Slavery

[CaptainPatch]

You really believe a sustained economy with slavery is a good thing?

Definitely NOT a Good Thing. Rather a "More Than Likely Thing". Initially for sure, there would be bandits that take personal slaves. Thereafter, as the Economy, Commerce, and Wealth grow, very probably some Wealthy individuals will see the opportunity to become even Wealthier. From that seed springs Slavery-As-A-Business develops. And the Wealthy have a knack for doing whatever is necessary to protect their Wealth.

[ravenshrike]

You really believe a sustained economy with slavery is a good thing?

Definitely NOT a Good Thing. Rather a "More Than Likely Thing". Initially for sure, there would be bandits that take personal slaves. Thereafter, as the Economy, Commerce, and Wealth grow, very probably some Wealthy individuals will see the opportunity to become even Wealthier. From that seed springs Slavery-As-A-Business develops. And the Wealthy have a knack for doing whatever is necessary to protect their Wealth.

And where exactly is this vast slave stock coming from? Again, the slaves from Africa were sold to the slave traders by OTHER AFRICANS. The slave traders did not run around clubbing random africans and carry them back to their ships. You're certainly not going to be able to breed a large slave class to be the underpinnings of your economy in less than 100 years. And anyone who can project enough power to capture enough people at a profitable rate of casualties to act as slaves could probably make money and food a hell of a lot easier in other ways.

[CaptainPatch]

And where exactly is this vast slave stock coming from? Again, the slaves from Africa were sold to the slave traders by OTHER AFRICANS. The slave traders did not run around clubbing random africans and carry them back to their ships. You're certainly not going to be able to breed a large slave class to be the underpinnings of your economy in less than 100 years. And anyone who can project enough power to capture enough people at a profitable rate of casualties to act as slaves could probably make money and food a hell of a lot easier in other ways.

ALL of which is a Wealth-driven process. In the absence of someone "paying good money", those Africans most likely would simply settle for outright killing of each other. (Something that is what they were doing pre-Slavery anyway.)

[stonetoes]

So both of you guys feel that 1) "Might makes Right",

I don't "feel" it, it does. I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive. It shouldn't, and in the modern world we've managed to remove ourselves from it to a massive degree, but ultimately there's a reason that Bush and Blair aren't in the Hague. Similarly, the reason some people weren't happy about intervention in Libya is that it just reminded everyone that if you stop your WMD production program then the big boys will invade, so best keep on building those nukes. In your scenario there's city-states instead of nuke-wielding nations, but it's just a matter of scale. You just have to make sure that your city-state is going down the right path.

2) that communities do NOT have the right to self-determination if what they determine disagrees with you,

I might have over-emphasised. If a community is democratic and does not have slaves, then their determination is valid, and military action is probably not justified. If they aren't democratic or do have slaves then their bleating about "a right to self-determination" is just laughable. Give all your citizens a vote, otherwise it's just rich-folks determining for others.

3) the Desert Rangers are an imperialistic power bent on Wasteland domination (and further until the devastation creates an impassable barrier). "Yield, or we will _make_ you yield." Not quite the vision for the Desert Rangers that I think Fargo & Company had in mind.

I'm imagining a world where the rangers can enforce standards without outright occupation. Again, one of the benefits of a setting with relatively few people is that a paramilitary organisation can have an effect without becoming conquerors. And as an allegory, the Civil War doesn't really work anyway as an argument for the difficulty of stopping slavery, seeing as how the Confederates got their asses handed to them.

And it should not brand my party as Evil, or Renegade. Sure, by supporting some slavers, I should loose reputation with certain groups, gain it with the others, but the general population should be indifferent.

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points" at all then sure. But assuming there is such a metric, having slavery as something neutral is absolutely unnacceptable. It would render such a scale meaningless. If we can't declare slavery to be evil, what the fuck can we?

Y'know, if you've played Bioshock 2 you could easily take the view that he should have shot the cray chick the first moment he noticed she was nuts and that the reason everything went to shit is because he listened to her at all.

I actually haven't, but it's on my list. I keep meaning to finish Bioshock 1 then getting frustrated because it's an FPS and not an old-school RPG!

