Can chaotic neutral characters own slaves?

Would it make sense for a CN character to destroy, say, a band of slavers because they kidnapped her? As a grudge?

Yes.

I'd say that Good-aligned characters would take revenge on an ideological basis, rather than personal anger. Neutral characters would likely pursue revenge out of anger at the wrong done, but only so long as it wasn't knowing causing harm to loved ones.
Evil character of course, would not pass up an opportunity for revenge if it presented itself.

Bear in mind that revenge is a character arch, and I honestly consider alignments fluid during those. Revenge has emotion behind it, and emotions may cause characters to act beyond alignment. Emotions may cause a lawful character to lash out and strike say, a woman connected in some way to the party that wronged him, but who had no part in wronging him directly.

For CN, I'd say that as long as you don't get sadistic, or try to turn the revenge into something that benefits you beyond simply the satisfaction of the act, then you're good.

can D&D characters not rely on alignments so much to descrive themselves

So basically, CN is just particularly hypocritical NE?

Show me on the doll where the paladin smote you.

Why even reply? This thread will be deleted anyway.

yes

is fine after three hours, this thread might well live until the bump limit.

Sounds like someone hasn't played 5e. They added a box for "Personality Traits," "Ideals," "Bonds," and "Flaws."

IIRC they're partially tied to backgrounds, but can be more free-form as needed.

Not really. CN doesn't kill and rob when he pleases, which NE does. CN is very much "live and let live", while NE is more about personal gain without a thought to the cost.

To be fair girls are such a hot topic here, these kinds of threads tend to be ten times faster than the usual Veeky Forums thread.

There is a difference between talking about grills and going full redpill. Why the fuck is /pol/ even allowed outside of their containment board when all they do is shitpost, bait, and decrease general board quality in other ways?

>variant of elf slave wat do
>people still reply
Did you ever thought about not doing that so OP doesn't get any attention? Because he sure isn't interested in a reasonable discussion about anything.

Veeky Forums doesn't have mods
also because blanket bans against /pol/ would just result in evading and an increase in shitposting.

>variant of elf slave wat do
No, I legitimately was arguing with my DM about this earlier and wanted clarification if it was appropriate to buy a slave during my quest to tear down a slaver ring.

Read the thread nerd. We're talking about alignments now, and how CN is a red flag that good CN players can get around by not being a CE shitbag in disguise.

>people still don't understand that Veeky Forums will take a shitty thread so offtopic it becomes good, and shitpost in good threads until everyone hates them and those threads stop appearing

> Veeky Forums doesn't have mods
Uh-huh.
> blanket bans against /pol/ would just result in evading and an increase in shitposting
> attempting to fix the problem won't do it instantly, so it shouldn't be fixed at all

you are a fucking idiot. Why didn't you give us context?

Only if they were raised to believe it's an ok thing and aren't huge shitheads about it. Like, not huge shitheads to the point of the slaves are only technically slaves.

Well, they commit both evil and good actions; hence their reputation as a wild card. The only reason their alignment exists in the first place is because otherwise they'd be going back and forth between G and E like a ping pong ball. Look no further at Jack Sparrow to see how the average CN character acts; there's room for being both a saint and sinner, and if they're lucky, they'll tip just right enough into the charts to go into CG by the time everything is said and done.

Contrast with the true neutral, so is some kind of autistic doormat who...is just sort of there. They have no compassion, but they have no malice either, so they rarely wind up with friends the way a LN or CN character does.

I think you answered your own question. It was probably too late at night for me to try making a thread.

Then why the elf pic?

eh alright. happens to the best of us.

good luck with the slavers.

>attempting to fix the problem won't do it instantly, so it shouldn't be fixed at all
Someone wasn't around in late 2010 - 2011 during the MLP debacle. The entire /b/ thread was evading at times, and then the /co/ threads got the same idea and started evading as well.

See the shitty thing is that he swaps between Good and Evil on a personal level, not necessarily on a grand-scheme level.

Right in the evil, sir...

Because the slavers were dealing in elves, so they were on my mind.

My current plan is to buy an existing slave to use as bait to catch them. In hindsight putting that in the OP would have been a good idea.

It's not that CN does both evil and good things, it's that he doesn't have the moral fiber of Good-alignments to not sell his friends out to buy himself some extra time, but at the same time is fully aware he fucked up and will attempt to fix it, because it was his friend he screwed over.

good times, good times

> they commit both evil and good actions
And? The vast majority of NEs are only interested in doing evil things inasmuch as it benefits them. You'd think an NE would do good things every once and again simply because, living in a society where reputation is a thing, it's a net positive for him.
> Contrast with the true neutral, so is some kind of autistic doormat who...is just sort of there.
Why do you speak about alignments when you don't understand them?
Wasn't on /b/ and /co/ during that time, true, but we can see very well that containment policy doesn't work out for /pol/, so _something_ must be done.

This fampai

Slavery in terms of alignment is heavily reliant on context and society, as such most alignments can be for or against it I.e LE can easily be against most forms of slavery if it disagrees with the LE characters personal code.

