Print

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

[Baffler]

I think there was some work done in that direction by Masterwork. They were called concubines, dwarves that counted as pets but had civ members as children (they were a non-sentient caste of dwarf.) They were removed long ago though, on Toady's request.

[Magistrum]

The bible also condones war rape, so I am glad that DF isn't based on it...

You disgust me. Stop this, you aren't being funny.
But yeah, like baffler said, toady asked to remove it, and he seems to be be pretty strong against it. I think he may implement it in some "softer" manner than sentient creatures getting assigned as work animals.

[than402]

actually, i think it was Meph himself who removed them because he figured a more reliable way to spawn dwarves. he commented on the matter somewhere, but i can't seem to find his post. if i remember correctly, Toady himself said that it was Meph's decision to remove them a few posts above or below (on the same topic, probably on the same page) but also added that he considers removing them (and anything relating to sexual slavery) a good decision.

EDIT: here we are http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140544.msg5562217#msg5562217

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=140544.msg5475034#msg5475034

[Quartz_Mace]

It depends on what kind of slavery too...
Our traditional slavery is using sentients as work animals.
I know about how slavery was ruled in the bible, and it was more like the last option of a man with no resources or anything. He would work as a slave for seven years and then be freed from his master, along with something for him to get another try at life, likely some cattle and an amount of money for buying a smal place for himself. Slavery like this seems very humane for me, even better than our actual "let them rot in the streets" approach for miserable people.

Yes, that was called indentured servitude and was actually a lot more humane than conventional slavery. That would be an interesting feature. Imagine rehabilitating Goblins and teaching Elves the error of their ways, while getting a bit of extra labor on the side. The slavery I was speaking of was strictly treating people as animals with no chance at redemption. Indentured servitude was done to settle expensive debts that could not be paid for and then release the debtor with a chance to make something of him or herself.

The bible also condones war rape, so I am glad that DF isn't based on it...

You disgust me. Stop this, you aren't being funny.
But yeah, like baffler said, toady asked to remove it, and he seems to be be pretty strong against it. I think he may implement it in some "softer" manner than sentient creatures getting assigned as work animals.

As far as the Bible, it speaks in "parables," which literally means all of it not 100% true. People have used it to justify all sorts of horrible atrocities. In fact, religion in general has been used to do this for thousands of years. Kind of sad when you think about it. I'm positive that it never went out and said, "You can rape people," or "Slavery is allowed," people just interpret things however they want to in order to justify their actions.

[wierd]

The new testament is nearly all parables, while in the old testament, only the songs of solomon are in parable form.

Nearly all of the levitical laws, some of which cover the sordid topics that k33n and co. covered earlier, are very much "THOU SHALT NOT" in nature, and are very much intended to be taken literally.  There are even hard nosed fines and remunerations for damages for all kinds of very unpleasant things in there-- including rape and slavery.

Check out Leviticus some time.

[Baffler]

Guys, let's not derail a perfectly legitimate discussion on the economic feasibility of slavery with something as inflammatory as biblical discussion.

It depends on what kind of slavery too...
Our traditional slavery is using sentients as work animals.
I know about how slavery was ruled in the bible, and it was more like the last option of a man with no resources or anything. He would work as a slave for seven years and then be freed from his master, along with something for him to get another try at life, likely some cattle and an amount of money for buying a smal place for himself. Slavery like this seems very humane for me, even better than our actual "let them rot in the streets" approach for miserable people.

Yes, that was called indentured servitude and was actually a lot more humane than conventional slavery. That would be an interesting feature. Imagine rehabilitating Goblins and teaching Elves the error of their ways, while getting a bit of extra labor on the side. The slavery I was speaking of was strictly treating people as animals with no chance at redemption. Indentured servitude was done to settle expensive debts that could not be paid for and then release the debtor with a chance to make something of him or herself.

Indentured servitude is something I'd go for in game. Perhaps when the economy is reimplemented, dwarves who rack up considerable debts can do public service for a certain amount of time to pay off the debt and get a disbursement. It'd decent source of construction workers or smoothing details at the very least. Dwarven laws mandate the execution of anyone involved in the trading of slaves though, so I don't think we'll be seeing the player using slave labor anytime soon. How other civs that find slavery acceptable (or at least tolerable) is a more open question.

[Magistrum]

Kind of sad when you think about it. I'm positive that it never went out and said, "You can rape people," or "Slavery is allowed," people just interpret things however they want to in order to justify their actions.

Yeah, in fact slavery is not mentioned in the bible as the thing we are used to, like slave war prisoners. I do remember something about a slave in the new testament, and apostle Paul told him to go back to his master to serve him, it doesn't mention if he is a jew slave, which probably would be the "more acceptable" form, or a roman slave, which then would be the lifetime service.
Rape and prostitution were aways condemned tough...
David The Master was horrified after seeing a offensive post.

[Quartz_Mace]

Yeah, I think we should stop talking about the Bible. A lot of people have religious beliefs based on it, but a lot of others don't. It also is very open to interpretation, at least the Parables are.

[wierd]

Kind of sad when you think about it. I'm positive that it never went out and said, "You can rape people," or "Slavery is allowed," people just interpret things however they want to in order to justify their actions.

Yeah, in fact slavery is not mentioned in the bible as the thing we are used to, like slave war prisoners. I do remember something about a slave in the new testament, and apostle Paul told him to go back to his master to serve him, it doesn't mention if he is a jew slave, which probably would be the "more acceptable" form, or a roman slave, which then would be the lifetime service.
Rape and prostitution were aways condemned tough...
David The Master was horrified after seeing a offensive post.

Uhm--- No. It is.  Again, check out leviticus. Specifically, chapter 25, verses 39 through 55.  They deal EXCLUSIVELY with the subject, and yes-- It outright DOES say "You can own slaves", and is very specific in pointing out that other isrealites are not to be treated like these kinds of slaves.

-end of derail-

[pisskop]

Aye.  So interesting point as to how slaves would be aquired and the nature of their rights or lack thereof.  But how would they work in a Player fort?  OR against one?

[Quartz_Mace]

Well, indentured miners would be at risk instead of your citizens if you dig too deep. That's pretty nice.

More hands to work fields = higher carrying capacity for citizens. You could actually feed those useless children with a surplus.

More woodcutting to enrage Elves, especially when the Elves are woodcutting.

More craftsmen to increase your wealth.

Servants could become guards to protect you.

Servants working abroad would spot ambushes, snatchers, and thieves, as well as delaying sieges.

If indentured servitude is added, I doubt any will live to the end of the agreement.

[Baffler]

Maybe you can buy indentured workers from the human caravan, and they're allowed to get the hell outta Dodge when the contract period expires? Migration would have to slow down quite a bit for that to work though, maybe dwarves should be less enthusiastic about moving to a terrifying biome no matter how much wealth the fort in it produces.

[pisskop]

As I said, it fits in well enough that goblin bolster their ranks with slaves or other poorly armed grunts.  Then goblins themselves could form the 'backbone' of the army, with trolls and other heavy shock troops making up the flanks. Goblins would also form the leadership and archry role (being one of the civs that regularly brings flying  mounts.

I want sappers, or other suicide expendable troops.  The idea is goblins use them heavily, and their overall morale suffers for it.  Human use it too, but less extensively and they'd typically arm their folk better.  Theyd be exclusively archers or support roles, maybe sappers.  And elves are elves and need better coordination with critters.

---

afa prisoners of war, they should be able to be sold to dwarven merchants for a bounty.  That much I want, even if slavery isnt a thing.


---

Players are so cruel, and we should make a clear distinction between NPC and PC fort.s

[k33n]

You disgust me. Stop this, you aren't being funny.

You're right: I wasn't funny, I was accurate. I don't care if you haven't read the bible, and this isn't the place to talk about it.

But with all the insane levels of debauched violence, guts, torture and agony, you would expect that slavery and sex wouldn't be that offensive to the great Toad.

[k33n]

As I said, it fits in well enough that goblin bolster their ranks with slaves or other poorly armed grunts.  Then goblins themselves could form the 'backbone' of the army, with trolls and other heavy shock troops making up the flanks. Goblins would also form the leadership and archry role (being one of the civs that regularly brings flying  mounts.

I want sappers, or other suicide expendable troops.  The idea is goblins use them heavily, and their overall morale suffers for it.  Human use it too, but less extensively and they'd typically arm their folk better.  Theyd be exclusively archers or support roles, maybe sappers.  And elves are elves and need better coordination with critters.

---

afa prisoners of war, they should be able to be sold to dwarven merchants for a bounty.  That much I want, even if slavery isnt a thing.

Are goblinized peoples really slaves though? They have more social mobility then the cultures they were stolen from.

Human enslavement of elves, humans, and goblins seems more traditional.