Slavery

[CaptainPatch]

One key difference.

1) A "Wage Slave" doesn't have to be. They can go, "screw this I am out of here". And their employer cannot stop them. Their employer cannot have them beaten as a result, their employer cannot have them killed. This is the difference.

2) If I quit my job, I can get another one. I may be a slave to money, but it is my choice to be. If I didn't want it, I could give it up and go.

3) That is the difference, and no matter the fine words and fancy morality arguments. A wage slave has choices many of them. A real slave has 2. Do it or die.

4) This is why I despise slavery. The fact that we are even discussing this sort of thing shows how powerful it could be as a storytelling device. I actually want to have slavers in the game. So I can go in and seriously fuck their shit up.

Ouch. You certainly like your assumptions!

1) Given the conditions around the same time as there is/would be Slavery, there would most likely be an institution called "the Company Store". Yes, workers are paid, but not quite enough to make ends meet. Charges for work attire (quite legal nearly everywhere, even today), for tools, for breakage, fines for work violations, all add up until the worker's account is in arrears -- at which point, quitting isn't an option. If you try to leave, you can be arrested for "defrauding a merchant" and an array of other charges. What's that? "Then don't be so stupid as to start working for that Company"? That takes us to #2

2) This is your biggest false assumption: that there is _always_ someone interested in hiring you. And willing to pay you a decent wage as well. Pretty much depends on who you are and what skills you bring with you. If all you know is mining, and ALL of the Mining Companies pay is minimal wages, where are you going to get that other job? Especially when the Company you left passes around the word that you are a troublemaker. Move to another town and look for work? Already poor AND unemployed, you pack up and move, with NO known prospects waiting for you. That's called "betting the farm" If you get there, and there aren't any jobs there either (not the good-paying jobs your thinking of anyway), how do you feed your family? (Crime comes to mind, but --hey! at least you're free! Until you get caught, anyway.) So, as bad as it is in that crappy job, at least your family IS being fed. That's what makes it "wage slavery": limited viable options that don't end in starvation.

3) "Do it or die!" is soooo melodramatic. You missed the middle ground of being punished until you yield. But the assumption that you are making here is that the slave will ALWAYS want to not do it. That is probably the case when the slave owners are abusive -- but not ALL of them were. Many were even reasonable humane -- significantly more humane than most of the mining and industry owners of the same era were. Enough to eat, solid roof over his head, adequate clothing, free Medical when he or his family got sick, and the cost is working the fields for 12 hours. In contrast, _paid_ mine workers earned just enough to live in a slum, wear filthy clothes, pray no one gets sick, but would be required to work a 16-hour day. Which had it worse? The slave or the "free" worker?

4) Not all slave-owners were quite so kind; not all industrialists were quite so callous. (ALL of the mine owners though, ALL of them, definitely.) A significant number of slaves never left the plantations after Emancipation. Many chose to stay on with or without pay, rather than leave what was for the time not such a harsh life for an unskilled poor person. Many felt so appreciative of the lifestyle their masters provided them that they served with their masters in the Confederate Army.

People are people; some Good, some Bad. If you would hunt down EVERY Slaver you came across, then you should be morally impelled to likewise hunt down those industrialists that pay their employees squat, make them work excessive hours in poor, unsafe working conditions, and are in general just simply heartless bastards getting filthy rich off of their employees' misery. Because in the end, _THAT_ is what you are avenging: the misery that Bad men sow.

[chrisboote]

Let's say the resolution of that situation is that the slaves are all freed. The group then returns later to discover that the former free men are resentful because the sudden entrance into the market of so many extra workers has dropped wages down, and the former slaves are wishing for the old days when all of their needs were taken care of without them having to stress about the details.

You don't have to look too far back for that. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a non-trivial percentage of my Ostie friends were very unhappy that they now had to work a lot more to get the same standard of living as under the Communist government

As one said, "We may have been slaves, but we were never hungry. You can't eat freedom"

[Son of Max]

I can think of two types of bonded labor that could add interesting dynamics to the game: Indentured Servitude and Prison Labor.

You could have people (or even entire families) who've entered into some sort of bonded service (to a corporate concern, like a factory, a mine or even the AG Center to work those concerns, OR to private citizens to do domestic work, stuff like that) under some sort of contract for a specific amount of time in order to gain access to a safe settlement or passage elsewhere, what have you or even to pay off debts or because they have nowhere else to go and no other way to survive.

