Slavery

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

I think some of the assumptions here about how pitiably impotent slaves would be are not looking at the whole picture. For instance look at Primo Levi's memoir of being used as slave labour in a concentration camp. Or Art Spiegelman's Maus. Both paint a picture of people who have to be incredibly resourceful and quick-witted to survive, not to mention ruthless in some cases. Hell, look at any account of prison life, and how cut-throat it is, how ingenious prisoners can be.

Oh, I agree. You have to be ingenious to survive harsh conditions. No doubt.

But people are also habit-forming, which partly explains why many long-term convicts often return to prison. They're used to it.

Our human ability to adapt to a situation sometimes makes us our own worst enemies. The Milgram authority experiment and the Sanford prison experiment both demonstrate how dramatically people will take on the habits of authority and obeisance even in a controlled, idealized environment, and even to the point of torturing or accepting torture. It sometimes takes tremendous phychological strength to resist authority. Owners/Slavers/Rulers rely on this weakness to lull people into a false sense of security.

Slaves/prisoners who have escaped are the exception that proves the rule.

Drawing parallels to modern day prisoners becoming institutionalised is a mistake in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the problem that these prisoners have is that the world they come back to is so different to the one they lived in prison. I would guess that surviving as a post-apocalyptic slave is not that different to surviving as a post-apocalyptic freeman.

That might be true; most of the people in the post-apoc world may be adapted to it, aside from those who may be sheltered from the environment. It might be more difficult to enslave people like that. On the other hand there may be pockets of civilization that obey a charismatic ruler, to the point of being his slaves. It could be the easiest way to survive. (Were the citizens of Bartertown the slaves of Tina Turner?)

[CaptainPatch]

Our human ability to adapt to a situation sometimes makes us our own worst enemies. The Milgram authority experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) and the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) both demonstrate how dramatically people will take on the habits of authority and obeisance even in a controlled, idealized environment, and even to the point of torturing or accepting torture. It sometimes takes tremendous psychological strength to resist authority. Owners/Slavers/Rulers rely on this weakness to lull people into a false sense of security.

Reference details inserted.

[undecaf]

I think some of the assumptions here about how pitiably impotent slaves would be are not looking at the whole picture. For instance look at Primo Levi's memoir of being used as slave labour in a concentration camp. Or Art Spiegelman's Maus. Both paint a picture of people who have to be incredibly resourceful and quick-witted to survive, not to mention ruthless in some cases. Hell, look at any account of prison life, and how cut-throat it is, how ingenious prisoners can be.

Drawing parallels to modern day prisoners becoming institutionalised is a mistake in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the problem that these prisoners have is that the world they come back to is so different to the one they lived in prison. I would guess that surviving as a post-apocalyptic slave is not that different to surviving as a post-apocalyptic freeman.

You're mistake is to assume that we're talking about universal truths here. This, as it seems to me so far, has been a discussion about a very possible but hypothetical situation. About how to make slavery morally ambiguous in the game, instead of the old boring slaver=bad, slave=good. I can't remember if it was Descartes or someone other who wrote that there is never a pure distinction about good and evil, only the shades of gery. That someones good is always someone others bad, and such.

It's very clear that not all slavery would work in a such morally grey area, but there is a realistic possibility for it to be just like that. And that, in my opinion, is - should be - the crux of it if slavery is added to the game.

[stonetoes]

Our human ability to adapt to a situation sometimes makes us our own worst enemies. The Milgram authority experiment and the Sanford prison experiment both demonstrate how dramatically people will take on the habits of authority and obeisance even in a controlled, idealized environment, and even to the point of torturing or accepting torture. It sometimes takes tremendous phychological strength to resist authority. Owners/Slavers/Rulers rely on this weakness to lull people into a false sense of security.

I agree with you, but what I'm trying to counter is the idea that freed slaves will be a massive burden on the player. It's possible they could be, but I think that it should be the exception. If anything, the Stanford prison experiment shows that a leader would quickly arise among the freed slaves and take control. As I understand it, more modern experiments have shown that if there is no natural leader, someone will quickly assume the traits of leadership anyway to fill the gap. There was also an experiment recently showing that after as little as 15 minutes of having power over others, individuals will be more likely to agree with statements like "the end justify the means" and "different rules should apply to those in power". I'm arguing that due to this phenomenon, freed slaves are not going to simply lye down in the dirt and die if the player leaves them to their fate. One of them will take charge.

Slaves/prisoners who have escaped are the exception that proves the rule.

Possibly, but I thought we were talking about the consequences of the player freeing the slaves, not them spontaneously freeing themselves? Whether they would act alone isn't really relevant, it's what they do once the player has taken charge that's important.

On the other hand there may be pockets of civilization that obey a charismatic ruler, to the point of being his slaves. It could be the easiest way to survive.

This is true, but I would argue that given the chance (most likely by the rangers removing this leader and his goons) these people would choose emancipation, not curse the rangers for leaving them alone. Especially as someone would most likely rise to power quickly as I've already talked about.

You're mistake is to assume that we're talking about universal truths here.
...
It's very clear that not all slavery would work in a such morally grey area, but there is a realistic possibility for it to be just like that. And that, in my opinion, is - should be - the crux of it if slavery is added to the game.

But my post wasn't addressing the possibility of morally grey slavery, or assuming anything about other posters here, I was just offering a different viewpoint on how hypothetical post-apocalyptic slaves would react once emancipated. To me, if you're going to use child-like slaves as the crux of a morally ambiguous choice for the payer, it's going to come across as contrived and over-wrought. Sure, it could happen, but how likely is it?

I've been wondering how to approach this subject, but I think this is what's been troubling me about it. Slavery is a real issue which has been the cause of untold misery over thousands of years, and still is today. Bending over backwards to come up with borderline scenarios risks painting slavery as more ambiguous than it really is. Maybe if slavery was going to be the whole focus of the game it would be possible to give a balanced and in-depth exploration of the subject without mis-representing it, but I'm sceptical of Wasteland 2's ability to do that.

Maybe you find depicting slavers as bad "boring", but sometimes subjects are depicted this way for a reason. There are so many subjects that can be used to explore moral ambiguity, if the devs want to use this particular one they are going to have to be incredibly careful not to come across as heavy-handed and exploitative.

