1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is it immoral to put slaves in Col2 ?

Discussion in 'Other Sid Meier Games' started by Son of Liberty, Oct 1, 2001.

?

What do you think about including slaves in a Civ style game?

  1. It would be immoral to include slaves.

    3 vote(s)
    3.1%
  2. Slaves were are part of history and should be included, it would be bad to (indirectly) deny slaves

    83 vote(s)
    85.6%
  3. I wouldn't find it immoral to in- or exclude slaves.

    11 vote(s)
    11.3%
  1. Son of Liberty

    Son of Liberty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Germany
    As you probably know I'm part of the Col2 project. We've discussed the idea to put slaves in the game many times. Most people so far seem to have nothing against it, but I'd like to hear more opinions about it.
    I don't want to know if they add depth to the game, I'd just like to hear if you think that including slaves in Col2 is immoral.
     
  2. spycatcher34

    spycatcher34 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    United States of America
    My feelings on the subject are exactly what is stated as the second option.
     
  3. Ironrod

    Ironrod Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2001
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Boston, Mass USA
    Wow, it's unanimous! Time to close the poll, methinks. :slay:
     
  4. Bretwalda

    Bretwalda Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Budapest
    I believe, if something was "good enough" to happen in history, there is absolute no reason not to include in a game (in a game there are no people suffering - maybe those who do it from poor game systems :) )
     
  5. bvd

    bvd Gasbag

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    Lynchburg, VA
    I was surprised that the original ostracized the slave-trade. I surmise that it was dropped in favor of missionaries procuring converts. The latter actually resemble slaves; they are unable to settle/use tools, are poor statesmen - producing half as many liberty bells compared to a standard colonist, are 2/3 less effective than standard colonists when manufacturing, but receive a +1 bonus when put to work on a tile (they are industrious outdoorsmen). Of course, you don't <i>import</i> them; you must subjugate villages with missions to accrue them. If you attack the missions, either it is destroyed or reeling natives flee and become converts.

    If you want to add a new dimension to the game, then implement it; if you want to maintain the game's original flavor, then don't – for that reason alone, not the one suggested in the poll. Yes, of course slavery was (and in some parts of the world, i.e. Sudan, still is) a nefarious institution, but isn't imperialism itself immoral? Doesn't the game allow you to eradicate large native populations without any sort of compunction?
     
  6. SvenSlayer

    SvenSlayer Berserkr

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    184
    Gender:
    Male
    "(in a game there are no people suffering - maybe those who do it from poor game systems)"

    Ha ha ha! He he he! That's a good one! Oh my goodness, that is funny! I'm choking here! HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO! Tee hee hee! Phew, don't have another one like that. I'd die of laughter.

    HA HA HA! I can't stop!
     
  7. Bretwalda

    Bretwalda Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Budapest
    Thank you for your worthy addition to the topic of the forum, it was both excitingly interesting, humorous and and added a great deal of information. :p

     
  8. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I'm against it (putting slaves in, I mean). It would change the flavor of the game too much. Also, how would you represent the diferences between the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south?
     
  9. spycatcher34

    spycatcher34 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    United States of America
    Umm colonization is set WAY before the time your talking about lizy. It was set in early 1700s.There was no distincton between north and south then. Also there wasnt as many slaves either. Your argument dosent really hold up.
     
  10. Becka

    Becka M AS IN MARTINI

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,583
    Actually there was a distinction between regions, except there was also the Middle Atlantic states. So it was New England (north), Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies. How much slavery there was, I'm not exactly sure. But during the earlier times, slaves were treated more like indentured servants and were eligable to be freed after working for a period.

    "Slave labor was used throughout the colonies from New England to Georgia but ws particularly widespread in the agrarian South."

    -quote from my history book
     
  11. spycatcher34

    spycatcher34 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    United States of America
    Yes true BUT there wasnt a regional didvde between the peopele wich i be live is important to this issue. And I belive he(?) said "anti slavery north". No, during the time the north had no "consciousness of the immorality of slavery"- :rolleyes:
     
  12. jamesjkirk

    jamesjkirk Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    263
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Massachusetts was even the first British colony to permit slavery. And slavery's been there from the beginnings of postColombian European colonialism, one of the first things Columbus did was take native slaves
     
  13. adamsj

    adamsj Gaint Hobbit!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    175
    Location:
    Shirley, Southampton, Hampshire, En
    The game like Col2 should always be historically correct, not political correctness:eek: :eek: :(
     
  14. Son of Liberty

    Son of Liberty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Germany
    It is okay that you are against the inclusion of slaves, but I don't know why we should include "the mostly anti-slavery north and the highly agucultural south". True, it might be historically correct, but the player should be able to decide where he puts his slaves (if we include them). In Col2 it could happen that a player forms a nation with an anti slavery west or a nation without slaves at all.
    If our goal was to be historically correct we couldn't allow a Dutch player to drive the English out of America because that did obviously not happen.
     
  15. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Not quite. The gap between the states wasn't quite as big in pre-revelutionary times, but it WAS there. In fact, the Delcaration of Independence was ment to cite slavery as one of the imorals the king brought upon the colonies, but the southern states where against it and refused to join the war if it were included.
     
  16. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Yeah, that's true. I'm just worried that the game is going to change too much and I'm not going to enjoy.
    Also, on the simular subject of political correctness, if you try to be too politically uncorrect, then the whole game just becomes an uninteresting political statement. I guess I'm just in the minority over this, so I'll shut up and let everyone else enjoy themselves.
     
  17. Son of Liberty

    Son of Liberty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Germany
    In our project "fun" will be a more important aspect of the game than historical correctness. Nobody knows if slaves will make the game better ( / increase the fun), if it does not we won't include them even though it is not historically acurate. If slaves add fun to the game we will most likely include them (or make them an option).
    But this thread is not supposed to be a discussion if the inclusion of slaves in Col2 adds fun to it. Right now I'd rather like to know if you think it is morally correct to add slaves to a Civ style game.
     
  18. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Okay, that makes sense. Well, it wouldn't be so much the slaves themselves, but the way they are included. What advanteges and disadvantages would be included. (I guess it's a little early in development to determain something like that. :crazyeyes )
    I would have voted in the poll, but I couldn't really express my opinion very well in any of the three options given.
     
  19. andystreet

    andystreet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Slaves were an important part of the plantations in the New world. Their use in post-independance USA is irrelevant as it does not fall within the timescale of the game (Most European nations had abolished slavery a good 50 years before American Civil War anyway)
     
  20. MrPresident

    MrPresident Anglo-Saxon Liberal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,511
    Location:
    The Prosperous Part of the EU
    I think you should be very careful about changing history to be more "user-friendly". We must study history to learn about our past mistakes and hope that by doing so we should not make them again. So I am firmly for including slaves in Colonisation II.
     

Share This Page