Prison Labor is fairly self explanatory: People were convicted of a crime and are sentenced to Hard Labor for a set amount of time in a mine or machine shop or ag center or what have you.

You could even have a plot where an unscrupulous tycoon has an arrangement with a town or city's police and judges to arrest and convict innocent people of crimes for the express purpose of sending the tycoon a steady supply of what amounts to slaves the tycoon doesn't have to pay for, OR, gets around local laws prohibiting slavery.

Lots of interesting opportunities for quests and adventure there.

[CaptainPatch]

The Great Wall of China was built primarily with convict labor. In order to keep the work gangs manned, "crimes" that could send you to the Wall became increasingly trivial. "Spit on the sidewalk Off to the Wall with you!" Between 2 and 3 million people died building it. (That's about 360 and 540 per mile of Wall.)

Use of convict labor is definitely one of those "slippery slope" situations that frequently leads to corruption and abuse. Just saying.

[Stainless]

I want all aspects of slavery included. I want trade, capture, liberate, or risk being a slave myself. Slavery diversifies the Ecomony and commerce. Slavery should add motivation to the PC and NPCs.

No censorship, if it fits in the wasteland, put it in.

[anubite]

People are people; some Good, some Bad. If you would hunt down EVERY Slaver you came across, then you should be morally impelled to likewise hunt down those industrialists that pay their employees squat, make them work excessive hours in poor, unsafe working conditions, and are in general just simply heartless bastards getting filthy rich off of their employees' misery. Because in the end, _THAT_ is what you are avenging: the misery that Bad men sow.

Love this. Would love to see this transposed into an overarching theme of Wasteland 2. Players can choose to go after slavers, but eventually, they're strung along a path to being forced to do the unthinkable: destroy entire communities for the sake of freedom and protect "good" slavers and the people who serve them.

[Ratboy]

I want all aspects of slavery included. I want trade, capture, liberate, or risk being a slave myself. Slavery diversifies the Ecomony and commerce. Slavery should add motivation to the PC and NPCs.

No censorship, if it fits in the wasteland, put it in.

I agree. Wasteland would benefit from a group that practice some of mankind's cruelest intentions. Why not hire some slaves yourself as cannon fodder or minefield sweepers, trap testers? I could see a 'moral dilemma' in using slaves to run into a room with C4 strapped to their back to clear a room and your reputation suffering as a result, potentially having a slavery railroad group targeting your party for inhuman activities, etc.

Taking prisoners of enemies that choose to flee, retreat, or who fall unconscious and selling them into slavery should be an option too.

[Mort2]

I demand my personal sex slave!

[Woolfe]

One key difference.
<Snip>.

Ouch. You certainly like your assumptions!

Oh boy do I like my assumptions

1) Given the conditions around the same time as there is/would be Slavery, there would most likely be an institution called "the Company Store". Yes, workers are paid, but not quite enough to make ends meet. Charges for work attire (quite legal nearly everywhere, even today), for tools, for breakage, fines for work violations, all add up until the worker's account is in arrears -- at which point, quitting isn't an option. If you try to leave, you can be arrested for "defrauding a merchant" and an array of other charges. What's that? "Then don't be so stupid as to start working for that Company"? That takes us to #2

Slavery hidden behind economic methodology is still slavery, it just takes longer to identify. I would have a stern talking to the owners of said company. If said company didn't fix the issues, then said company would find itself bereft of management.

2) This is your biggest false assumption: that there is _always_ someone interested in hiring you. And willing to pay you a decent wage as well. Pretty much depends on who you are and what skills you bring with you. If all you know is mining, and ALL of the Mining Companies pay is minimal wages, where are you going to get that other job? Especially when the Company you left passes around the word that you are a troublemaker. Move to another town and look for work? Already poor AND unemployed, you pack up and move, with NO known prospects waiting for you. That's called "betting the farm" If you get there, and there aren't any jobs there either (not the good-paying jobs your thinking of anyway), how do you feed your family? (Crime comes to mind, but --hey! at least you're free! Until you get caught, anyway.) So, as bad as it is in that crappy job, at least your family IS being fed. That's what makes it "wage slavery": limited viable options that don't end in starvation.