[CaptainPatch]

Slavery goes back to before recorded history. It's still in practice today. To NOT have it in any world environment would be pointedly UNrealistic. However, there is not just one "flavor" of Slavery. There is/have been nearly as many "flavors" as there have been slavers and slave-owners. Several historical cultures used forms that weren't even remotely similar to the Deep South slavery stereotype. In Ancient Greece, slaves had rights that owners could not abridge, under penalty of Law. In Ancient Egypt, EVERYONE was a slave to Pharaoh, but yet there were clear distinctions between the social levels of Pharoah's slaves, with many "slaves" themselves owning slaves.

What is not stressed nearly enough in a discussion of Slavery is the word "some": Some slave-owners were cruel; some were kind. Some slaves were rebellious; some were submissive. Some slaves were enslaved against their will; some entered slavery by their own choice. Some slaves were born slaves and died slaves; some were able to purchase their freedom for themselves and their families. The "some" is pointedly a variable percentage, one that varies, it seems, according to the personal beliefs of the person presenting the theory.

The point is, no _realistic_ depiction of Slavery be as straightforward as black-and-white. (Paradise Falls comes to mind.) And accordingly, no single "solution" for dealing with Slavery should be applied.

[stonetoes]

To NOT have it in any world environment would be pointedly UNrealistic.

There are plenty of things which exist in every world environment to some degree, but the devs aren't creating a world, they are creating a tiny slice of one. Let's not pretend that it's a mandatory subject to explore when they have an infinite number to choose from.

However, there is not just one "flavor" of Slavery. There is/have been nearly as many "flavors" as there have been slavers and slave-owners. Several historical cultures used forms that weren't even remotely similar to the Deep South slavery stereotype. In Ancient Greece, slaves had rights that owners could not abridge, under penalty of Law. In Ancient Egypt, EVERYONE was a slave to Pharaoh, but yet there were clear distinctions between the social levels of Pharoah's slaves, with many "slaves" themselves owning slaves.

Giving examples of cultures where slavery is totally accepted seems pointless to me, seeing as how the game is set in California within living memory of the apocalypse. (2050s right?) I would have real trouble suspending my disbelief were a culture to spring up where this was simply accepted as a cultural norm with no resistance from the slaves themselves. Not only is such a massive change in outlook not appropriate for the game's setting, it's not appropriate for our own world. Very few people who play Wasteland think that brutal dictatorships with no human rights are a good thing, so presenting the example of ancient Egypt as if it's morally ambiguous is meaningless. We know that such a society is unjust, brutal, and immoral. If such a society were presented in Wasteland 2, I wouldn't think "It's their culture, who cares if the slaves get worked to death in the thousands and buried alive for no reason", I would think "this is wrong, I'm gonna put a stop to it". That's not morally ambiguous, it's not a shade of grey. The unintended consequences might be, the bloodshed which results might be, but the decision to oppose that slavery is not, no matter how indoctrinated the slaves are.

What is not stressed nearly enough in a discussion of Slavery is the word "some": Some slave-owners were cruel; some were kind. Some slaves were rebellious; some were submissive. Some slaves were enslaved against their will; some entered slavery by their own choice. Some slaves were born slaves and died slaves; some were able to purchase their freedom for themselves and their families. The "some" is pointedly a variable percentage, one that varies, it seems, according to the personal beliefs of the person presenting the theory.

The thing is, if someone chooses to own slaves, rather than employ people for room and board instead, it doesn't matter how "kind" they are on the surface, it's abrogated by their choice to own humans as property. If the kind of difficult choices we're going to be presented with involve kindly slavers who choose to force people into servitude instead of employing them in exchange for food, I will not impressed. It doesn't matter how submissive those slaves are, that just makes it worse. I have trouble imagining a siutation where someone chooses to be a slave when the alternative isn't starvation. Sure, there might be a few rare instances where slaves choose to be there, rather than being taken advantage of by someone who could simply not take advantage of them instead, but how common is that really going to be? If the slaver has the resources to keep those slaves alive he has the resources to do so in exchange for labour rather than denying them the right to be free.

When you get down to it, instances where slavery is unavoidable are going to be vanishingly rare compared to instances when it is avoidable but the strong simply find it more convenient to dominate the weak. Bearing that in mind, choosing to focus the game on those vanishingly rare instances instead seems a little too convenient. It's whitewashing one of the most degrading aspects of humanity in order to provide us with entertainment.

The point is, no _realistic_ depiction of Slavery be as straightforward as black-and-white.

There was an article in the guardian a while a back about a man being kept as a slave in Sudan. He was violently raped three times a day, every day, for two years. Don't you dare fucking tell me that a realistic depiction of slavery can't be black and white. If you want "realistic" depictions of slavery, why not have that as a nice plot line in our little video game, before we go looking for ways to pat ourselves on the back for how deep and meangingful this game is going to be.

And accordingly, no single "solution" for dealing with Slavery should be applied.

Sure, as long as we don't pretend that choosing not to deal with it when you are able to do so is morally neutral. It's not.

[Woolfe]

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

How much more of a tyrant can one man be than when he dictates to EVERYONE, "Do what _I_ tell you or die!"? If you have _any_ respect for the Rule of Law, then where is Due Process in your methodology? ALL Men are flawed; it takes a psychopath to be convinced that HIS reasoning is absolutely flawless. When YOU take it upon yourself to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, you abridge the rights of others to create any kind of Rule of Law.

No, I merely abridge the rights of others to create laws that take away the rights of others purely for the sake of individual profit.

Hmm. Do your superiors know that you are out here destroying established communities in the pursuit of your zealot's beliefs? Given how thinly the Desert Rangers are spread in the Wasteland, you are acting as an ambassador for the Desert Rangers. What YOU do reflects on the organization. How will other communities react to YOUR heavy-handedness, even ones that have no Slavery? All that they will see is that the Desert Rangers are delivering ultimatums that boil down to "Do what we tell you to do or be utterly destroyed!" YOUR actions very probably hasten the reunification of the Wasteland -- against the Desert Rangers! I think that your superiors might be a tad bit displeased with such a possibility.

Indeed, they do, and indeed I am, and we reflect very poorly on slavery.
And no, I gave them the ultimatum of "Stop supporting slavery, or we will take action against the slavers". The action in this case was the removal of the slavers from power, if they resist that removal, then that is their choice as well, and they must accept the consequences. I do not even begrudge them it.

