Print

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

[ThrowerOfStones]

This probably has been suggested before, but inspired by the bug which allows Tigermen to become Mayors, I think it'd be neat if there were a new noble position, the Slavemaster. His arrival would require you have a Dungeon Master (so the bugs surrounding that position would need to be fixed first) as well have a certain number of exotic pets and a certain number of sentient prisoners and he would allow you to tame all intelligent races just as if they were animals. Hostiles may need to be pacified first, a separate action. Once tamed, these intelligent races will act as haulers, as well as performing any other labor they are skilled at. Unlike dwarves, though, you would not be able to change their labors; they would be hardcoded based on what skills they posessed. So a Troll Brewer that beseiged you would brew, for instance.

If Goblins can do it, why can't we?

[SirHoneyBadger]

I realize it's not the subject here, but...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Vote Mayer Tigerman!

[Medicine Man]

I have suggestion, they could be war creatures too.

Could you imagine fighting a goblin army WITH a goblin army?

[3]

The per-civ ethical consideration of slavery is already there; it currently affects the way some events during worldgen are handled, but it does little else.

Presumably one of the reasons why there is little other functionality is due to the fact that dwarfs generally don't keep slaves -

[ETHIC:SLAVERY:PUNISH_CAPITAL]

So even if this sort of thing gets in, you probably won't be able to use slaves anyway (at least without modding the game), as dwarfs despise it.

[thijser]

It would still be fun if it could get added in, it would be easy enough to mod. Maybe even add a sliding ethics scale where instead of a set value slaves would be more accepted if a certain race is hated (for example if almost the entire fortress has lost loved once to the goblins they will be more likely to make them into slaves). Only if you already have enough hated prisoners you can get a slavemaster. It would still make sense if we were able to disable certain jobs so that a troll engraver would not mess up out masterfull engravings with his low skill. In general I think they should only be allowed heavy work not complex work. Additionally non-dwarfs shouldn't be good at dwarven work such as metalworking. And I don't really think slaves would be good soldiers in history they had a slight problem with running away/joining the enemy if given the chance.

[Nicolo]

Hm, what if enslaved hist. figures were bought and traded as part of worldgen, as opposed to the 'slavery' ethic that only determines how conquered sites flip over?

Also, if the slavery ethic enabled, the player's dwarf colony can sell excess dwarves into slavery.

[dragonshardz]

Peasants = slaves, more or less. All they're really good for is hauling or drafting.

[ZebioLizard2]

Not really, in an economy they would still get paid.

[Nicolo]

Dwarf peasants are more 'serfs' then 'slaves'
Anyways I thought the addition of a 'slave trade' into worldgen would be a good idea, considering that having one's village enslaved or being taken prisoner has little to zero negative consequences. Perhaps they could be worked to death, sold to another faction, executed or granted their freedom.

 In one worldgen I made, it was fairly common for a shortlived race to capture the leader of a long-lived race, who then went on to become the leader of the capturing race.

[darkflagrance]

The irony about the slavery tag is that we essentially already have it in the form of sentients like Tigermen that live in our forts as "pets".

Therefore, as an ethical term relative to gameplay, slavery is meaningless in dwarf fortress.

Furthermore, a ban on "slavery" could simply refer to the use of dwarf slaves. This need not preclude functional Tigerpeople "pets" whose functions could be enabled by the currently broken Dungeon Master.

[Akjosch]

I would prefer if we could re-educate the captured people (not necessarily their leaders, of course, just your common foot soldier) and integrate them into the society somehow, or even let them live on top of the land freely, farming and hunting and building their own small community we can have limited trade and interaction with.

In one prior game I tried to make some of the captured goblins and humans from one of the first ambush parties part of my civilisation and friendly through memory hacks, but they just got killed anyway by my soldiers upon release from the cages. It was really sad - one of them was a young human woman, just 19 or 20 at the time I captured her, who I learned was married and had a daughter born only few months before the failed goblin ambush where she participated. Poor girl, I think she missed her child all those years stuck in one of my cages.

[3]

The irony about the slavery tag is that we essentially already have it in the form of sentients like Tigermen that live in our forts as "pets".

Therefore, as an ethical term relative to gameplay, slavery is meaningless in dwarf fortress.

But it's not, as tigermen and other such pets which also happen to be sentients have never worked properly, and probably won't ever work properly until the issue of them being part of a foreign civ is addressed (whether that itself is relevant to slavery or something else entirely, like non-player-civ migrants or whatever).

[SirHoneyBadger]

Even that doesn't work, because dwarfs aren't a species that are morally inclined to hold slaves.

And I think the implication goes beyond the "right and wrong" of the act of enslaving another sentient species, also. I suspect that our dwarfs would find it distasteful to allow another species to do "perfectly good work a perfectly good dwarf could do."

My interpretation may not be everyones', and that's fine, but it still doesn't sit right with me, in terms of roleplaying, and I don't particularly think it's an important element to add to the game, just so that dwarfs can have slaves.

It would be akin to adding a lot of special code, just so that cats could eat trees.

I figure, whenever we get playable Goblins, that we'll also get a slavery/other species incorporation system. That would be a lot more interesting, atleast for me, and I'd consider it a lot better investment of coding time, to get slavery fixed, codewise, at that point in the process.

[harborpirate]

People make their dwarves slaughter friendly elves who come to trade, slaughter peasant and noble dwarven immigrants, and all sorts of other horrible things. And those are to friendly units!

Slavery has a historical precedent, and was common throughout the world until recent history. Modern societies find it distasteful (thank goodness), but the game doesn't need to force slavery on you. In a game that lets you do just about anything, to leave it out seems a bit silly.

I think it makes sense that as an overseer, you could present prisoners with the choice of a life of slavery, imprisonment, or death. (Currently they either get permanent imprisonment or death). Especially since slaves can rise up against you if you get complacent, or they could even join society if they've proven to be reliable.

Other civs have hybrid societies, I don't see why our forts shouldn't be able to also.

[DizzyCrash]

lol I have added slaves in my most recent mod download now.
its in my Signature there are many new features such as slaves Bandits and expanded move sets for each weapon.

there are many other new things i think you would all appreciate as well.
makeing slaves is as simple as Duping the Crearure raws and adding [PET] and [TRAINABLE] have fun my darlings.