I'll state this as succinctly as I can: I don't like that this game has slave trading, and allows the player to make profit by selling fellow humans. I have a problem with the fact that this mechanic is present in ED for a few reasons:
1. It shows that despite the technological progress of the human race, social progress took a turn for the worse if an entire galactic human culture is trading in slaves. Depressing, but perhaps that's part of the ED perspective on humans as a race.
2. It's profitable (with risk), so it provides an incentive to trade in slaves.
3. Given that all games like ED are a fantasy played out by the player, the presence of slavery belittles the suffering and pain of slavery by reducing it to numbers on a spreadsheet, which reduces empathy and might consciously or subconsciously reinforce the idea that it's conditionally acceptable in the player's mind. Worse, if there are players actively seeking opportunities to trade slaves as part of their personal fantasy for their own enjoyment, ED is basically enabling this dark and monstrous behavior.
4. Some of your players might be descended from slaves, and self-identify as such as part of their cultural heritage. I imagine that it would be difficult or at least uncomfortable to participate in a game that allows slave trading given such a background.
Taking all of that into account, I think it's unethical to have a game that simulates the institutionalized commoditization of human beings. It belittles the concept.
I know that the Roman Empire had slaves, and that the Empire in ED is meant to be an analog, so here's a proposal (and what I think is a missed opportunity in early development).
Using Blade Runner, Star Trek, Humans, and many other futuristic stories as inspiration, couldn't there be synthetic humans or androids (i.e. replicants) that are a proxy for indentured servitude that had a more nuanced underlying ethical conflict? The same arguments and beliefs that apply to slavery, freedom, and basic fundamental rights become questionable once you apply that scenario. Is a synthetic humanoid alive? Does a synthetic humanoid have the same rights as one that is naturally born? These are questions we are currently struggling with now, so it's an ethical gray area that is appropriate for exploration in a science fiction game.
What I am therefore suggesting is that the Imperial Slave commodity be changed to Imperial Synthetics (for lack of a better term), and retcon its history to reflect that the Imperials make AI androids that are human-like but not humans specifically for servitude, and then make the Slave commodity untradeable by players or remove it from the game. All of the ethical arguments by the Federation and other factions regarding slavery still apply to synthetic persons, and all of the lore associated with the issue of slavery can still be retained, just with a nuance that provides a distinction that allows the player to participate in a game that does not simulate actual human trafficking, while also providing a more contemporary exploration of the ethics surrounding artificial intelligence - which is appropriate for a science fiction game.
I know that the original game had this mechanic. I know that it is meant to be a source of conflict and ethical considerations for players and lore characters. But what is more important: retaining game continuity and an immersive experience for the Imperial player, or acknowledging that slavery is just plain fundamentally wrong and should not be given any opportunity to show up as a viable simulation participation option given the historical pains associated with slavery that many of us are still living with today?
I'm not necessarily saying that it should not exist as a concept if the baseline principle is that it's dark and terrible and that there are still dark and terrible humans in the universe in the 3300s despite all that has been accomplished, but why is Frontier enabling players to participate in this dark fantasy so easily and without any meaningful ethical boundaries, especially at a time in human development when we are persistently dealing with the pain of our recent history and still struggling to resolve that and move forward?
POST UPDATE:
Because people are still responding to the OP and not reading the thread (I get it), I'm sticking this here, posted on Page 7 or so:
Point taken. I therefore withdraw my earlier proposed solution, as I severely miscalculated the value of lore immersion to the community, and to be honest, it was a quick fix, and inelegant. Apologies.
I instead propose to Frontier that, in the fullness of time (and perhaps in conjunction with a Post-Odyssey release (that will likely correct mistakes and rebalance the inevitable unintended chaos) that they mount a realistic and long-term campaign through a series of linked CGs and accompanying Galnet releases (appropriately depicting the suffering of the victims of slavery in the Elite universe that engenders something approaching empathy) that pits a well positioned revolutionary leader (I'm thinking Aisling?) against the remaining slaver powers and factions. The intent is to place them into economic chaos and use the leverage to force them to stop trading in slaves. Goals could be associated with the acquisition of assets that would enable our protagonist (or antagonist if you support slavery) to steal the underlying technology used to develop the power play modules provided by slaver organizations, and offer those as the top 75% rewards for the CGs (perhaps with some engineering augment as well in order to provide an incentive to people who already have them) to those who support the protagonist's agenda. The antagonist offers the vanilla module, but also some extra credits, thereby preserving the debate intention of Elite's design.