YOUR beliefs imposed upon others in the manner that you use is as oppressive as the most vile of tyrants in history. It is more of a theocracy when one pursues such a violent course with such burning fervor. You actively destroy Order and leave Chaos in your wake. You are a destroyer of nearly everything you touch, until all that remains after you have "cleansed" the lands are ONLY those things that YOU personally will allow.

Bahahhahahah really, cause you know all the other towns in the area, that weren't using slavery are so against me now that their families are safe from the slavers.
I now have a reputation for destroying a community of slavers. I can live with that, it is not the only reputation I have. When I get to the next town and speak to them, and I say "I do not abide slavery" they will understand and believe me. Perhaps the next slaver town will also have these so called "saint" slavers. And perhaps this time when I speak to them of stopping slavery, they will listen and act. They may well already begin before I arrive, hearing my reputation come before me.
The loss of life here has been counted on the heads of slavers. Men who would enslave other men for their own personal gain. If lives must be lost, then I would rather it be them, than the men and women who are just trying to survive and rebuild that they prey upon.

Your name is NOT John Brown. Your name is Apocalypse.

Only for slavers, others will make their own choice about me.



PS incase anyone hasn't realised, this isn't my RL belief. Altho I do advocate very strongly the abolition of slavery in any form, and cruel punishment for any who profit from slavery. (Yes even wage slavery to a degree) I am not so fanatical that I am unaware of the various shades of grey in life. Every situation is unique and needs to be addressed as such. But the ultimate goal is the removal of slavery. So don't take my above writings as the exact thing I would do

[CaptainPatch]

Hmm. Do your superiors know that you are out here destroying established communities in the pursuit of your zealot's beliefs? Given how thinly the Desert Rangers are spread in the Wasteland, you are acting as an ambassador for the Desert Rangers. What YOU do reflects on the organization. How will other communities react to YOUR heavy-handedness, even ones that have no Slavery? All that they will see is that the Desert Rangers are delivering ultimatums that boil down to "Do what we tell you to do or be utterly destroyed!" YOUR actions very probably hasten the reunification of the Wasteland -- against the Desert Rangers! I think that your superiors might be a tad bit displeased with such a possibility.

Indeed, they do, and indeed I am, and we reflect very poorly on slavery.

Pointedly, BS. NO Administrator tolerates subordinates that initiate policy that binds the organization. Loose cannons such as that would at a minimum be recalled ASAP and put on a desk. Your character has been behaving like nothing more than a Badge with a God complex. A renegade that becomes a casus belli that would potentially turn ALL other communities against the organization would be viewed as a greater threat than all of the Slavers in the Wasteland combined. Your actions threatens the very existence of the organization that you purportedly serve. Your actions are not only telling your targets "Do what I tell you or die!", it is also telling the Desert Rangers organization, "The Desert Rangers WILL enforce this policy." No organization permits _any_ subordinate to be that dictatorial about policy to that organization. Period. The fact that your character is about this business _alone_ proves that he is NOT enforcing organizational policy, but is operating pointedly on his own initiative. Had it been the organization's decision to enforce such a policy, 20 Desert Rangers would have been dispatched (at a minimum] under the command of a high ranking officer. And had it been 20+ Rangers delivering the ultimatum, it would have been received as a sincere demand, rather than the blustering of an over-zealous vigilante with a badge.

I would have real trouble suspending my disbelief ...

I am starting to conclude that people that believe Slavery is monochromatic suffer from a lack of imagination. The evidence of that is that when they look at the subject, the evidence that they seek out to bear out their contentions is ONLY that evidence that "proves their point. Cherry-picking instead of random sampling. Makes it easier to see nothing but Black.

[undecaf]

But my post wasn't addressing the possibility of morally grey slavery, or assuming anything about other posters here, I was just offering a different viewpoint on how hypothetical post-apocalyptic slaves would react once emancipated. To me, if you're going to use child-like slaves as the crux of a morally ambiguous choice for the payer, it's going to come across as contrived and over-wrought. Sure, it could happen, but how likely is it?

I've been wondering how to approach this subject, but I think this is what's been troubling me about it. Slavery is a real issue which has been the cause of untold misery over thousands of years, and still is today. Bending over backwards to come up with borderline scenarios risks painting slavery as more ambiguous than it really is. Maybe if slavery was going to be the whole focus of the game it would be possible to give a balanced and in-depth exploration of the subject without mis-representing it, but I'm sceptical of Wasteland 2's ability to do that.

Maybe you find depicting slavers as bad "boring", but sometimes subjects are depicted this way for a reason. There are so many subjects that can be used to explore moral ambiguity, if the devs want to use this particular one they are going to have to be incredibly careful not to come across as heavy-handed and exploitative.

Not child-like, they don't have to be dumb, but non-recent in their captivity. Say, second generation of slaves, for example. People that are not dumb, but who have been raised to serve their masters. I don't view it as "contrived", or the unlikeliness of it as disturbing. I'd say it'd be refreshing take on a subject that is, by the morals of today, a very black&white issue (slavery=very bad'n nothging good can come of it, liberty=is the high/mighty goal of the universe).

Then there are other methods of having ambiguous slavery, like (for a quick example) having the slaveowners' goal to be achieving something that'd eventually be beneficial "all" in the wastes, but not having enough volunteers to work for it so they have to abduct their workers. Sure, there's some evil in what the "slavers" do, but if you consider their goals, would it be beneficial to destroy them by setting the slaves free or help them? There are possibilities of all kinds.

I think you, and some other posters, are having a too "personal" approach to this matter (and in a way it is good, as the goal of the subject - the way I see it - is to make the us think). It isn't to depict the real-life issue as ambiguous, but to provide thought provoking gameplay narrative/mechanics at the state of the world in the game. And what would do that better than deliberately questioning the morals we have today. I'd say the situation is perfect when you need to stop and think for the best solution against your personal moral views, instead of intuitively going for one or the other direction. You and Woolfie represent the best possible candidates for this approach as you both seem very one-sided and politically correct with this subject, and I am not saying I disagree with your positions, but I like when the game would challenge my personal views and rule out my possible personal solution - making me choose outside of my own "comfort zone".

