255 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

su lu pi wrote...

That was my point about the choice freeing a slave army and helping a former inslaved people sounds cool to me.

Sounds funny 

[MichaelStuart]

Question

Is conscription without pay slavery?

What if I then sell my unpaid solders services to some noble against their will?

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 26 décembre 2013 - 09:32 .

[Osena109]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Question

Is conscription without pay slavery?

What if I then sell my unpaid solders services to some noble against their will?

Like the wardens right of Conscription to force them to fight the darkspawn  am down  the Inquisator  should have the right to conscrit for his/her army to do battle with the mage horde

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Or the Templars. I doubt Bioware's planning to railroad us.

[Angrywolves]

Zkyire wrote...

The Inquisitor has no in-game reason for owning slaves. The game isn't set in Tevinter.

agree 100%

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Angrywolves wrote...

Zkyire wrote...

The Inquisitor has no in-game reason for owning slaves. The game isn't set in Tevinter.

agree 100%

How about "to do things the Inquisitor would rather not do?"

[Dave of Canada]

su lu pi wrote...

That was my point about the choice freeing a slave army and helping a former inslaved people sounds cool to me.

Realistically, most slaves would just abandon you than help you. They'd either want to return to their former lives, start new lives or return to their masters rather than pledging loyalty to someone else who'd basically become their new master.

Unless you've got a way to stop them from leaving you which then means you're forcing them into your fold.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 décembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Toasted Llama]

JCAP wrote...

Ah, worth mentioning, usually the only slaves in Roman Empire Era could buy their freedom were the gladiators because they were the only ones that could make so much money.

False.

And considering nobody reads wikipedia pages anymore I'm not even going to bother posting my proof. Especially not when I've already done that several posts ago.

hotdogbsg wrote...

So....any bets on how long before this thread is closed?

I hope we make it to the 10 pages because I like round numbers. Though I doubt it.

[thats1evildude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Evil is an insanely loaded word. Is making an enemy combatant a slave instead of killing them evil? A different kind of evil? Even an acceptable form of mercy?

Yes, it is more evil.

We all agree murder is a terrible thing, but killing is often necessary within the context of the setting. Let's take, for example, the Warden being ambushed by bandits while traipsing through Ferelden. They are, first of all, attacking me without provocation, so I'm within my rights to defend myself.

But what if, instead of killing all the bandits, I knocked them all unconscious or merely injured them to the point where they can't fight anymore. Then what? What happens when they wake up? Should I leave them so they can attack other more helpless people?

Should I put aside the important business of readying Ferelden to battle the Blight so I can hand the bandits over to the authorities? What if the authorities are in no position to imprison the bandits themselves, given that there is a Blight going on? What if the authorities - some of whom are loyal to Loghain - attack me on sight? Even your suggestion of enslaving the bandits seems like a dubious idea, since how is the Warden supposed to supervise an entire group of slaves while running all over Ferelden?

Killing the bandits may be the only course of action that prevents the bandits from victimizing someone else. 

Besides the "killing can be justified within the context of the setting" argument, there are other points brought up in a video in a video by Jim Sterling that discusses rape vs. murder in video games that I think applies to this discussion of slavery vs. murder.

Besides the fact that our fiction is full of examples where killing is justified and even commended. We want to see particularly evil people get their comeuppance, and that may include killing them. On the flip side, there are numerous examples where the villain enslaving people is treated as evil, but the number of examples where a villain is "justifiably" enslaved is miniscule.

Also, killing an opponent in a video game is also an act of equal opportunity; even if they're just disposable mooks, the bandits who attack the Warden or Hawke at least stand a chance of killing them, in theory.  The slaves you buy in an open market never got the chance to buy and sell you; they were often just forced into servitude.

And we're all comfortable with killing in video games because death is a consequence of living that we must all face. Some religious people might even view death as a good thing, especially within Thedas, where dead souls are said to be called to the side of the Maker. But slavery is a crime that, even within the setting, is limited to a few people. And as shown with Fenris, former slaves carry the consequences of their slavery for their entire lives.

Also, while seeing someone get killed in a video game is unlikely to harm anyone, a theoretical scene wherein the Inquisitor forced a female slave to have sex with him might bring up traumatic memories for someone.

Add in that slavery is generally regarded as abhorrent and illegal throughout most of the setting and you don't have a very good argument for allowing the Inquisitor to own slaves.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 26 décembre 2013 - 11:55 .