[CaptainPatch]

2) that communities do NOT have the right to self-determination if what they determine disagrees with you,

I might have over-emphasised. If a community is democratic and does not have slaves, then their determination is valid, and military action is probably not justified. If they aren't democratic or do have slaves then their bleating about "a right to self-determination" is just laughable. Give all your citizens a vote, otherwise it's just rich-folks determining for others.

As I said, other communities are permitted to have self-determination ONLY if what they determine meets with YOUR approval. That includes even if there is a referendum and a clear majority (even with slaves factored in as "Nay" votes) ratifies Slavery as an acceptable practice within City limits. So, that means you will NOT be swayed by the democratic process.

3) the Desert Rangers are an imperialistic power bent on Wasteland domination (and further until the devastation creates an impassable barrier). "Yield, or we will _make_ you yield." Not quite the vision for the Desert Rangers that I think Fargo & Company had in mind.

I'm imagining a world where the rangers can enforce standards without outright occupation. Again, one of the benefits of a setting with relatively few people is that a paramilitary organisation can have an effect without becoming conquerors.

Your perception that they WILL intervene in any and all communities and enforce their view of what is or is not acceptable effectively casts the Desert Rangers in the role of Biggest, Baddest Muthas in the Wasteland. Where's the challenge in that? And if they are _not_ the BBMWs, then they would NOT be able to just saunter into communities and dictate changes to the local legal code. Alternatively, if you view the Rangers as being so powerful that the several communities decide, "We want to join them! We'd be sooooo much better off with them rather than on our own!", then the question still would be, "Where's the challenge in that?" Conflict of interest is what makes a game interesting. You are assuming away all of the conflict/interest.

And as an allegory, the Civil War doesn't really work anyway as an argument for the difficulty of stopping slavery, seeing as how the Confederates got their asses handed to them.

I seriously think that being out-numbered 22 million to 5 million (plus 4 million slaves) had something to do with it. If you go through the litany of disadvantages, it's actually mind-boggling that the South did as well as it did for as long as it did. But in a steady War of Attrition (which is what Grant turned it into), the South was inevitably doomed from the start. Despite that, the first year of the war was a solid Southern win in the first round of the match.

And it should not brand my party as Evil....

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points"...

As Reputation/Karma goes, I firmly believe that there should be a Standing that delineates between Paragon and Renegade (to steal the ME system) for _each_ faction and community. Neutral events add _nothing_ to either side of the ledger. Only actions that affect _that_ faction or community (including rumors of + or - behavior) will adjust Renegade or Paragon scores. Enough Renegade and they fear you and react accordingly. Enough Paragon and they cheer you on and react accordingly. (E.G., for Slavers, a lot of Renegade and you get their respect. Too much Paragon and they'll try to ambush you. A non-Slaver community would most likely reverse those reactions.) However, that subject would be best discussed in another thread.

[pomor]

And it should not brand my party as Evil, or Renegade. Sure, by supporting some slavers, I should loose reputation with certain groups, gain it with the others, but the general population should be indifferent.

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points" at all then sure. But assuming there is such a metric, having slavery as something neutral is absolutely unnacceptable. It would render such a scale meaningless. If we can't declare slavery to be evil, what the fuck can we?

Again, we are not talking about the "Western World of Today".

Joining salvers vs fighting slavers, it should be no different then joining/destroying the thieves guild, on the good vs evil chart.
I liked how Gothic 3 put the slavery theme (one of the very few things I liked in that game). Once, while playing it, I have beaten, I think it was a smith hidding in the forest, taken him into town, and sold him to a slaver. All the while feeling that I roleplay a good guy. That smith would have die in the wilderness sooner or latter, he was better off as a slave.

[ravenshrike]

And it should not brand my party as Evil, or Renegade. Sure, by supporting some slavers, I should loose reputation with certain groups, gain it with the others, but the general population should be indifferent.

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points" at all then sure. But assuming there is such a metric, having slavery as something neutral is absolutely unnacceptable. It would render such a scale meaningless. If we can't declare slavery to be evil, what the fuck can we?

Again, we are not talking about the "Western World of Today".