[CaptainPatch]

Speaking of subservience, have any of you wondered why it is that Muslim women do NOT flee in droves from nations under harsh rule like the Taliban? Why do fathers allow their daughters to be subjugated so? There are several Islamic nations where, let's face it, by _our_ standards, women have it tough> If EVERYONE yearns for freedom of action in thought and deed, why do they _stay_ in those environments? Understandably, many do not have the opportunity to skip the country. But pointedly, tens of millions DO. Just grab some cash. hop a bus to the border, step across and ask for political asylum. Heck, in this Internet-permeated world, just send an email to Amnesty International and they would meet you at the border. Easy-peasy. But tens of millions _don't_. Not even millions. Or hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, or even thousands. Maybe hundreds each year.

Apparently all those people in oppressive societies don't want their freedom all that much.

[Sub-Human]

But I don't think it should be there just to provide something for the "good guys" to hate and oppose, and for the "baddies" to condone and endorse.

I agree, pal. I hope that the devs think over as to why slavery is present in one faction and isn't in the other.

[Woolfe]

<Snip>.

Indeed, they do, and indeed I am, and we reflect very poorly on slavery.

Pointedly, BS. NO Administrator tolerates subordinates that initiate policy that binds the organization. Loose cannons such as that would at a minimum be recalled ASAP and put on a desk. Your character has been behaving like nothing more than a Badge with a God complex. A renegade that becomes a casus belli that would potentially turn ALL other communities against the organization would be viewed as a greater threat than all of the Slavers in the Wasteland combined. Your actions threatens the very existence of the organization that you purportedly serve. Your actions are not only telling your targets "Do what I tell you or die!", it is also telling the Desert Rangers organization, "The Desert Rangers WILL enforce this policy." No organization permits _any_ subordinate to be that dictatorial about policy to that organization. Period. The fact that your character is about this business _alone_ proves that he is NOT enforcing organizational policy, but is operating pointedly on his own initiative. Had it been the organization's decision to enforce such a policy, 20 Desert Rangers would have been dispatched (at a minimum] under the command of a high ranking officer. And had it been 20+ Rangers delivering the ultimatum, it would have been received as a sincere demand, rather than the blustering of an over-zealous vigilante with a badge.

Ok, couple of things. First the Ranger Organisation in my world, doesn't tolerate slavery. In addition, the Rangers operate relatively independantly and are expected to use their initiative etc against a set of laws of their own.
I would be playing my Rangers as going out and dealing with communities, assisting were possible, creating links, forging alliances, working with communities. So no, there would be no impression of my force inflicting their regime on everyone. Now, if I was going out and destroying every group that existed whether slavers or not, then that would be a different story. But we were discussing a single community of Slavers with slaves obviously performing some form of work producing something.
Now I have over simplified elements in our above argument. Mostly because it was a hypothetical situation with very few defined factors. That said the main oversimplification would have been how I attempted to turn them from slavery. If they were actively going out and raiding people, then I would stop them. Which would likely ended with me having scoured the town of the slavers(going by the way most games have done this in the past). However if we really did have a situation in which most or even all of the slavers were treating their people really well, and not actively taking new slaves. Then of course I would use diplomacy before opening fire. But no offence, I don't believe that would ever exist. Mostly because of history, for even in those times when slaves had rights, they were still abused etc, and who would speak out against there masters. If you think the 99% have it bad now, imagine if they were just slaves.
Now back to this single community of mythical good slavers amongst all the others communities. The assumption that I would not have done some degree of research prior to taking them on is foolish. Unless I got drawn there in a firefight chasing down slavers in the wild, I would not have any reason to just attack them without first doing a degree of discovery.
If nothing else the discovery would be done to ensure I wasn't getting in over my head in a firefight.
So I would be talking to Slaves, freemen, shopowners, etc and I would do that first in an attempt to glean as much info as possible before approaching the slave masters.
Then I would speak to them, from a position of knowledge.
Now finally if I got to the point that I couldn't convince them to change, I would be left with the need to neutralise a potential threat. To do that I have 3 options. Social, which has failed, Economic, which I don't have enough power in yet, or Military, that I do have capability in.

Now again I stress the point that this is a community who actively uses slaves to gain advantage and personal profit. They are slave masters. I would have no compunction in extinguishing them if other avenues failed. I will not allow slavery to flourish. And if anyone called me on it that is exactly the way I would describe it. Don't be a slaver or deal with slavers and you won't have any issue with me or mine. In many ways extinguishing them now would solve many future social problems.
I will put myself against slavery every time, even if it means going against every other organisation out there. Because slavery should not exist, and on that one you will never convince me otherwise. Sorry we will just have to agree to disagree on that fine point.

I would have real trouble suspending my disbelief ...

I am starting to conclude that people that believe Slavery is monochromatic suffer from a lack of imagination. The evidence of that is that when they look at the subject, the evidence that they seek out to bear out their contentions is ONLY that evidence that "proves their point. Cherry-picking instead of random sampling. Makes it easier to see nothing but Black.[/quote]

Also its a game. If you find you don't agree with the morality of it, you can stop playing. All those people up in arms over this or that in a game, don't play it. Unless it is actively breaking the law, then there is no reason to get up on arms about it, just don't play it.

Anyhoo.. .enough of this.. all too serious at the moment

[ravenshrike]

Hmm. Do your superiors know that you are out here destroying established communities in the pursuit of your zealot's beliefs? Given how thinly the Desert Rangers are spread in the Wasteland, you are acting as an ambassador for the Desert Rangers. What YOU do reflects on the organization. How will other communities react to YOUR heavy-handedness, even ones that have no Slavery? All that they will see is that the Desert Rangers are delivering ultimatums that boil down to "Do what we tell you to do or be utterly destroyed!" YOUR actions very probably hasten the reunification of the Wasteland -- against the Desert Rangers! I think that your superiors might be a tad bit displeased with such a possibility.

Indeed, they do, and indeed I am, and we reflect very poorly on slavery.

Pointedly, BS. NO Administrator tolerates subordinates that initiate policy that binds the organization. Loose cannons such as that would at a minimum be recalled ASAP and put on a desk. Your character has been behaving like nothing more than a Badge with a God complex. A renegade that becomes a casus belli that would potentially turn ALL other communities against the organization would be viewed as a greater threat than all of the Slavers in the Wasteland combined.

