it would be awesome if bethesda puts this kind of decision making into their game

My opinion is slavery is always wrong. We all get 1 life and it's a short one. I don't think any body has a right to take it from you. Be it murder or slavery. That being said Danddolo said this . . .


Which is a fair point

Well revenge is seeking justice for yourself, only sometimes it's disproportionate, which is why it's illegal irl presumably. In the case of Corvo and the Pendleton brothers, I see killing them as revenge and having them become slaves in their own mines as vigilantism, both are forms of "justice".

Well, evil for evil isn't really a good thing. Its sort of like real slavery. The Romans took murderers and made them slaves, and that some times the murder may have been validated.

Slavery is alway evil.

Eddo36

Now, now, there is no longer Good or Evil, black and white. We have evolved beyond that. Remember Evil spelled backwards is live and we all want to do that, don't we?

( honestly, ya its bad M'kay)

Hehe its funny, everyone wants Morally grey well until its your doctor, or the mechanic working on your car, or that person that just brought food to your table at a restaurant who maybe washed there hands.

Slavery is objectively evil. The ends do not justify the means, and neither do the people being enslaved justify it. There should be no debate about this and it's creepy as **** that there are so many votes for "No."

Is it okay to take them prisoner? Yes, if and only if you treat them with dignity as sentient beings. If you take them prisoner and torture them, it's also evil.

It's also evil to kill someone who throws themselves down at your mercy. It doesn't make you any better than a Raider if you do that.

slavery does not mean tourture them. slavery is this you work for the person and in exchange they feed you, protect you. forced slavery is wrong yes. slavery as puinshment no. like if you owe someone one money you work for them as there slave.

this is the defination someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay

The torture part was just part of a detailed moral explanation of my alternative to slavery; taking them prisoner. Slavery is still completely evil 100% of the time because it is the complete and utter ownership over another person through forced servitude, and there is no definition of slavery that mandates food or protection. Even slavery as a punishment is not acceptable.

However, even if a person does work for someone without pay, it's not slavery unless the labor is forced or there is an ownership aspect, the lack of personal freedom on part of the worker. A person could work voluntarily for/with someone without pay because they respect them (or if they're an intern).

Not necessarily, the southern american slave owners had the law on their side but in FO there are no laws, slaves are "owned" because the slaver said so and they failed to defend themselves or escape.

I'm sure if I had a choice to be shot in the head or be a slave I'd pick slave. Course my generation and especially prior ones could handle a little more hardships than today's. We've never had a more privileged generation than we do now, which isn't bad, except they are also feel the most entitled. Surely they would rather die than do anything difficult.

I wouldn't want to own a slave myself, nor do I think there is anything morally right in doing so, but I would send an evil person into slavery without much thought. I can think of many people I've known personally that deserve a fate worse than death IMO.

No, enslaving in general isn't necessary evil at all. Just a bad thing you can do.

In my own beliefs, evil is the act of tormenting and bringing pain onto others for fun... Usually people don't enslave others to torment them and such for fun. They usually do it because they are too lazy to do the work themselves (FYI: Selfishness + Laziness).

i'd go for "intentionally" or "knowingly".

like, if you don't know it's bad, it's bad. if you do know it's bad, it's evil

edit: it's odd how this train of though is totally inexistent in german, for just the one simple reason we don't have two words for this (both "bad" and "evil" translate to "b?se") - seems like without the word, you can't have the thought

edit2: in exchange though, we have 2 words for "bad"'s meanings like in "a bad apple" ("schlecht"), or "a bad deed ("b?se")

Enslaving people that are evil savages themselves is nothing more than a gray area in mmy book. In that type of world its not much different than imprisonment. A lot of them can't be reformed so you mmight as well force them to do some good for mankind before killing them.

*Ahem*

"I don't enslave them, I sentence them to death penalty by exhaustion"

Here's another scenario, which I find fairly grey.

Raiders attacks a co-op settlement attempting to have a go at farming. All but one of the raiders dies and he is captured. Two of the two dozen settlers die. These people are dependent on everyone working in order to survive.
Does the group of isolated settlers not require that the surviving raider is put to work (along with extra hours themselves) to ensure survival of their settlement?

Yeah, kids these days! They would rather die then be slaves! The lazy bums! Pull up your pants!

Where I in a situation like this, yeah, I would force the raider to work. But I would not delude myself into thinking I was doing the right thing. It is evil, and that would make me a morally abhorrent person. The question is not would you do it, but is it evil. If forcing the slavery on someone is necessary for me to survive im doing it, doesnt change the fact that its wrong.