[Vitlen]

eluvianix wrote...

And yet, we all know that this thread is going to burn down horribly.

It`s funny how so many people can easily put up with murder torture and letting hole villages left to die but
Instantly start shed crocodile tears about Evil Slavery! 

[vaire]

First of all: based upon what I've understood I do not see any instance in which owning slaves could be an option in Inquisition. And even if we could I'd rather not do it.
Should there be slaves in the game? Yes. After all, from what I've understood, we might have the possibility to visit Tevinter (and have a magister companion).
Historically slavery has had many faces, with various degrees of ugliness. Some slaves, under the Roman, had it better than the non citizens peasants. In fact Spartacus'army was joined by many free peasants, while very few "high ranking slaves" joined (the few who did in fact caused quite a scandal). Moreover what is considered to be Rome's first ( and worst *coghcough*) poet Livius Andronicus was a slave from a greek colony in Sicily. So not even all slaves were equals, let alone men. A public slave in a mine was a dead man walking while a preceptor for a noble family had it far better than a peasant and was very likely to be freed. The Satyricon shows us a caricature of what the powerful freedmen were under Nero's rule (Trimalchion is a filty rich libertus). As a last note I will add that already during the end of Julio-Claudia dinasty there were many important voices against slavery or for an ethic treatment of slaves: such as the Stoics and the Epicureans.
Does this make slavery fine? Not one bit.
As something against the most basic human rights slavery is a condition no intelligent being should be reduced to, no matter how "magnanimous" an owner his master is. Yet slavery is an injustice that is present in Thedas and thus should be showed.
Moreover, if I remember correctly, in Origins is mentioned Orlais selling in slavery Fereldan elves during the occupation. So it seems the Imperium is not the only offender, but merely the most shameless one (or the buyer).

[Fast Jimmy]

Besides the fact that our fiction is full of examples where killing is justified and even commended. We want to see particularly evil people get their comeuppance, and that may include killing them. On the flip side, there are numerous examples where the villain enslaving people is treated as evil, but the number of examples where a villain is "justifiably" enslaved is miniscule.

Let me posit this, then... did you ever preserve the Anvil, or at least see the merit in doing so? This is a form of slavery, possibly even slavery at its highest level, since it enslaves the soul for all eternity, not just the body. It makes the victim a pawn of its master, to be used and treated as a tool and nothing more.

Yet, by the same token, every life in Orzammar will likely die in a handful of generations if the Darkspawn keep encroaching. DA:O does a good job of portraying the golems as the only realistic way to push them back.

Is spiritual slavery (even if they were to only take volunteers) preferable to extinction?

EDIT: PS, you can force the Rite of Conscription on Loghain, an always-fatal form of slavery, in DA:O. Against his will, at the threat of death, he joins a group that he despised and now has to dedicate his life to. Just throwing that out there. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 décembre 2013 - 12:08 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Is spiritual slavery (even if they were to only take volunteers) preferable to extinction?

EDIT: PS, you can force the Rite of Conscription on Loghain, an always-fatal form of slavery, in DA:O. Against his will, at the threat of death, he joins a group that he despised and now has to dedicate his life to. Just throwing that out there. 

I wouldn't call it slavery when the participant is willing.

If someone wishes to sacrifice their corporeal being in order to defend their loved ones, that is not slavery. It can be argued that they become slaves to their masters, but only in defense of their nation.

Whether people were forced to become golems, or whether the masters abused the golems is another story. 

You cannot realistically use that as an analogy, except by equating it to a form of indentured servitude. However, there is no way to technically "release" them from the servitude. However, it is assumed that this is made clear to them. You lose your body. You become a golem.

Saving the anvil is not technically "evil". Caridin believed that the power of the anvil corrupts people. That is why he wanted it destroyed. The anvil itself is a tool. It is not "evil".

If you believed that the leaders will use it without forcing others to conscript (political enemies etc..), then saving the anvil is justifiably "good" in a practical sense.

[vaire]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Besides the fact that our fiction is full of examples where killing is justified and even commended. We want to see particularly evil people get their comeuppance, and that may include killing them. On the flip side, there are numerous examples where the villain enslaving people is treated as evil, but the number of examples where a villain is "justifiably" enslaved is miniscule.

