Slavery vs servitude
- Thread starter Archael90
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This actually gave me an idea for my next playthrough, a slaving authoritarian society that is xenophobic and only enslaves it's own people, with the possible exception of liths for the sweet rare resources you can gene mod into them, not out of kindness but because no other species has a right to exist within our borders. Maybe the liths can be tolerated philosophically because you know they're just animals.
anyways neat discussion and thanks for the idea on my next playthrough.
Possibly also spiritualist for the "this is our divine right" kinda vibe.
On the nature of the discussion I would absolutely love to see more characterization being given to the ethics, xenos should both give malus for other pops and bonuses for any core species pops beyond just growth and what you get now, xenophiles, should be given bonuses based on how much genetic diversity they have, but penalties to having too little that sort of thing, I think fundementally each faction should be given bigger rewards for role playing along the lines of their ethics and civics and bigger penalties for going outside of that without the right ethics changes and support from factions.
anyways neat discussion and thanks for the idea on my next playthrough.
Possibly also spiritualist for the "this is our divine right" kinda vibe.
On the nature of the discussion I would absolutely love to see more characterization being given to the ethics, xenos should both give malus for other pops and bonuses for any core species pops beyond just growth and what you get now, xenophiles, should be given bonuses based on how much genetic diversity they have, but penalties to having too little that sort of thing, I think fundementally each faction should be given bigger rewards for role playing along the lines of their ethics and civics and bigger penalties for going outside of that without the right ethics changes and support from factions.
It is important to being able to distinguish authoritarian and xenophobe slavery, better - its crucial for being able to understand my point. As long as You cant understand that difference You, not only have no idea what im taking about, but also You use those ethics wrong way. And yes, game also allows You to use those ethics wrong way, but only because there is no distiction between xenophobic and authoritarian slavery, and my guess is that devs believe that all slavery is only xenophobic... But this is another argument to change some slavery from the game into servitude, because You cant tell me that Walter from "Helsing" anime is a slave? But definitely not xenophobically enslaved.
And okay, maybe battle thralls could be available for regular xenophobes, but should definitely be on servants category, and maybe chattel slavery could be available for authoritarians, but this is why discussions are for. I put idea, and discussion is about is idea good/nad and what could be done to make it better. But as i said, first You have to understand difference, because this difference is main reason for change.
And okay, maybe battle thralls could be available for regular xenophobes, but should definitely be on servants category, and maybe chattel slavery could be available for authoritarians, but this is why discussions are for. I put idea, and discussion is about is idea good/nad and what could be done to make it better. But as i said, first You have to understand difference, because this difference is main reason for change.
- 6
I do think i understand the difference between authoritarian and xenophobe slavery, but maybe i am wrong. I dont even think thats important. The main thing is that this proposal unnecessary complicates slavery for no real gain. See it from the other perspective: A empire which is against slavery sees in you the "slavery bad guy" which needs to be stopped, no matter what type of slavery it is and how granular you specify slavery types and reasons for slavery. You force other species/your own species into slavery, you are the bad guy.
I havent watched hellsing in a long time, so my knowledge may be lacking but Walter is a butler and he is not forced to work, therefore making him not a slave. Now we coult start to argue what for example a "life dept" is. Wookies from Star wars are often portrayed to have a life dept towards somebody. In case somebody does not know what this is, it a reoccuring theme where one person saves another and then other pledges his life to him as gratitude. The person who saved the other can then freely chose over the other. Is that slavery? One could argue its not, because the person went willingly into that agreement. But then again when we looking into corporate indentured assets, these slaves propably joined the corporate willingly, but where maybe tricked into thinking they make a good deal and not to be enslaved. Those went into the agreement willingly and are still counted as wage slaves (happens in real life, too). Yet still, just because someone who works as a butler or maid or other servant roles, isnt also automatically enslaved. Just spliting slavery in slavery and servitude doesnt work because not every servant is a slave. A servant can be a slave and it can be a free person. But in stellaris the servants are always slaves, making it confusing to call servants. One could think that the servants could also be free pops, but thats not the case in Stellaris, making it misleading. In Stellaris the name slave as an umbrella term is much more precise than splitting it up.