The Ranger HQ is descended from a bunch of US Army engineers in an area KNOWN for it's Republican/blue dog dem/libertarian bent, even back in the 80's. And you think these people are going to take SLAVERY lying down? No, the vast majority are gonna put a couple bullets in the back of the skull of anyone who practices it.

[stonetoes]

I was thinking some more about this issue, and I'm starting to think that the problem with depictions of slavery in video-games (and most popular media) isn't that it's too black and white, the problem is that it's too ambiguous already. I read about human rights abuses almost every day. I read about POWs being raped, mistreatment of prisoners, forced marriages, child abuse, abuse of the elderly in care homes, people trafficking, concentration camps, forced impregnation, spousal abuse and outright modern-day slavery. All kinds of situations where the powerless are treated abominably by those who control them, and that's in our world of relative oversight. And the depictions of such things in video games? They don't even come close. They're a fluffy bunny, children's cartoon version of the true horror of these situations.

So I'd like to see the opposite. If Wasteland 2 is going to give us situations where you might have to make a difficult decision on whether to support slavery, that's fine. Just show the true horror of what the absolute power of one individual over another actually leads to. Show people what they're really supporting, or tacitly condoning, or tolerating because it's convenient to them. Put the choice there for the player to support something immoral for their own ends, just don't pretend that 99% if the time it's not leading to massive, sickening abuse.

Then there are other methods of having ambiguous slavery, like (for a quick example) having the slaveowners' goal to be achieving something that'd eventually be beneficial "all" in the wastes, but not having enough volunteers to work for it so they have to abduct their workers. Sure, there's some evil in what the "slavers" do, but if you consider their goals, would it be beneficial to destroy them by setting the slaves free or help them? There are possibilities of all kinds.

But again, chances are that this hypothetical mastermind could accomplish their goals in an ethical way, it's just convenient for them not to. A scenario where that is impossible is going to seem forced to me. So the slavery itself isn't morally ambiguous, it's just a question of how much evil you are willing to tolerate for your own ends. That's the kind of difficult choice I wouldn't mind seeing, it's the suggestions in this thread that slavery isn't all bad that makes me uncomfortable. We can't shy away from the fact that you would be perpetuating unnecessary evil in order to indulge someone else who refuses to work in an ethical manner. "Does the end justify the means?" is a good question to ask, "Is slavery inherently evil?" is not.

It isn't to depict the real-life issue as ambiguous, but to provide thought provoking gameplay narrative/mechanics at the state of the world in the game. And what would do that better than deliberately questioning the morals we have today.

I feel like those two statements are contradictory. If we're creating a gameworld where we're ignoring the real-life issue of slavery, what's the use in questioning the morals we have about it in real-life? That seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If we're going to question the real world's current attitudes to slavery then manufacturing a false depiction of it seems pointless.

Apparently all those people in oppressive societies don't want their freedom all that much.

Are you sure about that? That article is from yesterday. Remember the Arab spring? Watched the news about Syria lately, where your own government are providing non-military aid? Sure it's turning out pretty bad in some cases, or even most, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped people from trying.

And depicting the asylum process as that simplistic is not helpful. I don't know about you guys, but here in Scotland we actually have a large population of Afghan asylum seekers, and that's despite how convoluted and difficult it is for them to get here, and how often they get deported back where they came from. Hell, look at the documentary by Sorious Samura on the incredibly awful things illegal immigrants go through, and he doesn't even touch on the issue of people trafficking.

Again I would also raise the point that you are talking about cultures which have existed for thousands of years (the niqab predates Islam for anyone who doesn't know), we're talking about 2 generations later in the future of California. And yet we're still seeing protests like that linked above. Women being second-class citizens is accepted to varying degrees in every society, slavery is not. "Woman is the nigger of the world" (John Lennon)

Cherry-picking instead of random sampling. Makes it easier to see nothing but Black.

Just how much do you have to cherry-pick in order to see grey? Some slavery is worse than others, but it's all an unnecessary evil which could be replaced by something else.

Also its a game. If you find you don't agree with the morality of it, you can stop playing. All those people up in arms over this or that in a game, don't play it. Unless it is actively breaking the law, then there is no reason to get up on arms about it, just don't play it.

Uh, I thought this was a forum where we vainly attempt to influence the game designers? Rather than walking away, I'll present arguments which support what I'd like to see, as will most people here. Telling people to walk away defeats the point of these forums. Plus most people here are going to play the game anyway since we've already bought it, it just becomes a question of trying to get what we want when we do.

[CaptainPatch]

Several clarifications, in no particular order.

Are you sure about that? That article is from yesterday. Remember the Arab spring? Watched the news about Syria lately, where your own government are providing non-military aid? Sure it's turning out pretty bad in some cases, or even most, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped people from trying.

"Some among the group of about 30 women were pictured holding placards that read "Where is justice?"" In a nation of just under 30 million. Not exactly a groundswell. And did you notice all of the military presence throughout the photos? "See, Americans? We allow our people to publicly dissent! We are a free and democratic nation that you must continue to support!"

In regards to Slavery: Slavers that actively go forth and snatch people to enslave, no question, kill those bastards on sight. Slave-owners that purchase "fresh merchandise" likewise. However, an historical tidbit that hardly anyone knows: Did you know that at the start of the American Civil War (which was NOT started to free the slaves), less than 5% of the 3.5 million slaves in the South had been snatched and enslaved? ALL of the balance were born into slavery. This becomes a significant factor as slavery and slave ownership have become multi-generational. Just as was pointed out with

"Again I would also raise the point that you are talking about cultures which have existed for thousands of years (the niqab predates Islam for anyone who doesn't know)"

the culture of Slavery would be in its third generation.
"Third?" you ask. That's right. I live in CA and have been all over the State. Up around Redding it's definitely redneck country and the survivalist population up that way is thick as thieves. When I was doing ACW reenacting (as a Confederate, surprise, surprise) many a campfire chat involved what-ifs. Nearly universally (myself being in the distinct minority as a "bleeding-heart Liberal"), those rednecks despise blacks. Well, just simply "people of color" is enough to gain their ire. What of the favorite topics was about, "What to do after everything has gone to hell?" Many indicated that "One of the first thing I'd do is go on a coon hunt!" Reinstituting the slavery of blacks was a favorite fantasy, "To put them back in their proper place!" Those slaves that "don't take to the collar and are more bother than they're worth" would be the center of entertainment in a reenactment of "Naked Prey". How could that be a common attitude in CA of all places? Bastion of Liberal Democrats? What most people do NOT realize is that a very LARGE percentage of CA's population is descended from Gold Rush (1849) prospectors. And most of those prospectors came from the South. When the ACW started, which way CA would jump was balanced on a knife edge. The telling point was that the Federal government had LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco _thoroughly_ garrisoned. Out in the countryside, support for the South was rampant. There were even several established chapters of the Knights of the Golden Circle ( forebear of the KKK). Anyway, history aside, the intention to re-establish slavery after any kind of Apocalypse is there. So I take it that Slavery would commence almost immediately.

