IIRC, VIET added some resource modifiers for certain African provinces heavy in gold. I think those same modifiers could be applied to many provinces, and perhaps we could use more to represent the economic boom slaves bring as long as it doesn't offset the balance. Still, one could argue that slaves or not, if there was a high enough demand for a resource (say gold), the quasi-forced labor system that feudalism encourages would be able to satisfy the demand for labor that followed. You are right in saying that Rome did use a lot of mass slave labor, my mistake, but another thing to remember is much of the time when Romans enslaved a group of people, a diaspora usually ensued; especially following rebellion. Using provincial modifiers for slavery might not work, but what about a general economic modifier that rises with the amount of slavery going on in your realm?
Ah, I thinks we are speaking of different aspects of slavery mechanics; most of my comments are in reference to characters as slaves, but you seem to be talking about the effects of slavery on a larger scale. I like the specialization we all do
As for a debt system, don't we have the "take a loan" decision? Or is that still not working? As for freeing useful people, I feel that (most) slaveowners would be too selfish for such a thing. Like the janitor at Nintendo who invented the Game Boy. They
could have hired him on as a designer and developed who knows what else... but they took his idea and pretended that nothing so ingenious could come from the mind of a commoner. It isn't so hard to imagine that happening even in the world of Lux; a slave sees his master struggling with an issue and has an idea, so he shares it. The lord sees the idea is good, says thank you, and tells his council his latest new idea and is heralded as a visionary, while the slave remains a slave. It's much more beneficial for a lord to keep his slave than to allow him to reach his full potential, and while slavery does not have the same inherited disdain that it is associated with today, slaves have always been seen as having fewer rights than freepersons, and are commonly seen as more property than human. Yes, they are still seen as people, but much the same way that other lowest-class people are seen as people. And when someone is associated with that group of people, regardless of their skills, it's much easier and more profitable for slaveowners to keep them in their place. I would say as far as freedom goes, if you give a slaveowner a chance to free his slave, he's going to say no unless there's a very good reason for him to say yes. I would say that aside from purchasing ones freedom and the (very) occasional rich liberator who buys slaves to free them as a charitable act, any event which presents a slaveowner with the choice of freeing his slave or keeping them in bondage should have some serious reason for him wanting to free him. However, assuming that is the case, there should also be a heavy penalty for saying no under such circumstances. Going back to the foiled assassin in which the slave saves the master's life, if the lord still refuses to grant the slave their freedom, anyone who knew about the incident would be rather shocked by the ungratefulness of the lord and the lack of acknowledging the fact that his life was saved. These would obviously be represented by opinion mali, but it could also generate unrest; if the lord won't even pardon the man who saved his life, what cares he of the masses of peasants starving at his gates? Ahh, so much potential
I thought of something else while I was at work; something I noticed a lot of strategy games (mostly TCA/Total War games) feature when sieges are won is a conquered city action in which you usually get to choose between peacefully entering the city (not getting much loot but keeping people from being unhappy) or pillaging the place (very prosperous but leads to not being able to hold it very long, as well as economic mali). I was thinking that we could do something different, but since Paradox games usually don't function the same way (less about provinces, more about everything else), it would be difficult to produce in game. I'm thinking a war is won in which land is gained, the conqueror should have a choice with what to do. Some could vary depending on culture (for example, invader-types might get an option to utterly vanquish a settlement to the point that the area wouldn't be inhabitable for several years, whereas more local people would not be prone to do that to a place which shares some cultural aspects or religious significance), but basic ones would include occupation, enslavement, looting, and the like. I am not volunteering to undergo this, don't misread me :laugh: I'm too busy with other things at the moment, but if no one has tried when that gets done, I will take another look.