I think slavery is far to complex to be handled with just a few options. So we have basically two choices. either we make slavery extremely detailed with lots of different choices, but propably gain very little from it. Also we risk that mainstream media or Karens notice how detailed one can chose slavery in this game and start to bring much more attention to the game and forcing Paradox to rework slavery into something much more harmless and, even worse, throw morals at you when you use slavery *shudders*.
The other option is to leave slavery intentional opaque, leaving room for interpretations and not detailing what exactly you do with your slaves.
I havent watched hellsing in a long time, so my knowledge may be lacking but Walter is a butler and he is not forced to work, therefore making him not a slave. Now we coult start to argue what for example a "life dept" is. Wookies from Star wars are often portrayed to have a life dept towards somebody. In case somebody does not know what this is, it a reoccuring theme where one person saves another and then other pledges his life to him as gratitude. The person who saved the other can then freely chose over the other. Is that slavery? One could argue its not, because the person went willingly into that agreement. But then again when we looking into corporate indentured assets, these slaves propably joined the corporate willingly, but where maybe tricked into thinking they make a good deal and not to be enslaved. Those went into the agreement willingly and are still counted as wage slaves (happens in real life, too). Yet still, just because someone who works as a butler or maid or other servant roles, isnt also automatically enslaved. Just spliting slavery in slavery and servitude doesnt work because not every servant is a slave. A servant can be a slave and it can be a free person. But in stellaris the servants are always slaves, making it confusing to call servants. One could think that the servants could also be free pops, but thats not the case in Stellaris, making it misleading. In Stellaris the name slave as an umbrella term is much more precise than splitting it up.
I think slavery is far to complex to be handled with just a few options. So we have basically two choices. either we make slavery extremely detailed with lots of different choices, but propably gain very little from it. Also we risk that mainstream media or Karens notice how detailed one can chose slavery in this game and start to bring much more attention to the game and forcing Paradox to rework slavery into something much more harmless and, even worse, throw morals at you when you use slavery *shudders*.
The other option is to leave slavery intentional opaque, leaving room for interpretations and not detailing what exactly you do with your slaves.
- 2
Lets concentrate on this for a moment.
Are servants, butlers, and house maids, a slaves? They may be the lowest class workers, living in theirs "masters" houses, and working for them for less than minimal wage, but they are not slaves, they can freely change their contracts, "masters" and houses, working for someone else, or somewhere else, and maybe they would be able to change their fate, educate some more, and maybe sometime got better job. Is that a slavery?
Or, as in your example. A person who has life debt to other, despite of is this a money debt, or honor one. Is that person a slave?
And yet game forces us to belive so, and emprie who is against slavery will hate us only because we have stratified society with servant class and leader class, because there is no distinction between those.
And there is distincion, and huge difference, between:
1. forcing someone into work because i fear they have three eyes or i hate that they have genitals on their face and i see it discusting so i want them to die while working - this is xenophobic slavery
2. Putting someone into mines because they born into lower class or because they are stronger, because its just more efficient than someone else, but if they dont want to do it by themselves i have to force them - this is authoritarian slavery.
and there is also the factor of property. Slavery require us to be owner of someones lives, but we are not owners of our servants of those who has debt, or rather - we shouldnt be, so they also should not be called slaves.
And with those examples, i just cant see xenophobes who put xenos, who they hate/fear as housemaids.