So, when Wasteland starts, Slavery is already into its third generation (and starting in on the fourth). And being multi-generational, there would be a culture of acceptance in many communities. Does that make them totally and absolutely EVIL? "I inherited my slaves from my Daddy who inherited them from his Daddy." And on the other side, there are the slaves that have never known any other kind of Life other than being a slave. Many slaves would actually be fearful of being freed simply because they would have no clue about "What do I do _now_?" Killing their Masters summarily dumps those slaves into a world where they have NO Skills helping them to survive. "You're free now!" actually means, "Now that you're free, you're on your own. No longer my concern what happens to you." It took an organization the size of the Federal government to systematically reintegrate the freed slaves into the mainstream of the nation's population (and it did a pretty piss-poor job of it). NO governmental unit in the Wasteland has the resources to deal with the aftermath of the end of Slavery. (Assuming the ultimate goal was achieved.)

More later. Life is demanding my attention elsewhere.

[Woolfe]

Woolfe wrote:Cherry-picking instead of random sampling. Makes it easier to see nothing but Black.

Just how much do you have to cherry-pick in order to see grey? Some slavery is worse than others, but it's all an unnecessary evil which could be replaced by something else.

Just to be clear, I didn't write the above bit, its a misquote that was actually by CaptainPatch, but occured due to an error with the "Quote" "/quote" rules.

My shades of grey tend to be pretty white and black when it comes to slavery.

Woolfe wrote:Also its a game. If you find you don't agree with the morality of it, you can stop playing. All those people up in arms over this or that in a game, don't play it. Unless it is actively breaking the law, then there is no reason to get up on arms about it, just don't play it.

Uh, I thought this was a forum where we vainly attempt to influence the game designers? Rather than walking away, I'll present arguments which support what I'd like to see, as will most people here. Telling people to walk away defeats the point of these forums. Plus most people here are going to play the game anyway since we've already bought it, it just becomes a question of trying to get what we want when we do.

That was aimed at the person who was so disgusted with certain concepts. If you can't deal with them. If they affect you that much, then you probably shouldn't be playing the game. My point being you have the choice to keep playing or not. But don't blame me if you choose to keep playing and it upsets you.

stonetoes wrote:"Again I would also raise the point that you are talking about cultures which have existed for thousands of years (the niqab predates Islam for anyone who doesn't know)"

the culture of Slavery would be in its third generation.
<Pertinent stuff about the state of mind of certain people snipped>.

I'd also like to point out that this is EXACTLY the sort of social problems I was referring to in my comments. If you allow slavery to continue for generations this sort of attitude becomes ingrained, and because they tend to stick together, the attitude simply reinforces itself over and over.

Even after the Civil war and slavery was abolished, many of the Confederate states simply began to use law and legistlature to make life difficult for thoe who were enslaved. Watch the movie "The Help" which is based on a true story. It highlights quite a few of the social injustices that were inflicted using law and legislature rather than outright slavery.

As much as it is an abhorrent concept, walking in and killing the slavers now, before they truly get established would potentially avoid years and years of continued heartache and abuse.

So, when Wasteland starts, Slavery is already into its third generation (and starting in on the fourth). And being multi-generational, there would be a culture of acceptance in many communities. Does that make them totally and absolutely EVIL? "I inherited my slaves from my Daddy who inherited them from his Daddy." And on the other side, there are the slaves that have never known any other kind of Life other than being a slave. Many slaves would actually be fearful of being freed simply because they would have no clue about "What do I do _now_?" Killing their Masters summarily dumps those slaves into a world where they have NO Skills helping them to survive. "You're free now!" actually means, "Now that you're free, you're on your own. No longer my concern what happens to you." It took an organization the size of the Federal government to systematically reintegrate the freed slaves into the mainstream of the nation's population (and it did a pretty piss-poor job of it). NO governmental unit in the Wasteland has the resources to deal with the aftermath of the end of Slavery. (Assuming the ultimate goal was achieved.)

You make as many assumptions as us. First that it would be that easy to take enough slaves that a "inheritance" starts taking place withou the taking of new slaves. If the children learn that these people are slaves, then why would they not assume they can take others.
We are not talking about a situation the size of the civil war, which was literally hundreds of thousands of people.
Your assumption that the slaves don't know how to do things is false. They must know something otherwise what use are they as slaves?
Would it better to allow the seed of slavery to grow, until it is at a stage that it requires a federal government to systematically reintegrate again?
I appreciate what you are saying about both Slaves and Slavers. But the long term is much much worse. A small number of slaves saying "What do we do now?" can be dealt with. Amongst them there would be those who worked the fields, those who cooked, those who even oversaw the others. They would survive. I'm not saying it would be easy. But it is a lot easier than dealing with the future social problems you pointed out.

[stonetoes]

"Some among the group of about 30 women were pictured holding placards that read "Where is justice?"" In a nation of just under 30 million. Not exactly a groundswell. And did you notice all of the military presence throughout the photos? "See, Americans? We allow our people to publicly dissent! We are a free and democratic nation that you must continue to support!"

I know it's not much, that's just one example, I just think that you went too far when you talked about people not wanting to be free, and it annoyed me. Some of these people are dying for their freedom, and I felt like you were being dismissive of that. I think we're getting off topic anyway, the player is going to be the catalyst in the game, so it's more going to be how people react once freed, not whether they take steps to free themselves.