There could be a sequence of CGs required, starting with data acquisition (submitting settlement data packages), then materials (to support the cause and build modules), and then combat (to force the institutional slave traders into a position where they are forced to negotiate but without completely undermining the power play mechanics in the galaxy), with the module being the final reward to anyone who participated in any of the three at an appropriate level. If all are successfully completed, that power would stop trading slaves, and the practice would become illegal and not appear as a commodity at a station in their controlled systems any longer. Then, this sequence could be repeated until broadly institutionalized slavery is wiped from the galaxy.
The funny thing about the comments about slavery being a fact of life, and the proposition that I am being unrealistic, is that it presupposes that there are no inspirational leaders, no heroes, no revolutionaries who step up and stop it. That is also unrealistic, as we have also learned from history. If a major superpower institutionalized slavery today, there would be global outrage. The media would assault that nation. There would be severe economic sanctions, isolation, and probably war over the issue. But 1300 years from now, nope, it's still a thing, and no one can do anything about it.
So if Frontier is unable to do anything about it directly due the negative repercussions to community immersion, let the community decide and do something about it in the game. And maybe add some additional fun at the same time.
So there you go, a small, infant idea that could fix the issue. And with that, I'm done defending myself or trying to make suggestions. That's my best effort at trying to bridge the gaps.
And some additional redundant stuff that apparently required lengthy explanation and/or multiple replies (read the thread for more holistic examinations of these issues).
1. You: "They are indentured servants". Me: Great, change the name to "Imperial Servants" or "Indentured Servants". There is also a "Slave" commodity for anarchy systems, which is just plain slavery. BTW go search on Inara for carriers that buy the "Slave" commodity. There are some trolls out there.
2. You: "It's just a game". Me: That is a circular argument that either renders slavery personally important to you or meaningless, so either change it (since it's meaningless) or recognize that slavery is a necessary part of the enjoyment of your immersive fantasy and we disagree on the core focus of the game.
3. You: "Go play something else". Me: No, I'm providing consumer feedback to the developers, which I am permitted to do.
4. You: "It's a dark and dystopian future". Me: I know, but where do we draw the line at observing something dark and actually pretending to be dark when video games have shown to alter behavior and thought patterns. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games Since there are few slavery games, we have yet to see a linkage between pretending to be a slave trader and human empathy, but maybe we will know more in a few years. It would be great if you guys could volunteer for the study.
5. You: "If you hate slavery, go do something about it in real life." Me: Because I play this game, Elite is a part of my real life, as it is yours.
6. You: "So you support drug dealing and murder?" Me: No, but it's part of the cartoon violence that I expect as part of the game, and it's broadly acceptable that if you're in a space combat simulator, that's the focus. Those issues are also universal and not socially charged. Slavery is part of a painful shared heritage that has cultural meaning for millions of potential consumers and the way the game treats it degrades it.
I think those are the big ones. The rest of it is a lot of trolling, ham-fisted assessments of my political motivations, or suspicions about my forum identify.
1. It shows that despite the technological progress of the human race, social progress took a turn for the worse if an entire galactic human culture is trading in slaves. Depressing, but perhaps that's part of the ED perspective on humans as a race.
2. It's profitable (with risk), so it provides an incentive to trade in slaves.
3. Given that all games like ED are a fantasy played out by the player, the presence of slavery belittles the suffering and pain of slavery by reducing it to numbers on a spreadsheet, which reduces empathy and might consciously or subconsciously reinforce the idea that it's conditionally acceptable in the player's mind. Worse, if there are players actively seeking opportunities to trade slaves as part of their personal fantasy for their own enjoyment, ED is basically enabling this dark and monstrous behavior.
4. Some of your players might be descended from slaves, and self-identify as such as part of their cultural heritage. I imagine that it would be difficult or at least uncomfortable to participate in a game that allows slave trading given such a background.
Taking all of that into account, I think it's unethical to have a game that simulates the institutionalized commoditization of human beings. It belittles the concept.
I know that the Roman Empire had slaves, and that the Empire in ED is meant to be an analog, so here's a proposal (and what I think is a missed opportunity in early development).
What I am therefore suggesting is that the Imperial Slave commodity be changed to Imperial Synthetics (for lack of a better term), and retcon its history to reflect that the Imperials make AI androids that are human-like but not humans specifically for servitude, and then make the Slave commodity untradeable by players or remove it from the game. All of the ethical arguments by the Federation and other factions regarding slavery still apply to synthetic persons, and all of the lore associated with the issue of slavery can still be retained, just with a nuance that provides a distinction that allows the player to participate in a game that does not simulate actual human trafficking, while also providing a more contemporary exploration of the ethics surrounding artificial intelligence - which is appropriate for a science fiction game.
I know that the original game had this mechanic. I know that it is meant to be a source of conflict and ethical considerations for players and lore characters. But what is more important: retaining game continuity and an immersive experience for the Imperial player, or acknowledging that slavery is just plain fundamentally wrong and should not be given any opportunity to show up as a viable simulation participation option given the historical pains associated with slavery that many of us are still living with today?