- 1
I disagree with the proposition because
a) there is no actual game play issue that needs to be fixed
b) the proposition does not introduce a change that the majority of players would welcome
c) the main argument for it is simply based on a subjective interpretation of game play terminology which others may not agree with
I would suggest that the devs should not be distracted from more important things with such propositions.
a) there is no actual game play issue that needs to be fixed
b) the proposition does not introduce a change that the majority of players would welcome
c) the main argument for it is simply based on a subjective interpretation of game play terminology which others may not agree with
I would suggest that the devs should not be distracted from more important things with such propositions.
- 6
yes, there are. For example xenophile ethic removing main feature from authoritarian ethic.
you dont know that. In suggestion subforum, there is simmilar thread that have not even 1 disagree reaction. I can guess where you got this "most players" from.
Yes, i can agree with that, but its not valid argument, since there is lot of player who has their subjective interpretation similar to what i suggested.
- 6
- 1
Then, I don't know, maybe don't play as an authoritarian xenophile if you feel like you're losing the "main feature" of authoritarianism? Again, your personal headcanon and subjective interpretation of Stellaris ethics is not enough of a reason to make sweeping changes like this which would reduce other people's potential choices. Like others have repeatedly said, ethics in Stellaris are vague and up to interpretation by design.
- 1
- 1
You are aware that you have said two opoosite things in here?
And its not my personal headcanon. My personal headcanon is when i choose non-spiritualist empire to roleplay spiritualistic civilization that belives robots have soul.
My headcanon is when i roleplay xenophobes who likes being near xenos.
But xenophobes being anti-xenos, authoritarians loving structural inequality, and xenophile living xenos, is not my PERSONAL headcanon. Also, xenophiles removing slavery from authoritarians is a fact, not my subjective interpretation, and this is the only combination of ethics that do such thing.
- 8
That is not a game issue, it is a game mechanic. And it makes perfect sense.
1. what means 'similar'? Going by your interpretation of terms you're probably referring to something entirely different.
2. 'not disagree' is not the same as 'welcoming'! Please read and understand what other people are saying. My point is that changing the game takes effort, and paradox has limited resources. A suggestion should only be considered if it introduces a notable improvement - because if it does not, then it's simply better that Paradox uses it's limited resources to deal with more important stuff!
My argument is not valid because others make subjective interpretations? What kind of argument is that? And where are the 'lot of players' now? Looking at this thread I don't see any supporters.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you should strife to find objective argments and facts. Subjectivity leads nowhere. Stellaris has thousands of game elements, and almost none of them are perfectly balanced. But they do work for the most part. Some may need an adjustment, but ethics are most certainly not among them, unless I'm missing something crucial that you forgot to mention.
- 1
Its not a Humanitarian Crisis to Crack a Xeno Planet, as Xeno's are not Humans.
Its not a Human Rights violation to enslave this intelectual species to be nothing more than Xenoburger meat for the MacXenos, as they are not humans.
You're not playing the way I want to play, stop having fun gais. You should only be able to play the game this one particular way with this particular set of toys.
is how your argument reads. a Literal "You're doing it wrong because of I say its wrong".
meanwhile I am merely in the background running a 1 planet challange run of a Egalitarian Slaver Empire where 1/3rds of the 600 Pops are used as meat, 1/3rd are enslaved factory workers and rest are given a job on Holo-TV to produce enterteinment for the masses., and only the 2 majority species are given decent rights to work as unemployed scientists living on utopian abundance on the streets. Probably with a VR Goggles in a cardboard box since we ran out of housing roughly 150 galactic standard years ago.
Also, Romans for example, had household Slaves who did the household chores, prepared the meals, among other things. and they were infact, fully enslaved but enjoyed decent living conditions and had ability to either eventually buy / gain their freedom, or stay as a slave to secure a decent living for themselves. And no, those Slaves did not get to change their "employer" Freely. So yes it was slavery and you're wrong on this one.
- 2
- 1
If you also want to prevent Egalitarian Phobes from working right or existing, that might be a fair position.
Not a good position, and I don't like the idea of removing either one, but at least it would be fair.