>Because the slavers were dealing in elves, so they were on my mind
Please don't tell me that it's one of those settings in which all elves are slaves.

>Wasn't on /b/ and /co/ during that time
we were on all the boards, user. all of them.

we still are

No, slavery is evil.

Coercing sentient creatures to do your will against their own will is evil.

No, my DM hasn't given in to his depravity that much. Just the Draw.

Yes, he is from the south.

>so something must be done
Sure, but sitting around playing armchair moderator was something that belonged on /q/, and now that board is gone.

Admittedly with /trash/ I was hoping they'd added a functionality that allowed mods to move off-topic threads to the correct board, but that unfortunately didn't happen.

I visited /b/ half a dozen times, if that, since 2008. It's just shit. /co/ is just outside of my interests, and considering that it's the board that spawned /mlp/, I don't regret not visiting there.

*Drow

Christ am I retarded tonight.

ok but niggers and elves aren't really sentient

LG can own slaves, user

despite liking horses, I agree with this post

>LG can own slaves, user
Apparently that's a thing G-unit said or some shit and he's old and dead now so I forgive him but no.

Hey lad, don't start an ethics debate over whether constructs have a soul or not. That would bring the entire svirfneblin civilization to a screeching halt.

> mistaking "sentient" for "sapient"
I know this is just semantics, but come on, lads.

They sentient? It evil if they don't wanna work. If they are designed to wanna do the work and it's not some kind of mind control then it's good.

Depends on the setting. If slavery is common, then declaring it an evil act makes the majority of the population in the setting evil, at which point "evil" becomes a pointless denomination.
Within that setting, a man who treats his slaves well and acknowledges that they need to be freed, but only when the time is right and they won't suffer worse in freedom, is arguably good.

t. Jefferson.

They don't necessarily believe in slavery, but indentured servitude is fine

So far I ain't confusing shit.

The problem is that if they were built to enjoy the work, then they've essentially been crippled and enslaved since their inception. By existing, they are manifestations of an evil institution.

Therefore, making constructs enjoy their work is in fact admitting to making the constructs sentient and therefore confirming they may have some semblance of a soul in the same way dogs or horses might.

Jefferson was a huge hypocrite who couldn't care less about freedoms he spoke of.

t. Twain

No, slavery is evil and Thomas Jefferson did some evil fucking shit. "Once everyone's evil then no-one is evil" is bullshit, it just means that nobody thinks that they are evil. And people can think shit all they want but that doesn't make it true.

At the end of the day, most of the "big" people in history would fall on Neutral.

mules are sentient.
a farmer who uses the lash to motivate his mule to pull the plow is therefore enslaving the mule and is committing an evil act.

If the statement had been "Coercing sapient creatures to do your will against their own will is evil," then it would be entirely correct.

Otherwise, society is entirely evil unless we living in the gathering world, because we can't living in the hunter-gatherer world because then killing deer is an evil act.

>implying society isn't evil because it exists to make war and dominate all who both support and oppose it
let's not go into this, please

Depends on if they feel like owning slaves or not.

I had a chaotic neutral character whose sole goal in life was to be a djinni or efreeti harem girl. The topic of what would happen (alignment wise mainly) if she actually succeeded is a hot debate after three years.

>The problem is that if they were built to enjoy the work, then they've essentially been crippled and enslaved since their inception

Not really. To create something to not mirror yourself is not an act of evil. If core in the design is that it does mirror the desire to make choice and to not be forced into a role and additional steps need to be taken to suppress that, then that's evil.

You can't cripple something if it was never meant to walk (on a cosmic blahblahblah level)

> who uses the lash to motivate his mule to pull the plow is therefore enslaving the mule and is committing an evil act.

Yes, our world is a shitty place and we have to do evil things in order to survive, especially when we don't have time/resources to find "fair" ways to communicate with other sentient creatures.

>"Once everyone's evil then no-one is evil" is bullshit
Nah, let me explain. Suppose everyone has $3 million USD in their bank. No more, no less. This is their total wealth, assets count towards that $3 mil. By our standards of today, everyone is rich. Within our scenario, no one is rich because they all have the same amount of money also relative value of money is in the gutter, so "rich" and "poor" become pointless distinctions because everyone is financially equal.

So too in a society where, by our standards of today, everyone is evil, "evil" becomes a pointless distinction because everyone is. By the standards of the time meanwhile, there are still Good folks and evil folks.

Ignoring the argument you all are part of, I do want to clarify that point.

Here's how I know you've never worked in retail.

The world would be a better place if everyone had to work retail and fast food at some point.

We can't argue the morality of a slave-owning society without arguing the morality of a society to begin with.

>t. Twain
I'm not familiar with this argument, nor Twain in general. Would you be able to point me to the major works where he talks about this?

Incorrect. Good and evil are explicitly defined by your treatment to innocents in most games I've played, "innocent" meaning one who is not evil. No if we follow this back logically, we can conclude that "good" and "evil" are largely determined by how individuals treat other individuals who do not have the opprotunity to commit "good" or "evil" actions, e.g. newborns. Then, as they grow up, the previous actions one has commited play into how others treat them and whether or not they are "good" or "evil"

No it's still bullshit because I'm talking specifically about Evil.