Let me posit this, then... did you ever preserve the Anvil, or at least see the merit in doing so? This is a form of slavery, possibly even slavery at its highest level, since it enslaves the soul for all eternity, not just the body. It makes the victim a pawn of its master, to be used and treated as a tool and nothing more.

Yet, by the same token, every life in Orzammar will likely die in a handful of generations if the Darkspawn keep encroaching. DA:O does a good job of portraying the golems as the only realistic way to push them back.

Is spiritual slavery (even if they were to only take volunteers) preferable to extinction?

EDIT: PS, you can force the Rite of Conscription on Loghain, an always-fatal form of slavery, in DA:O. Against his will, at the threat of death, he joins a group that he despised and now has to dedicate his life to. Just throwing that out there. 

The first is somehow a good objection, yet even preserving the Anvil as the only possible mean of resistance doesn't justify slavery.
It merely deems less evil enslaving some volunteers (indeed!) than force the whole city in a more difficult situation, which could result in a disastrous defeat. It's just a choice between actively let someone harm people or destroy the only weapon that could help, albeit at a terrible price. 
Still the dwarves lost their empire despite the golems. So even preserving the Anvil is but a palliative in my opinion.
As for Loghain I always handed Alistair the sword.

[Fast Jimmy]

If the Anvil is ancillary slavery (since some of the epilogue slides indicate that they extend far beyond volunteers, even extending to raiding parties for surfacers), but creating the golems is done for the greater good, then is slavery always evil?

That was my first objection in this thread - the statement that slavery was evil, pure and simple. Which is like saying killing is pure evil, or political corruption is pure evil, or any number of things are pure evil.

If evil is "something you really don't like," then I think cantaloupe is evil. If evil is something that has zero redeeming qualities or purpose, then slavery is not evil. And if evil is some other definition, I'd ask that someone show me a definition of evil that slavery meets that a slew of other activities wouldn't also qualify for.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 décembre 2013 - 12:34 .

[Lady Lionheart]

You guys that want the Inq. to be able to have slaves shall get my Elven Inq's boot up your butt!
FREE THE SLAVES! (Especially the Elven ones, Elves are too awesome to be slaves.)

[Red Panda]

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

You guys that want the Inq. to be able to have slaves shall get my Elven Inq's boot up your butt!
FREE THE SLAVES! (Especially the Elven ones, Elves are too awesome to be slaves.)

Hey hey, not all slaves are elves.

It's called being an equal opportunity slaver. Enslaving darkspawn, humans, elves, qunari (kossith), dwarves, demons, and spirits should all be open to the endeavors of a slaving Inquisitor.

You could bind them to your will with blood magic, sacrifice them in a massive ritual to give you power, have gladatorial combat to win the approval of bloodthirsty nobles and peasantry, have plenty of slave labor, become economically efficient, have another renewable resource that can be devoted to any project you wish, and etc.

You can never have enough slaves in a fantasy game. In this game where we like to say things are good and evil, it's hard to classify slavery.

It's not evil, it's economically efficient.


Of course, I strongly dislike the idea, but allowing players to be "evil megalomaniacs" isn't ever a bad thing.

Besides, how else would you get the general population to be fairly useful to the player?

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 27 décembre 2013 - 12:56 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the Anvil is ancillary slavery (since some of the epilogue slides indicate that they extend far beyond volunteers, even extending to raiding parties for surfacers), but creating the golems is done for the greater good, then is slavery always evil?

That was my first objection in this thread - the statement that slavery was evil, pure and simple. Which is like saying killing is pure evil, or political corruption is pure evil, or any number of things are pure evil.

If evil is "something you really don't like," then I think cantaloupe is evil. If evil is something that has zero redeeming qualities or purpose, then slavery is not evil. And if evil is some other definition, I'd ask that someone show me a definition of evil that slavery meets that a slew of other activities wouldn't also qualify for.

Slavery isn't inherently evil in fantasy settings. It's just douchey.

In real life, I'd say it's quite evil, given our current cultural moral standards. 

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 décembre 2013 - 12:56 .

[JCAP]

Toasted Llama wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Ah, worth mentioning, usually the only slaves in Roman Empire Era could buy their freedom were the gladiators because they were the only ones that could make so much money.

False.

And considering nobody reads wikipedia pages anymore I'm not even going to bother posting my proof. Especially not when I've already done that several posts ago.

And why is it false?

[Lebanese Dude]

Toasted Llama wrote...

And considering nobody reads wikipedia pages anymore I'm not even going to bother posting my proof. Especially not when I've already done that several posts ago.

