There is no 'racism' in ArmageddonMUD

[Markku]

This is the only thing I don't really agree with. They basically wear a bomb collar around their neck and have to do everything the templarate asks under the threat of torture or death. I don't really know how you get closer to slavery than that.

This interests me but we are going off topic a bit so sorrrry...

So yeah it's pretty close, but they can just freely leave the city and live in a cave or luirs or red storm or mul outpost without the Templarate hunting them down. And ICly many chose the gem willingly both virtually and in player backgrounds.

It's close but it's not. I don't know any real life parallel.

You can also choose to store your character if you are forced to take the Gem and it feels too much like slavery to you.

[Agent_137]

One of the main play areas is very anti-slavery and slavery is illegal there.
One of the playable clans at the end of season Zero was a devoutly anti-slavery antagonist group that preyed on slavers.

Two if you count Crimson Wind and Masterless.

It's central though in that it's accepted part of daily life. Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it. And the two clans against it are literal outlaws.  Even in Dark Sun the central city for play is the free city of Tyr.  You are expected to disapprove of it. But in Arm it's just accepted background coloring.  That's maybe not central per se, but it is a problem most PCs and every new PC aren't allowed to hate it if they want. 

At least hating elves because they're elves is no longer required RP. We don't need to remove all awful things from the setting, but we shouldn't forcibly normalize them.

[Kavrick]

How do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

Mostly in theme for me. Dwarves basically had their entire culture and history destroyed by becoming a slave race. Half-giants are also largely slaves, Mul's entire thing factors on them being escaped slaves seeing as no mul can create more muls.

I don't think you have to directly interact with slavery but I think it's central to a lot of the things in the theme at least.

[Kavrick]

Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it.

I'd say mostly city PCs can't be against it. As far as I can tell from docs, playing them and just being around the game world, tribes have a pretty heavy theme on freedom, at least human tribes do. I don't think I've ever played a pro-slavery tribal but that might just be bias.

Also masterless are cool, probably my favorite clan outside of the stuff I actually play. Mul outpost is a cool place.

[sleepyhead]

I made a long post and it got lost somehow. Probably for the best as it was very tl;dr but I will say this:

If these concepts that are incongruent with our values -- and they should be incongruent with our values -- are gotten rid of, and the game is still good and conflict-driven without them, you won't catch me crying about the loss of VNPC slaves or being mean to elves or something. A good game is a good game and at the end of the day we are here to have fun.

But as a general rule, I don't think sanitizing these kinds of settings solves anything. It may be done in the name of empathy and compassion, but I think it actually diminishes these concepts.

I have played a Borsail slaver as well as escaped Borsail slaves. I have played tribal 'savages', bumpkins, magickers, magick-haters, a Tuluki, Allanakis, elves, half-elves, dwarves, a mul, a prostitute, a bastard, a gladiator, a  templar, a traitor, two rogue literates...etc. etc. All of these people had different values. And I would venture that if you asked most of these people, they would think that they were a 'good person.'

Now, many of them would balk at the strangeness of the phrase itself if you put it that way, but if you found a way to ask them in a manner that makes sense to them and their culture, they'd probably say yes. This game is about embodying the humanity (even if you're playing another race or species or whatever you want to call it) of what it does to a person to be raised in a society with very different values and very different blind spots than what we're used to. Those of us who have played here for years have played victims and victimizers alike, with all sorts of attitudes about it, and I think that's a wonderful exercise in empathy, actually, and to smooth out the jagged edges would be a loss.

I have learned a lot about how a person can turn a blind eye to one kind of injustice while being shocked and mortified at another, and sense no dissonance between these things.

I've learned how a person can endure the worst of the worst treatment and then have to go on with their lives and swallow their pain and sadness and anger, because no one cares or even has time to hear about it.

(Okay, this is turning into a long post again.)

I've embodied it all and I've endured it all and I think even though we all like chopping motherfuckers up with bone swords and the game would probably still be fun if that was mostly it, the game with its harsh and cruel societies has the potential to have truly profound moments where I actually learn something. Because the exercise of putting yourself in the shoes of someone with different values than yourself, to whom your own morals would be alien, is an exercise in empathy, not some kind of sick racism fantasy where we can all live out our inner Nazi without consequence. (Not saying anyone here is going so far as to say that, but I'm trying to make a point.)

