Quote from: Tetsubo;976640A slave implies an owner. Which can mean one of two things: 1) Another player owns the slave PC or 2) The party is making sure the slave doesn't escape on behalf of the owner back at the Ark. Both of these are morally repugnant situations. That slavery exists isn't the issue. That the player characters are complicit in it's continuation is.  But from a purely survival standpoint taking a slave into the field makes zero sense. You aren't going to arm a slave. An armed slave isn't a slave for very long. Why wouldn't you take a trained adventurer over a laborer? Makes no sense. So I find it morally repugnant that the player's settlement is engaging in the institution of slavery and from a mission standpoint it makes no sense. I would never use the class. And any GM that had slavery in the PC settlement wouldn't have me as a player.

So if the player's settlement just executes traitors, spies and captured enemies that isn't morally repugnant to you? I understand that slavery is wrong, owning humans is not the best choice, but if society collapsed tomorrow we'd all have to be making some serious choices and morals and ethics would often take a back seat to seeing another day. An Ark needs resources to try to survive. If you catch a spy or a thief it is a serious matter that threatens the entire group. Enslaving those who would bring down the entire group is not as bad as eating them for jeopardizing supplies and security. Although cannibalism does send out a strong message to other would-be betrayers.

I do not think that in a survival type game that allows this option that you are betraying your own morals or ethics. it is a game. We all know that slavery is bad and should not be practiced in society. We also all know if civilization collapses it will be back on day one because there are people out there that just do not care.

(I am not making this a political statement or trying to justify slavery in any way, I am pointing out that in a survival situation you will do things against your normal moral code and I do not think that in this case you are a rotten person for exploring this option. You are a rotten person if you feel it is a good option in or out of a game.)

It bothers me on a more simple level. See, the game is implicitly about a cooperative adventuring party that cycles phases between life in the Ark and expeditions out in the wastes. So it assumes a degree of constant cooperation from the start, and all the classes are conductive to this, as they complement each other in their abilities and capacities. Having a slave character simply breaks this mold, specially if you have another playing the "Boss" in the same group. The ending result is this schizo situation where the group is supposed to cooperate but now there is a boss and it's slave struggling in the team, whose dynamics are disruptive to the established framework.

Contrast this with, say, Apocalypse World where the default mode of play assumes each player has it's own agenda and plot against each other from the start. Eventually the group may cooperate for survival against external threats, but intra-party conflict is there by default. You may have a player as the tyranical Holder oppresing the group, an Hocus rebelling against him, and a self-interested Operator working for who pays best. And they may join forces to fight the neighbouring cannibals. All this gels perfectly because it's the indended mode of play from the start and the game's framework support this.  

That's the difference, IMHO.

And that is a logical and we'll thought out reply. In that case I would just nix those roles, which is actually what I will do with PC choices but show as NPCs to point out how vile it is.

Weirdly, the other game I know that has slave and owner classes is Sagas of the Icelanders and it doesn't bother me as much there. Perhaps the historical context and the fact the game is about social expectations gives the relation a subtlety that more overt fantasy games lack. Don't know.

Quote from: bat;976663So if the player's settlement just executes traitors, spies and captured enemies that isn't morally repugnant to you? I understand that slavery is wrong, owning humans is not the best choice, but if society collapsed tomorrow we'd all have to be making some serious choices and morals and ethics would often take a back seat to seeing another day. An Ark needs resources to try to survive. If you catch a spy or a thief it is a serious matter that threatens the entire group. Enslaving those who would bring down the entire group is not as bad as eating them for jeopardizing supplies and security. Although cannibalism does send out a strong message to other would-be betrayers.

I do not think that in a survival type game that allows this option that you are betraying your own morals or ethics. it is a game. We all know that slavery is bad and should not be practiced in society. We also all know if civilization collapses it will be back on day one because there are people out there that just do not care.

(I am not making this a political statement or trying to justify slavery in any way, I am pointing out that in a survival situation you will do things against your normal moral code and I do not think that in this case you are a rotten person for exploring this option. You are a rotten person if you feel it is a good option in or out of a game.)

If I were to do things against my moral code to survive, I have no moral code and do not deserve to survive. Humans function best when we cooperate. I do not advocate execution. I would advocate for exile.

Tetsubo, would it bother you as much if it was a historical Greek or Roman game?

Quote from: Tetsubo;976812If I were to do things against my moral code to survive, I have no moral code and do not deserve to survive. Humans function best when we cooperate. I do not advocate execution. I would advocate for exile.

So instead of swift execution you advocate a slow death. If you don't need to see the bad situation then it doesn't bother your conscience.

Quote from: Voros;974478This writeup by Age of Ravens on Mutant: Year Zero piqued my interest. Particularly all the mechanics and play around the Ark. There's a Let's Play thread on here where someone praises the hell out of this game as well. There's a free preview on Drivethru that I'll download and never read unless someone gives me a reason to do so.

Anyone played this sucker? Thoughts? Will it scratch that GW itch?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1134[/ATTACH]

My first rpg I GMed with GW 1E. I've been running MY0 for months now and it scratches the itch.

The PCs have to explore the Zone (ruins) which goes like you expect. Life in the Ark is challenging though. Lots of Bosses struggling to get on top and crisis after crisis popping up.

We did have one PC die and come back as a slave. A Boss in the Ark owned him when the PC ran out of water and sold himself to survive. He was allowed to explore with the other PCs as the risk out in the Zone was great and he was a good investment and brought artifacts back to the Boss. The other PCs worked to buy off his debt and free him. Slavery was hard for the PCs to accept, but it did help the Ark, especially after the Boss built a Slave Market when they were out in the Zone. It boosted food production and created a slave militia from captured NPC marauders. The PCs struggled with darkness of slavery that in some ways benefited the Ark and the captured NPCs (who had a job and food and water rather than being executed).

Very intense. With the PCs encouragement, the slaves just revolted and killed the main Boss who owned slaves and burned down the Slave Market. Now, the PCs have to help forge a new way of life in the Ark.

Basically, while the PCs are out in the Zone trying to keep the Ark supplied and looking for Eden, things go south in the Ark. When the PCs get back, they sort out the latest challenge.

The game basically runs itself, the PCs are slowly rotting away, and even as the Ark grows the political situation gets more complicated. The dice system runs well and the rewards are good enough to keep the mutants going even as their mutations slowly injure them.

Quote from: dysjunct;975360I wrote a review of the game here:

https://www.rpggeek.com/thread/1740376/radioactive-stone-soup

It's not as detailed as the Age of Ravens one, but it compares it a lot to other games you might know. Hope it is useful.

thanks for the review it was very helpful. I think I'm going to pick this up!

Quote from: bat;976866So instead of swift execution you advocate a slow death. If you don't need to see the bad situation then it doesn't bother your conscience.

Whereas I see it as giving the condemned a change at survival that execution does not.

Quote from: Itachi;976813Tetsubo, would it bother you as much if it was a historical Greek or Roman game?

Yes. I understand that the Greek and Roman cultures were build upon slavery. But if the character I am playing is being required to restrain a slave from escaping I want no part of that. I would not play a slave owner and I will not aid and abet them. There are things that fall outside of 'fun' for me in a game, this is one of them.

That's fair.