Print

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

[Randy Gnoman]

I really don't like the ethical argument.  Not just because it regards a setting which is easily changed, but because it really shows a shortage of sound ethical reasoning.  Slavery is bad when the alternative to slavery is freedom.  That is not the alternative for captured goblins.

In the current situation, here's what usually happens to captured goblins:  we strip them naked, and kill them.  This is a pretty uniform practice.  Sometimes they're tossed down pits so deep that they explode when they hit the bottom.  Sometimes they're thrown into an arena and forced to fight dangerous beats unarmed and unarmored.  Sometimes they're tossed into spike chambers and repeatedly stabbed.  Some people skip the bit where you strip them, and just toss them straight into lava to melt all the sub-steel crap they wear along with their bodies.  Some people use them as living training dummies for their military.  Some people crush them under bridges.

Is any of that actually less horrible than forced labor?  I think the goblins would be much happier making stone blocks for me all day, then retiring to a meager dining hall to have some +horse tallow roast+ before knocking off to bed in a meager barracks, than they would being stripped naked and tossed into a pit with Rapeevils the Hateful Violence of Punishment the Giant Cave Spider.

EDIT:  That said, I totally accept the argument that this suggestion is kind of moot because it's going to come when goblins get more fully fleshed out.  I just think the "slavery is bad" line fails to take into account the grim prospects of the average goblin.

[Fniff]

Really, depends on what exactly the goblin culture is. If it's a "Kill as much as you can" kinda culture as evidenced by the fact demons are made leaders just by killing, they'd rather go down fighting then live in servitude. Of course making an ethical argument in DF is kinda pointless as you can pretty much object to a lot of the game due to an issue of ethics.

[assasin]

I really don't like the ethical argument.  Not just because it regards a setting which is easily changed, but because it really shows a shortage of sound ethical reasoning.  Slavery is bad when the alternative to slavery is freedom.  That is not the alternative for captured goblins.

my problem with the ethical argument is simple. different societies have differennt ethics. Why would two separate dwarf societies on opposite sides of the wworld have the same ethics. 90% of humanity see cannibilism as digusting. But that doesnt mean it didnt happen in some cultures. I'm sure some dwarven societies would see slavery as ok.

[Tsuchigumo550]

Until we hit a procedural generation milestone, civilizations should be based on majority or median ethics and the like because we don't have the core game ability (meaning, no Lua) to have dwarves thinking differently in other places.

[assasin]

Until we hit a procedural generation milestone, civilizations should be based on majority or median ethics and the like because we don't have the core game ability (meaning, no Lua) to have dwarves thinking differently in other places.

Well if its impossible to procedurally generate them then add them to the game as separate subraces. high mountain dwarves have one set of ethics while deep earth dwarves have another. While procedural generation would be preferable its not exactly nessesary, is it?

[Tsuchigumo550]

Until we hit a procedural generation milestone, civilizations should be based on majority or median ethics and the like because we don't have the core game ability (meaning, no Lua) to have dwarves thinking differently in other places.

Well if its impossible to procedurally generate them then add them to the game as separate subraces. high mountain dwarves have one set of ethics while deep earth dwarves have another. While procedural generation would be preferable its not exactly nessesary, is it?

This is possible but at the current time this is a semipointless addition to the game, from a developmental standpoint. If procedural generation of race deviation actually does occur, this is rendered a waste, however, it also drains on FPS and fort relations between dwarves in your fort. I know what you're going for and I understand it, as if we were arguing about a moral standpoint, it would be the perfect example. I'd play a fort with class divisions, but they're a byroad in the development. If slavery becomes a thing, then modders will jump to the race deviations.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Why do people ask for slavery ? It will be implemented when goblin (dark) fortress mode will be officially implemented, as was extensively repeated by NW_Kohaku;

And me. In fact, I'm not sure if Kohaku mentioned it.

When it comes to ethics the idea of all dwarves having the same set of ethics is weird. In rl life most humans see cannibalism as horrid. But theres still a minority who practice it.

Fun fact: Most human cultures were fine with cannibalism under certain circumstances, if they didn't outright practice ritual cannibalism. It's just that those cultures which did abhor it happened to be the now-dominant Eurasian cultures.
While cultures will and should diverge, until dwarves OK with slavery happen you shouldn't use that as an excuse to include slavery just yet. Playable goblins may happen first.

I really don't like the ethical argument.  Not just because it regards a setting which is easily changed,

Halt.
Toady chose those ethics for his dwarves. They're his dwarves, hence DF dwarves hate slavery.
Moving along now.

but because it really shows a shortage of sound ethical reasoning.  Slavery is bad when the alternative to slavery is freedom.  That is not the alternative for captured goblins.
In the current situation, here's what usually happens to captured goblins:  we strip them naked, and kill them.  This is a pretty uniform practice.  Sometimes they're tossed down pits so deep that they explode when they hit the bottom.  Sometimes they're thrown into an arena and forced to fight dangerous beats unarmed and unarmored.  Sometimes they're tossed into spike chambers and repeatedly stabbed.  Some people skip the bit where you strip them, and just toss them straight into lava to melt all the sub-steel crap they wear along with their bodies.  Some people use them as living training dummies for their military.  Some people crush them under bridges.
Is any of that actually less horrible than forced labor?