Didn't you propose something like this in another thread where it was shot down?
I won't go into a point by point breakdown of this because others have done the same thing just as well as I would have done, Instead I'll state my main objection: I don't like anything that takes options away from me as a player. The current setup allows a reasonable amount of mixing and matching to suit many play styles.
Also, despite the clever rewording, it still smacks of trying to impose one person's viewpoint of how slavery and authoritarianism should work when the concepts are meant to be a bit broader to cover more playstyles.
No, it does not, what has been proven lot of times.
This is up to pdx team members. We should be talking from player perspective.
OMG, now you have problem with your own arguments, is so silly i cant even answer for this xD
I did, but you ignored all of it xD
No, its not what I was talking about. You are creating a strawman, just to make me look silly xD i was just answering an example for other argument.
I agree with that, but i gave other example, where servants, like in XIX century germany, was not slaves. Is You example making my a wrong one? No it is not. Again, we are going to xenophobe vs authoritarian slavery, which are and should be treated diferently, both in game mechanics and lore.
But You have no problem with spiritualists not being able to give AI full rights, and authoritarians not being able to have housmaids when they are also xenophiles, and pacifists not being able to wage wars of aggresion, and materialists not being able to use divine enforcer, but turning other into materialists?
I know some of that examples are silly, but those are things that removes something from a player.
And i also hate such things, especially the thing with authoritarians/xenophile being in conflict.
Also, my idea does not taking anything from you, it gives you just a little more depth. If you are using authoritarian slavery then you already are authoritarian, and if you are using xenophobe slavery then you are already xenophobe, so you are loosing nothing. Unless you just want to save one ethic point and use authoritarian slavery while not being authoritarian, but in that case:
1. Its You who are taking anything from you - an immersion.
2. This tactic is removing one civic from authoritarian/xenophile ethic cobmo, just to restore one functionality from one of those ethics.
Last edited:
- 2
Authoritarianism is about the emphasis of hierarchies - societies that are organized around some people being much, much more important than others.
Xenophobia is about, regardless of normal hierarchies, keeping The Other beneath (or away from entirely) your own people.
Both shapes look like a pyramid when you squint, so it makes sense that they'd both have the same slave options available to them.
Fortunately, none of this matters because Democratic Crusaders will be the rescue in 5... 4... 3...
Xenophobia is about, regardless of normal hierarchies, keeping The Other beneath (or away from entirely) your own people.
Both shapes look like a pyramid when you squint, so it makes sense that they'd both have the same slave options available to them.
Fortunately, none of this matters because Democratic Crusaders will be the rescue in 5... 4... 3...
Ok, judging by the tone of your more recent postings I decided to stop continuing this thread of conversation. Instead I'll just comment on the statements you made in your original posting, pointing out why I disagree with it as I go:
Authoritarian means there is a chain of command, with few people in the lead and most following orders. Slavery may not be inherently part of it, but authoritarian structures tend to result in the lowest classes being treated pretty much like slaves, even if they're not called that. Given that slavery is just an optional feature you can choose to use or not, I see no good reason to demand taking it away for all players. You can give all races full civil rights if you prefer and be happy - why take away from others? Moreover, removing slavery but allowing slaver guilds is clearly contradictory.
I can agree with purges - they are clearly irrational and since xenophobia is considered an 'irrational fear' of another race or species, the wish to purge them could be interpreted as one of the expressions of the xenophobe ethic. For authoritarion ethic, I see no obvious connection. That said, again this is an option, not a must. I play authoritarian a lot, but never use purges, except when there is no other options (hive minds that can't be integrated)
In short, you're asking for things that are already optionally possible to make mandatory for everyone, taking away choice, based on your own opinion,
Your suggestion would make 'servitude' another subtype of slavery. This would not add anything to the game, as you can already have people (and robots) working under servitude already. But it would take away the option to have slaves with a specific subtype work in households, something that existed in the roman empire already.
