No slavery in CIV III

[CWM]

There is a very long thread on this board about ways in which slavery could be implemented in CIV III.

Personally I would prefer it to be left out. Sure it was/is part of human history but so are other nasty things like the fact that most of the time when an invading army conquered a population thier troops would rape the women of the populace.

In fact this even happens now. Look at what the iraqi soldiers did to the kuwaiti women.

I'm sure that if someone "really" wanted to they could incorporate this into the game. Say if your troops occupy a city that city's populace would slowly change over 3 or 4 decades to a hybrid of your civ's ethnicity and the conquered city's ethnicity.

But I'm sure that this would be something no one on this group wants in the game.

I don't know what the ethnicity is of most of the people on this board but being a descendent of a group who went through REAL slavery less than even 2 centuries ago I certainly would not want to see this aspect portrayed in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment and NOT for a history lesson.

[Atahualpa]

Actually, slavery was quite a good concept in CtP. I quite liked it to either send my slavers over or be on the abolitionist side and try to free as many as I can.

Ata

[Gord McLeod]

I think it's a very bad idea to try to bury the negative aspects of history and forget about them - if we forget the horrors, we're more likely to repeat them when the memory becomes sufficiently dim. I say let there be slavery in Civ III but provide plenty of means to oppose it. According to Sid's message, diplomacy is being enhanced beyond even the level of SMAC's diplomacy engine - perhaps slavery could be something similar to an attrocity.

[Ubergeek]

As unpleasant as it certainly is to our modern minds, for the great majority of human history, slavery was an everyday fact of life in practically every civilization on the planet. In fact, slavery seems almost to have been a necessary phase or aspect of developing civilization, as pretty much every civilization developed it very early on. Repugnant? Yes. Unavoidable? Apparently so. I guess it's the dark underbelly of our human legacy. It's hard to have a serious, comprehensive discussion of human history without bringing up slavery.

That said, it is certainly not a pleasant topic. I guess I have mized feelings about it being in the game. On the one hand, it was pretty much ubiquitous and played a definite part in the way civilizations developed and interacted, and was so universal that it would hardly have been considered an atrocity, but rather a common fact of everyday life. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be placed in a situation where I was forced to have slaves and slavers just to keep up with the Joneses. I definitely didn't like the way slavery was implemented in CTP, so maybe if it were handled in some less visible, non-unit oriented approach it would be better. I dunno.

It's worth noting that the American experience of slavery being based on race was relatively unique. Generally slaves were members of defeated tribes/countries or criminals, and their descendants, and were often racially and culturally indistinguishable from their masters. So while slavery is of course morally repulsive, it is not in and of itself a racist concept. If slavery exists in the game, I think Firaxis will save itself a few headaches by making that point clear.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

[CWM]

Gord McLeod wrote :

"I think it's a very bad idea to try to bury the negative aspects of history and forget about them - if we forget the horrors, we're more likely to repeat them when the memory becomes sufficiently dim."

I never said that we should try to bury negative aspects of human history like slavery. My comment was that I don't think it has a place in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment.

I could only imagine how a jewish person would feel if in a game based on WWII you could play as the NAZI's and build concentration camps with gas chambers.

Did this happen in real life? Yes. Should we learn about it so that it never happens again? Yes. Should it be part of a game for enjoyment? No.

There was a post on the other thread that suggests we have POW work force instead. I think this would be a better option.

The people who are wondering how I could buy a game with POWs in it but not with slaves would probably wonder why I would buy a world war II game that allowed the use of chemical warfare but didn't include nazi gas chambers.

[tniem]

me for entertainment for me. Sure it was fun but after a while it was not fun it was just a drain on everything else that I did. I would not get enough sleep, enough food, failed tests. It did not matter and it wasn't even fun, just consuming. That is what the civ series is consuming of everything else that I am.

I believe slavery should be in civ III because I learned history from civilization. I understand your point CWM and so I think that an option could be to turn it off just like an option to turn of ethniticity so as not to offend or hinder someone's entertainment. But as for me, I think the game needs a little more complexity at the earlier stages, especially if things like corporations are added later.

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by CWM on 04-05-2000 09:42 PM Gord McLeod wrote : I never said that we should try to bury negative aspects of human history like slavery. My comment was that I don't think it has a place in a game that is supposed to be for entertainment.

That's true, you didn't say we should bury the past completely, but I feel games like Civilization, which have a certain emphasis on historical development and therefore historical accuracy, can be a valuable teaching tool whether people realize it while playing or not. I really don't like pretending this type of thing doesn't exist, even in a game.

So, I still have to disagree. I can see why you feel as you do and I respect that, but the attraction of a game like Civ to me is that it's based on historical and prehistorical concepts, so practicing revisionism on the history the game is based on leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth. Slavery happened, and was a vital, integral fact of life in virtually every civilization until modern times. To leave it out is blatantly unrealistic and would rob the game of an important, though unfortunate, element of humanity's past development.

[raingoon]

New Improved Slavery Model for Civ 3

1. Two or more units meet in battle...
2. After all the units of one side (within the battle area) are vanquished, there is a random roll to determine survivors/wounded.
3. If survivors, victor has three choices:

• Summarily Execute
• Release Unconditionally, and they revert to prior units belonging to their civ.
• Take as POW, and they become settler units in chains the color of their home civ.

4. In the event units are taken as POWS, player may do one of two things with them:

• Fortify in prison, or
• Put to Slave Labor

5. In the event POWs are held as prisoner, their numbers do not diminish and they may later be traded back to their home civ.
6. In the event POWs are put to slave labor, they may be used as diminished settlers, able to do anything settlers do except found a new city. POW slave laborers will eventually diminish in number, lessening their worth as bartering tools to trade later, and in time will perish all together.
7. Early in the game, Slave Labor should be considered a "normal" alternative, with no sanctions. Later, after certain tech advances have been discovered, perhaps Industrialism, it COULD be considered an "Atrocity" and appropriately sanctionable. At that time, any slave states still practicing slavery would be HEAVILY penalized and perhaps any who did not would be given a bonus. I suggest this for the following reason:

• In order for slavery to be considered an attrocity it must be unanimous -- ALL nations must vote to make it an attrocity. Anybody who would be heavily penalized by their slave economy would thus be compelled to defend itself, and the rest who were abolition would be forced to wage war (or trade sanctions, etc.) against the slave nation until they capitulated.

8. After United Nations, "War Reparations" should be allowed through diplomacy, wherein a majority of civs will vote that a given country who has committed the atrocity of slave labor must pay reparations to the survivors of the offended country (reparations can also be a negotiating chip for everything from cease fire agreements to trade agreements).

I don't think "slave traders" are necessary. There is enough trade modeled in this suggestion to adequately represent that small piece of history.

The benefits of the model I've suggested here are that, first, in general, slavery is historically modeled as the atrocity that it was and always will be.

Second, it is integrated into the combat model, the building model, the trade model, and the diplomacy model.

And third, in game terms, POW slave labor has both a strictly utilitarian purpose and an equally utilitarian penalty. The moral civs will be confronted with temptation, the amoral civs will be confronted with penalties. It works on every level.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 08, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

I haven't been able to get on to the forums for a couple of days, but everyone pretty much said what I would have anyway.

Slavery is far too important to be left out. As horrific as it was, many civs did get a big boost out of it. I agree it should not be neccessary to suceed however. As long as there are serious repurcussions if you do choose to take advantage of it, I believe it would be a satisfyingly accurate portrayayl of history.

That was the other thing I wanted to mention. History was actually part of the appeal that the original civ held for me. It shouldn't feel like a lesson, but history and entertainment shouldn't be mutually exclusive either.

- MKL

[tniem]

I wouldn't agree with making slavery an atrocity early in the game. Slavery itself was practiced by almost every society, and many inslaved their own people.

Obviously later in the game after cetain techs are reached (maybe religious) then unhappiness and attrocities are linked with slavery. The longer bondage takes place the bigger the punishments.

Also, I would make it so that non-slave nations and slave nations would have some diplomatic problems with each other. The South during the American Civil War hoped England would come to their side, but England was a free nation and the people would not support their government if they tried to help a slave nation.