If an enterprise isn't profitable then it will fail. If it is profitable then Management and owners will be making money. If they can't afford to pay their staff properly, so that the staff also prosper, and yet they are still living it up, then its not profitable.
Interestingly if all the company was doing was providing food and boarding to the "staff", not mistreating them, and allowing them to leave if they wanted(without cost), then I would not consider it slavery. If an individual can't leave because he has a family to provide for then that is his own issue.
In that situation I would probably discuss unionisation with the staff, and politely speak to the management about improving their staff's conditions. But I wouldn't consider it slavery.
But as soon as they start restricting people by taking away for no reason other than profit, its slavery. And I will treat it so.

3) "Do it or die!" is soooo melodramatic. You missed the middle ground of being punished until you yield. But the assumption that you are making here is that the slave will ALWAYS want to not do it. That is probably the case when the slave owners are abusive -- but not ALL of them were. Many were even reasonable humane -- significantly more humane than most of the mining and industry owners of the same era were. Enough to eat, solid roof over his head, adequate clothing, free Medical when he or his family got sick, and the cost is working the fields for 12 hours. In contrast, _paid_ mine workers earned just enough to live in a slum, wear filthy clothes, pray no one gets sick, but would be required to work a 16-hour day. Which had it worse? The slave or the "free" worker?

Remember this is a game, and not real life. In real life it wouldn't be that easy.
If you are being punished until you yield, then it is slavery.
Nope, the Slave may actually want to do it, because for some it is better to be a slave and alive, than free and dead. In the first instance, the owner should consider freeing and paying his people with the benefits you mentioned. If he was a good "owner/employer" then the good workers would come to him by choice.
The paid mine workers earning only enough to live in a slum was because the owners/management were treating them as a commodity, and were not paying them appropriately to the level of profit they were making.
In both cases the problem is the person on top. Remove/modify that factor and change occurs. This is a game remember, I have the options of killing people and doing whatever and all I have to worry about it whether my party will survive. In real life, I am slightly less voracious on the topic tho I do believe slavery should be expunged. Wage slavery as well. I am for the 99%

4) Not all slave-owners were quite so kind; not all industrialists were quite so callous. (ALL of the mine owners though, ALL of them, definitely.) A significant number of slaves never left the plantations after Emancipation. Many chose to stay on with or without pay, rather than leave what was for the time not such a harsh life for an unskilled poor person. Many felt so appreciative of the lifestyle their masters provided them that they served with their masters in the Confederate Army.

Yup, but that was their choice.

People are people; some Good, some Bad. If you would hunt down EVERY Slaver you came across, then you should be morally impelled to likewise hunt down those industrialists that pay their employees squat, make them work excessive hours in poor, unsafe working conditions, and are in general just simply heartless bastards getting filthy rich off of their employees' misery. Because in the end, _THAT_ is what you are avenging: the misery that Bad men sow.

Yep, Bad men. A good man has no place in slavery except where it is institutionalised and there are no alternatives available, and the choice to not have it is taken away. (interestingly a form of slavery in itself).
In that situation I wouldn't kill them straight away, I would be looking to fix the institution. Those who resist are to be re-educated, those who can't be re-educated get the option of leaving or taking me on.

You'll never beat me down in a game world.

In real life, its not as cut and dry. Don't mistake me for a fanatic in RL, but in a game, I can be.

[Woolfe]

I demand my personal sex slave!

You my friend, are going to be shot on sight

[CaptainPatch]

You'll never beat me down in a game world.

Load Saved Game. (Repeat until desired result is achieved.)

[Woolfe]

You'll never beat me down in a game world.

Load Saved Game. (Repeat until desired result is achieved.)

You Maniacs! You Reloaded! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

[undecaf]

Nope, thats still wrong. Even if the Slaves have convinced themselves that they are "better off" if there is no choice, then it is slavery. So If he boss decides he wants to have his way with your Wife/Daughter/significant other or whatever, and you have to allow it, then it is slavery. If you can't just decide one day. I am done here, I am going to walk away and find a new life, then it is slavery. The exact same situation could of been had for those slaves, by offering them the option to work for food and board. They could still walk away if they weren't happy, and thus they would no longer be slaves.

Yes, it is still slavery, and the slaves acknowledged that. The point is that what is best for them isn't (wasn't in the movie - watch it, if you haven't) necessarily the righteous free-will community. It is a skewed perspective, but it's also delicious moral dilemma. Would you ruin the lives of these people (possibly) with morally righteous decision of setting them free in a world of which they knew nothing about and in which they didn't know what to do without the omnipresent guidance of their masters, and thus would likely die sooner rather than later; or would you let them be as they were and preferred to be, enslaved by their masters but having a clear purpose in life? As in some cases, freedom can be as destructive as it is creative.