Joining salvers vs fighting slavers, it should be no different then joining/destroying the thieves guild, on the good vs evil chart.
I liked how Gothic 3 put the slavery theme (one of the very few things I liked in that game). Once, while playing it, I have beaten, I think it was a smith hidding in the forest, taken him into town, and sold him to a slaver. All the while feeling that I roleplay a good guy. That smith would have die in the wilderness sooner or latter, he was better off as a slave.

Clearly you have never heard the phrase better to die on your feet than live on your knees. It would have been amusing if the game had role-played that out as the smith escaping, learning to fight, and then coming after your slaver ass.

[suz]

And anyone who can project enough power to capture enough people at a profitable rate of casualties to act as slaves could probably make money and food a hell of a lot easier in other ways.

Bandits.

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points" at all then sure. But assuming there is such a metric, having slavery as something neutral is absolutely unnacceptable. It would render such a scale meaningless. If we can't declare slavery to be evil, what the fuck can we?

Slavery that was completely acceptable at it's time

[stonetoes]

As I said, other communities are permitted to have self-determination ONLY if what they determine meets with YOUR approval. That includes even if there is a referendum and a clear majority (even with slaves factored in as "Nay" votes) ratifies Slavery as an acceptable practice within City limits. So, that means you will NOT be swayed by the democratic process.

If what they determine involves slavery, yes. This is why I brought up Bioshock and it's villain's libertarian-esque values. The problem with saying "everyone has the right to absolute self-determination" comes when those Randyan uber-mensch starting removing other people's self-determination as part of their own self-determination. Aiming for self-determination as an absolute is pointless without future-tech or magical powers creating a world unrecognisable to our own.Denying self-determination on a macro-scale is, to me, a necessary evil in order to facilitate self-determination on a micro scale. That is, military force is a necessary evil in order to remove slavery. Hopefully it's only used as a last resort, and maybe the game will give us more nuanced avenues, but maybe it won't.

Also giving a slave the right to vote is really pointless given how unlikely it is they'd be able to cast that vote freely and fairly without retribution.

Your perception that they WILL intervene in any and all communities and enforce their view of what is or is not acceptable effectively casts the Desert Rangers in the role of Biggest, Baddest Muthas in the Wasteland. Where's the challenge in that? And if they are _not_ the BBMWs, then they would NOT be able to just saunter into communities and dictate changes to the local legal code. Alternatively, if you view the Rangers as being so powerful that the several communities decide, "We want to join them! We'd be sooooo much better off with them rather than on our own!", then the question still would be, "Where's the challenge in that?" Conflict of interest is what makes a game interesting. You are assuming away all of the conflict/interest.

Your assumptions about what I believe are getting a bit tiresome, please stop speaking for me. I don't believe that they will, I believe that they should. And that's how I will play them given the choice, which it seems we will have due to the large amount of autonomy the rangers will have in California. I also don't believe it will be easy. You keep presenting these absolutes as if they are inevitable when they're not. We can have a game where the rangers are able to influence other communities and sway the balance of power without making them "BBMWs" as you put it. Fallout New Vegas did this well, you could influence the balance of power massively but you were just one man caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The individual being able to change/save the world is premise of almost every RPG ever made.

I seriously think that being out-numbered 22 million to 5 million (plus 4 million slaves) had something to do with it. If you go through the litany of disadvantages, it's actually mind-boggling that the South did as well as it did for as long as it did. But in a steady War of Attrition (which is what Grant turned it into), the South was inevitably doomed from the start. Despite that, the first year of the war was a solid Southern win in the first round of the match.

Obviously you are going to know more about it than me, but the important part is, the good guys won, right?

Joining salvers vs fighting slavers, it should be no different then joining/destroying the thieves guild, on the good vs evil chart.
I liked how Gothic 3 put the slavery theme (one of the very few things I liked in that game). Once, while playing it, I have beaten, I think it was a smith hidding in the forest, taken him into town, and sold him to a slaver. All the while feeling that I roleplay a good guy. That smith would have die in the wilderness sooner or latter, he was better off as a slave.

I'm curious what you would consider evil if slavery doesn't count. Also if you were playing a "good guy" you could have helped him without selling him into a life of probable abuse and imprisonment. I don't know if the game gave you that choice, but if they didn't then they were restricting you to a lesser of two evils, not giving you a way to be good.