A lot of people these days seem to believe that if they had happened to be born in another era, they would have ended up embodying the same values as they do now, simply because they are self-evident if you are a good person with compassion. I think this is a dangerous notion that ironically leads to the very same 'othering' that is so reprehensible. And I think it's amazing that Arm represents an outlet to put yourself in the shoes of someone who grew up differently, who sees things differently. Maybe they rightfully judge someone else for having horrendous prejudices, while having other prejudices that they don't even consider or think twice about in themselves. They don't even consider it the same thing. And maybe, over time, they learn better. And maybe they don't.

This may seem dramatic, but to me this is the raw, aching humanity of ArmageddonMUD. Please don't strip it away.

[Dresan]

How do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

I really think this deserves its own thread. Slavery is also a sensitive issue to some, but the way the game handles it is techically a non-issue, like 'racism'.

But just like racism the game has refused put enough effort to clarify or differentiate over the years, and just like a stubborn old insensitive mule, it will likely get beaten down over time along with its themes if it doesn't change. Perhaps rightfully so given the seriousness of these topics in today's culture.

[zealus]

Hey there!

Just a note from moderation:
Please refrain from making this topic too heated, and certainly refrain from making things personal.
I think we're doing okay so far, but I've had to moderate some here.

Pleasant day in His Light.

[The Lonely Hunter]

Do not nobles from Houses Rennik and Tor have darker skin, typically?

Yep! And others, I imagine. Like some Templars.

I believe those would be the exception though, and not the rule. Exception fallacies are pretty easy to fall into!

[sleepyhead]

Do not nobles from Houses Rennik and Tor have darker skin, typically?

Yep! And others, I imagine. Like some Templars.

I believe those would be the exception though, and not the rule. Exception fallacies are pretty easy to fall into!

I thought that I had read in the docs that people from the Vrun are, generally speaking, darker in complexion, though there are plenty who are not due to frequent intermixing. This never made sense to me because I presume the nobles are not supposed to be 'intermixing' with those outside the Vrun, but all the same, no one bats an eyelash if you play a fair noble. So maybe this part of the docs got nixed later on, but I distinctly do remember it.

[Down Under]

This is not an argument, but a sincere question to anyone who feels this way:

How do you feel slavery is "central" to the game?

Slave labor in particular is a cornerstone to any/all building projects. Slave NPCs are visible throughout both Tuluk (when open) and Allanak. Concubine Slaves were available for purchase for Templars and Nobles for many RL years (regardless of whether or not we allow that now, it was never made an official position to allow or not allow, it's been anecdotal YMMV depending who is Admin/Producer/Storyteller). The city structures (caste based) surround a large slave caste that allows further oppression of the common class while relying on forced labor from slaves.

As Agent137 adroitly points out, even in Dark Sun, City States have varying opinions and edicts surrounding slavery. Some have slavery, some have slavery akin to Aztecs/Incans where they are Prisoners of War and their freedom can be traded with other City States as ransom, some have no slavery, some have freed slaves/slavery has been dismantled.

Here is the current helpfile for Slavery, from the website, which makes no mention of Slaves not being playable by PCs, though it does mention if your PC is 'enslaved' they will be stored:

Slavery
(Culture)
The use of sentient creatures as property exists at every level of society across Zalanthas. From the nomadic or semi-settled tribes that inhabit the wastes to the highest orders of nobility in either of the Known's city states, slaves are exploited in every conceivable manner and are kept in bondage by a variety of systems.

In Tuluk and Allanak, slaves handily outnumber 'free' citizens. Slavery is commonplace and considered necessary and often just, if remarked upon at all. Only those hailing from Red Storm or from the wastes might see the practice as inherently wrong - wrong but ubiquitous and deeply entrenched.

As default, player characters in ArmageddonMUD are considered to be 'free' commoners. Their lives and labour are their own outside of coercion or forced action.

Notes:
Slave roles are advertised on the GDB and are not granted without the submission of a role application request. Your character may not be enslaved through play - if your character is captured and forced into slavery they will be stored, becoming a virtual slave.

The only playable salves (sp) are those who have escaped slavery.

That is true (currently). However, historically, we have absolutely allowed and had slave PCs, ranging from Gladiators, to Byn Muls, to Kadian Muls, to Kuraci Muls, to concubine PCs, to aide/captured Slaves (A Tuluki Bard enslaved to a Southern Templar, for example). While we might not allow playable slaves currently, again, as above, it's been anecdotal and based on who's on Staff. There isn't any official position that I can see that's part of the helpfiles/documentation.

