The information is contradictory. On the one hand it implies that there are other intelligent species on the other worlds in their home system, but that they were so thoroughly dominated that they renamed their worlds Vesk-1, Vesk-2 etc. On the other hand it sates that they treat all those under their command equally. They are highly lawful...if that leans toward evil as well than that would imply a tendency for slavery.
Just not sure one way or the other.
Thoughts?
AtD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Veskarium attempts to provide its citizens with a high standard of living, regardless of species. However, it does so through the lens that the Vesk are inherently superior to the species they have conquered. There is no actual contradiction here; you can offer the people you conquered good things while still denying them access to even better things. And for a society that wishes to think itself honorable while still holding to a tenet of innate superiority, this is reasonable, and implied in Damoritosh's description. The inferiority of those who have been conquered is no reason to mistreat them. You've conquered them. They've submitted. If they stay in line and know their place, take care of them and keep them productive.
The Veskarium's government is probably leaning Lawful Neutral at best, and perhaps more likely Lawful Evil given their patron god. But I think that here it is the evil of an autocracy that enforces its rule through strict stratification and heavy-handed punishment rather than the evil of outright slavery. Of course, slavery is still conceivable in such a system. I think it would be somewhat at odds with the reasoning and stances given, but there isn't enough information to concretely rule one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worse than slavery could possibly be an effective caste system, where it'd be impossible to move above or below one's station.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend reading Obozaya's backstory. It mentions "putting down a vicious rebellion among the feline barbarians of Vesk-6."
So that implies that they have definite subject species, who are not all pleased with the rule of the Vesk. Which is useful information and confirms they definitely have subject species.
It also mentions "...Vesk-8, where the staunchly pacifist residents refused to give her any opportunity for righteous combat." so some are not rebelling for philosophical reasons.
I don't see how lawful + maybe evil = slavery.
The Veskarium could have conquered races, even races with fewer rights, without enslaving them. I'm not saying they don't have slavery, but I don't see it as a given. I could easily see them as stern and uncompromising but not vindictive overlords. Subjugated races might get very little say politically and have revolutions harshly suppressed, but also not be mistreated or abused.
Of course, they could have other sorts of slavery than the racist/economic model, too. They might practice slavery as a criminal sentence or even indentured servitude.
The Veskarium attempts to provide its citizens with a high standard of living, regardless of species. However, it does so through the lens that the Vesk are inherently superior to the species they have conquered. There is no actual contradiction here; you can offer the people you conquered good things while still denying them access to even better things. And for a society that wishes to think itself honorable while still holding to a tenet of innate superiority, this is reasonable, and implied in Damoritosh's description. The inferiority of those who have been conquered is no reason to mistreat them. You've conquered them. They've submitted. If they stay in line and know their place, take care of them and keep them productive.
The Veskarium's government is probably leaning Lawful Neutral at best, and perhaps more likely Lawful Evil given their patron god. But I think that here it is the evil of an autocracy that enforces its rule through strict stratification and heavy-handed punishment rather than the evil of outright slavery. Of course, slavery is still conceivable in such a system. I think it would be somewhat at odds with the reasoning and stances given, but there isn't enough information to concretely rule one way or the other.
Conquering them, replacing their gods and culture with your own, basically is slavery. Maybe worse, in some ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conquering them, replacing their gods and culture with your own, basically is slavery. Maybe worse, in some ways.
I feel there are meaningful lines between hegemony (controlling a group through cultural force), colonialism (controlling a group through physical force) and slavery (controlling individuals through physical force).
Hegemony the expansion of McDonald's around the world, Chinese film producers putting Matt Damon on the Great Wall of China, and similar influence. It's controlling people on a group level, but as individuals, none of them feel like they're forced to consume the hegemon's culture: but they do, and the hegemony profits, all the same. I'd say this doesn't have any alignment connotations at all. Some people decry the spread of McDonald's and Hollywood across the globe, but it's not clear to me that they're Evil.
Colonialism is, you know, taxation without representation, forcing people into an education system you've set up that denies them cultural representation, basically the things Ouachitonian mentioned. I'd say the Evilness corresponds to how it's done. If you put patrol ships around a planet, demand it pay you taxes every time it orbits its star, and prohibit any native from leaving without documentation, is that Evil? Denying a species the right to stellar travel is, you know, not nice, but humanity got along well enough without it for centuries, so it's hard to say whether that's something a species needs, or a luxury. It's when you start erasing someone's culture that the colonialism clearly crosses the line from overzealous Lawfulness to outright Evilness.
Slavery is, of course, so Evil that its Lawfulness or Chaos is essentially irrelevant.
|
|
Conquering them, replacing their gods and culture with your own, basically is slavery. Maybe worse, in some ways.I feel there are meaningful lines between hegemony (controlling a group through cultural force), colonialism (controlling a group through physical force) and slavery (controlling individuals through physical force).
Hegemony the expansion of McDonald's around the world, Chinese film producers putting Matt Damon on the Great Wall of China, and similar influence. It's controlling people on a group level, but as individuals, none of them feel like they're forced to consume the hegemon's culture: but they do, and the hegemony profits, all the same. I'd say this doesn't have any alignment connotations at all. Some people decry the spread of McDonald's and Hollywood across the globe, but it's not clear to me that they're Evil.
Colonialism is, you know, taxation without representation, forcing people into an education system you've set up that denies them cultural representation, basically the things Ouachitonian mentioned. I'd say the Evilness corresponds to how it's done. If you put patrol ships around a planet, demand it pay you taxes every time it orbits its star, and prohibit any native from leaving without documentation, is that Evil? Denying a species the right to stellar travel is, you know, not nice, but humanity got along well enough without it for centuries, so it's hard to say whether that's something a species needs, or a luxury. It's when you start erasing someone's culture that the colonialism clearly crosses the line from overzealous Lawfulness to outright Evilness.
Slavery is, of course, so Evil that its Lawfulness or Chaos is essentially irrelevant.
no its bad to be sure but its vastly better then slavery
Note that slavery can have multiple meanings causing the confusion:
A. Ownership of a person by another person. I.e. People can be property.
B. Deprivation of personal freedom of significant number of people.
C. Other conditions of bondage, such as intendentured service.
All of them are also complicated by presence of absence of number of factors and degrees of control of the owner over the owned, for example giving or removing certain law-warranted protections for slaves, or tying ownership of other people to land owned (serfdom).
From the initial reading I'd say that Vesk don't have a classic slavery, where a person can be property of another person, or at least not widespread. Instead, subjugated races are second class citizens, having guaranteed certain standards of living but lacking political power and with restricted freedoms. There might be indentured servants who are bond to the state (Veskarium), who might or might be not leased to individuals and companies. They would have obligation to follow lawful orders of their leaser, but they would have certain legal protections against abuse and seize of property.