You had women forced into prostitution, men sent to mines to live out short horrible lives. So you really need to classify that you're talking about debt bondage slavery and not just Roman slavery because they are not at all the same.

2. Even debt slavery included selling your child into slavery to help pay off debt, and many atrocities were still committed even under this form. There's a reason that even this practice was eventually abolished. If the people who lived through it found it so bad that it needed abolishing then I'd say that's a good indicator that it probably would fall under "evil". I'm a little shocked that you are here defending the owning of another person as property as not being evil.

3. Out of sheer curiosity, we you be in favor of the US instituting Roman debt slavery, since you don't see it as evil?

I feel like I was pretty clear about what kind of slavery I was talking about. I didn't specifically call it debt slavery, but I did say that it was done to pay off debts. I even acknowledged that not all slavery in Rome was like this. So when you say that I "really need to classify" what I'm talking about, my response can only be "you really need to read what I wrote a little closer".

As for selling a child into slavery, I'd say that's more evil on the part of the person selling the child than the one buying, unless the buyer is suggesting it. And any atrocities committed under this form of slavery was illegal. It still happened, but that doesn't make the practise itself evil, just like murder doesn't make guns or kitchen knifes evil. By the way, I don't consider the owning of another person inherently more evil than the owning of pets. As long as it's a mutually beneficial relationship (and it has to be truly mutually beneficial), I don't see how it's evil.

I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

[Dr.Samurai]

The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even thouh metagame knowledge tells us he was

He is completely remorseless. It doesn't matter that it was aimed at the cultists because it was also aimed at the townsfolk. There are types of people that would have decided not to trigger the magic item for *that very reason*. He didn't, and he also didn't care afterwards.

The entire OP is set up to explain to us that the barbarian did something evil and the party is sticking with him because he has been kind and loyal to the party members.

The evil thing he did is... kill those twenty people as collateral damage, with intent and without remorse.

[Malifice]

I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?

[AMFV]

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?

I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

[Malifice]

I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

You and Marx both!

[xanderh]

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?

I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

Firstly, there's that.
But secondly, that's the reason why I said that I would be okay with a properly implemented and well regulated system that legally inherently favours the weaker party, which in this case is the slave.
Please don't misrepresent my stance when I put it in plain text.

And in the hypothetical system of slavery that I would be okay with, slavery would be a temporary solution for the homeless to improve their quality of life and stop being homeless. They become slaves during a temporary period in which their living accommodations are paid for by the individual or organisation owning them, and once the period is over, they have money to spend (unless they already spent it), new skills that will help them get a job, and potentially employment at their former owner since no smart business would let a skilled worker who already knows how to operate as an employee go away without at least a job offer (unless the worker is so bad they don't want them, of course).

[Malifice]

But secondly, that's the reason why I said that I would be okay with a properly implemented and well regulated system that legally inherently favours the weaker party, which in this case is the slave.

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.

If you want laws that inherently favor the poor and the homeless there are better ways that do it than forcing them into slavery!

Before trade unions (and after the abolishment of serfdom) the wealthy used to have children working seven day weeks for 16 hours a day. Occupational Health & Safety didn't exist and people would be dangling over molten lead via ropes. It was Dickensian.

There can be no system of voluntary slavery where one can assume an even close to even balance in bargaining power between the potential slave and potential master.

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished.

I'd regret to report to you that it is alive and well, albeit mostly underground, in a great deal of the real world. It's an ongoing struggle. (Suggest you read a recent article in The Atlantic on a lady form the Philippines who was a domestic servant, and in truth you can only assess her condition as slave. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/524490/
The sex slavery rings are all over the world in various places.

As to trade unions, yeah. They arose for a compelling reason. My dad was a card carrying union member back in the 1940's, working in a steel mill, before he went to college on the GI bill.
OK, backing off from RL stuff and heading to the topic of this thread.

I don't think the item triggered on its own. The barbarian chose to use it. It doesn't sound like the barbarian was surprised that it killed all the people it did, or that he much cared.

The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even though metagame knowledge tells us he was

There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter. I'll leave intent to the player and the character, but the DM needs to make an assessment on how that reflects on character alignment as shown by behavior, changes in behavior, or lack of change in behavior.

[Malifice]

I'd regret to report to you that it is alive and well, albeit mostly underground, in a great deal of the real world.

For sure - I was mainly talking the developed world.

There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter.

There is also a difference between being negligent and being recklessly negligent, or recklessly indifferent to potential suffering.

Intentionally killing a bunch of orphans just to get to the guy that is trying to get you is evil.

Burning an orphanage to the ground because the guy that is trying to get you is in there, without checking to see who else is in there, and killing a bunch of orphans with your recklessness, is also evil.