Slavery that was completely acceptable at it's time

Uh, thanks? I already discussed using cultures from hundreds or thousands of years ago here.

[TΛPETRVE]

A thrall is not the same as a slave. And still, I'm sure most of us agree on the abolishment of peonage in any form being a good thing, right?

[ravenshrike]

If you want to argue that there should be no "Karma" or "Renegade points" at all then sure. But assuming there is such a metric, having slavery as something neutral is absolutely unnacceptable. It would render such a scale meaningless. If we can't declare slavery to be evil, what the fuck can we?

Slavery that was completely acceptable at it's time

Ah, so we ARE using moral relativism as our basis for defining evil. Good to know. Unacceptable, but good to know nonetheless.

[suz]

Slavery that was completely acceptable at it's time

Ah, so we ARE using moral relativism as our basis for defining evil. Good to know. Unacceptable, but good to know nonetheless.

What's unacceptable about it? It already happened, it's happening right now, and it will always happen on a large selection of someones; if someone has a means to press and someone else doesn't have the means to resist.

Uh, thanks? I already discussed using cultures from hundreds or thousands of years ago here.

Then what would your karma metric measure if no one cares about slavery? If you really want/need a unified generalized karma it should reflect stuff everyone cares about, not just a select group of moral uptowns: Will they kill me for no reason? Rob at gun point? Are they completely whack?", based on such karma an NPC could choose whether you can be approached with a mission or not.

[stonetoes]

Then what would your karma metric measure if no one cares about slavery? If you really want/need a unified generalized karma it should reflect stuff everyone cares about, not just a select group of moral uptowns: Will they kill me for no reason? Rob at gun point? Are they completely whack?", based on such karma an NPC could choose whether you can be approached with a mission or not.

I'm not sure a karma/paragade scale is necessary, precisely because of the problems you describe. Didn't Obsidian remove it completely for New Vegas because it was too simplistic? Instead they focused on reputation, similar to what CaptainPatch suggested. I just think that if you do have karma,putting slavery on the good or neutral side renders "karma" more meaningless than it already is.

Edit: actually it's still in New Vegas, there's just a lot less focus on it, and more on reputation. I remember this coming up in an interview.

[suz]

I'm not sure a karma/paragade scale is necessary, precisely because of the problems you describe. Didn't Obsidian remove it completely for New Vegas because it was too simplistic? Instead they focused on reputation, similar to what CaptainPatch suggested. I just think that if you do have karma,putting slavery on the good or neutral side renders "karma" more meaningless than it already is.

I agree on the good part, it's certainly not making karma-sense, evil however should depend on the game setting and how slavery is perceived across the wasteland.

Anyhow I do really hope the 'karma' will go away altogether, even fallout 2 had town-local reputation, no reason we can't implement it now with more features a-la Freelancer and use that instead of arbitrary global karma.

[stonetoes]

I agree on the good part, it's certainly not making karma-sense, evil however should depend on the game setting and how slavery is perceived across the wasteland.

We've just had one person saying that his selling of a dying man into slavery was him being a "good guy". If you're going to have moral relativism then some people will find ways of twisting anything into a good act. I don't believe that "karma" is compatible with moral relativism, so if you have it as a feature you have to establish a scale of good and evil acts. What the hell is that scale going to look like if arbitrary detention and abuse of innocent individuals is considered neutral?

[suz]

We've just had one person saying that his selling of a dying man into slavery was him being a "good guy". If you're going to have moral relativism then some people will find ways of twisting anything into a good act. I don't believe that "karma" is compatible with moral relativism, so if you have it as a feature you have to establish a scale of good and evil acts. What the hell is that scale going to look like if arbitrary detention and abuse of innocent individuals is considered neutral?

Let's assume for a sec that California in WL2 is a feudal region. Slavery is not only "legal" it is the NORM, if you're not a slave/feif you're either a lord or a vassal. There's just no other way. In such a setting there's no 'morality' to selling/buying slaves/feifs, it's just business.
No one 'hates' or 'likes' you if you deal with slaves, it's just not relevant to whether someone wants to deal with you or not, because c'est la vie in that particular setting. Therefore how 'good' or 'evil' should only depend on the social aspects of life in California.

A scale of good or evil is decided by social factors only, in a society of cannibals the act of eating humans is perfectly fine. If cannibalism is the NORM in California then eating someone isn't an issue that affects how others think of you, simply because everyone does it.

[CaptainPatch]

Denying self-determination on a macro-scale is, to me, a necessary evil in order to facilitate self-determination on a micro scale.

You know, if you stand off and look at democracy, it kind of looks like the Majority is denying self-determination to the Minority. That is, the Majority gets what _it_ wants, while the Minority does NOT. [This aspect of the US democracy prior to the ACW is what actually prompted the Southern States to secede. (Which was, at the time, an entirely legal option that the Powers That Be in the North couldn't afford to have go forward.) Things like ONLY Northern vessels could be used for import or export. Items imported primarily for Southern use had their tariffs jacked up and Southern exports taxed at higher rates. Then there was the fact that Slavery was NOT being permitted in new Territories and States were NOT being allowed to be Slavery-permitted States. By the precedent set in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the southern half of CA _should_ have permitted Slavery, but the Northern majority in Congress bypassed that by skipping the Territory phase and made CA a State _immediately_ -- without holding a plebiscite on the issue. (Which would have gone the Southern route because the large majority of '49ers had come from Southern States.) It was obvious that Congress' Majority had no intention of looking out for the interests of Southern States. Ergo, either be forever bullied by the Majority in "the democratic process", or go their own way.]

Also giving a slave the right to vote is really pointless given how unlikely it is they'd be able to cast that vote freely and fairly without retribution.

I wasn't suggesting that the slaves would actually be voting in such an election. Rather I was hypothesizing that if the slave population was small enough that _assuming_ they would be permitted to vote, their vote would be "Nay". But even with their numbers added, in that hypothetical case, the Nays were still in the minority. Yielding a "clear majority" in that hypothetical case favoring Slavery.

Your perception that they (the Rangers) WILL intervene in any and all communities and enforce their view of what is or is not acceptable ...

Your assumptions about what I believe are getting a bit tiresome, please stop speaking for me.

Well, in previous posts you have indicated that the Rangers _would_ go into wrong-minded communities. I took this to be your theory of what would happen just as my assertions are a theory of what will happen. If you are suggesting that you think your scenario would NOT happen, but it is what you would like to transpire, I missed it. For which I apologize for being so unobservant.

I don't believe that they will, I believe that they should. And that's how I will play them given the choice, which it seems we will have due to the large amount of autonomy the rangers will have in California.

If this is how you intend to play them, then you are NOT playing a party low-level Rangers. You would also be playing the role of the Administration of Ranger Center. That's a little "above your pay grade" I think. I'm expecting that Fargo & Company will be quite "hands off-ish" as to what the players can or can't do. However, I believe that the Ranger Center should be adverse to Rangers that take precipitous actions that effectively creates organizational policy. [But then, I also think that any Rangers that killed those kids at Highpool just because the kids were laughing at them _should_ have been recalled and tried for murder. But apparently that's just me.]

I also don't believe it will be easy. You keep presenting these absolutes as if they are inevitable when they're not. We can have a game where the rangers are able to influence other communities and sway the balance of power without making them "BBMWs" as you put it.

I dunno. If the leverage for change is simply "morale imperative" -- "Do the Right Thing" -- it usually loses out to the vested self-interests of the Wealthy. (They use their Wealth to buy the "agreement" of others to secure Majority control, one way or another.) [Sort of explains why the world is in such sad shape, doesn't it?]

The individual being able to change/save the world is premise of almost every RPG ever made.

Beg to differ on that point. RPGs go back to D&D (of which I am utterly familiar). From back then to now, the overwhelming majority of RPGs have been straightforward Adventures that enriches the player characters and possibly enhance their Reputations "in the land". Actually, RPGs that have the PCs creating significant change in the overarching environment -- other than things like "Saved the princess!" -- are a relatively new phenomena that has only started to take off in the last decade or so. [Which, btw, will eventually trap games in what I call the "James Bond Side-Effect": What do you do for an encore when he's just saved the world _again_?]

Obviously you are going to know more about it than me, but the important part is, the good guys won, right?

Actually I don't see anyone as being "the Good Guys" in the ACW. Lots of heroics and _personal_ integrity, granted. But nearly all of The Powers That Be had the two sides prosecuting the war for their own selfish interests. ("War is _good_ for business!")

I'm curious what you would consider evil if slavery doesn't count.

Hmm. I think part of the underlying problem in this debate is that "Evil" is a matter of _definition_ -- and definitions have a tendency to change -- sometimes drastically, over time. As suz was indicating, Once Upon A Time serfdom was simply "the way it is". I'm sure that most serfs weren't at all happy with the institution, but usually they accepted it. (Aside from the periodic Peasant Revolt to bleed off pent up anger, that is.) But we today raised in the Free World are a distillation of a series of Historical events starting with the Magna Carta, moving on to the American Revolution, followed by the French Revolution, etc. have had it drummed into our noggins that "The way _we_ do it is the Right way!" [Which is an underlying meme "programmed" into the citizens of pretty much ANY government-funded Education. When was the last time that any public school taught "Our current government sucks"?] We are so certain that "our way is the Right way" that wars are fought to impose what _we_ want on others. (Colloquially called "forced regime change"). Makes it substantially impossible to easily envision that anyone in their right mind could actually _want_ to do it the "Wrong" way.

[stonetoes]

You know, if you stand off and look at democracy, it kind of looks like the Majority is denying self-determination to the Minority. That is, the Majority gets what _it_ wants, while the Minority does NOT.

Pretty much. "Tyranny of the majority" is the term I think. But, like our good friend Winston said earlier, it's pretty much the lesser of many evils.

Well, in previous posts you have indicated that the Rangers _would_ go into wrong-minded communities. I took this to be your theory of what would happen just as my assertions are a theory of what will happen. If you are suggesting that you think your scenario would NOT happen, but it is what you would like to transpire, I missed it. For which I apologize for being so unobservant.

My statements reflect how I would play the rangers. They also reflect how I believe the rangers should act in order to be legitimately be considered a force for good, which is how I will be playing them first time round. Ifthere's an option to not act as a force for good then that's fine, they can tolerate slavery all they like, and people can play them that way too. When you talk about what "would NOT happen" and "what will happen it's like you're discussing some sort of set events which are actually going to take place, or something that will be set in stone and out of the player's hands.

If this is how you intend to play them, then you are NOT playing a party low-level Rangers. You would also be playing the role of the Administration of Ranger Center. That's a little "above your pay grade" I think. I'm expecting that Fargo & Company will be quite "hands off-ish" as to what the players can or can't do. However, I believe that the Ranger Center should be adverse to Rangers that take precipitous actions that effectively creates organizational policy.

I've already stated that I want to actually be able to make a difference, for good or bad, not just be a passive bystander. You're making assumptions about how much oversight there actually is, how much infrastructure the rangers have, how rigid their policies actually are. The things you're talking about seem to fly in the face of the non-linear game we're expecting. I don't want to be bound by red tape from Ranger HQ, only able to exercise my will on small issues that don't actually matter, having to simply watch as the big players make decisions.

I dunno. If the leverage for change is simply "morale imperative" -- "Do the Right Thing" -- it usually loses out to the vested self-interests of the Wealthy. (They use their Wealth to buy the "agreement" of others to secure Majority control, one way or another.) [Sort of explains why the world is in such sad shape, doesn't it?]

I'm not talking about getting people to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts, I'm talking about supporting the side who you want the most in a power struggle. This is what you could do in Fallout 2, in New Vegas, in Dragon Age. It's not perfect, but creating these scenarios where an existing power struggle is balanced at a tipping point allows the player to amplify their own power. I believe this is what we'll see in Wasteland 2, not the Rangers marching in and fighting the whole of California themselves.

Beg to differ on that point. RPGs go back to D&D (of which I am utterly familiar). From back then to now, the overwhelming majority of RPGs have been straightforward Adventures that enriches the player characters and possibly enhance their Reputations "in the land". Actually, RPGs that have the PCs creating significant change in the overarching environment -- other than things like "Saved the princess!" -- are a relatively new phenomena that has only started to take off in the last decade or so. [Which, btw, will eventually trap games in what I call the "James Bond Side-Effect": What do you do for an encore when he's just saved the world _again_?]

I'm not sure D&D counts, seeing as the scale has to be reduced to save the DM from going insane. It also reminds me of something I heard years ago about a star wars pnp RPG. To paraphrase "The star wars films were an epic space-opera about saving the galaxy from an evil galactic empire. Every star wars rpg I've played in involved making merchant runs and fighting off the occasional pirates."

I guess how you read computer RPGs historically depends on whether you consider "creating significant change in the overarching environment" to include saving the world/land/kindgom. I do, so I stand by my own assertion. I think modern RPGs' allowances for the player to affect other things too is a recognition that if they can save the world then they're powerful enough to change it. If there's all these powerful city-states that could crush the rangers and start wars, why the hell aren't they saving the place from the big bad?

Hmm. I think part of the underlying problem in this debate is that "Evil" is a matter of _definition_ -- and definitions have a tendency to change -- sometimes drastically, over time. As suz was indicating, Once Upon A Time serfdom was simply "the way it is". I'm sure that most serfs weren't at all happy with the institution, but usually they accepted it. (Aside from the periodic Peasant Revolt to bleed off pent up anger, that is.) But we today raised in the Free World are a distillation of a series of Historical events starting with the Magna Carta, moving on to the American Revolution, followed by the French Revolution, etc. have had it drummed into our noggins that "The way _we_ do it is the Right way!" [Which is an underlying meme "programmed" into the citizens of pretty much ANY government-funded Education. When was the last time that any public school taught "Our current government sucks"?] We are so certain that "our way is the Right way" that wars are fought to impose what _we_ want on others. (Colloquially called "forced regime change"). Makes it substantially impossible to easily envision that anyone in their right mind could actually _want_ to do it the "Wrong" way.

Yeesh, I knew I didn't want to get dragged into a discussion on moral relativism. Pretty much everything you're saying here I already addressed as much as I'm going to in that post I linked to twice already.

[CaptainPatch]

When you talk about what "would NOT happen" and "what will happen it's like you're discussing some sort of set events which are actually going to take place, or something that will be set in stone and out of the player's hands.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Hari Seldon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon Sometimes, it seems like I'm channeling that character. I'm going to work harder at remembering to preface my predictions with, "In my opinion..."

-- other than things like "Saved the princess!" --

I guess how you read computer RPGs historically depends on whether you consider "creating significant change in the overarching environment" to include saving the world/land/kindgom. I do, so I stand by my own assertion.

Uhm, those _are_ "Saved the princess!" basic adventures. The basic fabric of the environment is actually stabilized. The threat is removed, and the feared event did NOT happen. "Significant change in the environment" would be something like switching from Monarchy to Democracy, or abolishing Slavery, serfdom, thralldom, or something similar. Even beating back the darkspawn in Dragon Age: Origins wasn't a significant environment change, but killing the Archdemon _was_. That's because Blights was a recurring event, like cyclical appearance of locusts. But killing the Archdemon seriously reduces the probability of future Blights. Even a change of monarchs doesn't equate to "significant environment change". It's _still_ a monarchy. You being becoming a noble, or even possibly royalty, no big deal in the scheme of thing. If you helped your liege conquer another nation, that would be significant. Beating back an invasion from that nation, not. Spread a plague, yes. Stop a plague, no. See the pattern? The former changes the status quo; the latter restores it. To use WL examples, Killing Ugly John in Quartz = slight change, but mostly it restored the status quo. But killing Fat Freddy and/or Faran Brygo in Vegas definitely alters the status quo there. Stopping the robots also is something that removes a great peril, allowing Life to return to normal. [Come to think of it, I think WL was the first CRPG that had possibilities for anything more than "Save the ______!"]

[Woolfe]

Slavery that was completely acceptable at it's time

And there were uprisings and rebellions all the time. (Histrorically speaking) Most of them failed, but they still happened.

One of the major turning points in the ending of feudalism is the invention and production of firearms.

Suddenly your fancy armour and fancy soldiers don't mean squat against several peasants who happen to be very good shots.