Yes.. Yes I would

"Yes.. Yes you would set them free" to (likely) die prematurely; or "Yes.. Yes you would let them stay as they are", enslaved and oppressed, but alive and taken care of?

I think I can guess, but why do you consider your choice to be more righteous (or just right) than the other for it to be your unquestioned choice?

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

One key difference.

1) A "Wage Slave" doesn't have to be. They can go, "screw this I am out of here". And their employer cannot stop them. Their employer cannot have them beaten as a result, their employer cannot have them killed. This is the difference.

2) If I quit my job, I can get another one. I may be a slave to money, but it is my choice to be. If I didn't want it, I could give it up and go.

3) That is the difference, and no matter the fine words and fancy morality arguments. A wage slave has choices many of them. A real slave has 2. Do it or die.

4) This is why I despise slavery. The fact that we are even discussing this sort of thing shows how powerful it could be as a storytelling device. I actually want to have slavers in the game. So I can go in and seriously fuck their shit up.

Ouch. You certainly like your assumptions!

1) Given the conditions around the same time as there is/would be Slavery, there would most likely be an institution called "the Company Store". Yes, workers are paid, but not quite enough to make ends meet. Charges for work attire (quite legal nearly everywhere, even today), for tools, for breakage, fines for work violations, all add up until the worker's account is in arrears -- at which point, quitting isn't an option. If you try to leave, you can be arrested for "defrauding a merchant" and an array of other charges. What's that? "Then don't be so stupid as to start working for that Company"? That takes us to #2

2) This is your biggest false assumption: that there is _always_ someone interested in hiring you. And willing to pay you a decent wage as well. Pretty much depends on who you are and what skills you bring with you. If all you know is mining, and ALL of the Mining Companies pay is minimal wages, where are you going to get that other job? Especially when the Company you left passes around the word that you are a troublemaker. Move to another town and look for work? Already poor AND unemployed, you pack up and move, with NO known prospects waiting for you. That's called "betting the farm" If you get there, and there aren't any jobs there either (not the good-paying jobs your thinking of anyway), how do you feed your family? (Crime comes to mind, but --hey! at least you're free! Until you get caught, anyway.) So, as bad as it is in that crappy job, at least your family IS being fed. That's what makes it "wage slavery": limited viable options that don't end in starvation.

3) "Do it or die!" is soooo melodramatic. You missed the middle ground of being punished until you yield. But the assumption that you are making here is that the slave will ALWAYS want to not do it. That is probably the case when the slave owners are abusive -- but not ALL of them were. Many were even reasonable humane -- significantly more humane than most of the mining and industry owners of the same era were. Enough to eat, solid roof over his head, adequate clothing, free Medical when he or his family got sick, and the cost is working the fields for 12 hours. In contrast, _paid_ mine workers earned just enough to live in a slum, wear filthy clothes, pray no one gets sick, but would be required to work a 16-hour day. Which had it worse? The slave or the "free" worker?

4) Not all slave-owners were quite so kind; not all industrialists were quite so callous. (ALL of the mine owners though, ALL of them, definitely.) A significant number of slaves never left the plantations after Emancipation. Many chose to stay on with or without pay, rather than leave what was for the time not such a harsh life for an unskilled poor person. Many felt so appreciative of the lifestyle their masters provided them that they served with their masters in the Confederate Army.

People are people; some Good, some Bad. If you would hunt down EVERY Slaver you came across, then you should be morally impelled to likewise hunt down those industrialists that pay their employees squat, make them work excessive hours in poor, unsafe working conditions, and are in general just simply heartless bastards getting filthy rich off of their employees' misery. Because in the end, _THAT_ is what you are avenging: the misery that Bad men sow.

What you have provided here sir is a nice review of the complexity re: slavery. I would be happy if this many angles were touched upon in a game and it didn't patronize me with a simplistic "free the slaves" quest.

Love this. Would love to see this transposed into an overarching theme of Wasteland 2. Players can choose to go after slavers, but eventually, they're strung along a path to being forced to do the unthinkable: destroy entire communities for the sake of freedom and protect "good" slavers and the people who serve them.

This is a pretty good idea. So you can't just "free the slaves" like you did in Fallout 2. If you try, you end up killing everybody because one after another they are all pissed at you except for some hermits in the woods.