*snipped historical details*

Knowing the history is interesting, and I have no doubt that slavery would become a reality quickly, my main point is that the slaves themselves would not accept it. I believe that as much as slave-owners, racist or not, would believe they had the right, the slaves would largely not accept their fate or see it as a natural part of the social order. Thus I believe that resistance to being freed by the the slaves themselves is not going to be a big issue. Resistance by the slave owners is another matter of course. And as for how helpless freed slaves would be, I think they would adapt quickly as I've already argued in my first couple of posts in this thread.

As to whether engaging in slavery makes communities evil, I would say no, but it does mean that they are engaging in evil acts. If I have called slave-owners evil in their entirety then that was in error, but their evil actions outweigh any good actions they might take. Even woolfe's hypothetical rangers aren't calling for the mass execution of slave-owners (I believe), but for the end to the practice itself. Hopefully we would be provided with peaceful ways to end the practice, but failing that I believe violence is justified in ending the right of one person to own another as property.

Woolfe, thanks for the clarifications, I was a little confused by what I thought your responses were, I must say. Also I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Not letting the cancer of slavery get a foot-hold is very compelling argument.

[CaptainPatch]

You make as many assumptions as us. First that it would be that easy to take enough slaves that a "inheritance" starts taking place withou the taking of new slaves. If the children learn that these people are slaves, then why would they not assume they can take others.
We are not talking about a situation the size of the civil war, which was literally hundreds of thousands of people.
Your assumption that the slaves don't know how to do things is false. They must know something otherwise what use are they as slaves?
Would it better to allow the seed of slavery to grow, until it is at a stage that it requires a federal government to systematically reintegrate again?
I appreciate what you are saying about both Slaves and Slavers. But the long term is much much worse. A small number of slaves saying "What do we do now?" can be dealt with. Amongst them there would be those who worked the fields, those who cooked, those who even oversaw the others. They would survive. I'm not saying it would be easy. But it is a lot easier than dealing with the future social problems you pointed out.

I readily grant that I'm making many assumptions. However, my assumptions are derived from observation of actual History; your assumptions lean more towards idealistic theories. The reason I brought up the reference to the VERY pervasive culture of submissive Muslim women was to underscore when oppression has been multi-generational. "Why does an abused dog NOT run away from its owner? Because abuse is the ONLY Life it knows." Slaves whose grandparents had been slaves really have very little concept of what Life is like "out there". To have an inkling, there would have to be channels of communication that come from beyond the slave-owning community into where the slaves are held -- something that slave-owners would generally try to suppress as a matter-of-course. That leaves the slaves with little more than oral history, family legend, and speculation concerning the tidbits that have leaked in. Nothing in the way of solid knowledge of what Life is really like outside of the community. Add to that a lifetime of the owners repeatedly telling them, "You are sooooo lucky to be my property. I am saving you from ___(a long list of horror stories)___."

A source of information to slaves about outside conditions would be from "fresh" slaves. But that wouldn't be as positive of an effect as you might think. First and foremost, such a new slave would be "persuaded" to keep his mouth shut and be obedient or (at best) "sold down the river" to _really_ harsh owners -- things can alwaysbecome worse -- or be (at worst) executed out of hand as being too troublesome to bother with. Secondly, there is the aspect that such new slaves would actually confirm just how bad it is "out there". After all, wherever it is that they were taken from was so chaotic and unsafe that he or she was taken by Slavers -- and no one stopped the Slavers from doing so. The outside world IS a dangerous place.

From an organizational consideration, for the Desert Rangers to adopt an overarching policy that "We WILL destroy Slavery wherever we encounter it" would be to start out their expansion as being effectively at war with nearly EVERYWHERE they go. (If as pervasive and institutionalized as I suspect it would be.) Any and all communities that have integrated Slavery into its code of Laws would NOT drop the practice just because some upstart Goody Two-Shoes outfit breezed into town and demanded that they do so. Without a doubt the Powers That Be in EVERY community would be property-owners. And at its foundation, Slavery holds that slaves ARE property. The ultimatum would require that powerful property-owners willingly surrender what they consider to be legally held property for no compensation. You may as well breeze into town and tell everyone, "You MUST give us half of everything you own, because we said so." The most likely response would be identical to "Give up your slaves, or else." After the first community that condones Slavery is battered by Ranger Justice, word _would_ spread to all other communities that condone Slavery. They will also see just what havoc the Rangers wrought on the first (or second, or third) town and conclude, "We can stand together or hang separately.) A highly-motivated alliance of Slaver towns with the singular goal of ending the Desert Rangers. Any Desert Ranger Administrator with an IQ over 12 would be smart enough to see what the inevitable conclusion to such a confrontation: the Desert Rangers with their idealistic goals shattered and the few survivors scattered with Wanted Dead or Alive posters hounding them. To not eventually achieve its goals would be the greatest fear of such idealists.

The choice becomes, Go to war and lose, or be more diplomatic and work on a _long_ campaign to unravel Slavery through political means. Develop influence in the Slaver towns and get the governments there to discontinue Slavery in such a way as to make those governments think it was their own idea in the first place. It may take 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, but in the end, Slavery _would_ end. Whereas, a head-on confrontation relying on brute force WILL fail -- and leave the Desert Rangers unable to have any influence on the process. Effectively, that would be to bequeath the task to somebody else. Somebody else smart enough to tackle the problem slow and easy.

[Woolfe]

I readily grant that I'm making many assumptions. However, my assumptions are derived from observation of actual History; your assumptions lean more towards idealistic theories. The reason I brought up the reference to the VERY pervasive culture of submissive Muslim women was to underscore when oppression has been multi-generational. "Why does an abused dog NOT run away from its owner? Because abuse is the ONLY Life it knows." Slaves whose grandparents had been slaves really have very little concept of what Life is like "out there". To have an inkling, there would have to be channels of communication that come from beyond the slave-owning community into where the slaves are held -- something that slave-owners would generally try to suppress as a matter-of-course. That leaves the slaves with little more than oral history, family legend, and speculation concerning the tidbits that have leaked in. Nothing in the way of solid knowledge of what Life is really like outside of the community. Add to that a lifetime of the owners repeatedly telling them, "You are sooooo lucky to be my property. I am saving you from ___(a long list of horror stories)___."