Heck a good person probably wouldn't burn down the orphanage even if it was otherwise abandoned aside from a single bad guy. Where on earth are the orphans going to go afterwards? He wouldn't want to cause that kind of suffering.

A person that goes about recklessly harming others, is demonstrating that they are at a bare minimum indifferent to the potential suffering. I would have little problem labelling that person as evil if it persisted long enough or was a frequent occurrence.

[Dr.Samurai]

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.

I get the point you're making here but... unions are on the decline. That option is just not realistically open for people to take over worse positions. I say that as a former union member currently working on a non-union construction site smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan.

[KorvinStarmast]

A person that goes about recklessly harming others, is demonstrating that they are at a bare minimum indifferent to the potential suffering. I would have little problem labelling that person as evil if it persisted long enough or was a frequent occurrence.

Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).

That existential tension is what this game was built on. As the editions have come and gone, some seriously cartoonish depictions of how RL maps to fantasy worlds have grown. (That goes beyond my usual complaint that the dual axis alignment system having all kinds of holes in it. L/N/C was fine as is. Alignment is to my view a tool for the DM (mostly) and the player (lesser extent) to inform rather than dictate the basis for some in game decisions and their outcomes. That Gygax went a bit over the top on "no free lunch" with the LG paladin in 1e strikes as the core problem ever since then ... I don't think the game has ever recovered from that decision although 5e is a step in the right direction.

(Heh, do you remember alignment languages? )

[Dr.Samurai]

Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).

Almost all quest givers in the game ever: "Please help us. You look like a strong lot. There are these people that are recklessly harming us and our loved ones. We are suffering. Please help!"
Adventurers: *shrugs* "What's wrong with recklessly harming other people? Life is cheap. Lethal conflict is a core premise of the world. IN helping you, our barbarian might actually kill two dozen of you. And we'd be okay with that."

[Malifice]

I get the point you're making here but... unions are on the decline. That option is just not realistically open for people to take over worse positions. I say that as a former union member currently working on a non-union construction site smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan.

I agree to an extent but context is important. In the United Kingdom and in Australia the trade union movements are much stronger. One of the major political parties in each country is the Labour party which is founded and based pretty much off the back of the trade union movement.

The bosses vote for the conservative party on the other side. They have the money but we have the power of the people (more votes).

It's why in Australia we have a minimum wage of around $20 per hour, a bare minimum of four weeks annual leave (and as much as six for even eight weeks per year), plus generous long service leave, maternity leave and sick leave entitlements and laws against no grounds dismissal etc. Underlying all that we have a welfare system where you get $300 per week unemployment benefits if you're unemployed (plus extra to pay your rent), and free universities (to up skill, and not lock you into crippling debt for your entire life) and free healthcare and mandatory superannuation (so you are not reliant upon your employer to provide it) etc

Unfortunately in the USA the wealthy were able to hoodwink much of the population into believing things like welfare, free healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a decent minimum wage were 'evil evil Communism'.

That said, things are cheaper over there in the US. And your taxes are lower.

Anyways back to the topic.

[Squiddish]

Okay, to reiterate, the party as a whole is not okay with this, Necrodancer does not speak for the whole group, et cetera et cetera.

Onto another clarification, party members turning evil isn't something the DM foists upon them, nor in any way arbitrary. In all cases it has been the result of a cursed magic item or a dark deal that they used/made willingly in hope of personal gain.

[Malifice]

Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).

Oh I agree that combat and violence is at the core of DnDs conflict resolution.

In my games there are monsters that are actively trying to kill and enslave things (at a bare minimum the player characters). But notwithstanding this this doesn't justify or permit the player characters to become monsters themselves.

Or to be more correct they can. I have no problem with a player character using violence and excessive force to deal with the threat of monsters. He might genuinely believe he is in the right when he engages in genocide on the nearby Orc Village. He might genuinely believe he is doing the right thing when he slaughters orc children (in order to protect the town from future problems with the orcs). He might genuinely believe that torture is inappropriate means of defeating a greater evil. Real life is littered with just such examples of people doing absolutely abhorrent things for the 'greater good'.

In my games he is not objectively speaking, good. Unless he worships an appropriate lawful evil deity he will be walled into the wall of the faithless by Kelemvor upon his death.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree to an extent but context is important. In the United Kingdom and in Australia the trade union movements are much stronger. One of the major political parties in each country is the Labour party which is founded and based pretty much off the back of the trade union movement.

Gah! Sorry, I'm American. So naturally I think everyone else is as well. *offends all other Americans in this thread*

Okay, to reiterate, the party as a whole is not okay with this, Necrodancer does not speak for the whole group, et cetera et cetera.