That should be a viable character path in Wasteland 2.

I demand my personal sex slave!

You my friend, are going to be shot on sight

Then what are you going to do with his sex slave? Put her to work as a waitress? But she already had something going on! Now you are trying to become Human Resources for everybody.

[Therumancer]

Well, a way of dealing with slavery in a rather profound way is to put it into the context of a less civilized enviroment.

Let's say that you successfully defeat a vicious group of barbarians, wiping out their abillity to fight and do damage, however simply leaving them just means they are going to rebuild and get back to business as usual, like you were never there, except now they can add "revenge" to their motives for raiding and brutality. You can't practically take all of them and lock them up as prisoners for life, and the guys aren't going to just suddenly change their way of life and point of view because they happened to be defeated.

In a situation like that you can either put them all to the sword (massacre) or enslave them and then divide the slaves up among your empire to effectively destroy the culture and remove the threat without actually putting them all to the sword one the spot.

As odd as it sounds this was how a lot of the slavery for the Romans and Greeks during their eras of conquest took place and why. A big part of the whole "kill the men, enslave the women and children" mentality wasn't just about the women and children being "docile, and easy to exploit and control" but because putting a bunch of women and children to the sword was fairly ambigious even then. Slavery could be considered an act of mercy from a certain perspective. What's more those who proudly proclaim they would rather be dead than a slave, probably have never faced a situation like that to put it to the test.

Of course this has all kinds of moral implications once a few generations go by, the culture you had a problem with are gone, and your dealing with those born into slavery. It's not really practical to expect slave owners to shoulder the expense of raising children and then setting them free (it would be difficult to afford, and nobody would have slaves, meaning that your back at the "put them to the sword" stage), and despite all americanized stereotypes not all slaves who are bred to it are exactly going to hate their lot in life, especially if they were raised to it. As odd as it sounds many people actually enjoy having a very clear and unambigious purpose, and being lead, with few responsibilities themselves.

The point here is simply that you can portray such things without getting into the entire "slavery is unambigiously evil" schtick. Really that point of view tends to be the result of the mentality of the people who ended slavery (White Europeans) and the descendants of the last groups of people to be victimized. Throughout most of history before the rise of european/western dominance, and the desician of modern europeans to outlaw slavery (even if their forefathers practiced it) it was the way of the world. Fantasy tends to reflect the very narrow perspective of those who create it.

I'm ranting about this touchy topic mostly because this whole discussion reminds me of some conversations that have occured when I was playing AD&D and parties I was with (or GMing for) defeated villages of various evil races and factions, and then started argueing about what to do with those that surrendered. Part of why it's kind of easy to see the historical realities in a fairly "realistic" context as I've been there while people have sort of wound up accidently debating "what do we do with these people? We can't lock them up, we can't kill them..." in some ways the slavery comes about "accidently" when people start thinking in terms of "Well, we'll lock them up, but make them work in order to support the expenses of keeping them locked up..." and the logic progresses from there. The differance being that in the stereotype it's the "good" people being oppressed by the slavers, not the heroes say dealing with the group of evil orcs or goblionoids they just defeated. One guy I gamed with sort of came up with the perspective that "Slavery is only bad if the wrong people are on the receiving end" which is so subjective, yet true, that it's unintentionally hilarious.

At any rate, that kind of thing could make an interesting moral quandary for Wasteland, but I doubt it will be implemented. It's probably an issue that should be sidestepped due to the difficulty of handling it. Though now that I think of it I am remembered "Fallout Tactics" with the whole mission where you clear out a bunker and "recruit" some tribals and the ending voicework for the mission had General Barnaky going off like "you have now recruited these tribals to be pressed into service where they will learn to follow our strict and uncompromising rules and thus be free" which was in the same basic spirit.

[CaptainPatch]

NOT putting the losers to the sword _or_ enslaving them leaves you pretty much in the same situation as the Israelis and the Palestinians: Generations later, there's still violence, bloodshed and mayhem.

You neglected the Diaspora approach: Take ALL of the survivors, break them into single-family units, and then scatter them all over the empire with no unit closer then 25 miles to another unit. (Of course you don't tell any of them that is what is happening. All they know is that they're far, far from home where they don't know another living soul. [And many of them are in the same situation you are.]) Because they are still with their families, they _still_ have something to lose. More focus on making a living and less on seeking revenge.

