Slave trade preferences

[William the Drake]

@William: Kewl attempts at whitewashing history, just as silly as Germany banning Wolfenstein games cause they have Nazis - and ima Israeli jew (lived in Crimea&Russia till 9).

 

Uhm...How exactly am I whitewashing history? I live in Louisiana, which was one of the biggest slave trade states of the new world. I've lived in New Orleans, I've been to Plantations. I also happen to be Latino

I'm saying slavery should not be implemented because (in my opinion) it should not be something to become a common part of gameplay (I'd hate to see "Selling 20 slaves for X amount of in game money" in chat)

yet many games have had slaves and slave trade. 

1. mount and blade.

2. the x series

3. crusader kings

4. Rome 2 Total War

5. every space 4x game i know of

6. even the akella games allowed you to trade slaves, and sell prisoners as slaves.

and no one really cared either way.

Slaves was a big part of society in those days, and it can be incorporated in a wide array of features. or not at all.

But to not have it in the game just to be "PC" is silly.

We are playing a game where we kill people by the hundreds, but slave trade is a no-no? isnt that a little hypocritical. can you not distance yourselves from a videogame?

 

Noticed how the games I listed and the games you listed differ: My games are all concerned with Discovery age African slave trade (racial slave trade). Those games are concerned with a much more broad version of slavery. Medieval slavery was based around serfdome and debts. Normal people could become slave and be able to return to regular citizenry after debts had been paid. Roman Slavery was formatted to where any conquered person, be it African, Greek, Gallic, etc. all were considered slaves. All had ability to get out of slavery, and if they did, they would be treated as Roman citizens. This is not like the African slave trade, which was based upon the idea that the African peoples were sub-human. A slave of this time was seen only as a piece of property. I'm not saying Roman or medieval slavery is good, but it was definitely not as brutal as the African slave trade.

 

And lastly, I don't think any sci-fi/future/space version of slavery is hardly something to argue historical slavery.

[nebsif]

As Pfeil and others before said, If slaves are just another illegal resource then no point wasting resources adding them in.

 

However, since IIRC we gonna have player/guild owned ports/towns slavery could be another (or even the main), cheaper but more dangerous way of populating those (rebellions on land and on the ships transporting + repercussions by other players, pretty much like this thread);  + there were "Slave Ship" ships, but I dont know if they they differed enough from normal merchant ships to be added in as such. 

 

We could have town rebellions w/o slaves, just like we could have sugar plantations and illegal/dangerous cargo w/o slaves, but once some1 who previously didnt think about slavery in any way begins to wonder "wait.. werent there slaves in this era" as result, then something's wrong. As another example in addition to my previous post; A colonization of Americas game w/o Indians - just EU nations racing and fighting each other for land.

 

Actually if we have a fictional world map, i'd vote "dont mind" and never bother commenting in any of these threads. Just imo if you do something historically, do it right, not the World of Tanks way of "Not OP tank100" nerfed for historical reasons while "Nice Tank 54" buffed for the sake of gameplay balance and statistics.

For one i'd be better off on a completely fictional but interesting map with only player made factions and politics instead of pre-mades like England and Spain, but I understand its a major selling point for many to play for their own country etc.

 

 

offtopic again:

Again reminds me of Archeage; Killing and stealing from your own faction can be done with minimal punishment; it was widespread at 1st, with entire PK guilds but as the game and community matured ALL the non 2man PK guilds either dissolved or made peace with the "honest" guilds after lots of clan wars, stealing back and forth and loads forum drama. TL:DR PKing was abolished, dont underestimate players and their effort.

 

edit: @William, not you whitewashing, but the games.

[Mitchverr]

The slave trade cannot be represented by players at all unless players attack and report all slave trade and free them.

 

1. If you allow players to trade in slaves it gives a nod that on some level it is OK because it is profitable.

 

2. It devalues the sanctity of human life and you cannot allow players to develop this attitude.

 

3. It is still going on today and allowing trade in this manner may actually subject the game to unfair press regardless of historical accuracy.

 

4. same effect of transporting humans can be has by transporting prisoners of war instead of slaves.

