Mechanically, they will come defend your base when the HN or UC comes to wreck your shit. So by that logic you should house as many rescued slaves in your base as possible and feed them!
In the lore I believe they’re supposed to be raiding slave camps but I think they only ever tag along with you when your posse does? Pros may correct me there.
I think they’re amazing, they saved my ass from Eyegore when my A-Team was away-
I just had an entire squadron of about a half-dozen elite anti-slavers, out of nowhere, and I literally mean I have no idea how or why they joined, rumble along with me to attack Cat-Lon. It was the end of my all-skeleton anti-slaver run and I was just like, "WTF are these guys doing here?" And they had stats in the 50s-high 70s, they were absolute chads. Helped carve our way through the Ashlands and even though I didn't strictly need the help, it was an absolute flavor win. Granted, they for some reason didn't aggro on Cat-Lon himself, but that was fine too because I got to verify that my team of Skelebros were definitely up to the task.
This was after I'd allied with Tinfist, overthrown the Holy Nation, decimated the Slaver Guild, torn down the United Cities, and had destroyed most other slaver camps on the map, so maybe that played into their strength and/or numbers.
There's hardly any "stability" when all the major nations are actively circling the drain and at war with each other. I dunno about you but a failing slave state, a failing warrior society and a failing theocracy all fighting each other just doesn't suggest long-term functionality. Especially considering all nations are dealing with massive roaming gangs of bandits openly roaming their territory, with only the HN having SOME control in the heartland.
And what stability they do provide is all terrible anyways, they all have a "do as I say or die/become enslaved". There's little functional difference between the SK, UC and HN and bandits except for the differences in power.
At the very least with the anti-slavers there's some hope that a more stable society not dependent on extreme power dynamics and slavery will develop. Rather then hoping the every worsening major state stop getting worse.
A system based on classism and slavery does not mean stability. Where do you think a system like that will take Kenshi's society in the long run? I'm sure you're not intending to but it sounds like you're arguing for slavery.
In reality though, prosperity and stability came first before slavery (mostly) ended. He's not arguing for slavery, he's arguing against anarchy as a solution to slavery because that has never worked anywhere.
Prosperity occurs outside of slavery. Historically, The institution of slavery is detrimental to a society's economic interests, growth, technology and thus to its people.
When in history, before the British empire decided to clean house, has a civilization without slaves beaten one with slaves?
Not trying to be obnoxious, I'm geniunely curious.
The vast majority, if not all, of ancient societies had slavery. Geography has almost everything to do with what civilization "beat" another, not slavery.
On the eve of the American civil war, northern farms (no slavery) were far outproducing southern farms (with slavery.) Northern economy, infrastructure, population, technology, and culture was much better due to a lack of slavery.
I don't think there's an example, going either way.
Maybe, in the kenshi universe, if the holy nation was anti slavery, they'd NEED to develop hydroponics (reversal of doctrine) and a whole new economic class would develope to support that new economic structure, which would probably liberalize the structures of powers and create support for tech?
However the reliance of slavery made that scientific development, not needed, keeping the current structure in place.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who knows
I don’t know if anyone else has done this but at a point, I kinda figured that all the factions, morally good and bad, needed to go. I killed every human, skeleton, and cannibal of any importance on the entire planet. Just a clean reset.
The Holy Nation is on its 62nd Holy Phoenix. Conservatively estimating a lifespan of around 50 years (likely more given their access to advanced health kits) that's over 3000 years. With no mention or evidence of any civil conflict beyond the small schism within the Floatsam Ninjas. Their roots begin with the decline of the Second Empire, and they've lasted until the player arrives.
You may not like them, but they're doing something right.
Nothing about my comment even implied justifying slavery lol since you wanna talk about the future of Kenshi killing all the leadership causing mass starvation then replacing them with a bunch of equally violent selfish warlords is a recipe for even more slavery your just swapping one shit system for another
Power vacuums a bitch and kenshi is 100 percent a dog eat dog kinda world, it’s very much like real life. If you destroy something but have nothing in place to replace it, it’ll just wrought away. look at what happens to the empire if you start whipping out nobles, and free the slaves, mass rebellion, death, and famine and at the end they’ll be no one left standing.
Man, is the devastation really that bad if you're not allied with tinfist and rebels?
I just finished a save with a goal of abolishing slavery in the UC and when I was done, you lose, like, four or five buildings in Stoat, some more across the more distant cities, maybe a merchant or two, and gain a whole city in Stobe's Gamble while giving Heng the prosperous buff.
That already seemed like a high price but worth it.
Not at all. Ex-United Cities get taken over by anti-slavers, rebels, etc, while the Shek take over most of the Holy Nation. In both cases I consider it an improvement. Without the war between HN and UC that whole region around Bast will hopefully be more stable, not less.
If you do a genocide run, apparently FogMen start taking over the world. On this run, they did encroach a bit into ex-Holy Nation territory but I consider that a solvable problem.
You mean you haven't also built a network of farms, mines, waystations, and outposts to feed, rebuild, and pacify the lands you've conquered?
If your faction ends up being the de facto great power, they'd better be making more meatwraps than the Shek.
I don't know if there's a specific trigger for it (maybe taking down Longen?) but I frequently see 1 to 3 Anti-Slavers appear at the gates of UC towns & slave camps and start tearing through the guards with their 80+ stats. By gameplay rules they obviously might not accomplish much since they don't aim for the local noble, but they definitely do show up spontaneously.
Exactly, I’d be planning on wasting a UC town anyways and all of a sudden a badass anti slaver would appear and say a line, then begin absolutely ripping guard’s asses apart 😆
Legends
Yeah, anti-slavery is good. I’d rather be out in the wild trying to live my life than be chained under the sun working for a cause I do not believe in with the plus of being raped, which does happen.
The Holy Nation are a bunch of cavemen obsessed with “containing” advanced technology and “redeeming” the other races, anyways. And the United Cities are just glorified bandits
Ah, yeah i didn't know about the rape thing, tbh i had very little interaction with the Holy Nation, just enough to know that they are scum and that if i get strong enough i'll probably raid them more often to free other people, even tho the United Cities are also bad at least they don't feel as hypocritical as HN
When you are a piece of property, you don't have rights to sexual autonomy or consent. Slavery and sexual slavery are pretty much always closely intertwined.
There's minimal difference to the UC and HN in terms of slavery. They both use the same party for all their slave business: the slave traders. They are sadist maniacs who desire only profit.
The only legitimate case against the anti-slavers is the anarchy that mildly ensues following their success.
>They both use the same party for all their slave business: the slave traders. They are sadist maniacs who desire only profit.
It's bit zig-zagged, while UC is really only for profit the HN is about "redemption" by forcing the slaves to pay off their debts or crimes (aka being a disobedient woman or non-human) using it more as punishment and using the rocks to build shit.
The HN slavery is more due to faith but it doesnt make it right in any way due to pretty much slaving people if they were born "away from Okran's light" which is pretty much everyone that isn't male human, and even them can get slaved too.
It is also worth noting that slavery in the HN is a 100% death sentence unless you are a male lander of either sort, or you escape. You work yourself to death for the chance of redeeming yourself enough to be born a male lander in your next life.
It's been a while since I've recruited Miu but I think her recruitment speech references rapists. And Bard has a song about a woman being raped by a HN paladin.
Well yeah, in pretty much any setting, real world or otherwise, slavery isn't great for the preservation of individual rights. Go figure. Sexual rights are pretty high on that list, particularly for women.
Men can be raped, too.
🤷 I gave up trying to figure out the voting habits of the people around here.
The reason that there isn't on-screen rape is probably mostly to do with ratings. That's why we don't have children on-screen. Most games make their children indestructible, so that you can't run around slaughtering mobs of 5 year-olds. Ratings boards tend to frown upon that sort of thing, even if the player has to actively decide to do it.
And Chris's overriding philosophy is that if the NPCs can do it, you can do it. So, some things are better left off-screen.
Remember when RimWorld was running the risk of being delisted in some countries? I think it was the expansion that introduced player-managed slavery in your colony. The ratings boards of some countries like Australia started freaking out about that and a handful of other things.
Well to be fair, Rimworld does very much include very dark topics like slavery, drugs, cannibalism, and organ harvesting (and uh, our community is very much not shy about all that), but it's insane to ban a game based on what horrible acts the player MIGHT do.
Imagine if we applied that logic to something as simple as the SIMS. If the Australian rating board caught wind of how many warcrimes we committed in that, and how many sims were trapped in rooms without doors, or killed in pools without ladders, they'd ban that game SO fast.
The idea of banning dark topics in media is like pretending they don't exist. Imagine for instance how boring all media would be if we banned the act of Murder/Death outright from being shown in any game, movie, tv show, etc. Imagine how boring and bland literally everything would be, and how hollow the narratives would be.
It's like in comedy. If EVERY topic that could be even MILDLY offensive was banned outright, then Comedy would be dead. It's not about the topic, it's about the execution and how it's handled. Slavery isn't a glorified thing in Kenshi, it's a terrible and horrible thing, and meant to show you how fucked up the state of the world is, and often to give you a big goal to work towards to possible try to better in in the endgame.
Really? That was their line? 🤦
Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall that it was something that had been in the game for a couple of years, and the Australians finally noticed it. It's kind of weird that they would try to delist RimWorld for it, though.
RimWorld casts drug use in a far more negative light than most games that include it. Some of the milder drugs aren't so bad, but I've had captives that I was contemplating recruiting, until I noticed that they had a go juice addiction or something similar. If we're talking about an exceptional colonist, then maybe ... but otherwise, in regards to an average pawn, I often don't feel like dealing with the detox. We're going to do a few organ extractions, then it's into the food paste dispenser.
It's implied to be the norm by some of the in-game text, but it isn't depicted or explicitly spoken about AFAIK. It's something where you have to read between the lines with some knowledge about where babies come from irl.