I'm not necessarily saying that it should not exist as a concept if the baseline principle is that it's dark and terrible and that there are still dark and terrible humans in the universe in the 3300s despite all that has been accomplished, but why is Frontier enabling players to participate in this dark fantasy so easily and without any meaningful ethical boundaries, especially at a time in human development when we are persistently dealing with the pain of our recent history and still struggling to resolve that and move forward?
POST UPDATE:
Because people are still responding to the OP and not reading the thread (I get it), I'm sticking this here, posted on Page 7 or so:
Point taken. I therefore withdraw my earlier proposed solution, as I severely miscalculated the value of lore immersion to the community, and to be honest, it was a quick fix, and inelegant. Apologies.
I instead propose to Frontier that, in the fullness of time (and perhaps in conjunction with a Post-Odyssey release (that will likely correct mistakes and rebalance the inevitable unintended chaos) that they mount a realistic and long-term campaign through a series of linked CGs and accompanying Galnet releases (appropriately depicting the suffering of the victims of slavery in the Elite universe that engenders something approaching empathy) that pits a well positioned revolutionary leader (I'm thinking Aisling?) against the remaining slaver powers and factions. The intent is to place them into economic chaos and use the leverage to force them to stop trading in slaves. Goals could be associated with the acquisition of assets that would enable our protagonist (or antagonist if you support slavery) to steal the underlying technology used to develop the power play modules provided by slaver organizations, and offer those as the top 75% rewards for the CGs (perhaps with some engineering augment as well in order to provide an incentive to people who already have them) to those who support the protagonist's agenda. The antagonist offers the vanilla module, but also some extra credits, thereby preserving the debate intention of Elite's design.
There could be a sequence of CGs required, starting with data acquisition (submitting settlement data packages), then materials (to support the cause and build modules), and then combat (to force the institutional slave traders into a position where they are forced to negotiate but without completely undermining the power play mechanics in the galaxy), with the module being the final reward to anyone who participated in any of the three at an appropriate level. If all are successfully completed, that power would stop trading slaves, and the practice would become illegal and not appear as a commodity at a station in their controlled systems any longer. Then, this sequence could be repeated until broadly institutionalized slavery is wiped from the galaxy.
The funny thing about the comments about slavery being a fact of life, and the proposition that I am being unrealistic, is that it presupposes that there are no inspirational leaders, no heroes, no revolutionaries who step up and stop it. That is also unrealistic, as we have also learned from history. If a major superpower institutionalized slavery today, there would be global outrage. The media would assault that nation. There would be severe economic sanctions, isolation, and probably war over the issue. But 1300 years from now, nope, it's still a thing, and no one can do anything about it.
So if Frontier is unable to do anything about it directly due the negative repercussions to community immersion, let the community decide and do something about it in the game. And maybe add some additional fun at the same time.
So there you go, a small, infant idea that could fix the issue. And with that, I'm done defending myself or trying to make suggestions. That's my best effort at trying to bridge the gaps.
And some additional redundant stuff that apparently required lengthy explanation and/or multiple replies (read the thread for more holistic examinations of these issues).
1. You: "They are indentured servants". Me: Great, change the name to "Imperial Servants" or "Indentured Servants". There is also a "Slave" commodity for anarchy systems, which is just plain slavery. BTW go search on Inara for carriers that buy the "Slave" commodity. There are some trolls out there.
2. You: "It's just a game". Me: That is a circular argument that either renders slavery personally important to you or meaningless, so either change it (since it's meaningless) or recognize that slavery is a necessary part of the enjoyment of your immersive fantasy and we disagree on the core focus of the game.
3. You: "Go play something else". Me: No, I'm providing consumer feedback to the developers, which I am permitted to do.
4. You: "It's a dark and dystopian future". Me: I know, but where do we draw the line at observing something dark and actually pretending to be dark when video games have shown to alter behavior and thought patterns. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games Since there are few slavery games, we have yet to see a linkage between pretending to be a slave trader and human empathy, but maybe we will know more in a few years. It would be great if you guys could volunteer for the study.
5. You: "If you hate slavery, go do something about it in real life." Me: Because I play this game, Elite is a part of my real life, as it is yours.
6. You: "So you support drug dealing and murder?" Me: No, but it's part of the cartoon violence that I expect as part of the game, and it's broadly acceptable that if you're in a space combat simulator, that's the focus. Those issues are also universal and not socially charged. Slavery is part of a painful shared heritage that has cultural meaning for millions of potential consumers and the way the game treats it degrades it.
I think those are the big ones. The rest of it is a lot of trolling, ham-fisted assessments of my political motivations, or suspicions about my forum identify.
Last edited:
