I have an idea- Slavery!
- Thread starter AnonRobot
- Start date
I was under the impression that Reaha's indentured servitude contract provided her with at least a modicum of protection, since she mentions wanting to lawyer up against Carver.
True. Indentured servants are more like unpaid workers (although storywise all of them pay off a debt of some kind) who can't quit. They have less options than normal, but they are still protected by the law like everybody else. What you're probably thinking of is chattel slavery, where people are treated more like property. When somebody talks about slavery here, it's pretty safe to assume the mean the former definition.
I'm pretty sure those Zill you kidnap were treated more like chattel slaves than indentured servants by Xenogen. They pretty much had no say or protections in what was done to them and there wasn't any legal justification like debt for their forced compliance to the experimentation.
Its not really insane. Morality and ethics allow us to live in a functioning society. Also I dont think you can categorize everyone as sickos- its not really 'sick' to have a fetish for anal, wheras enjoying kiddie porn definitly is
From what I saw from ingame the good doctor who commissioned you planned to release both Zil back to the wilds.
I wouldn't bring up the discussion of the subject of CP here... on these forums. That's a can of worms you don't want to open and is heavily frowned upon, that and the subject of young (child) characters in game in sexual context is HIGHLY frowned upon.
The quest is pretty awful but eh sometimes it can be interesting to play the villain in a fictional setting. And yeah that quest establishes pretty early on that Steele doesn't necessarily need to be a good/ moral individual. Heh you can then proceed to follow it up by carelessly destroying the next two main story planets that you visit. So engaging in slaving is a business that is well within the range of the game's present tone if you're roleplaying Steele as a villain. And hell they don't even need to be a "Hard" Steele either. I mean yeah most of the acts will earn them hardness points but often you can go into and trigger the actions as a "mischievous" or "kind' Steel. So a bastardly slave taking Steele can easily be affably evil.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil
Well, keep in mind that it's meant as your introduction to Xenogen as a faction and how they operate. That their activities are deplorable is intentional.
Unfortunately my favorite fluid type is locked behind that quest. I'll have to consider writing an alternative method.
“It is both straightforward and very complicated, Steele,” [ara.he] {go}/{goes} on in louder tones. “When your U.G.C. first stepped down from the stars to greet us, I was at first elated, and not just because they postponed the myr destroying the world. Here, at last, was an opportunity to get my race equal representation on Myrellion - to speak for our needs and wishes, instead of living forever in helpless fear of what the myr might do next. For surely if I presented our plight to these enlightened beings, they would help us?”
Ara Kei’s long, elegant face twists wryly.
“Alas. It turns out aliens are turned just as cruel by bureaucracy and ulterior motive as the myr are. Did you know that your U.G.C’s legal protections for planetary sovereignty doesn’t merely require sapience? Merely existing and thinking do not satisfy the requirements for citizenship in this galaxy; it also requires a demonstration that the species has contributed meaningfully to the planet, through cultural or technological innovation. They tell me this clause exists to prevent warlike and savage species from being uplifted before they are capable of integration. From my brief exposure to this Xenogen organization and their fur-thing friends, however, I suspect the </i>real<i> reason is that it allows for the casual exploitation of races who are helpless to resist. Is that an unfair assumption to make, starwalker?”
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally have a hard time writing Kind-specific dialogue most of the time, it often overlaps with Mischievous. Hard is relatively easy to write for because you write like Steele is an asshole.
That said, I think there's more room for positive factions in the game than we're currently using. I look forward to interacting with the anatae, for instance, and I try overall to write Steele Tech as being at least generally ethical. The setting doesn't have to be hopelessly dystopian, and I fear we often run the risk, because TiTS characters are much wordier than their CoC counterparts and tend to have more realistic writing, that the TiTSverse can feel much more grim than Mareth even though by virtually any metric it's objectively a better place to live.
Have you looked around you lately? I would be hard pressed to call most societies today functioning or even anything other than backsliding.
Small problem here. You're forgetting that the zil follow a dominance schema, in which whoever can force themselves upon the other sexually is higher in the chain of command (which may have an ENTIRELY different level of meaning amongst a bee based race). Thusly, you demaning that a zil spend time in a facility to further your species science is a small thing, perhaps even from the zil perspective. Especially when you consider from the human perspective that the Zil attack you with the intention of raping you. . . at best, killing you at worst (don't think that's actually in the fight scene outcomes, but all violence inherently carries the threat of death). Shall we talk about glossing over unsavory elements again? Did I know the risks of going into the Mhen'ga forest absolutely, does that mean I should lay down and get raped if a zil or naleen or whatever comes along? I can play the morals game all week. In the end there is ALWAYS a moral that justifies breaking another moral. The same with ethics.