I would also make extra benefit in that a slave nation does not teach its entire population. And so a fraction of the populace would not aid in the research of technology.

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-07-2000 11:26 PM I wouldn't agree with making slavery an atrocity early in the game. Slavery itself was practiced by almost every society, and many inslaved their own people.

True, there should be a point before which slavery is considered "normal", but I'm not sure what the best way to go about that is. It seems to me that tying it to technology is somewhat artificial, though there are likely some good justifications for it... I would prefer to be able to run a society that is intolerant of slavery right from the outset, though, even if the rest of the world disagrees.

quote: Also, I would make it so that non-slave nations and slave nations would have some diplomatic problems with each other. The South during the American Civil War hoped England would come to their side, but England was a free nation and the people would not support their government if they tried to help a slave nation.

Definitely. That fits in with the attrocity idea. Maybe instead of "global" attrocities, Civ needs to have attrocities that are categorized on an individual basis by civs. If you nuke a country, every anti-nuke country in the world gangs up to get you. If you keep slaves, you face economic sanctions and potential massive scale warfare... etc.

quote: I would also make extra benefit in that a slave nation does not teach its entire population. And so a fraction of the populace would not aid in the research of technology.

Very good thought... that alone would discourage me from using them, even if I were otherwise inclined to use them. I'm very research-oriented.

[jgv_fiera]

tniem,

You are quite right! Since we are talking about including religions in Civ3, we should give them some use. Slavity should become an atrocity since the expansion of new monoteist religions, like Christianism. This way, religions could force the fall of a great slaverist empire (like the Roman Empire in history).

And I agree with CWM that slavery is a very dark part of human history, but you, as the player, have the choice of using it or not, as well as you may choose to attack a peaceful civ with no reason at all.

[Charles the Third]

CWM is right, slavery should be left out. It's not a question of ignoring it; anyone who plays the game knows that slavery existed. The crucial fact being forgotten here is that CivIII is (will be) a game for entertainment. There is nothing entertaining about slavery. If CivIII is historically accurate, so much the better. But it is not a history lesson. If you want to learn about slavery, read a history book or one of the countless primary sources that exist on the subject.

Also, there is something inherently wrong, I believe, in reducing slavery to a game-playable feature. In my mind, it seems to take the harshness, the horror, the reality out of it. To me, playing a game with slavery would be the same as playing a game with concentration camps. Who would want to do that?

As for the game aspect of it, a military unit like the slaver from CTP is simply too unbalanced. If you think the diplomat in CivII is too powerful, what about a unit that can simply steal population?

Another thing: you could argue slavery already exists in CivII. Many of the comments are about ways to play out slavery. Yet slavery was as much as anything an economic model, albeit a horrible one, and as such rather abstract for inclusion in CivIII. Consider when you discover Feudalism in CivII. A large part of Feudalism was serfdom, which many believe was a form of slavery. You didn't need to have slavers or have discovered slavery; by your technology level and government choice you already knew if your civilization likely practiced slavery or not.

The one feature that I might envision being in CivIII is, to steal from CTP, the inclusion of the Emancipation Proclamation as a Wonder of the World. This would acknowledge the existence of slavery without necessarily forcing the player to actually practice slavery itself to win a game. I think it would be much more in line with the original spirit of Sid Meier's Civilization, which is a game that uplifts the human experience, rather than playing down to its lowest elements.

[lago]

War can match slavery horror for horror. There's nothing uplifting about war either, contrary to the thoughts of some (the overwhelming majority of whom have never actually experienced it). War is not a game. It is simply the business of killing people. End of debate.

If there's something wrong about reducing slavery to a game-playable feature, then it's positively obscene to do so with war.

Of course, removing war wouldn't leave you with much of a game, but at least you'd know that you'd been correct.

[Charles the Third]

Good point, Iago. Of course, that takes us down the tangential role of what aspects of war we include or not include. For instance, if we create a scenario recreating the Second World War, do we or do we not include concentration camps? Internment camps?

Perhaps the question that should be addressed is what, if anything, adding the element of slavery would bring to CivIII, other than more realism? How does it behoove game balance and play?