It's funny how you go on about how I view your way and yet clearly didn't actually understand how I view your way at all.

If you read my other comments thoroughly, you would see that I've given a multitude of reasons for killing any and all raiders that attack my settlement, rather than imprisoning them and putting them to work. Allow me to reiterate them, add some more, and extrapolate on them:

The Social Contract:

Laws exist because we as a society agree to give up certain freedoms for protections. We agree not to steal from others in exchange for others agreeing not to steal from us. That is the basis of laws. Those who enter that social contract and then break it are subject to punishments agreed upon by the population living under that social contract. But raiders who are not bound to any social contract, believing that they can take whatever they want from others provided they are strong enough? They are not entitled to such protections.

Security for my community:

As the founder of a settlement, it is my duty to look after the citizens' well being. I opened my doors and told them to come to my settlement and we would flourish. That means certain responsibilities and obligations, chief among them is security. If I invited them to my settlement, I am obligated to keep them safe. That means planning out defenses and battle strategies as well as some kind of law, but to me, it's not enough to protect them when the raiders attack. You want to make it so the raiders stop attacking at all. And if you build up a reputation as a town that is not only capable of defending its people, but decimates every raiding party that comes their way, not only will more people come to your settlement, but raiders will be too scared to make moves against it.

There's also other matters of security to consider. Say your prison is in the middle of town. All it takes is one well executed riot and suddenly you have a gang wreaking havoc in your community, especially because unless you're extremely paranoid, most of your defenses will be directed towards the area surrounding your town, not inside of it. Beyond that, you know what that prison is to a raiding party that manages to break through your defenses? A bunch of reinforcements.

It also can potentially allow for raiders to sabotage your defenses, your water supply, your food, as well as giving them the layout of your town to make causing trouble easier should they ever escape.

Support logistics:

So you're taking raiders prisoner and putting them to work, are you? Going to give them a second chance at life? That includes food and a roof over their heads (more on that later), but what about beds? Blankets? Clothes? Medicine for when they get sick or hurt? How are you going to ration supplies between the prisoners you have to care for, and the people of your town? What about when times get especially hard. Does the raider get as much food as the law abiding citizen? Who are you going to let go hungry?

Infrastructure:

If you are going to take prisoners, you're going to need somewhere for them to stay. Which opens a whole can of worms and raises all kinds of questions. Such as:

Where do you house the raiders? In a regular shack or shanty in your settlement? In a shack or shanty miles away? How do you keep them secure and make sure they don't escape? If it's outside your settlement, how do you transport the labor force to and from their work station back to their living quarters? If it's outside your settlement, what defenses do you have to put there to keep raiders from just attacking to liberate their allies, and what does that mean for your town's security? Can you really leave guards under defended? Are you really going leave your populace vulnerable should they all escape? How many can you fit in there? What happens when you hit capacity? What happens if you have twice as many surrendering raiders as you have room for? Are you going to put your average lawbreaker (say, a thief) in the same holding area as violent raiders?

For my settlement, a jail would only house people who violated the law of the land that either lived in my settlement, or were travelers from another settlement/peaceful tribals. Raiders, slavers, and other people of that nature who openly attacked would get no such privilege.

To me, there's way too many risks to justify the giving raiders, slavers, etc. the chance to surrender. At least when you are starting a settlement. If you get to a certain size, and start building a nation, then there's more room to talk about taking such people prisoner.

I just want to enslave whoever. Good and Evil mean naught to me. All that is meaningful is money by any means.

I think the distinction here is that it is not forcing "someone" into servitude- it is making a particular person, who put the settlers in the situation to begin with, work to repay a most egregious debt to them. The raider, after all took two of their voluntary workers- for all intents and purposes, two of their citizens. That is two lives worth of necessary work that the raider owes in restitution for the lives taken- their own actions put them on the course for their destiny in servitude.

We are not talking indiscriminate, wholesale dehumanizing of a people, here.
Rather, a very specific type of situation, where the slave has all but put the shackles around their own ankle.

I see it as a grey area- and a light one at that, but to each their own.

Is it the behavior that's objectionable or the person that does it? Or is it the action that makes the person objectionable? Are some people more or less deserving of being slaves? Of being slavers? If Mother Teresa had a slavery business on the side would that be more okay than if Hitler systematically enslaved people?

Do not forget history,or it will repeat itself,thats going happen in US

to put 1 incident and BOOM a flag of US blood goes ( it represents southern freedom,not slavery )

but to put it enslavement is bad

[censored] please, this is the wasteland people!

"Everything svcks, that gives you carte blanche to svck too!"