If it's simply a matter of wanting the Zil stuff for Steele that's a lot easer than if you want a generalized zil TF. The Xenogen quests create the generalized TFs but Steele has the nanobots that cause common foods of the species to bend her/his appearance towards the species. So you just introduce a common zil food that produces zil results in a species way not gender specific.
TiTS seems to be a lot darker than it looks like beneath the surface...
New Texas. The dark side of the UGC Nonesuch was speaking about. The Zil kidnapping etc...
I have to say it actually adds a lot more depth to the game, even as morally and ethically wrong these things are.
I honestly never thought much of the zil kidnapping when I was still just a fledgling to this game. Then again I skim read a lot during the first playthrough...Now I´m seriously evaluating the choices I made during the 2nd playthrough.
New Texas. The dark side of the UGC Nonesuch was speaking about. The Zil kidnapping etc...
I have to say it actually adds a lot more depth to the game, even as morally and ethically wrong these things are.
I honestly never thought much of the zil kidnapping when I was still just a fledgling to this game. Then again I skim read a lot during the first playthrough...Now I´m seriously evaluating the choices I made during the 2nd playthrough.
Turning subjective into objective? Have you EVER in all of history or your life or anything you've ever studied actually seen a real example of the objective that one could prove as such? They're not even related to one another. The objective is outside of the subjective, and while the subjective MIGHT be inside the objective there's no way to prove such a thing from inside the subjective. It is literally impossible to prove an objective anything with all of the subjective in the universe. This concept of objectivity is ludicrous if such a thing exists and humans could even access it, it would be outside of our ability to fathom rationally probably even emotionally. It would defy all of our subjective boxes, labels and definitions. I believe it is egotism to believe that we can have a standardized definition of what is okay and what is not. It's NOT objective it's generalized or standardized or even regulated. So don't bring the concept of ethics or morality to the 'objectively this must be so' conclusion. It's a false syllogism and destructive to the ongoing conversation.
One could argue that there are such things as right and/or wrong ACTIONS. The inherent difficulty here is that they, being subjective, must be weighed against individual circumstances EVERY TIME. One cannot truly say that violence is always wrong. One cannot say that giving someone wealth is always right. One cannot say that invasion of another country/planet/whatever is always wrong. One cannot say that a kiss is always right. One cannot say that any single action is always right or wrong without context. Also just because a conception(subjective even en masse) can be applied does not mean that it should nor that it is, in fact, an accurate representation of reality.
In the end I do agree that Zil should not be enslaved or tortured or whatever. The point though is that we do NOT have a clear example of that. The context is WAY too muddy to clearly say that there's is wrongdoing or harm present. I mean look at the Zil in Penny's jail. They're more than happy to do pretty much whatever they're told after they get outsexed or outfought. I'll never tell you that you have to like it, but it's not right for anyone to determine what is right or wrong for any other person based on "most things and most times". It would also be quite easy to prove that any action produces harm to someone/something, perhaps even the simple act of existing. Gonna stop before I tread into political territory.
I guess the point in the end is that many of the things we see as wonderful and right and morally correct are actually destructive to a portion of the people involved. I could come up with a dozen examples relatively easily, where the clearly "good guys" left a wake of death and destruction behind them causing untold loss of life not to mention loss of security and shelter, and I wouldn't doubt people lost cherished stuff too. Just look at any "hero" story. It's there. One of the clearest examples I can bring forth of that is the play/book "Wicked".
Xenogen doesn't request that you kidnap. It's much more like a citizen's arrest than a kidnapping. But again, point of perspective is very important here. If you look at xenogen as an entity (like corporations today would like you to) then Xenogen is a being comprised of all the people that work for it (like cells). Then from it's perspective eating two creatures of an unknown origin and desmesne will result in more positive results within the entity and the environment that it lives in than damage/pain/death caused. But wait, we don't even actually have to kill them, we just have to detain them for a couple of days. The equation from the corporate entity's perspective becomes even more clear. To be clear I don't like this interpretation. But I cannot dismiss it offhandedly because i don't like it either.
I would also like to point out that 'justification' is simply blame shifting. We humans have become something like masters of shifting blame.
Yes Shade I think everything is both darker and lighter than the surface represents, not just TiTS. NT Is WONDERFUL for the bulls, but there's a dark and a silver lining to everything. Gonna have to point you above regarding the moral/ethical stuff, though.
As a final note, Mysty, I am REALLY not trying to bash on you personally or anyone else here, nor am I trying to be argumentative for it's own sake. I'm simply trying to debate another perspective that is less seen in almost all aspects of life. I also need to point out that I am not above falling into any of the pitfalls I've pointed out here. I have and still do many of these things myself. I do not see how that in any way invalidates any of my statements though.
