Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

slaves could be used to haul things to the refuse pile, what dwarf wants to go through miasma?  they could also be used to mine out lava, who cares if they die?  they could also be a snack for your vampire duke.  i can think of plenty of reasons to have them.

In order: Any dwarf with hauling labors on (they don't refuse to walk through miasma, they just don't like it), any dwarf with mining labors on (believe me, miners will HAPPILY kill themselves if you order them carelessly), and any dwarf set to sleep in a bed near your vampire duke (people already do this to get rid of undesirable dwarves).

Basically speaking, dwarves already act like slaves when you order them to do so.  The only thing "slaves" would do is require the player to spend more effort guarding workers who, if they were free workers, would do all the dumb and suicidal things happily and willingly.  You might as well just ask for dwarves to become unruly unless you chain them up and have armed guards around, because in game terms, it makes no difference what race a character is or where they came from.

Again, slavery is a social construct.  It's basically the worst possible social status one can have.  How can you integrate racial slavery without integrating racism into the game in the first place? How can you integrate debt slavery before integrating debt?

[CaptainLambcake]

why waste good dwarves when you could use a slave as a meatbag for the vamps, or to dig into magma? who said I wanted my dwarves to die?  and again, dwarves dislike going into refuse stockpiles.  slaves.

[NW_Kohaku]

why waste good dwarves when you could use a slave as a meatbag for the vamps, or to dig into magma? who said I wanted my dwarves to die?  and again, dwarves dislike going into refuse stockpiles.  slaves.

Again, you're not looking at this from the game's perspective, only from the "I want to abuse goblins" perspective - how is this different mechanically?

Let's take the idea that the slave is automatically the goblin and the dwarf out of the picture, and say that some dwarves are normal, and some dwarves are slaves. 

How are these two going to act differently? 

What benefit is there in suddenly declaring that some of your dwarves now have reason to rebel against you, and see you as their enemy when you could have all those dwarves "free" and slavishly obeying your every command?

How is this slavery idea any different from just having multi-racial forts where you just choose to abuse creatures of one race?

Until and unless you actually introduce inter-class tensions to make social structures actually meaningful, there's basically no difference between slavery and just abusing the dwarves you don't like.

[CaptainLambcake]

not just goblins, any slaves i acquire.  again, it's a matter of keeping my free-willed slavish dwarves free while using the ones that would hurt me if given the chance to do the dangerous work, like bait for silky spiders.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, why do you need slavery to make something bait for spiders? You can already do that with livestock or non-slave goblins. 

Again, what slavery is asking for is making these characters members of your fort (that is, mechanically identical to dwarves you can order), but also of a lower social status (something that doesn't yet exist in the game).

What would be the difference between this and having multi-racial forts where you just plain convince goblins or elves to live in your fort just the same as dwarves, but with the option to abuse them?  What would be the difference if you could enslave your own dwarves, and what positive benefit would that have?

You said abusing your dwarves "wasted good dwarves". Why is it not a waste to do it to a slave? If the only distinction between "slave" and "good dwarf" is that one is useful, isn't that merely a difference in how you perceive the dwarf, not how the game does?

[CaptainLambcake]

you're too smart for me.  i give up.  i just like the idea of workers that will do jobs that make dwarves upset/dead, and if they don't like it, they can meet my war dragon.

[Avo]

You could in theory create a second caste of dwarves that are identical to goblins. I believe this would give you the occasional goblin migrant you could call a slave, aside from a few different racial oddities it would be identical to every other dwarf and woulden't change your game at all.  As it currently stands, slavery has no use in the game. When the dwarven economy is reinstated and dwarves collect paychecks it may matter to the point where it's worth serious discussion.

[NW_Kohaku]

It's not a matter of "smart", it's a matter of perspective. You can be a genius and still have a perspective that makes you blind to something an idiot who starts looking at things from the proper state of mind can see.

Computers cannot grasp the higher thought of intent or meaning behind actions, they just follow the code.

• The game can't tell the difference between an Unfortunate Accident and a genuine accident.
• The game can't tell the difference between a goblin sieger that happens to run into a hostile wild animal and a goblin you have lured into an arena fight to the death against your trapped GCS.
• The game can't tell the difference between you not knowing your duke is a vampire when you put kids to sleep in beds near him and purposefully using your vampire duke to wipe out those annoying children.
• The game can't tell the difference between magma just happening to enter tiles occupied by dwarves or goblins because of the forces the game simulates because you made a mistake in setting up a magma reservoir for magma forges or a purposefully constructed deathtrap built for the sole purpose of killing.

The difference between these things is in how you think about them, and your intentions, which are all things that the game mechanics cannot really grasp.

When the difference between a "useless slave" and a "good dwarf" is what you think about them, then that isn't something a game mechanic can properly grasp.

*ahem* *Puts on hippy accent* The slavery, it's all in your miiiiind, maaaaaan.

What happens if the game randomly declares some dwarves "useless slaves" and others "good dwarves" if a slave actually turns out to be useful?  What about the other way around? Do you enslave and free dwarves at a whim?

Remember, the reason nobles are so hated is that they're "useless" because they are forced into a social position without the player having direct control over them.  However, the nobles are supposed to actually be the source of you, the player's, power.  (Toady has said that his goal is to make players less an omnipresent force, and more just the commands given out by the collective power-holding dwarves in a fortress.) 

Won't it be annoying if some of those slaves are more useful than some of the layabouts that are useless because they're always on break, but you can't change their social status as you want? 

[Hyndis]

I think slavery may be an interesting addition to the fortress just due to simple labor needs.

Allowing, say, captured goblins or elves to be enslaved would allow them to do hauling jobs, and only hauling jobs. No other jobs aside from hauling. They just slave away carrying heavy objects around. This would be a huge boon to a fortress that needs more labor to haul things around. Another benefit to this is that you would get the extra workforce without the need for more migrants or for children to come of age.

I'd also suggest that slavery works similarly to taming animals. With a tamed animal there is always a chance it could revert to its wild state. Goblins would work similarly. Depending on the skill of the animal trainer (or perhaps a different profession such as intimidation?) the odds of a specific goblin revolting could be higher or lower. A goblin that goes fully "wild" again would become a threat, but that is what the military is for. In order to maintain a slave force you would need many dwarves who are highly skilled at the pacifying skill, be it animal trainer or intimidation in order to keep the goblins in line. If you have too many slaves then your dwarves may not be able to maintain a hold on them, and slave rebellions would become more and more common.

A benefit of goblin slaves is that goblins currently do not need to eat or drink. I'm unsure if goblins need to sleep, but they definitely don't take any breaks. A tireless work force that doesn't need food or drink would be invaluable. If you have megaprojects that need building, you need a lot of haulers, and that would be a way to get haulers.

It would be amusing to build a giant pyramid using goblin slave labor.

In theory, a fortress could be built with all dwarves being highly specialized producers. No dwarven time would be wasted on lowly tasks such as hauling. Let the goblins do that.

Of course this would all depend on civilization ethics. Arguably being a civilization of cruel slave masters would be an evil act, so I don't know if dwarves should have this enabled by default. It definitely seems like a goblin thing. Dwarven and elven slaves serving goblins? However considering that most people modify the raws so that dwarves can butcher and eat goblins, well, the ethics of dwarves are dubious at best.

[NW_Kohaku]

The thing about that is... why not just make multi-racial forts?  Why does it have to be "slaves"?  Why can't you just make a cool tavern, and when some humans swing by and enjoy the party, maybe they stay for a while and do part-time labor?

I mean, we're heading towards them, eventually.

Slavery is, again, just a "I want to be racist" version of the multi-racial fort.

[10ebbor10]

I think slavery may be an interesting addition to the fortress just due to simple labor needs.

Allowing, say, captured goblins or elves to be enslaved would allow them to do hauling jobs, and only hauling jobs. No other jobs aside from hauling. They just slave away carrying heavy objects around. This would be a huge boon to a fortress that needs more labor to haul things around. Another benefit to this is that you would get the extra workforce without the need for more migrants or for children to come of age.

Asides for the arbitrary game balance distinction, why? It's not like the elves or goblins are completely incapable of doing it. I'd say that if you want to implement slavery in fortress mode, you will need to allow for all possibilites. Allow slaves to work everywhere, but expect shoddy quality, or slaves arming themselves. As a general note, gamey distinctions should be avoided at all costs.

I'd also suggest that slavery works similarly to taming animals. With a tamed animal there is always a chance it could revert to its wild state. Goblins would work similarly. Depending on the skill of the animal trainer (or perhaps a different profession such as intimidation?) the odds of a specific goblin revolting could be higher or lower. A goblin that goes fully "wild" again would become a threat, but that is what the military is for. In order to maintain a slave force you would need many dwarves who are highly skilled at the pacifying skill, be it animal trainer or intimidation in order to keep the goblins in line. If you have too many slaves then your dwarves may not be able to maintain a hold on them, and slave rebellions would become more and more common.

Problem is that this doesn't accuratly show slave behaviour. Every so often you have a slave snap and go crazy, probably killing some of his mates before he's shot down. No grand slave uprisings, which are the real threat and interest of slaves.

A benefit of goblin slaves is that goblins currently do not need to eat or drink. I'm unsure if goblins need to sleep, but they definitely don't take any breaks. A tireless work force that doesn't need food or drink would be invaluable. If you have megaprojects that need building, you need a lot of haulers, and that would be a way to get haulers.
Goblins also appear to be suicidal and refusing to surrender, and the only reason they don't need to eat nor drink is that they can't otherwise sustain themselves and tend to die out in worldgen.