Again, you are suggesting to needlessly take away an existing option in the game, although you can already choose to play exactly in the way you prefer.
Servitude is ot a species right, it is a profession. And it is not connected to other species. There is no reason why members of your own species can't work e. g. as butlers, maids, or other kind of household servants. And that is what the game allows right now.
Again, you can choose not to use servitude. Your play style is not affected in the current state of the game, but you wish to limit the options for everyone else.
Umm, no? 'Xeno' refers to your relation to other species which you may love (phile) or fear (phobe). While a mindset to love other species is probably inducive to not liking slavery, that is not a mandatory consequence. We do have examples of empires (again, the roman empire) where many people treated their slaves very well, and slaves loved their masters, because they protected them and gave them a home. Freedom is a valuable good, but it comes with responsibility and uncertainty. Depending on the situation in your empire, some people may rather give up their freedom than taking responsibility for their own decisions and the risk to lead a free but hard and painful life.
Your argument may hold for many would-be slaves (and maybe even masters), but most certainly not for all. Inany case, even if I accept your argument as is, it is not enough reason to take away an option from other players.
Now you're messing with Stellaris terms and real world terms. In Stellaris, servants are pops with a specific pop trait, slaves ar epops with a specific civil right. These can be combined or used separately, and that pretty much covers most variants of servitude and slavery from history that we know of, not just the few you're referring to. Your insistance of removing an option that has a widely known (except to you) archetype in history is not a valid argument.
Why should that even matter? And why should it be one or the other? Look at your pops, individually, and you'll see that some of them are authoritarioan and some are xenophobe, no matter what ethics your empire has. Some will tread slaves and servants one way, some will treat them the other way. Either way, why should that be a reason to limit either empire ethic in the way you suggested?
'slaver' may have a bad connotation, and for good reasons, but, again, in the time of the roman empire this wasn't the case at all: Slavery just meant that you had to follow a master's orders, but the master was also responsible for your wellbeing. Mistreatment may have been common or not, but at least the roman law protected the slaves to some degree. The bad connotation of 'slaver' only gradually developped over centuries, because the administration did not punish mistreatments enough, to the point that slaves de factor lost all rights. But that is not an inherent trait of that slavery system, only of bad (and often corrupt) adminstations!
It is perfectly feasible to design an empire that uses slavery as a means to get people out of debt, to let criminals make up for their bad deeds, or just to lower unemployment - without all the bad stuff. In fact I do tend to give slaves the best possible living standards - and why not?
Tl;dr.:
The changes you're asking for do not introduce anything new, they only take away options extisting in the game. They would not improve the game in any way, only make it worse for those players who'd like to keep using these options.
The reasons you gave pretty much break down just by looking at the elephant in the room: slavery in the roman empire.
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
Xenophilia really should be split into two the way some other ethics were. Just because you like aliens, doesn't mean you want them as equals. I love dogs, I still keep them as pets. Where is that type of Xenophilia, where your species wants aliens as pets/in a zoo/to collect different alien types, etc?
- 2
- 1
People will say this is xenophobia.
And then with a straight face they will claim that the xeno zoo should give xenophile attraction.
- 1
- 1
Unless You are xenophile egalitarian.
Because xeno ethics are top vauge and too simmilar to autho/egalitarian ethics, which creates confusions.
Last edited:
- 1
Which is kind of weird. Xenophobia means you don't really want anything to do with these people. Which has been recognized to fall into two categories. Those who actively hate aliens and want them gone, and those who just want to be left alone. It even has been split into two different factions both being xenophobe depending on other ethics you have.
Sure, xenophile egalitarian. But that's different. Xenophile authoritarian might very well want them both as workers/servants, or outright pets. To 'own' them so to speak, add to their collection. A bit like the Enigmatic Observers do. Xenophile really should get two different versions depending on what other ethoses you have the same way Xenophobe has.
- 3
- 1