TL;DR: There is no spoon.
P.S.: Just in case, if there's some kind of philosophy backlash thing out there keep in mind that ethics and morality are intrinsically philosophical topics.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some strong moral stances here. I wanna play too.
1) Rights aren't. Rights are inherent things that cannot be taken away. People do not have these, whatever they like to think. What people have are privileges. The simplest example of this is martial law- where an entire society's "rights" are suspended, because the group in power says so. Whether the circumstances warrant this use of power does not matter, for it shows precedent. A/any government could declare it tomorrow, regardless of reason, and the result would likely be the same. People don't even have the right to live, because that too can legally be taken away. It could be argued that people don't even have the right to die, because there are plenty of cases where people are kept alive against their will. The idea of rights grant a feeling of safety, of solid ground, but nothing more. Mind, this doesn't diminish the value of these privileges, but this distinction is important.
2) The only reason people know about animals (including humans) is due to cutting them open, watching, and playing with what's there. And much, much more is learned if this is done while they are alive. Morally reprehensible? Sure. But many advances are due to this kind of practice. It is (frighteningly) common. For example: A lot was learned through human experimentation during ww2. Did every power of every other nation publicly abhor it? Sure did. Were they all jumping in line to pay for them to reveal what they learned? They sure were. I wouldn't put much stock in moral revelations made through the ages. Because they are continually propagated by those who say one thing and do another. A public morality is all well and good, as long as those with authority get to play by another set of rules.
3) Mysty, you seem to hold a strong moral line that if just followed, would allow people to be safe and comfortable. I won't knock it, cause it's a rather bright, positive, and hopeful worldview. But I don't think it can be approached. All choices have a few consequences you can see, and innumerable ones you won't. Most choices will harm someone, somewhere, sometime, to some degree. About the only perfectly good society is a hive-mind linked to a reservoir of shared...everything- accumulated experience, knowledge, memories. Something of such complete empathy would yield no conflict, because everyone is everyone. (get tanged=be happy). People know this too- the endgame of many religions are the same "join the world soul" plot.
4) Sapient values shouldn't be supplanted by another's. Zil values are "you lose, get fucked". For a human to walk over, hoponabox, and start preaching how human values are better, and that Zil-kind should convert cause their values are primitive, or uneducated, or wrong is pretty messed up. Whether the human is actually right or wrong doesn't matter. Being handed an answer strips it of value. Forcing down a set of empty rules is even worse. That's why every generation people do the same stupid shit despite being warned against it. You have to learn from your own mistakes. (and this is assuming the Zil are wrong)
TL;DR: Grayscale not black/white, binary labels are evil, old people advice shouldn't be so casually ignored.
1) Rights aren't. Rights are inherent things that cannot be taken away. People do not have these, whatever they like to think. What people have are privileges. The simplest example of this is martial law- where an entire society's "rights" are suspended, because the group in power says so. Whether the circumstances warrant this use of power does not matter, for it shows precedent. A/any government could declare it tomorrow, regardless of reason, and the result would likely be the same. People don't even have the right to live, because that too can legally be taken away. It could be argued that people don't even have the right to die, because there are plenty of cases where people are kept alive against their will. The idea of rights grant a feeling of safety, of solid ground, but nothing more. Mind, this doesn't diminish the value of these privileges, but this distinction is important.
2) The only reason people know about animals (including humans) is due to cutting them open, watching, and playing with what's there. And much, much more is learned if this is done while they are alive. Morally reprehensible? Sure. But many advances are due to this kind of practice. It is (frighteningly) common. For example: A lot was learned through human experimentation during ww2. Did every power of every other nation publicly abhor it? Sure did. Were they all jumping in line to pay for them to reveal what they learned? They sure were. I wouldn't put much stock in moral revelations made through the ages. Because they are continually propagated by those who say one thing and do another. A public morality is all well and good, as long as those with authority get to play by another set of rules.
3) Mysty, you seem to hold a strong moral line that if just followed, would allow people to be safe and comfortable. I won't knock it, cause it's a rather bright, positive, and hopeful worldview. But I don't think it can be approached. All choices have a few consequences you can see, and innumerable ones you won't. Most choices will harm someone, somewhere, sometime, to some degree. About the only perfectly good society is a hive-mind linked to a reservoir of shared...everything- accumulated experience, knowledge, memories. Something of such complete empathy would yield no conflict, because everyone is everyone. (get tanged=be happy). People know this too- the endgame of many religions are the same "join the world soul" plot.