The "Lebanon (country)" page had the phone code listed as 666 with the official religion being Satanism at one point. 
I had to personally sign up and fix it myself.

It is a source of information, but it should not be used as a valid source in any argument since it is compiled by volunteers.

Just my thoughts on that particular topic

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 décembre 2013 - 01:00 .

[Red Panda]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the Anvil is ancillary slavery (since some of the epilogue slides indicate that they extend far beyond volunteers, even extending to raiding parties for surfacers), but creating the golems is done for the greater good, then is slavery always evil?

That was my first objection in this thread - the statement that slavery was evil, pure and simple. Which is like saying killing is pure evil, or political corruption is pure evil, or any number of things are pure evil.

If evil is "something you really don't like," then I think cantaloupe is evil. If evil is something that has zero redeeming qualities or purpose, then slavery is not evil. And if evil is some other definition, I'd ask that someone show me a definition of evil that slavery meets that a slew of other activities wouldn't also qualify for.

Slavery isn't inherently evil in fantasy settings. It's just douchey.

In real life, I'd say it's quite evil, given our current cultural moral standards. 

Evil is such a relative word. I wouldn't even call slavery mean either. It seems as though it has been the norm in human history. One warlike group takes over another and makes them into their labor force. They won, the slaves lost. The strong control the future of the weak. The only reason one would see that as wrong and evil is if they live in a society that is stuck to idealizations and self-righteousness.

[Red Panda]

Lebdood wrote...

Toasted Llama wrote...

And considering nobody reads wikipedia pages anymore I'm not even going to bother posting my proof. Especially not when I've already done that several posts ago.

The "Lebanon (country)" page had the phone code listed as 666 with the official religion being Satanism at one point. 
I had to personally sign up and fix it myself.

It is a source of information, but it should not be used as a valid source in any argument since it is compiled by volunteers.

Just my thoughts on that particular topic

I feel as though we should only accept scholarly sources then.




Back on topic, I believe slavery is utterly dispicable and wrong morally. I hope that we are not forced to be moral or amoral to get the most content in this game.


Such a thing would be most unpleasant.



Instead it should go more as you can either support or oppose slaving practices, in say, Tevinter.


Support it and you get slaves and bonuses that you'll need because you support the Black Divine and Imperial Chantry,


Oppose it and you'll get the rest of the world as a potential ally, which is unlikely, but there's a chance.


This enables quality success in both cases, allowing for full roleplaying choice.

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 27 décembre 2013 - 01:07 .

[vaire]

JCAP wrote...

Toasted Llama wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Ah, worth mentioning, usually the only slaves in Roman Empire Era could buy their freedom were the gladiators because they were the only ones that could make so much money.

False.

And considering nobody reads wikipedia pages anymore I'm not even going to bother posting my proof. Especially not when I've already done that several posts ago.

And why is it false?

Because there were several ways in which a slave could earn the status of "libertus". Actually ex gladiators were a minority. Freedom could be granted for his/her services. He could have been an administrator in the patron's house and have earned. He could even be declared in front of the Pretor a "cives romanus"; actually this was more than many free (non Roman) men could ever achieve.

[vaire]

OperatingWookie wrote...


Evil is such a relative word. I wouldn't even call slavery mean either. It seems as though it has been the norm in human history. One warlike group takes over another and makes them into their labor force. They won, the slaves lost. The strong control the future of the weak. The only reason one would see that as wrong and evil is if they live in a society that is stuck to idealizations and self-righteousness.

Actually what you call "idealization" and "self righteousness" is what allows six and a half (more or less) billion people to live on the same planert without disaster; in the past we would have started killing each other well before reaching this number.
Granted, the system is far from perfect, but giving more value to human life and freedom actually happens to discourage violence. Besides, what you are not mentioning is that every time that slavery as existed there also have been bloody revenges and people opposing slavery (or some of its forms).
Let's put it like that: a more scientifically developed society allows for a better standard of life, thus I'd rather avoid complaining about the good sides (human rights), which do not damage anybody and avoid harming people whenever possible (which slavery does, since it deprives them of choice).

[thats1evildude]

I only preserved the Anvil once to see how the scene unfolded. But otherwise, no, I've never preserved it. Not only is it a device for creating slaves, but it is an evil artifact that will destroy Orzammar.

"Some weapons are too foul to use, even against Rome."