 

So, you cannot allow players to trade in slaves in this game first and foremost because of the mindset in the player that you create. The predominant mindset of the time was that half the world were savages that needed to be controlled and were barely human. It was because of this mindset that much of the world suffered. Allowing players to trade in slaves will create a continuance of this mindset that anything is OK as long as it is profitable. What comes next is the perishable goods factor being applied to human cargo. The trader would get a report saying that 10 slaves died in transport. Is that what you really want in this game? Is that the mindset that we want to create? Hell no. The developers have made no mention that slave trading will be put into this game, only other players have wondered this. I for one hope that they never include slave trading on any form or fashion except to attack anyone who trades in slaves and to free them. There are still slaves today. There is still a slave trade today in many parts of the world. It can never be allowed, even in a game, to profit in any way from slavery.

 

1. No, not really, in "this war of mine" for example you can murder and steal, it does not however say its okay or a nod to do so, its a gritty part of life with its own choices that are stuck to it in the end. The "if its in a game then its the devs saying its okay on some level" thing is a moot argument, is a movie with slaves in it a nod saying slavery is fine?

 

2. I reffer to reply 1.0

 

3. Thats like the people who demanded the reinactment of trafalger have "red vs blue" to not upset the spanish/french to be honest, lol.

 

4. To a degree, but not so much either, depending on the era, and transporting prisoners of war in "such a way" wasnt really done. Generic prisoners IE australia time sure, but PoWs not so much iirc.

 

The last paragraph seems to me at least to ignore white european people were slaves too. If slavery is in, i would say that should be in too, by ofcourse with a high risk (european powers as did America too hated those that sold whites into slavery in Africa for example or the middle east).

 

It again, wouldnt tell people "anything is okay", unless you assume that the playerbase are made up of young children ofcourse, but even then i knew it wasnt right to own a slave since i was a young child and i point again to comparason with books or movies. You dislike people would profit from it, but im sorry, 1 critical way to learn why people do something is to empethetically link to that person in the position and "put yourself in their boots" to use a phrase. Although i wont do it because i dislike the idea of doing it, i wouldnt want to either reduce others choices or the ability for the dev team to show a historically correct history.

 

I can get not liking it for ethical grounds but please, dont use bad arguments against it. Especially dont use the debunked by literally dozens of papers on the subject of media (especially games) alter peoples mindsets with reguards to shocking things because it damages your position.

 

Also @ your other comments, saying that slavery was historical and a historical game could have it isnt promoting slavery. Also if you wish t talk of Kant i would be happy to go down that road with you if i must, given i was top of my class for ethics and pilosophical studies but it isnt really the place to be fair.

 

 

The problem is that the "mechanics" that make the slave trade distinct from the trade of other goods are reprehensible behaviors that we really don't want players to simulate in the game, e.g. slaves dying during a slow passage, torture and brutality to prevent uprising, etc. Without simulating the horrible human aspects of the slave trade, "slaves" are just another cargo.

Game Labs doesn't have to be beholden to the social and political realities of the era they draw ships (technology) from. They can present an alternate reality in which all nations have the opportunity to be great naval powers and in which the slave trade has already been universally banned.

 

 

Good argument friend, i can get behind that, however for the slow passage, the deaths of the cargo would make people want to go fast (as real life). I can understand the detatchment due to it bascially being the same as moving a load of wheat for example as i remember from when i was a teen (and more recently after going back to college) how my lot at the time and the younger lot viewed the holocaust, many dont understand it and just look at it from a map and a statistical number, but when shown pictures many would be crying and regretting the jokes made and feel how truely bad it is, this game wouldnt be able to give the true grimdark of slavery, which shows how hard it is to get a true responce from it. And very true on the latter of alt history if they wish it.

 

 

I'm saying slavery should not be implemented because (in my opinion) it should not be something to become a common part of gameplay (I'd hate to see "Selling 20 slaves for X amount of in game money" in chat)

 

If multiple nations are anti slavery in the game, i suspect doing this would end them sunk by people who say "sure come here" then blast them under the accordance of their played nationality but yes i can see this being an issue.

 

 

Noticed how the games I listed and the games you listed differ: My games are all concerned with Discovery age African slave trade (racial slave trade). Those games are concerned with a much more broad version of slavery. Medieval slavery was based around serfdome and debts. Normal people could become slave and be able to return to regular citizenry after debts had been paid. Roman Slavery was formatted to where any conquered person, be it African, Greek, Gallic, etc. all were considered slaves. All had ability to get out of slavery, and if they did, they would be treated as Roman citizens. This is not like the African slave trade, which was based upon the idea that the African peoples were sub-human. A slave of this time was seen only as a piece of property. I'm not saying Roman or medieval slavery is good, but it was definitely not as brutal as the African slave trade.

 

And lastly, I don't think any sci-fi/future/space version of slavery is hardly something to argue historical slavery.

 

 

The thing people forget is that especially in north africa and the middle east, white christians were slaves too, even taken from the USA post revolution to be enslaved in modern day Tripoli (IIRC this leads to a certain line in a certain US Marine song). over 1 million were taken and enslaved over the period, sure, not as many as from Africa to other places or Inda or China etc, but it was there (and i would cry foul if it wasnt, it was a significant issue in the med for a very long time and having a game with the med without that would be like having a ww1 game without machineguns in my view though it can heavily be covered by piracy, it wouldnt exactly be true to the real reasoning).

 

 

 

 

Now, as for me and my view, i am highly torn on it really, i think it should be there for others to use if they wish it (i will not do it) just like i think that female captains should be possible, however if the devs dont want the kettle of fish i totally understand it and wouldnt be to bothered without it, but i would think that (should the game get that far) slavery should be in by the time the game includes the med sea simply for the fact it played in much of the warring with North Africa.

 

So i vote i dont mind either way, heh

[Crankey]

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2346-forum-and-sea-trials-rules/

 

Please read 1,2,3 & 4 before further posts as I believe we are getting a little heated here and out of proportion to the OP's post.

 

I respect anyones valid and sensible views on these forums but telling me I am a bad person because I would vote to have historical content included is just going to get my back up.

 

This is a war game, I don't see any posts on behalf of AntiWar do you? Do you know why ? Its because this is not real, its a game, its based on history - some of us won't be offended if unsavoury historical content is in game if it serves to enhance its depth.

 

Personally I don't mind if slavery is or isn't included, Maybe "Exotic Livestock" will be in game I wonder what that might be a code phrase for.....

 

What I object to is inflamatory and downright rude posts that imply wanting to be historically correct is going to send me to hell and that I am somehow supporting and promoting modern day slavery.

[Rithal]

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2346-forum-and-sea-trials-rules/

 

Please read 1,2,3 & 4 before further posts as I believe we are getting a little heated here and out of proportion to the OP's post.

 

I respect anyones valid and sensible views on these forums but telling me I am a bad person because I would vote to have historical content included is just going to get my back up.

 

This is a war game, I don't see any posts on behalf of AntiWar do you? Do you know why ? Its because this is not real, its a game, its based on history - some of us won't be offended if unsavoury historical content is in game if it serves to enhance its depth.

 

Personally I don't mind if slavery is or isn't included, Maybe "Exotic Livestock" will be in game I wonder what that might be a code phrase for.....

 

What I object to is inflamatory and downright rude posts that imply wanting to be historically correct is going to send me to hell and that I am somehow supporting and promoting modern day slavery.

 

^ This

[ArlindoBerto]

I vote for yes, as historically accurate as possible, but you forgot this option...

 

If you want to question slavery, do not question the slavery represented in a game, question it on your daily life. Think on this, that black man in the building in front of you working as hell, that prostitute in the you paid last night, some food you buy...comes from slave work...and we pay for it without knowing..

 

so, does a game that represent slavery is an insult? is it unacceptable?

[thomas aagaard]

The slave trade cannot be represented by players at all unless players attack and report all slave trade and free them.

 

1. If you allow players to trade in slaves it gives a nod that on some level it is OK because it is profitable.

 

2. It devalues the sanctity of human life and you cannot allow players to develop this attitude.

 

3. It is still going on today and allowing trade in this manner may actually subject the game to unfair press regardless of historical accuracy.

 

4. same effect of transporting humans can be has by transporting prisoners of war instead of slaves.

 

So, you cannot allow players to trade in slaves in this game first and foremost because of the mindset in the player that you create. The predominant mindset of the time was that half the world were savages that needed to be controlled and were barely human. It was because of this mindset that much of the world suffered. Allowing players to trade in slaves will create a continuance of this mindset that anything is OK as long as it is profitable. What comes next is the perishable goods factor being applied to human cargo. The trader would get a report saying that 10 slaves died in transport. Is that what you really want in this game? Is that the mindset that we want to create? Hell no. The developers have made no mention that slave trading will be put into this game, only other players have wondered this. I for one hope that they never include slave trading on any form or fashion except to attack anyone who trades in slaves and to free them. There are still slaves today. There is still a slave trade today in many parts of the world. It can never be allowed, even in a game, to profit in any way from slavery.

You post makes very little sense.

 

Why is it ok to make a game where you kill others? we do in this game when we kill crew.

The gaming market is full of war games,First person shooters, roleplaying game where murder, plundering and similar is part of the game.

This is no different.

Yes some games sidestep the issue...

others don't - like Europa Universalis. (or EVE for that matter, that also have slaves as a type of goods. It even have slavery and racism as part of the setting)

 

A game like sid Meyers Colonization didn't have slaves, but they had no problems with forced conversion to Christianity or with the Europeans  committing Genocide by totally destroying "indian" cultures...

Hypocrisy I say.

[Rithal]

I vote for yes, as historically accurate as possible, but you forgot this option...

 

If you want to question slavery, do not question the slavery represented in a game, question it on your daily life. Think on this, that black man in the building in front of you working as hell, that prostitute in the you paid last night, some food you buy...comes from slave work...and we pay for it without knowing..

 

so, does a game that represent slavery is an insult? is it unacceptable?

 

... I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you equating minimum wage jobs and illegal prostitution to slavery?

[Flurgh]

... I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you equating minimum wage jobs and illegal prostitution to slavery?

I think he's trying to say that prostitutes working for a pimp against their will is a kind of slavery.

EDIT: I'm confused

[ArlindoBerto]

modern slavery man, think on that, not in a game that shows slavery as it was before..

[nornica]

If we want history? then vote yes, without any high risk of labeling etc.
As few of You mentioned, it was absolutly normal to trade slaves.

If I remember correctly it was something like that:
1- Gold from west go to Europe to get fancy stuff.
2- Fancy stuff from Europe go to Africa to get slaves.
3- Slaves go to west to get gold.

Something like that.
Everyone traded slaves, it was "normal" currency at that time.
So come one people. If we include slave trade we should do it historically correct. If not, don't put it at all.

Simple thing.
I don't understand that voting for: "Players can participate in the slave trade, however it is a high risk high reward situation. There is a chance of the slaves rebelling, disease, and you can be caught and labeled as a slave trader/pirate." It's like "i don't agree with slavery so let's make it thing for bad guys, but making a war because one king was a psycho and second one didn't like my country religion will be ok"
We do it right (historically) or not at all. Simple as that.

[Sin Khan]

Slave trading is not a GAME MECHANIC! Trading is a game mechanic. What you trade is not a mechanic. So grow up and realize that your post has nothing to do whatsoever with mechanics.

 

PS: Some forum mod already deleted that post. So, I'm glad that you re-posted for me.

[Rithal]

Slave trading is not a GAME MECHANIC! Trading is a game mechanic. What you trade is not a mechanic. So grow up and realize that your post has nothing to do whatsoever with mechanics.

 

PS: Some forum mod already deleted that post. So, I'm glad that you re-posted for me.

 

The goods you trade, how you trade them, and the affects of said trade is definitely a game mechanic. I don't know how else I can explain this. It's not a morale issue. No one cares about playing MW2 where you can play ass terrorists groups in multiplayer and kill virtual U.S marines do they? It's just that slavery has been drilled into our heads so much as children that it's wrong. Yes, slavery is wrong. I don't condone it, but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion.

[Sin Khan]

The goods you trade, how you trade them, and the affects of said trade is definitely a game mechanic. I don't know how else I can explain this. It's not a morale issue. No one cares about playing MW2 where you can play ass terrorists groups in multiplayer and kill virtual U.S marines do they? It's just that slavery has been drilled into our heads so much as children that it's wrong. Yes, slavery is wrong. I don't condone it, but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion.

 

"but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion."

 

And there we have it folks. Thank you Rithal for admitting the truth about what you believe to the rest of the forum. As I said, its not about mechanics. You simply want this in the game and don't see any problem with it. That's the reality of the mindset of many of the people here and that was what I wanted to expose all along. The Truth.

[nebsif]

"but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion."

 

And there we have it folks. Thank you Rithal for admitting the truth about what you believe to the rest of the forum. As I said, its not about mechanics. You simply want this in the game and don't see any problem with it. That's the reality of the mindset of many of the people here and that was what I wanted to expose all along. The Truth.

[thomas aagaard]

Rome Total war also have slavery. More slaves = more income, but bigger risk of a slave revolt.
Civilizations IV had it and you could "kill" your population to finish construction in one turn. So here we got working slaves to death.

 

 

I will join the club. I really don't see why or how slavery is any better or worse in a videogame than wars, murder, prostitution, Genocide, torture, religious based warfare, terrorism...

[Rithal]

"but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion."

 

And there we have it folks. Thank you Rithal for admitting the truth about what you believe to the rest of the forum. As I said, its not about mechanics. You simply want this in the game and don't see any problem with it. That's the reality of the mindset of many of the people here and that was what I wanted to expose all along. The Truth.

 

Or............. I think slave trading should be in the game due to it's historical significance of this time period, and the fact that entire economies were centered on slave labor during this era. I said "but virtual transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas is not worse than killing virtual people in games like GTA and Call of Duty in my honest opinion." to try and combat the argument that slaves shouldn't be in the game because IRL slavery is wrong. It doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that most people conclude that killing people IRL is wrong, yet their are games centered around killing people. I originally intended on this being purely based on what is best for the game, in terms of how it works, yet it's people like you that have blown it out of proportion, and have gone all keyboard warrior on us. It's just a game. It's not real.

[Sin Khan]

Of course you don't see the problem with it Thomas. Many people do not. And, of course, that is the whole point of it. Yet, you do not understand what this means about your mindset. You don't understand what this says about you and the others who want this in the game. I already explained it some and the post was deleted by a mod. So, If I am going to try again, then I will have to be more careful about it.

 

The essential point of your argument is that it is Virtual and allowed in other games, so, why not here. But lets look at the argument. I pointed out from the start that collective morality is apparent and valid. The very basis of your argument is that "others are doing it" so why don't we. Or, its not hurting anyone, so, why don't we allow it. Both of those stances are socially based. And yet, you say that morality should not be part of the decision. If that's the case, then your own argument is invalid as well. The fact that other games do it is also irrelevant if we are taking morality out of the question. Your false argument (which in logic is called the fallacy of a Red Herring) that other games include this is irrelevant to this game.

 

So why would you really chose to argue in fallacies by saying, "Everyone else is doing it"! You are choosing this argument because you know that it is wrong to add slavery to the game. This is why you are using social, non relevant, arguments to back up what you want to do. There is no "Logical" reason to add slave trading to the game. Instead, it is a personal emotional reason that you, and others want this.

 

--Real World Threat Edited - H. Darby--

Edited March 11, 2015 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removal of threat of violence in real life.

[nebsif]

lawl other games were brought as examples that this can be done in a game w/o widespread responses and backlash such as yours - instead of to prove something about moralities. Discussion about moralities in a game where you can murder for profit = piracy are moot.

 

If you think another game mechanic something can replace the function of slaves @ the colonies during the game's period w/o retracting from realism, post it. Sandbox game is sandbox, go fight slavers in game with the same zeal you whiteknight here - such "personal" conflicts will only make it more interesting to come back to as long as they dont spill on the forums, again. 

 

edit: there we go lads, the 1st player made factions before the game even started  

[Crankey]

--Real World Threat Edited - H. Darby--

 

 

--Real World Threat Edited - H. Darby--

 

We have more threats ? So the pen is only mightier than the sword unless someone disagrees with you ?

 

I believe the post has been hijacked and to be quite frank your continued rants are actually leaning me against your argument merely because of your bullying and aggressive stance.

 

This poll would have probably been a poorly visited and soon forgotten subject had your continuing re-posts not made it such a huge issue. If the subject now makes it into game I hold you partly responsible.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removal of removed content in quotes.

[admin]

Discussions of modern politics is strictly forbidden - you can freely discuss the political situation and  intricacies of 1600-1830 time period. Forum users mentioning modern politics will be warned first and if it happens again will be silenced.

This is a nice warm place to talk about age of sail. For modern world watch CNN or Al Jazeera and visit their forums. 

 

Coming back on topic.

No slave trading is planned.

But you could become either a smuggler/ counterband trader, or revenue vessel chasing them.

 

no whale hunting also

[thomas aagaard]

Of course you don't see the problem with it Thomas. Many people do not. And, of course, that is the whole point of it. Yet, you do not understand what this means about your mindset. You don't understand what this says about you and the others who want this in the game. I already explained it some and the post was deleted by a mod. So, If I am going to try again, then I will have to be more careful about it.

 

The essential point of your argument is that it is Virtual and allowed in other games, so, why not here. But lets look at the argument. I pointed out from the start that collective morality is apparent and valid. The very basis of your argument is that "others are doing it" so why don't we. Or, its not hurting anyone, so, why don't we allow it. Both of those stances are socially based. And yet, you say that morality should not be part of the decision. If that's the case, then your own argument is invalid as well.

If you read my earlier post on the topic and my posts in the other topic about this..

My main argument is that it is an important part of the economic system during this period and as a dark chapter in human history we need to tell people about it... not hid it away and try to forget it.

 

It is exactly because it is such a horrible history That it should be added.

 

The reason I mention other games is the show that having slavery in a game do not in any way effect the sales in a negative way. There was no boycott of Rome II because of the slavery. (but some did because it was a horrible game at launch) and EU4 sells very well... Their next expansion will include human sacrifice since that is an historical part of some of the south Indian religions.

And disallowing slavery but allowing murder, warfare and other similar bad habits humanity have is just hypocrisy...

 

If you can't deal with history, you should not be playing a historical game... 

 

I had hoped that with a dev team from a country not involved in the Atlantic slave trade, that we would see a game that didn't bow to the attempt to hide and forget the slave trade... or the genocide of the Indians... and give us an honest version of history... good and bad.

 

That said, their game their decision. and I also think that there are more important things to implement for a great game.

[Crankey]

no whale hunting also

 

I don't imagine hunting whale's would be an activity we the player could participate in, or hunting seals or beavers for fur.

 

However whaling fleets were huge investments, with the ships staying 1 or 2 years at sea amassing hugely valuable cargoes before returning home. Lubber and other product as well as furs from the Americas coast in particular were important trade commodities. I hope we will have trade in the game to support an economy model and that we can deal with 'correct' labelling of produce. o7

[Rithal]

No whale hunting. But you can hunt whales in AC Black Flag. WTF. HYPOCRISY ECT. JK I respect your decision Mr. Developer.

[admin]

Reported to moderator. I was enjoying much of this thread until the ugly internet bully showed up. Your posts were devolving into personal attacks but to say you'd attack someone if you had the chance in real life, warrants my post report to a moderator. Horrible post and quite disconcerting on a fun game forum. Thanks for single handedly ruining the fun buddy.

 

this discussion went the wrong way.

• If you want trading with Africa you can trade ivory or diamonds
• If you want slave trading - you in reality want to bring slavery topic into the game, not trading

Woody Allen once said: You should put a kiss in the movie only if the movie really requires it.

Dropping this topic completely will not make the game worse, but the fact that this subject is not in the game may even make this game better for some potential players.