That's okay Squiddish. I'm just arguing against the idea that because violence is assumed in the game, killing twenty people for no other reason than they were in proximity to your targets isn't actually evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

Almost all quest givers in the game ever: "Please help us. You look like a strong lot. There are these people that are recklessly harming us and our loved ones. We are suffering. Please help!"
Adventurers: *shrugs* "What's wrong with recklessly harming other people? Life is cheap. Lethal conflict is a core premise of the world. IN helping you, our barbarian might actually kill two dozen of you. And we'd be okay with that."

If that's the kind of adventurer that you play, then I am pretty sure your table is little to no fun. I advise you to revisit what a trope is, and why adventurers are out adventuring in the first place. (No point in an adventure based game if the players don't want to go on an adventure).

I'm just arguing against the idea that because violence is assumed in the game, killing twenty people for no other reason than they were in proximity to your targets isn't actually evil.

Who made that argument? You just did, I noticed, but who else did?

I offer you yet another point: accidentally killing someone with your car (since you didn't see them and they were wearing black clothes at night) isn't evil even though the person is dead. It is certainly a tragic and lethal mistake. You seem to be ignoring intent as a factor in alignment, and trend. When it gets to combat, and the problem of non combatants being mixed up with combatants, the simplistic garbage I see spewed out on these forums (and in general) is just that.
Since I have some no kidding RL experience with that, I am (1) not going to derail this game thread with digression there and (2) will not respond to the typical ill informed noise on that topic. But I did make that point early in the discussion, so I'll not call it "collateral damage" but rather in game "the consequence of being a non combatant during the middle of combat." As millions of dead over the millennia discovered, being unable to flee a war or battlefield can be lethal. That's got little to do with alignment. It has a lot to do with how migrations happen, and how refugees come about.

Back to an in-game alignment point about the character in the OP:
What is this character's habit?
What remorse, if any, is shown?
In the medieval context, what wereguild is or was offered?
What restitution is offered?

All of that can be role played, and can make for some rich RP experiences in capable hands.

Digress to GiTP and OoTS for a minute:
Vaarsuvius at one point asks how to go about making restitution for the horrific ripple effect of the spell cast on the black dragon and family). Likewise in the Heavens story line the deva interrogating Roy makes a solid point about trends, efforts to get right when one has done wrong, and intentions.

If this character habitually slaughters any and all targets without any consideration, nor any attempt at the follow up per the above questions, that trend is chaotic to the core as reflected in both alignment (actual versus professed) and if the DM has a sack, consequences.

How fellow players react can become a real challenge depending upon how much immersion that table likes and how important alignment is at that table. The question is: are the fellow players in the group role playing this or not? Is the DM folding this in, or is this a less immersive table where going from one fight to the next in search of XP is the norm?

[xanderh]

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.

If you want laws that inherently favor the poor and the homeless there are better ways that do it than forcing them into slavery!

Before trade unions (and after the abolishment of serfdom) the wealthy used to have children working seven day weeks for 16 hours a day. Occupational Health & Safety didn't exist and people would be dangling over molten lead via ropes. It was Dickensian.

There can be no system of voluntary slavery where one can assume an even close to even balance in bargaining power between the potential slave and potential master.

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished.

I'm out. You're continually strawmanning my arguments rather than engaging what I'm actually saying, and from what I've seen, that seems to be a pattern for you in alignment threads.

[smcmike]

I'm out. You're continually strawmanning my arguments rather than engaging what I'm actually saying, and from what I've seen, that seems to be a pattern for you in alignment threads.

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

[xanderh]

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

I wasn't expecting a positive response, but I did expect responses to at least engage with what I was actually saying. Some people did, which was nice, but I guess it's pointless to discuss controversial topics over the internet...

[AMFV]

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

Well I think "Maybe slavery is not always objectively Evil in terms of D&D" is probably a defensible thesis at least in certain cases. A person for example who is a slaveowner in a culture where he does not know any better and cannot really free his slaves without causing scandal or uproar or thrusting them into poverty who endeavors to treat them with compassion may not be Evil. But real world stuff tends to have that complexity. I would say that slavery as an institution is Evil, but not all forms of participation in it would constitute objective Evil in D&D terms.

[MadBear]

I feel like I was pretty clear about what kind of slavery I was talking about. I didn't specifically call it debt slavery, but I did say that it was done to pay off debts. I even acknowledged that not all slavery in Rome was like this. So when you say that I "really need to classify" what I'm talking about, my response can only be "you really need to read what I wrote a little closer".

I'll for sure agree, that I could read a little closer. I'd also point out putting the context at the very end, after spending multiple paragraphs talking about Roman Slavery as if that was synonymous with debt slavery, only to clarify at the last post isn't as clear as it could/should be. I'd also point out that the main slavery in Rome was the tyrannical kind.

