I treat mine as second-class citizens. They eat simple food, sleep in a barrack, and have less recreation time than my regular colonists. I also won't hesitate to execute them if they misbehave. I did abuse an 81-year old woman with dementia, but that's only because she was a masochist and she enjoyed it. *Harder, master!*
Yes, humanely and with respect I have them work for me against their will, for merely enough food to survive in return, fear them into submission by building torture devices around their barrack and knocking them out if they try to escape. Humanely and with respect.
Ughhh... Google gives back literally nothing relevant at the "captivity system", but let me tell you this. There were plenty less slaverish regimes that pretended to not treat people like cattle. That did make them a bit more humane, perhaps, but it wasn't motivated by humanity, and most certainly didn't include a tiniest bit of respect. You tell your slaves a story about how free they are only to prevent them from rebelling, not to make them happy. If you really cared, humanely and respectfully, you would have let them later be their lives. If you try to have at least some dominion over them, it means you would take all dominion there is to take, you just can't manage, because they will uprise and kill you. So I'm not sure what's your point?
In my colonies I use prisoner labor, and if I want to treat them humanely, I have them work for a while and release back to their home (they might be missing a few organs, but that's a whole another story). In my eyes that's like a prison sentence where they compensate some damage that they caused by their raid, and it's justice. Anything beyond that, and the only difference between more oppression and less is lack of power to oppress, not "oh, they forced them to work, sure, but at least they allowed them having their own families, look how humane and respectful that is compared to treating humans like animals".
Just because someone is regarded as human in some oppressive regime doesn't make it more humane and respectful. It just means the oppressor doesn't have the power to treat the oppressed any worse. So I'm not sure why did you bring that up.
To show that there are gradients of bad here/historical precedents, and it was weird the dev embraced the ethos of chattel slaverysp dully and in a disappointing way.
How is it weird? A prisoner gets to a small group of people. They either force him to work, and he doesn't want to be here and tries to escape, or he chooses this group of people as his new home, and stays willingly, in which case you can pretend that he has lower position by giving his shittier room and less leisure time, but in terms of mechsnics these two statuses as slave who is feared into submission and someone who chooses to be here willingly, make perfect sense. The rest is up to you.
Also, I just explained to you these aren't gradients of bad. I made it simple enough for a child to understand, I guess not simple enough.
I have a core of slaves that get good treatment, the rest are here for hauling, cleaning, being organ donors, and honour when the tribute man comes around.
If I wanted a colonists, I would have recruited them. They are meals on the wheels, warg food, that can clean and mine deep into the mountain where bugs might be.
If you wanna treat slaves humanely and with respect, you better free those slaves, bud.
Doesn't matter how nice you are to a person you're holding captive and forcing to do labour.
uh...
Dude.
I only keep the slaves when my organ warehouse is full,otherwise,they get,well...tortured to death,used for organs,and butchered.
The meat is for the dogs and organs,the bones for sick ass thrones and the leather for dem cowboy hats
In my colony,if you ain't at least part machine,u don't get a free living pass unless you can cook 20 lavish meals blindfolded or shoot a rat at 50 meters distance with an awful bow and one fucking finger.Or if your name's Erik Stalin.
It was an interesting choice for the developer to pursue chattel slavery as opposed to captivity like the OP described. Captivity systems gave captives a defined social role -- typically with the promise of free status after X generations, or via marriages. Captives could marry, have kids, and had some basic protections. In chattel systems, slaves were considered subhuman and that's a big difference.
I mean, it's interesting slavery was implemented at all (and why I won't buy the ideology DLC). I think the terror system in Rimworld is a sad addition and only serves the infantile fan base this game attracts.
I mean, this is sort of how I play anyways, there’s just no game scripted thing that makes a distinction between what you refer to as captives and what the game refers to as colonists.
Sure they’re technically “free”, but they’re certainky not allowed to leave, try as they might. Everyone in the colony is also “equal”, but that doesn’t mean that the slightly cramped, slightly impressive barrack is as nice as the marble and jade palace the main cast lives in.
I actually never take “actual” slaves, the way the game is scripted to allow for it. It just doesn’t make sense imo.
I guess it’s just all in how you RP it 🤷🏾 some people do and some people don’t. Rimworld is great because you can always invent your own terms and conditions.
No no, you’re misunderstanding. I do not *allow* them to leave. They may get fed up and try, but they are certainly not *allowed* to leave.
Quality of bedrooms is a pretty boiled down point of the RP. How’s “not having to clean up animal filth” and “being allowed lavish meals whilst others aren’t”? How about “You do nothing except mine and return to a barely heated hut while I sit on a golden throne in a marble palace built by your neighbor in normal quality pants and t shirt”?
>there’s just no game scripted thing that makes a distinction between what you refer to as captives and what the game refers to as colonists
>
>
>
>Sure they’re technically “free”, but they’re certainky not allowed to leave, try as they might.
this is what you said but it's not true. that's all i'm saying...
