Well, in modern consensus anyways. As I have undoubtedly mentioned and discussed before, it gets murky when our only source is Athenai. For example, we have two sources for the treatment of the helotry, with one source being Critias (the one I draw on) and the other being Pollux (whom canon Exalted has historically drawn upon). Critias depicts the helots as "slaves to the utmost", while Pollux describes them as occupying a place between free men and slaves. So it might get easy to simply say, "right, clearly Critias is simply engaging in portraying the Lakedaimonian state as evil", but this becomes more complicated when you discover that Critias himself was a Laconophile (i.e. obsessed with Sparta) and believed that Athenai should take on a more Spartan system of government, and even assisted the Thirty Tyrants in taking control of Athenai in a short-lived oligarchic coup. Today, I believe consensus has settled on Critias, although there is a notable vocal opposition who maintain that Sparta was just a normal, slightly militant polis most of the time which was completely unexceptional except for maintaining a slightly old-fashioned form of government, and that the period of Sparta we know of either did not exist as described, or was a relatively distinct and short period in Spartan existence. Regardless, I decided when writing Lookshy that it had too few problems, and I believed - and still do - that Exalted has failed to adequately engage with the morality of slave-holding polities. So that became one of the pillars of the Lookshy I wrote.