It would be amusing to build a giant pyramid using goblin slave labor.Historical note: Pyramids were not build using slaves.(Mostly not,anyway)

In theory, a fortress could be built with all dwarves being highly specialized producers. No dwarven time would be wasted on lowly tasks such as hauling. Let the goblins do that. Still, there remains the idea of why. There's no limit on dwarven labour, no reason not to do it, while the goblins have the revolt risk. I really doubt that hauling, which takes place in heavily civilized areas, will come up with a net labour bonus if you have to place guards every 5 meters/

Of course this would all depend on civilization ethics. Arguably being a civilization of cruel slave masters would be an evil act, so I don't know if dwarves should have this enabled by default. It definitely seems like a goblin thing. Dwarven and elven slaves serving goblins? However considering that most people modify the raws so that dwarves can butcher and eat goblins, well, the ethics of dwarves are dubious at best.The mods people make, and btw, I don't think modding goblins to be butcherable is so widespread, don't say anything about the game. It says something about part of the community. As for slavery, it's a capital crime for dwarves.

[Scoops Novel]

To be honest, the problem here is dwarf fortress has gotten too real now. Let's have a gander at Impire. I suspect the imps don't have much in the way of freedom, but the game wouldn't dwell on, it would be a source of comedy, they are demons, they're conniving to do exactly the same, etc. You don't have that any more in dwarf fortress. If you do slavery, people will expect to hammer rebellious prisoners, and we'll be told about their head sliding on the pavement. Whips would be involved, and not all the slaves will be demons, either. If i was playing a Song of Ice and Fire, I'd be all for this being in the game world for every race, if with restrictions to the conditions in which you can enslave them and with severe abstractions, definitively not serving as a power fantasy. However, unless such a medieval realism mode is implemented, which i doubt outside mods, i don't want it in a game which both can't treat it properly and will give too much needless sadistic potential. I'm amazed this has survived two pages.

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, the thing that always annoys me is that everyone assumes slavery always has to do with race. It doesn't.  Most slavery, historically, was conducted against people of the same race. It's just American History that people don't see beyond.

Slavery is a social construct. 

It's a status where you can basically abuse people of a lowest possible social status without fear of immediate consequences.  But nobody wants to see the people they know or care about treated like that, so, socially, they construct some reason for why those other guys deserve it.  That's what separates the kinds of slavery, the reasons why people find it justified...

First, the most common was debt slavery.  Debt slaves were people who either couldn't pay their loans or their taxes, or the children of those people (because children were taken as collateral on a loan or taxes).  It was "fair" because "they should have paid their debt/taxes", even if the circumstances were beyond the control of the debtor in the first place (bandit raids burned the fields so there was no grain to pay the taxes).  Ruthless nobles could even purposefully set taxes high enough to drive all their subjects into slavery (but risk revolt).  It requires the mindset that the people at the bottom classes of society deserve to be there because they got there of their own fault.

Second, there was war slavery.  Vae Victus, or at least, "Might Makes Right" has to be believed for a society to accept this kind of slavery.  They were being punished for being on the losing side of a war, and so the victor could do what they wanted with them.  Notably, the children of war slaves were freed, as were many war slaves themselves after some years of service.  Roman war slaves could often become full Roman citizens.  On the other hand, it was war slaves that were sold to become racial slaves for the colonies of Europe, including America.  But the notion that Might Makes Right is required to sustain this - without believing that violence is the answer, how can you justify treating someone that way just for losing a war?

Finally, there's the racial slavery.  This is the type of slavery that requires people to believe that it's fine to abuse this other race but not mine because obviously my race is superior.  It's a type of slavery that requires all practitioners to be racist.  There's a wonderful quote I have on the nature of slavery from a preacher before the American Civil War - "We must believe that the black man is less than human, for if we were to believe otherwise, then we would be forced to conclude we are less than Christian."  The rationalization is that "obviously, they're better off being slaves, because they're such savages without us directing every moment of their lives". 

There are also always severe negative consequences for slavery: Many labor-saving devices were invented by Egyptians and Greeks through even Medieval Europe that were discarded because if they made work more efficient, what would they do with the slaves?  It was only after the Bubonic Plague came through and forced people to start taking up labor-saving devices like printing presses that Europe advanced out of the dark ages.

It's just so frustrating that I have to keep finding new ways to say "Slavery means more than just making people do what you say or you'll hit them."

[GreatWyrmGold]

Here's a list of things that would need to be in DF before it makes sense to add slaves:

1. A distinction between slaves and non-slaves.
1a. Class distinctions.
1aa. Probably a basic economy
1b. A concept of "menial" work
2. Situations where one would encounter slaves
2a. Since dwarves have outlawed slavery, these would need to be in goblin or human settlements.
2aa. Playable goblins/humans, or being able to watch humans/goblins at work in professions where slaves would be used.
2ab. Alternatively, the possibility of dwarves being fine with slavery.

Before that, there's neither reason to implement slaves nor a way to do so.

[ff2]

Armok, guys, you are getting to be such elf pansys. This game is not real, there doesn't have to be all races against slavery. Slaves can do all the dangerous and ugly work without throwing a big fit, don't waste up your dwarven alcohol, and can be used as vampire food without getting rid of a useful dwarf. Sure, dwarves could be used as slaves, but is that useful?