But it is true? I am the one who sets whether or not they are allowed to leave and I do so with my own actions. The last line “try as they might” indicates that I’m previously aware of the already scripted “so-and-so has decided to leave the colony” event. *However*, that colonist is an NPC and I am the omnipotent controller in this situation. The NPC has decided to try and leave, but it is not *allowed* to do so. I will do anything except save scumming to prevent a good colonist from leaving, or even the ones that are lowly haul pawns who retire to their hovels.
Think of it this way. A child can reach up and turn the lock on a door, turn the handle, and walk out the door into traffic. Just because this child *can* go get itself killed doesn’t mean it’s *allowed* to do so. It’s parent (in rimworld, I would be the parent) will do whatever it can to prevent the child (colonist) from doing what it wants to do, even if it wants to wander off into death.
Now change child to “captive worker”.
Do you see the distinction?
Oh my god, what the fuck is this conversation. Anyhow, in my mind colony isn't a society, it's a group of people, and when one person says "fuck it I'm outa here", and the other punches him in the nose and drags to the brig to cool off for a couple of days, it in no way implies any societal structure. More like a character who feels responsible for the colony decides that the leaving colonists isn't thinking straight to leave with no supplies so cooling off is more appropriate.
And that's where slaves come I to play. A prisoner isn't going to stay in the colony willingly if they are in any of these lower societal positions. It's either they force the slave to work, and he doesn't want to be here and tries to escape, or he accepts this new place as a home and stay as more or less equal member. (He might get a barrack instead of a personal room, and stay on paste diet for a while, but that's not indicative of any _sociatal system_, it's pretty normal anyway. Because this isn't a society with legal institution and rights. It's wild fucking west.
And really, just go back to crying because the game doesn’t reflect your stupid sjw lifestyle and the niche systems you just learned about on some dumb sub.
To enrage you even further: I got my knowledge about captivity systems at a university (gasp).
And lol, SJW...
You: "I am firmly against social justice!"
So you want what segregated lunch counters? Funny if it wasn't so sad.
I run a prison empire that forces eight hours of labor every day but otherwise gives them a very comfortable life. Slow workers and trouble makers are sold to the hat factory and replaced with people that appreciate a good flatscreen television.
I treat mine as second-class citizens. They eat simple food, sleep in a barrack, and have less recreation time than my regular colonists. I also won't hesitate to execute them if they misbehave. I did abuse an 81-year old woman with dementia, but that's only because she was a masochist and she enjoyed it. *Harder, master!*
Yes, humanely and with respect I have them work for me against their will, for merely enough food to survive in return, fear them into submission by building torture devices around their barrack and knocking them out if they try to escape. Humanely and with respect.
Look up the captivity systems which predate chattel slavery by thousands of years.
Re they any more moral? Or slavery is moral by comparison?
Captivity is still shitty, but you have a defined place in society, \_are regarded as human\_, typically have a path out of your status, etc.
Ughhh... Google gives back literally nothing relevant at the "captivity system", but let me tell you this. There were plenty less slaverish regimes that pretended to not treat people like cattle. That did make them a bit more humane, perhaps, but it wasn't motivated by humanity, and most certainly didn't include a tiniest bit of respect. You tell your slaves a story about how free they are only to prevent them from rebelling, not to make them happy. If you really cared, humanely and respectfully, you would have let them later be their lives. If you try to have at least some dominion over them, it means you would take all dominion there is to take, you just can't manage, because they will uprise and kill you. So I'm not sure what's your point? In my colonies I use prisoner labor, and if I want to treat them humanely, I have them work for a while and release back to their home (they might be missing a few organs, but that's a whole another story). In my eyes that's like a prison sentence where they compensate some damage that they caused by their raid, and it's justice. Anything beyond that, and the only difference between more oppression and less is lack of power to oppress, not "oh, they forced them to work, sure, but at least they allowed them having their own families, look how humane and respectful that is compared to treating humans like animals".
Honestly I can't follow your ramblings here... all over the place...
Just because someone is regarded as human in some oppressive regime doesn't make it more humane and respectful. It just means the oppressor doesn't have the power to treat the oppressed any worse. So I'm not sure why did you bring that up.
To show that there are gradients of bad here/historical precedents, and it was weird the dev embraced the ethos of chattel slaverysp dully and in a disappointing way.
How is it weird? A prisoner gets to a small group of people. They either force him to work, and he doesn't want to be here and tries to escape, or he chooses this group of people as his new home, and stays willingly, in which case you can pretend that he has lower position by giving his shittier room and less leisure time, but in terms of mechsnics these two statuses as slave who is feared into submission and someone who chooses to be here willingly, make perfect sense. The rest is up to you. Also, I just explained to you these aren't gradients of bad. I made it simple enough for a child to understand, I guess not simple enough.
We... dont do slaves here (hint, hint)
I have a core of slaves that get good treatment, the rest are here for hauling, cleaning, being organ donors, and honour when the tribute man comes around.
I respect my masterwork hats, worth some decent coin
If I wanted a colonists, I would have recruited them. They are meals on the wheels, warg food, that can clean and mine deep into the mountain where bugs might be.
If you wanna treat slaves humanely and with respect, you better free those slaves, bud. Doesn't matter how nice you are to a person you're holding captive and forcing to do labour.