4) Sapient values shouldn't be supplanted by another's. Zil values are "you lose, get fucked". For a human to walk over, hoponabox, and start preaching how human values are better, and that Zil-kind should convert cause their values are primitive, or uneducated, or wrong is pretty messed up. Whether the human is actually right or wrong doesn't matter. Being handed an answer strips it of value. Forcing down a set of empty rules is even worse. That's why every generation people do the same stupid shit despite being warned against it. You have to learn from your own mistakes. (and this is assuming the Zil are wrong)
TL;DR: Grayscale not black/white, binary labels are evil, old people advice shouldn't be so casually ignored.
arrot: It reminded me of slime Mara. Then I burst out laughing again.
@OnyxDrakkenblade you've overdosed on Nietzsche, big time. You could have condensed the guff of your first two paragraphs into a single sentence: Morality is relative. Few here would argue with that. Problems arise from the fact you seem to believe the concept excuses... well, anything at all, which is a frankly bizarre misunderstanding. And again, the sheer level of what-iffery going on in your posts, man. Not every fact will be available to you in any given situation. Even if they were, you wouldn't be able to properly make sense of it all. So you come to a measured conclusion based upon the facts that you do know. If more facts become available, you modify your conclusion. That is what we call analysis.
Haswell has you drag natives to his lab where he performs lurid experiments upon them, releasing them only once he has permanently disfigured them. The two of you abuse your huge technological and intellectual superiority with zero regard for their well being or feelings on the matter. You and he do it not because you're at all interested in learning anything about them, or that ultimately ends will justify means, but for cold, immediate, monetary gain. The zil gain less than nothing from it.
Arguing this is fine because "they totally attacked us with their stone age weapons first!" is fucking farcical, even if you completely ignore any other context. Such as: They are primitives who conceptualise combat as a way of establishing interactive roles between individuals, with no way of knowing what you yourself intend to do with them if they lose to you. Or that you, as the advanced form of life with all the facts available who is touristing it up on their planet, have some small duty of care towards them. Saying "but things which seem good can be bad sometimes" is meaningless at best here. Haswell makes it clear he wants to experiment on the zil because he wants to develop a gene-mod off them. If he had *any* other motive, do you not think he would have stated it to sweeten what he was making you do? A large company like Xenogen can compartmentalise thoughtless, reprehensible actions away just as surely as Enron, Nestle or the former USSR can, but that doesn't make them right.
No fucking shit.
Haswell has you drag natives to his lab where he performs lurid experiments upon them, releasing them only once he has permanently disfigured them. The two of you abuse your huge technological and intellectual superiority with zero regard for their well being or feelings on the matter. You and he do it not because you're at all interested in learning anything about them, or that ultimately ends will justify means, but for cold, immediate, monetary gain. The zil gain less than nothing from it.
Arguing this is fine because "they totally attacked us with their stone age weapons first!" is fucking farcical, even if you completely ignore any other context. Such as: They are primitives who conceptualise combat as a way of establishing interactive roles between individuals, with no way of knowing what you yourself intend to do with them if they lose to you. Or that you, as the advanced form of life with all the facts available who is touristing it up on their planet, have some small duty of care towards them. Saying "but things which seem good can be bad sometimes" is meaningless at best here. Haswell makes it clear he wants to experiment on the zil because he wants to develop a gene-mod off them. If he had *any* other motive, do you not think he would have stated it to sweeten what he was making you do? A large company like Xenogen can compartmentalise thoughtless, reprehensible actions away just as surely as Enron, Nestle or the former USSR can, but that doesn't make them right.
No fucking shit.
Hmmm I know I might be being capt obvious here but I get the tone of this whole thread is taking is leaning towards hostility.
If the OP is still lurking around in one way or another, he must have bursted his sides from laughter by now. It may not have happened when he planned it, but his bait got bitten and the kindling got the flames going.
To be fair, he does alternate between 'think about what can be learned from this' and 'it won't hurt them in any way' when talking to a mischievous and kind aligned PCs respectively.
Both of those arguments are, admittedly, a load of see-through bullshit, and he specifically states that Zil don't present any real threat, thus invalidating an already flimsy self defense excuse, that can't really be applied to premeditated actions anyhow.
But this early into the game, the first time players almost never think too much into any choises the game presents to them, and only later most of them have a collective 'oh shit' moment.
As a side note, editing Zil Codex Entry and adding a paragraph or two clarifying the rules to which they adhere when engaging in their ritualistic combat (never cause any lasting harm, or never restrain the freedom of the submissive party beyond the encounter, for instance) might be worthwhile. It will have to be expanded anyway, if your idea about the special role that scent plays in their life will become canon.
P.S. I don't think that compartmentalization is a term applicable to systems as a whole when describing their coping mechanisms.
Last edited by a moderator: