Print

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

[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.

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.

Goblins have definitive distinctions between captives and children, atm.
 

Their slaves seem permanent, as a result of battle.  Likely they would split you by culture and age.  You change mold a child, but the adults could stay slaves.  idk, but they seem to distinguish between captured prisoners and abductees.

[k33n]

I think from now on I will cage werebeast, vampires, and the insane and deport them via the depot. Or use it to punish dwarfs that annoy me.

[Quartz_Mace]

Abductees are more of a, "We kidnapped you because you were being taught unethical and incorrect things and we will show you the light," in a Goblin settlement. They are citizens with equal rights because they have been effectively brainwashed.

Slavery is stripping of them of rights and using them or labor. The two are very separate. If you see an abductee toiling away in fields, they are usually a citizen laborer.

[k33n]

Slavery is stripping of them of rights and using them or labor. The two are very separate. If you see an abductee toiling away in fields, they are usually a citizen laborer.

Mmm, slavery was more broad then just labor. Most of histories slaves were from the Islamic world and the Greco-Roman world, and were used as artists, thinkers, craftsmen and soldiers, as well as position of high governance and bureaucracy. Considering that the game is set in the iron age, I feel that this form of slavery would be more appropriate.

Example in game: the human caravan brings a few slaves - many would be simple laborers, but some would be managers and surgeons.

[Magistrum]

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.

It's not exactly what I meant, I have read the bible, all of it. I was commenting on your apparent approval of rape. I ask for your in case I misinterpreted that.

[reality.auditor]

I was commenting on your apparent approval of rape. I ask for your in case I misinterpreted that.

Reminder:

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

Seems pretty obvious he does not approve of rape. Or bible, while we are at it.

[smeeprocket]

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.

the punishment for raping someone is you are "forced" to marry them, because a woman is property and they have a "you break it, you buy it" policy. Slavery is quite acceptable per the bible, new and old, with certain boundaries, because they would just be terribly immoral if you could enslave -everyone-.

[pisskop]

ahhhh

Remember there was always a clear 'us and them'  distiction. 

At one point you would marry, not as property to man, but to make amends to the family and to take the child that may result.  And thats if they didnt murder you.

i understand women werent quite on parity with men but that doesnt make them worthless in history or that men didnt love or respect their wives or that father-daughter relatiomships didnt exist. 

Different Times, Different Histories, Different Culture, Different Societal Struggles.  And not the right thread.

[smeeprocket]

ahhhh

Remember theres always a clear 'us and them'  distiction.  At one point you would marry, not as property, but to make amends to the family and to take the child that may result.  And thats if they didnt murder you.

i understand women were quite on parity with men but that doesnt make them worthless in history or that men didnt love or respect their wives or that father-daughter relatiomships didnt exist. 

Different Times, Different Histories, Different Culture, Different Societal Struggles.  And not the right thread.

The very rare exceptions to the rule, and even if they loved you, you were still property. The Bible is full of such references. Marrying your daughter off to her rapist is definitely a sign that there is no love for your daughter.

The point being, the Bible isn't exactly a nice book. But it was brought up in context of the thread, and slavery, so it's not entirely off topic, just an aside, and a response to a previous comment specifically about the bible.

[wierd]

Yes. I am quite aware of this. That's why I pointed out where to go find it.

Denial is not an appropriate way to proceed with a discussion-- on anything-- no matter how strongly people feel on the subject. Either a book says something or it does not.  In this case, it certainly does-- as k33n and co. asserted, and as you just pointed out.  I went so far as to point out exactly WHERE it says "Slavery is OK!" straight from the big man himself, just to drive the point home.

It's my position that it someone wants to make a commitment to a religious faith, they should probably know what's actually written in the legalese.

Again, the "bond servant" aspect of biblical slavery was brought up, and in that context the assertion that "slavery as we understand it is not mentioned" was made. This is factually untrue, and I provided a reference. I had hoped it would end that tangent, hence the "-end of derail-" at the end.  When I prefaced with "Unsavory things mentioned by k33n and co. earlier", I was referring to both the slavery and soft-punishment of rape as outlined within the biblical text, which is why I stated that specific forms of remuneration and punishment were laid out there.  I did not want to devolve into arguing the specifics, and instead just wanted to direct people who had interest in the matter on where they could go to get the story straight from the source-- The levitical laws, found in Leviticus.
(If you want to argue over what is or is not in the bible, the ultimate resource of where to check is-- IN THE BIBLE. Not on a message board. I was merely trying to direct such argument toward the literary source in contention, where the actual answer to the conundrum can be obtained. Weather or not you believe in what is written within has no bearing on the scope of 'what is or is not written within'. Important logical distinction.)

As k33n pointed out, DF is *NOT* based on biblical sources.  As an aside for how a historic human culture approached the issue of slavery, it is a valuable comparison-- but no more so than greek, roman, or nordic cultures.  (The poetic eddas describing ancient norse divinities does make mention of house slaves in Hel's court.)  It should not be given special significance just because the religious faith is still in practice.


To divert away from that particular culture, here's something to nudge away from it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall

A little nugget on scandanavian/norse slavery practices.

[k33n]

I am now extremely curious about what happens to the sold dwarfs in legends mode.

[pisskop]

I am now extremely curious about what happens to the sold dwarfs in legends mode.

I doubt they go anywhere.  I would like to know, though +1

[Magistrum]

Oh, sorry if I went too far on the derail...
Well, that aside, I think we should gather whatever information on slaves we have, from multiple cultures, and bring it here for discussing whether or not that would be acceptable for dwarves, anyone has guesses on a good system?

[Thisfox]

So, I just sold several of my dwarfs who got all webby and cage trapped to my parent civ. Is this normal? Will they hate me for breaking dwarf law?

Just going back to the original post here: Has k33n just solved the problem of what to do with annoying Nobles? Can I send the King away in chains? Well, a rather webby cage, but same difference.

I see it sort of like the catch and release program for possums here. If a possum was breaking into your house, you used to be able to pay someone to capture it, take it 100km away, and release it safely into the wild. The theory went that the possum would not then break into your house in the immediate future, although eventually another would arrive and do the same thing, the annoying little vandals that they are...

So leaving aside the rules of slavery in modern vs biblical times, will this work for my multiple counts, dukes, duchesses and countesses?

[pisskop]

as long as they lived you wouldnt get new nobles.  I doubt they physically manifest themselves outside your fort. therefore I think selling them is permanent and nonlethal.

Ive played adventurers who visit PC forts and occassionally ser the trade caravans/wagons.