(exception: Gladiators who are an occasionally available short-term roles that people apply into "specially" while being able to maintain a non-slave character.)

Being able to play a Gladiator as a secondary character is also anecdotal; it's been the case in the most current role call it seems, but previously, if you were playing a "Reigning Gladiator" it was your only PC.

One of the main play areas is very anti-slavery and slavery is illegal there.

If you're talking about Red STorm, I suppose we could consider that a 'main' area of play, but it is pretty secondary IMHO. It isn't a city state, it's a village. Even Luirs has slaves (GMH).

One of the playable clans at the end of season Zero was a devoutly anti-slavery antagonist group that preyed on slavers.

Sure...There's also been playable clans that are pro slavery (Amber Wyverns). I'm not sure this has any bearing on whether slavery is or is not central to the game -- In fact, if "Slavery" is the focus of a clan, whether it's reinforcement or dismantling, it's central to their existence and a narrative focus. After all, they aren't freeing PC Slaves, they would be attacking NPC Slavers/supporters of Slavery/freeing NPC and vNPC slaves.

No one is interacting with slaves (except perhaps virtually) on a regular basis, not even the social classes that own them.

I suppose? Again, if a Noble or Templar wants to build a building, they are employing slave labor, so that is interacting with them and relying on the concept of slavery as a central theme to the game.


Yes, Slavery is a central pillar to the theme of the game. No, it isn't as present as it has been in the past (particularly when there were many Slave PCs being played). It could likely be addressed with some treatments of the documentation and more official stances from Staff regarding the inability for PCs to play slaves, and deemphasizing Slavery/Slaves as a narrative focus.

[sleepyhead]

Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it.

I'd say mostly city PCs can't be against it. As far as I can tell from docs, playing them and just being around the game world, tribes have a pretty heavy theme on freedom, at least human tribes do. I don't think I've ever played a pro-slavery tribal but that might just be bias.

Also masterless are cool, probably my favorite clan outside of the stuff I actually play. Mul outpost is a cool place.

I am not staff and never have been, but I would venture to say that city PC's can be against slavery. The crux of it is that if you grew up in a place where slavery is normal, expected, and dismissed as any kind of moral issue, you should have a good reason/justification that you are against slavery, and 'because it is obviously wrong' is not good enough, as in fact, a lot of uneducated commoners (redundant, I know) might argue that being a slave is pretty good deal, as you get free food and water and never have to worry about all that.

But justifying having a different perspective isn't hard. All you'd have to do is consider the kind of experience that your character had in their past, or even during gameplay, to make them reconsider. Here are some options that I suspect that staff would find perfectly acceptable if played well and not just as an excuse to be 'ahead of your time' in every way:

1. Your character watched a beloved friend or family member be sold or pressed into slavery, and it affected them deeply.
2. Your character had formative interactions with a slave and developed an understanding of their plight.
3. Your character was raised by a family with different values that they made sure to instill in you, perhaps because the family has a tribal or Stormer roots, and they have kept some of their views alive through the generations despite relocating to the city.
4. Your character had formative interactions with an anti-slavery individual and came around to agreeing with them.
5. Your character naturally relates to slaves because they were treated like one by their family growing up.

Any of these is probably fine, and they are just examples. There are many more reasons why a city person could have a legitimate anti-slavery bent.

The other main consideration is to make sure you don't go around acting shocked and incensed that other people don't see it your way, because your character would be aware that his or her views are incongruent with the majority, and more importantly, with the views of those in power. So your character should be aware if he or she goes around complaining loudly about the injustice of the institution of slavery, this is neither going to end well nor change minds in the process. As suicidal actions are broadly discouraged in this game (though again, it's another example of something that's perfectly fine if you have a very good justification), this means that most anti-slavery characters in the city are not going to essentially throw themselves into the Nursery by boldly attempting to spread anti-slavery views. That doesn't mean an anti-slavery city character can't take action, but walking around acting outraged all the time is not going to be the action he or she is likely to take.

But, I digress. My point is that I don't think there is anything wrong at all with having an anti-slavery character in the city. Just like sorcerers often develop followings and form cults even though 'everyone hates sorcerers' according to the docs. You just have to have a good, realistic reason, and then also be realistic about how you integrate that view into your character's thought process, decisions, and social life.

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

[Halaster]

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  Someone can absolutely play a character who is anti-slavery.  The statement "Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it" is incorrect.  As several of you have mentioned, it might be an oddball thing to think considering your environment, but it is totally feasible.  Entire groups have formed around this idea. They were outlaws, yes, but that's because they did outlawed things (freed slaves, killed slavers).

It could be debated either way whether or not in the past you were "not allowed" to play that way, and I would contend it was never against the rules with a few exceptions (templars, Borsail, etc).  But if there's one theme that we've been pushing with Seasons is that it's OK to play a character who doesn't conform to documentation as long as it's realistic within the boundaries of our game setting, and there's a reasonable story to back it up.  There maybe IC consequences to your actions, as always.  If you go proudly tell a templar you're against it you may have an adverse reaction, or indifference, or who knows.  But it's fine to have a character who is against it.

[sleepyhead]

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that I think staff would agree with me here. But correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  Someone can absolutely play a character who is anti-slavery.  The statement "Most PCs aren't allowed to be against it" is incorrect.  As several of you have mentioned, it might be an oddball thing to think considering your environment, but it is totally feasible.  Entire groups have formed around this idea. They were outlaws, yes, but that's because they did outlawed things (freed slaves, killed slavers).

It could be debated either way whether or not in the past you were "not allowed" to play that way, and I would contend it was never against the rules with a few exceptions (templars, Borsail, etc).  But if there's one theme that we've been pushing with Seasons is that it's OK to play a character who doesn't conform to documentation as long as it's realistic within the boundaries of our game setting, and there's a reasonable story to back it up.  There maybe IC consequences to your actions, as always.  If you go proudly tell a templar you're against it you may have an adverse reaction, or indifference, or who knows.

Thank you, Halaster.

My admittedly limited understanding is that in many ways it's always been like this, what with the wiggle room allowed when it comes to the docs. Of course, some opinionated staffers in the past have taken a more hardline approach, or worse, enforced these guidelines more harshly on players they didn't like for other reasons, so people have gotten confused and a contingent of the playerbase has gotten the unfortunate impression that if you are from X area you MUST have a certain set of views, and any deviation from that is 'breaking the docs,' or softening/diluting them.

But I think in reality, the intention was always to allow people to have individual views that may not align entirely with cultural/social norms at all times. The best stories coming from Armageddon, long before Seasons was a twinkle in Halaster's (or whoever's) eye, often had to do with people going against the values around them for whatever reason. The only requirement, I think, is that it is done well and with consideration for the setting.

I know this isn't exactly the topic of the thread, but I wanted to touch on one more thing. Something that gets brought up a lot when 'exceptions' are mentioned is that sometimes, due to coincidence or the zeitgeist or whatever, multiple people end up 'playing the exception' at the same time, and then it's the people who follow social and cultural norms who get punished and treated like weird outliers. In this case, I think the problem is not that any of these individuals are 'playing the exception', because justified exceptions are okay, and you obviously can't control or predict what other people will play.

The issue is that the onus is on those playing the exception to acknowledge that NPC's and VNPC's exist, and just because there are -- coming up with a ridiculous example here -- three elf/human couples in a tavern and one lone guy who doesn't care for it doesn't mean that the six PC's then have the right to taunt and gang up on the one PC who is following the actual documented majority position. If they are in an abandoned building or something, sure, gang up, but in a public setting, those six 'exception' PC's should be doing their best to take into account the setting, the world, and its virtual population, even if staff are not around to animate a live reaction.

Because the lone guy is not allowed to emote for VNPC's to come to his rescue or agree with him, the burden is therefore on the six exceptions to make sure they do not act like they are the actual majority, even if they are currently the PC majority. So I think in these cases the criticism is often leveled at players for playing PC's who bend norms, when really these people should be criticized for ignoring/disrespecting norms as PLAYERS rather than as characters. We are all obligated to consider the world and bring it to life as we can, ESPECIALLY when we are playing people whose values (or very presence!) do not align with their surroundings.

[Markku]

Old slavery docs.

Thank you for pointing this out.  Updating it has been added to my to-do list along side the more general discrimination stuff.

[Big Red]

Regarding the specific issue of the word 'racism' versus 'speciesism'—speciesism is an awkward, silly-looking word. If mentions of 'racism' in docs are bothering people by not being technically correct enough, then ok, write that out of the documentation, but say 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' instead. Speciesism is linguistically weird, when I read it I feel like I'm reading someone say 'females' instead of 'women.' Even 'anthropocentrism' is less awkward than 'speciesism.'

[Agent_137]

I'd say just use xenophobia instead of racism it's the word we've had in the docs for decades and it's apt.

Okay fine you are allowed to play someone who is anti-slavery, but look at all your examples: slavery is still explicitly normalized and everywhere you look in both major cities. And that is over and above the actual dark sun setting.

Nowhere are we like "slavery, xenophobia, murders and other themes here are categorically bad. By RPing around them we are reminded why. If you don't want to RP near them, there are ways to avoid them (or fight against them). Discuss with staff for guidance if you're unsure how."

Maybe we should say that formally.  It's true isn't it?

[sleepyhead]

Regarding the specific issue of the word 'racism' versus 'speciesism'—speciesism is an awkward, silly-looking word. If mentions of 'racism' in docs are bothering people by not being technically correct enough, then ok, write that out of the documentation, but say 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' instead. Speciesism is linguistically weird, when I read it I feel like I'm reading someone say 'females' instead of 'women.' Even 'anthropocentrism' is less awkward than 'speciesism.'

Agreed. It doesn't really roll off the tongue. Then again, neither does 'Sirihish', lol.


Anyway, I think the word 'racism' is perfectly fitting, as long as you think of 'race' as in 'the human race'. Darwin used the term in his scientific writings to refer to species (something that I've had to explain more than once to young earth creationists who think his use of the phrase 'favoured races' is a gotcha!) It's a pretty broad word. There's nothing wrong with 'race' being used this way from a technical standpoint and I'd say it follows that 'racism' is also accurate.

The debate as I see it is really much more about the real-world baggage and connotations of the term 'racism' and not about the objective accuracy of the term.

[sleepyhead]

I'd say just use xenophobia instead of racism it's the word we've had in the docs for decades and it's apt.

Okay fine you are allowed to play someone who is anti-slavery, but look at all your examples: slavery is still explicitly normalized and everywhere you look in both major cities. And that is over and above the actual dark sun setting.

Nowhere are we like "slavery, xenophobia, murders and other themes here are categorically bad. By RPing around them we are reminded why. If you don't want to RP near them, there are ways to avoid them (or fight against them). Discuss with staff for guidance if you're unsure how."

Maybe we should say that formally.  It's true isn't it?

I hope not. I mean, I'm fine with it being made more clear that we don't like bad things and it's also okay to play a PC who doesn't like bad things either, but I don't think you should be able to get some kind of a promise that you'll be able to 'avoid' these themes in your play. What does that mean, to 'avoid' them? Hopefully it doesn't mean that no one talks about them in your presence, because I'm pretty sure that's impossible (especially in places like Red Storm where every third guy is an escaped slave), but taking your words more generously, I would think they might mean that people should have the option to avoid playing in an area where the aforementioned bad things are thematic realities.

Certainly, you can avoid playing in an area where slavery is the norm by living in Red Storm, and we can let people know that Red Storm is a thing if they don't like living in a society with and around currently kept slaves, but you aren't necessarily going to avoid xenophobia or murder there, so I'm not really sure what staff can do to help you avoid those other two badnesses unless there is a new area created where they are not allowed to exist. And I think most of us would dislike an OOCly enforced murder-free zone. ICly enforced, sure; that's any zone with crimcode! But if we are talking OOCly, I think that just sounds like a different game.

I would not think that staff should promise anyone that they will not have to interact with systems and beliefs that are morally wrong. I just don't think that's our game. I hate to be one of those people that says things like 'if you don't like it, GIT OUT' and I'm not trying to be that person, but genuinely, I do not think this is the kind of game where you can or should be able to shield players from things that make them uncomfortable (not graphic RP you already have to consent to, but just distasteful things in general.) And again, I'm really going to sound like that guy to some people, but if people don't want to be exposed to the core themes of oppression in this game, maybe it really is time to create a fresh one and let those who prefer that vibe filter into it. And it's totally okay if they do like another concept more! No shade to them whatsoever, except in the good way where we say 'shade' instead of goodbye.

Heck, maybe I'll join them over there some day, in the game without slavery or whatever you want to call our brand of racism. After all, I used to argue against banning the word 'necker' and I've since changed my view on that. I now see it as crass and unnecessary and can't believe I tried to die on that hill, though I'm not going to try to lie about the fact that it was my opinion at the time. So maybe I will see the light on this as well, but even then, I'd probably still rather play a different game than an Armageddon that has had its core themes sanitized.

[The Lonely Hunter]

With regards to slavery I think that it is important to remember that many slaves are guaranteed some things that normal citizens aren't - like food, water, and some protection. In a world that is described as being harsh, unforgiving, and where you don't know where your next drink of water might come from that certainty has its perks.