No, but it's all done by players. I'd bet in-game dwarves would just execute them or stick them in cages for a while like I do.
Don't use players' actions to suggest dwarven tendencies. Any society which did to its citizens what many DF players do would last...maybe half a generation?

[weenog]

I really don't like the ethical argument.  Not just because it regards a setting which is easily changed, but because it really shows a shortage of sound ethical reasoning.  Slavery is bad when the alternative to slavery is freedom.  That is not the alternative for captured goblins.

my problem with the ethical argument is simple. different societies have differennt ethics. Why would two separate dwarf societies on opposite sides of the wworld have the same ethics. 90% of humanity see cannibilism as digusting. But that doesnt mean it didnt happen in some cultures. I'm sure some dwarven societies would see slavery as ok.

Ever heard of the wisdom of repugnance?  It's a crock of shit, but it's got traction with a lot of people, even if they don't know that term for it.  I'm sure you've seen it in action.  People who already feel that something is repulsive will often reflexively reject it, needing no better argument than their knee-jerk disgust.

Consider how fortresses come into existence.  A handful of dwarves is sent out into the wilderness to find a new place to settle.  They come from an older fortress, and maintain contact with them at least until they're mature enough to survive on their own.  It's not entirely dissimilar to the runner method of plant propagation.  Each new fortress is merely an offshoot of what came before.

The point is that many fortresses, no matter how widespread in the world they are, will share a common point of origin.  Each will have members bringing with them the old traditions, attitudes and prejudices into the new locale.  The initial dwarven anti-slavery attitude is so strong (a capital crime!), that those indoctrinated with it likely feel a deep and personal loathing for the idea, much like many people feel about murder and rape.  It's not just a crime you don't want to get caught doing, it's a Big Deal.  All it takes is for this idea to catch on in the origin point, and it will propagate all over the world.  So while there are almost certainly occasional dwarves that think maybe slavery isn't such a bad idea, they are always going to be surrounded by people that flatly reject the idea and may destroy them for putting it forth.  The only reasonable exception to this is if by some fluke, the first mountainhome winds up being pro-slavery before sending out any runners.  And then you wind up with most dwarves being pro-slavery, not just a few isolated fortresses.

[10ebbor10]

That or a couple of fortresses get cut of from the main branch, and through a series of accidents and others slowly change their views.

[weenog]

What kind of accidents are going to overcome a fortress-wide knee-jerk abhorrence?  Without just killing the fortress in an incredible tantrum spiral, I mean.

[10ebbor10]

What kind of accidents are going to overcome a fortress-wide knee-jerk abhorrence?  Without just killing the fortress in an incredible tantrum spiral, I mean.

I meant multiple generations. It won't be denying slavery, it will start as changing the definition of people. Probably starting with animalmen, then moving up through goblins towards elves and maybe humans.

A good crisis and an organised leader can accomplish pretty much everything.

[Tsuchigumo550]

So, generational ethics drift. Makes sense but it's hard to implement, could be simulated with a tightly maintained margin of ethics for each individual group/dwarf.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What kind of accidents are going to overcome a fortress-wide knee-jerk abhorrence?  Without just killing the fortress in an incredible tantrum spiral, I mean.

I meant multiple generations. It won't be denying slavery, it will start as changing the definition of people. Probably starting with animalmen, then moving up through goblins towards elves and maybe humans.
A good crisis and an organised leader can accomplish pretty much everything.

In theory. In practice...I doubt it'd move past animalmen and kobolds, maybe goblins, because you really can't overturn something so instinctual so severely so fast. Maybe in a couple thousand years, but I'd be surprised if something like an isolation event and a shift towards slavery happening in the thousand-odd years in normal worldgen, without being rejoined with the homeland.
Even in such a situation, slavery probably wouldn't develop. It takes a lot to change something like that, especially when there are other options--integrating the animalmen into the dwarvish society as full citizens or ignoring them completely, for instance. Even if it was possible to shift the preferences like that, what would happen to make them start to adopt slavery?
Bear in mind that societies isolated from other societies often stagnate, which further retards tendencies towards change.

[Tsuchigumo550]

Rationalization and power together are a limitless force.

If each dwarf had a "personal" view on ethics and those in power most directly affected what would happen in a fort, that's one thing...

Plus, rationalization. "He's not a slave, he's a war criminal."
"He's not a slave, he's a lower class citizen."

[GreatWyrmGold]

Rationalization and power together are a limitless force.

Not so. Powerful? Yes. Limitless? No. Every mind has limits.

Plus, rationalization. "He's not a slave, he's a war criminal."
"He's not a slave, he's a lower class citizen."

I doubt that that would work very well outside of very rare and limited circumstances, with something preventing less pragmatic or more traditional dwarves from complaining. In other circumstances, it would fall apart once someone picked at it--which they would.