And, BTW, "kill all the men, enslave all the women and children" most definitely was dealing with threat potential, first and foremost. Men are warriors, prone to violence and rebellion. Women can be controlled simply by threatening their children. "Think of the children!" Granted, there were some women that were veritable wildcats; those get their throats slit along with the men. Very simple filtering process: "Submit or die."

[Woolfe]

<SNIP>

Yes.. Yes I would

"Yes.. Yes you would set them free" to (likely) die prematurely; or "Yes.. Yes you would let them stay as they are", enslaved and oppressed, but alive and taken care of?

I think I can guess, but why do you consider your choice to be more righteous (or just right) than the other for it to be your unquestioned choice?

Why would they be dying? Aren't they the ones doing the work. Aren't they the ones providing the labour to produce the product, that is bringing in the wealth that provides them the food.

Ideally I wouldn't just be setting them free to then die in the Wasteland. Once I had done the freeing I now have an obligation to ensure that I can leave them in a manner that they can operate on their own, and won't die.

So sure then it becomes more complex and may result in me not being able to do it just then and there.

But you know what, even if all the slaves die. The guys who was providing the market for the slavers is dead, and everyone else has heard about a group of rangers who comes in and fucks shit up if they have slaves, so they stop buying slaves,therefore the market is dead, therefore the slavers are no longer profiting from their activities, therefore they stop turning people into slaves.

Market forces baby, market forces.

[Woolfe]

<SNIP>

What you have provided here sir is a nice review of the complexity re: slavery. I would be happy if this many angles were touched upon in a game and it didn't patronize me with a simplistic "free the slaves" quest.

Me too....

Love this. Would love to see this transposed into an overarching theme of Wasteland 2. Players can choose to go after slavers, but eventually, they're strung along a path to being forced to do the unthinkable: destroy entire communities for the sake of freedom and protect "good" slavers and the people who serve them.

This is a pretty good idea. So you can't just "free the slaves" like you did in Fallout 2. If you try, you end up killing everybody because one after another they are all pissed at you except for some hermits in the woods.

That should be a viable character path in Wasteland 2.

OOOOOOOOoooooooooo the moral complexity....

I demand my personal sex slave!

You my friend, are going to be shot on sight

Then what are you going to do with his sex slave? Put her to work as a waitress? But she already had something going on! Now you are trying to become Human Resources for everybody.

She came from somewhere, and I am sure I could find someone in the land who is willing to help. Great plot point actually. Rescue the girl, take her to a town I think is safe. Come back later to find out they have essentially enslaved her or even killed her.

Wooo would that piss me off or what... That'd be awesome!

[CaptainPatch]

But you know what, even if all the slaves die. The guys who was providing the market for the slavers is dead, and everyone else has heard about a group of rangers who comes in and fucks shit up if they have slaves, so they stop buying slaves,therefore the market is dead, therefore the slavers are no longer profiting from their activities, therefore they stop turning people into slaves.

Is that "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" or "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the (relatively) few"? Not very comforting to the "eggs" or relative few. One wonders how the slaves would react if someone sat them down and explained that, "Following the Ranger's lead WILL more than likely result in most of you dying before the dust settles. But, hey! At least you all died as Free Men! In the long run, your deaths will have been for the best for everybody else."

Hmm. I and my family can be _live_ slaves, or _dead_ Free Men. Which should I choose? Decisions, decisions.

[Eaglestoner]

In many long dead civilizations slavery didn't hold the moral polarity it does today. Back then it was a legitimate career choice to many not-so-prosperous families, who basically volunteered for it. I would assume that once the world is turned to shit and humanity is "reset" to an extent, that slavery would revert back to these old ideals and would be adopted as a necessary survival tool.

Yes, your freedom is taken away, but your given food, shelter and protection. Not all slavers would necessarily be evil and exploitative, just as not all business owners today are greedy and unreasonable. And before the choir pipes up with the argument about servant-hood versus slavery, both existed back in these cultures. Slavery wasn't necessarily forced but it was semi-permanent, meaning the slave had no power over how long they were a slave for, only the master. Servants, on the other hand, could choose to be a servant just like any other job, although there were potentially severe consequences for "quitting" depending on the circumstances of the servant-hood.

I, personally, would like to see the aforementioned moral complexities of this kind of system. Some slaves won't want to be freed just to die in the wasteland, while others (generally those forcibly taken) will want another chance at their own life.