Except there are plenty of examples of what I am referring to as well, even in the US civil war history. And in many ways they would be stronger for it. Oral histories are often more powerful as they have the passing it on element involved. Especially if secret. So imagine them passing on the history of a time when all men were equal. When Slavery didn't exist etc.

The Submissive muslim women culture is true. But curiously even in the most stringent of regimes there was rebellion. Amusingly the burqa that they are forced to wear actually assists them in some ways. I read a very interesting article on a group of women in one of the more stringent nations (I think it was Iran, but I can't recall). They would secretly wear makeup under their Burqa's. If they were caught, they could literally be stoned to death. But they still did it. Because it was rebellion.

Don't get me wrong, I am not outright dismissing what you say, at all. I honestly agree with most of it. But I think you are overplaying the "don't want to be free" as much as I am overplaying "You are free to make your own choice"

A source of information to slaves about outside conditions would be from "fresh" slaves. But that wouldn't be as positive of an effect as you might think. First and foremost, such a new slave would be "persuaded" to keep his mouth shut and be obedient or (at best) "sold down the river" to _really_ harsh owners -- things can alwaysbecome worse -- or be (at worst) executed out of hand as being too troublesome to bother with. Secondly, there is the aspect that such new slaves would actually confirm just how bad it is "out there". After all, wherever it is that they were taken from was so chaotic and unsafe that he or she was taken by Slavers -- and no one stopped the Slavers from doing so. The outside world IS a dangerous place.

You are assuming it is that bad out there. There is no reason a group of people were simply captured whilst hunting or trading or something, you can't be protected at all times. People have an amazing ability to survive. We really should be lumped with Rats and pigeons, we can and do survive anything and anywhere.

From an organizational consideration, for the Desert Rangers to adopt an overarching policy that "We WILL destroy Slavery wherever we encounter it" would be to start out their expansion as being effectively at war with nearly EVERYWHERE they go. (If as pervasive and institutionalized as I suspect it would be.)

Ah see I don't think it would be as pervasive. Sure you have the Rednecks etc, but lets face it, you also have a very strong fundamentalist christian element, that remember that the israelites were slaves. I know that sounds odd, but that really was a key element, the whole slavery thing. Christianity was the religion of the slaves. Don't forget that.
Plus there would no doubt be a few people like me, who find the very idea abhorrent. Or people who'se ancestors were enslaved in the not too distant past and still have some knowledge of it.
However if you are more correct than I, then yes, obviously diplomacy at the end of a barrel is not going to be as effective.

Any and all communities that have integrated Slavery into its code of Laws would NOT drop the practice just because some upstart Goody Two-Shoes outfit breezed into town and demanded that they do so.

Even a Goody two-shoes outfit that has burnt out the last couple of slavers?
Genghis Khan was very very effective with this sort of thing. Go in, demand surrender, if you don't get it wipe out town, send 1 person to next town, go in demand surrender. Pretty soon the towns started surrendering. People look at him as a monster for that, and indeed he was. But it worked, and in the long run (because he was coming no matter what) it saved more lives than it ended.

Without a doubt the Powers That Be in EVERY community would be property-owners

True, but that is not the same as everybody, in Rome for example, only the very richest had slaves. They were expensive. This is part of why they were treated ok in some respects.
So if you have a society where only the rich have slaves, that will breed a certain discontent. Essentially the lower classes, now have to compete not only with other freemen, but with slaves, who by definition will be cheaper. Then they hear that the Slavers in the community down south were wiped out, and someone has just given their own leaders the same ultimatum. I'll put money on the regular townsfolk being a bit pissed at management if they didn't take it seriously.

After the first community that condones Slavery is battered by Ranger Justice, word _would_ spread to all other communities that condone Slavery. They will also see just what havoc the Rangers wrought on the first (or second, or third) town and conclude, "We can stand together or hang separately.) A highly-motivated alliance of Slaver towns with the singular goal of ending the Desert Rangers. Any Desert Ranger Administrator with an IQ over 12 would be smart enough to see what the inevitable conclusion to such a confrontation: the Desert Rangers with their idealistic goals shattered and the few survivors scattered with Wanted Dead or Alive posters hounding them. To not eventually achieve its goals would be the greatest fear of such idealists.

Oh I agree, you would need to deal with that situation completely differently. First by building up allies, second by undermining the Slaver towns. Gradually break them up and turn them against each other. Make it look like one group is atacking the other. Cause them to fight. Then come in and smash them hard. Leave them so shocked an awed that they don't have time to organise and rally. Hit the strongest and most influential. Until the remnant either join and fight or surrender. You may lose, nothing would be certain. But it would be worth it. Because the longer you leave slavery the more entrenched it becomes. Both from the point of view of the slaves (your own genarational comment) and the Slave societies. (but who will clean the latrines!!!!)
Your assumption is that I would treat every situation the same. Thats just silly. I was talking about a relatively isolated group of slavers. You have gone the other way. Of course my method wasn't going to be the best solution in your situation. By the same token your way is not the best solution in mine.

Whereas, a head-on confrontation relying on brute force WILL fail

Not necessarily. Especially if you offer the rescued slaves a chance to fight back, and start training them in Guerilla warfare. If a slaver government is that organised that it can resist a concerted effort by guerilla's who have a personal hatred of it, and the backing of a group that can train and possibly outfit them, then you wouldn't be roaming their territory anyway.

[stonetoes]

CaptainPatch and Woolfe, both your scenarios sound like great plots for games all by themselves.

I would agree that full-on military force might be outside of the range of such a small band or rangers, but rangers are supposed to be trained and skilled. Maybe they don't have the resources for a Genghis-Khan style rampage, but if the mayor of a town refuses to outlaw slavery then is shot by a sniper at the next auction, or blown up in his armoured car, or knifed while asleep in his guarded compound..... the next mayor asked is going to think twice. Maybe he just gives a few concessions, like giving slaves rights or making children of slaves free men, but it's a start.

Fomenting rebellion is also the way I would most like to see explored. It's more believable than the rangers starting a military campaign all by themselves, plus it doesn't disempower the slaves as much and make them passive. It also gives an out for what the freed slaves are going to do now, as rather than just being freed and having nowhere to go, they're in charge. Then you get all those lovely "power corrupts" shenanigans.