In the financial sense, rich and poor cannot exist without some kind of median.

Good and evil don't work like that.

No I have worked in retail.

Yes. This is a must in capitalist countries.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I still like the idea of the Good character enslaving an Evil demon to some kind of weapon.

Now the action is Evil, but fuck it it's an Evil demon, therefore it's less Evil.

>The world would be a better place if everyone had to work retail and fast food at some point.
Why?

I never did, what have I missed?

You'd be a less shitty person and/or your foundation for goodness would be that much stronger.

No it's not. Following the idea that only forceful actions against innocents is evil.

not going to ever happen though. Succesful people who did work their way up from retail will spoil their children. Not everyone will work in retail.

If you want to quantify Evil into "ranks" of Evil, it works.
A mugger is evil, but certainly less evil than a murderer or a rapist.

Yes, they're both evil, but if we just slap a blanket statement of "evil" onto everything, then we end up punishing the mugger and the rapist equally. The mugger is evil, but he is not irredeemable. His actions are more likely guided by necessity or greed, while the murderer or rapist lacks empathy with his fellow man.
Supporting this argument is the lesser sentences muggers get compared to murderers and rapists.

There is a degree of "moral wealth" versus "moral poverty" that exists, even within the blanket classification of "evil".

But I was smart enough to avoid the fast food trap, why should I care about those too dumb to do that?

>not going to ever happen though

There are more things in heaven and earth and all that.

Smart? Lucky? Who can tell? The fact that you went to the word "smart" tells me you are all the less for it to be honest.

Those jobs have no redeeming factors. They're hell.

Like how working in factories during the industrial revolution for any extended period of time likely meant losing a finger or two in the machines, except no one cared about that because no one of any importance was working in the factories.

Things are unreasonably shitty and could be better, except no one cares because those jobs and the people who work them are "beneath" them.

Of course not. Society doesn't want to think about the cost of its existence.

>The morality of slavery is entierly dependent on so many surrounding factors that this question is completely worthless.

yeah true, I didn't consider that. However,
>Supporting this argument is the lesser sentences muggers get compared to murderers and rapists
isn't neccessarily evidence for it. Society doesn't have to be good; it can be evil. Such a society may convict muggers in such a way only to keep themselves running, not because they are "less evil"

But it will or it will crumble.

...

>Coercing sentient creatures to do your will against their own will is evil
why? based on what?

I'm and BTW

What actually qualifies as slavery in a fantasy setting? In the real word it is relatively easy as all races of humans are still the same species, but in a fantasy setting you could have slaves of a different species at which point it is not much different from owning cattle

Like if a group of elves deem dwarves to be lower than them it wouldn not be that surprising for elves to have dwarve slaves, and from their point of view it would be just as ethical as owning a dog. I could even see a good aligned elf character in such a setting having a dwarf slave

Because it's called slavery, or else they would call it animal husbandry.

>literally only in name
what a useless term to have.

How do you mean? If you mean the image, then of course. Troy fell because they spent too much of their time on the arts and beauty instead of in creating a city that was the absolute master of war.
If you mean the lowest class of society that is trampled underfoot in order to keep it running -- the custodians, the bus drivers, the clothing-makers, the frozen food packagers, -- those who will never amount to anything and have no hope of participating in the larger parts of society, then I must point out that society only collapses when those essential slaves of society turn away from work and pursue luxury and entertainment, spending their time drinking and living above their station while their work remains undone. For society to acknowledge the virtual slavery the lowest classes live in, society needs to come to terms with its own existence, which it has never done.

so I could make a lawful good elf with a dwarf slave?

Reading through the thread people talk about sentience being the deciding factor but what about kobolds and goblins? They're sentient but practically treated like rats

Forcing the mule to pull the plow is infringing on his Player Agency :^)
jokes aside, that isn't far from the truth. The mule by existence was born into slavery. It cannot reproduce and exists only to serve, regardless of any hopes and dreams the mule may possess.
The farmer is therefore systematically exploiting the mule to serve his own needs, which is textbook evil.

Because it infringes on their right to live their life as they see fit.

Sure, if owning slaves is both legal and they treat them well.

Hell, the Feudal system was pretty much mass slavery anyways.

>so I could make a lawful good elf with a dwarf slave?
No, I don't think that they would see them as animals.

What if hypothetically there was a race that existed as slaves since they came into existence and actively liked being slaves, and being "masterless" was considered a great dishonor? Wouldn't it be unethical to force them to become pariahs in their society by refusing to let them serve?

But the mule is likely to weak, being domesticated, to survive on it's own. The farmer cares for it, nutures it.

where does this right derive from? Also, the defintion of evil I am following is based on the harm you bring to innocents, more = more evil

>only collapses when those essential slaves of society turn away from work and pursue luxury and entertainment

No, it collapses when they realize the bullshit they are living in and that they have the power to change it.

I don't actually know of any Yank who spoke out against Jefferson, I inserted Twain because of his argument in favour of the French Revolution, aka the event that created liberalism that liberals universally hate.