Consider House slaves instead of labor slaves - most of them live a rather pampered life, atypical to the average citizen.



Around three quarters of Zalanthan slaves were born slaves.

Life for slaves on Zalanthas varies greatly depending on the slave's role, the owner or owning organization, and several other factors. For most slaves, life is characterized by hard work, but also predictability, safety, and the satisfaction of basic needs such as food and water. Kind owners are rare, and cruel owners are somewhat common, but most owners are neutral. If the slave does well, then the slave is rewarded; if the slave does poorly, then the slave is punished.

While some slaves may wish to escape bondage, many will not. The life of a slave is, in many ways, actually better than that of a starving beggar or scavenger. Slaves are effectively guaranteed food, water, and lodgings in return for loyalty, obedience, and hard work.

[Markku]

I prefer prejudice over any of the -isms.  It is broad enough to cover a wide variety of things.  No matter what word you choose to use for a "bad" thing, the thing is still bad, and using a nicer word doesn't actually change anything.

.....separate issue.....

The following argument is made in good faith, because there are a lot of people really trying here:

I am curious why no one here is advocating that we ban murder? It is a very bad thing. The cities are rife with it and there are parts of the city where it is a daily part of life !even for PCs! Hell, in Allanak, things are so bad, they even have an object that is a giant pile of bodies that you throw the corpses on that just sit there and rot and stink. We also have starving children NPCs, and that is insanely problematic as there are entire communities of people in the world who's young people don't have enough to eat and die of starvation. We shouldn't have anything like that in our game. Why should the Sorcerer Kings and their templars be so oppressive when they have the power to call water and food out of thin air? That's just not right.

That in mind, why should we remove slavery from the game but not murder, corruption and poverty?

[sleepyhead]

That in mind, why should we remove slavery from the game but not murder, corruption and poverty?

This is also what I want to know. Like, I don't think anyone here is advocating for Arm to turn into some kind of sparkling progressive utopia where everything is perfect and I'm glad no one's accused anyone of that kind of thinking because sometimes those kinds of strawman accusations get thrown around when someone wants to change something they find distasteful. And I'm glad those on my 'side' such as it is are not leaning too heavily into the slippery slope arguments either. But really, I do not understand why the line needs to be drawn in this specific place because a lot of what we do and play around in Armageddon is bad and troubling and to me there is not much of a difference.

There is (was? Haven't checked since Seasons) a filthy, starving little rag-clad girl in Allanak desperately and tearfully selling rotten fruits on the street, as echoes fire in the room that her stomach growls and passersby don't even glance at her -- or sometimes worse, even shove her (if I recall correctly, not totally sure about that one.) She may not be anyone's official property, but is her presence really much more palatable than that of a dwarven work crew NPC being headed by a templar? It is bad. It is all bad. And I think it is okay for it to be bad.

[dumbstruck]

Weird turn. But I do find it funny that every time the argument comes up the same thing 'they get hots and a cot and that's better than a commoner because they're guaranteed it'. Someone else here has to have read Margret Mitchell's flanderizing and excusing of real world slavery using literally /those exact arguments/. People aren't guaranteed food. The idea of free scraps doesn't really balance 'able to live my own life' vs 'literally cannot hold property or wealth and if I move wrong I'm killed maybe'. That said I don't believe we should take slavery out of the setting, but hearing the same actual arguments as actual RL slaveowners used about slaves IC really does make me hate it being there when before that I was neutral to it.

Just. Weird turn for the whole thread. I thought this thread was about racism not slavery. But funny enough...

[The Lonely Hunter]

Zalanthas isn't the real world or western society. You have to stop viewing it through that lense.

[dumbstruck]

As I said, I never had a problem with slavery (this thread isn't even about that it's about racism) but it changes minds and hearts when you see someone defend IC slavery using the /exact same arguments/ RL slavers used for keeping RL slaves. For it to be 'so different', I wonder why the arguments aren't.

That said this is about racism not slavery. As others have said xenophobia covers it well enough without throwing isms around as divisive as such can be.

[Lizzie]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people have such a problem with a word. When I suggest different words, I'm "accused" of arguing semantics.

So maybe I should toss it back at y'all: racism in the context of Armageddon doesn't mean the same thing as real-world racism. No one cares if your white human is boinking a black human, or if your black dwarf is getting jiggy with a brown dwarf.

It's just arguing semantics.