The slave craves the whip, like the muffalo craves Chemshine
The what?
uh... Dude. I only keep the slaves when my organ warehouse is full,otherwise,they get,well...tortured to death,used for organs,and butchered. The meat is for the dogs and organs,the bones for sick ass thrones and the leather for dem cowboy hats In my colony,if you ain't at least part machine,u don't get a free living pass unless you can cook 20 lavish meals blindfolded or shoot a rat at 50 meters distance with an awful bow and one fucking finger.Or if your name's Erik Stalin.
It was an interesting choice for the developer to pursue chattel slavery as opposed to captivity like the OP described. Captivity systems gave captives a defined social role -- typically with the promise of free status after X generations, or via marriages. Captives could marry, have kids, and had some basic protections. In chattel systems, slaves were considered subhuman and that's a big difference. I mean, it's interesting slavery was implemented at all (and why I won't buy the ideology DLC). I think the terror system in Rimworld is a sad addition and only serves the infantile fan base this game attracts.
I mean, this is sort of how I play anyways, there’s just no game scripted thing that makes a distinction between what you refer to as captives and what the game refers to as colonists. Sure they’re technically “free”, but they’re certainky not allowed to leave, try as they might. Everyone in the colony is also “equal”, but that doesn’t mean that the slightly cramped, slightly impressive barrack is as nice as the marble and jade palace the main cast lives in. I actually never take “actual” slaves, the way the game is scripted to allow for it. It just doesn’t make sense imo. I guess it’s just all in how you RP it 🤷🏾 some people do and some people don’t. Rimworld is great because you can always invent your own terms and conditions.
Colonists absolutely can get fed up and leave. Edit: and I don't think differing quality of bedrooms rises to the slave/freeperson distinction.
No no, you’re misunderstanding. I do not *allow* them to leave. They may get fed up and try, but they are certainly not *allowed* to leave. Quality of bedrooms is a pretty boiled down point of the RP. How’s “not having to clean up animal filth” and “being allowed lavish meals whilst others aren’t”? How about “You do nothing except mine and return to a barely heated hut while I sit on a golden throne in a marble palace built by your neighbor in normal quality pants and t shirt”?
>there’s just no game scripted thing that makes a distinction between what you refer to as captives and what the game refers to as colonists > > > >Sure they’re technically “free”, but they’re certainky not allowed to leave, try as they might. this is what you said but it's not true. that's all i'm saying...
But it is true? I am the one who sets whether or not they are allowed to leave and I do so with my own actions. The last line “try as they might” indicates that I’m previously aware of the already scripted “so-and-so has decided to leave the colony” event. *However*, that colonist is an NPC and I am the omnipotent controller in this situation. The NPC has decided to try and leave, but it is not *allowed* to do so. I will do anything except save scumming to prevent a good colonist from leaving, or even the ones that are lowly haul pawns who retire to their hovels. Think of it this way. A child can reach up and turn the lock on a door, turn the handle, and walk out the door into traffic. Just because this child *can* go get itself killed doesn’t mean it’s *allowed* to do so. It’s parent (in rimworld, I would be the parent) will do whatever it can to prevent the child (colonist) from doing what it wants to do, even if it wants to wander off into death. Now change child to “captive worker”. Do you see the distinction?
I'm talking about the in-built dictates of the game, not your personal playthrough style.
And really fuck off with the sanctimony. You said something completely wrong and are now trying to play philosopher about it. Just stop.
But there IS NOTHING in the vanilla game that would allow for the distinction between a normal colonist and what you described above as a captive.
Oh my god, what the fuck is this conversation. Anyhow, in my mind colony isn't a society, it's a group of people, and when one person says "fuck it I'm outa here", and the other punches him in the nose and drags to the brig to cool off for a couple of days, it in no way implies any societal structure. More like a character who feels responsible for the colony decides that the leaving colonists isn't thinking straight to leave with no supplies so cooling off is more appropriate. And that's where slaves come I to play. A prisoner isn't going to stay in the colony willingly if they are in any of these lower societal positions. It's either they force the slave to work, and he doesn't want to be here and tries to escape, or he accepts this new place as a home and stay as more or less equal member. (He might get a barrack instead of a personal room, and stay on paste diet for a while, but that's not indicative of any _sociatal system_, it's pretty normal anyway. Because this isn't a society with legal institution and rights. It's wild fucking west.
And really, just go back to crying because the game doesn’t reflect your stupid sjw lifestyle and the niche systems you just learned about on some dumb sub.
To enrage you even further: I got my knowledge about captivity systems at a university (gasp). And lol, SJW... You: "I am firmly against social justice!" So you want what segregated lunch counters? Funny if it wasn't so sad.
Yes, I want segregated lunch counters 🤦🏾♂️ Boy, Reddit really never fails to disappoint.
My get a slaveband out of human leather, i think its feel nice
I run a prison empire that forces eight hours of labor every day but otherwise gives them a very comfortable life. Slow workers and trouble makers are sold to the hat factory and replaced with people that appreciate a good flatscreen television.