As for selling a child into slavery, I'd say that's more evil on the part of the person selling the child than the one buying, unless the buyer is suggesting it. And any atrocities committed under this form of slavery was illegal. It still happened, but that doesn't make the practise itself evil, just like murder doesn't make guns or kitchen knifes evil. By the way, I don't consider the owning of another person inherently more evil than the owning of pets. As long as it's a mutually beneficial relationship (and it has to be truly mutually beneficial), I don't see how it's evil.

If you accept a deal where you are taking someones son into slavery in exchange for payment, you're evil. I mean, the father is too, but that doesn't alleviate at all how messed up you are as a person for doing that.

As for the knife murder analogy, you're a bit off. In a relationship where one person is the master, and the other is property, there can be no "truly mutually beneficial" relationship. The mere fact that a society like that can reduce a human to a commodity is inherently wrong.

I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

Feel free to substitute your home country for the US, I forget that not everyone on this forum is from here, which is my bad.

With that said, I Don't think there's more to say, when you say that you would not be opposed to slavery. By the time you jump through the hoops you'd need to, to make slavery not inherently evil, it would no longer be slavery. That's analogous to saying "I'm in favor of murder..... as long as we completely redefine what murder means and remove it from all context".

(Also slavery rightly deserves to be stigmatized, although apparently you disagree).

[xanderh]

I'll for sure agree, that I could read a little closer. I'd also point out putting the context at the very end, after spending multiple paragraphs talking about Roman Slavery as if that was synonymous with debt slavery, only to clarify at the last post isn't as clear as it could/should be. I'd also point out that the main slavery in Rome was the tyrannical kind.



If you accept a deal where you are taking someones son into slavery in exchange for payment, you're evil. I mean, the father is too, but that doesn't alleviate at all how messed up you are as a person for doing that.

As for the knife murder analogy, you're a bit off. In a relationship where one person is the master, and the other is property, there can be no "truly mutually beneficial" relationship. The mere fact that a society like that can reduce a human to a commodity is inherently wrong.





Feel free to substitute your home country for the US, I forget that not everyone on this forum is from here, which is my bad.

With that said, I Don't think there's more to say, when you say that you would not be opposed to slavery. By the time you jump through the hoops you'd need to, to make slavery not inherently evil, it would no longer be slavery. That's analogous to saying "I'm in favor of murder..... as long as we completely redefine what murder means and remove it from all context".

(Also slavery rightly deserves to be stigmatized, although apparently you disagree).

For sure, I should have put the context closer to the start. That's my bad.

I didn't intend to argue that the buyer wasn't doing evil by buying a child, but I still consider the seller to be a greater evil. The seller should get the harsher punishment than the buyer, but that's my general opinion on that, and some may disagree.

I don't agree with the inherent wrongness of owning a person, just like I don't believe having a pet is inherently wrong. If both parties have more individual gain through whatever relationship they have than they would alone, I consider that a truly mutually beneficial relationship.

By the way, I don't consider slavery to be unjustly stigmatised, it is well deserved because of how it has been done historically. I just don't think we have to dismiss all forms of it as evil, no matter the circumstances. There's a very careful way it can exist without being evil, and I wouldn't be opposed to that existing. I wouldn't advocate for it, because it's a system that is fairly easy to corrupt or abuse, but as a moral hypothetical, I don't agree that all forms are inherently evil.

[Unoriginal]

Just wanted to add something about the "slavery in D&D" topic:

Mortal slaves serve to validate a genie's power and high self-opinion. A hundred flattering voices are music to a genie's ears, while two hundred mortal slaves prostrated at its feet are proof that it is lord and master. Genies view slaves as living property, and a genie without property amounts to nothing among its own kind. As a result, many genies treasure their slaves, treating them as honored members of their households. Evil genies freely threaten and abuse their slaves, but never to the extent that the slaves are no longer of use.

MM p. 141

Djinn treat their slaves more like servants deserving of kindness and protection, and they part with them reluctantly

MM p. 142

The Djinni is still listed as a chaotic good being.

[Bohandas]

There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter. I'll leave intent to the player and the character, but the DM needs to make an assessment on how that reflects on character alignment as shown by behavior, changes in behavior, or lack of change in behavior.

The point is that in-game it could be made to look merely negligent, and thus the other characters wouldn't necessarily need to strongly react

[Bohandas]

Unfortunately in the USA the wealthy were able to hoodwink much of the population into believing things like welfare, free healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a decent minimum wage were 'evil evil Communism'.

Hopefully this will decline with time as more and more people reach voting age who were not yet born during the era when Russia was decorated with a communist theme. That country was reskinned in 1991 so the USA should have been gradually accumulating uncorrupted voters since 2009.