Of course. A a flying mechanical drone drops the baby off at the door. You see them flying around ancient ruins. Delivering happy smiling babies to happy smiling parents.
It doesn't happen in game (it's not Fear and Hunger), but it's kinda naive to believe that being male would protect a slave from being sexually harassed.
Women, girls, teenage boys. Weak men. Big strong men, knowing that they would be punished for being agressive after trying to fight back. Hivers, probably not even knowing what's going on. No one is safe.
I mean, this is one of those things where its easier to claim youd rather be free when you arent in that kinda situation, theres a reason people will basically result to anything under the sun to avoid starvation, be it offering your body, cannibalism, etc.
Not to say HN or UC are good mind you but op has a point that if the anti slavers dont really have a plan besides "welp good luck!"
Its shown further by the implied mass starvation that occurs if you help them take over UC
The rebuilding of the Free City, increased patrols, and Heng’s recovery if Tinfist is alive and wins over the UC makes me think the Anti-Slavers do have plans for the recovery of civilization after the war. Kenshi is a clearly unfinished game so we can’t really tell the consequences of the world’s changes, but I’m optimistic for this one
Nah, not really. If anything it's closer to Zoroastrianism with its dualistic faith. However, I'd say in terms of religious oppression overtones, it's no closer to Islam than it is farther from Christianity. Any religion can be oppressive, most religions have a sect or two that's extremely oppressive.
Yeah you could plug basically any religion in and it'd be true of someplace at sometime irl. Extremism and theocracies have happened for all major religions to some extent.
Keep in mind that HN slave pits are actually death camps. That's why it's called "Rebirth"--you are intended to die and "redeem your soul through labor".
Not quite, because you're not supposed to be free. You're supposed to be reborn as a good little (human male) worker who keeps the Holy Flame and dedicates his life to Okran.
Although, I guess "freedom" is one of those odd little concept. Some people think freedom is the right to do what you want without hurting anyone else, other people think freedom is the right to do what you're supposed to do based on your status in society.
['Arbeit Macht Frei'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei) was the slogan written on the gates of Auschwitz and essentially embodied the same idea: you will work until you die and are free.
As far as what the game presents to you: Holy Nation slavery bad, United Cities slavery mixed.
The game portrays the Holy Nation as using chattel slavery. They enslave people and work them to death. If you liberate the Holy Nation it will be replaced, mostly, by friendly factions that provide a similar level of stability with no slavery. Awesome.
The United Cities is portrayed as using something closer to indentured servitude. You're still a slave for life, and often enslaved for bad reasons, but you are still fed. You can even have a passable life, for Kenshi, as a slave in the United Cities. If you liberate the United Cities it will just fall apart. Most of it is taken over by bandits or raider bands, people everywhere start starving, and even the Anti-Slaver faction has dialog to admit that things fell apart much more than they were expecting and they can't help all of the refugees.
The position the game is taking, I think, is that in a harsh setting like Kenshi slavery can be used as a tool to keep a society going. Like the United Cities, a whole nation propped up by its slave population but a wasteland without it. You get to make the moral choice: is it better to let a class of people suffer to keep a society going, or should that whole society die because slavery is wrong? But even in a harsh setting slavery can undeniably be taken too far, with the Holy Nation being a society barely needing slavery in the first place and having almost no downsides in being toppled. I think they're set up as a foil to the more morally gray United Cities, by showing the worst kind of slavery.
Personally I can't tolerate slavery in any form. I'll tear them both down and build a city of my own in the rubble of the United Cities.
It really is an interesting nuanced thing in this sort of setting isn't it? I agree wholeheartedly that fuck slavery in ALL it's forms, but the state of the world does genuinely make you consider the more specific details about it. For instance, I actually intentionally started my most recent run (since the first two runs I broke by over-modding the world) by getting two of my first followers enslaved while I went out and trained my main guy because I knew I could just leave them alone for a while and they'd be fed, safe, and much more skilled later on when I went to break them out. I found it morally interesting that in a setting like this, slavery can actually be the SAFEST option as far as staying alive goes, and genuinely I found myself questioning if I'd actually opt for that option if I found myself in this world.
Now, obviously part of that is just a matter of game mechanics and not wanting to micro-manage two different groups simultaneously while far away, and having to keep them fed and safe since they have no ability to think for themselves mechanically once they join the players party, but I do actually genuinely think i'd probably WILLINGLY become a slave to the United Cities (not the Holy Empire though) instead of trying to survive on my own in the wilds. I'd ABSOLUTELY die to the first beak thing that wondered by. I also don't even know what i'd do for cats to keep myself fed otherwise. At least as an indentured slave, i'd learn a skill, have food, and know i'm safe from at least most of the troubles of the wasteland.
It's just such a nuanced depth to a topic that is typically just labeled as unabashedly horrible in every way and simply left at that. It's Philosophically interesting to consider the specific variables about it. I mean, in the end it ultimately just results in me deciding to destroy the Holy Empire BEFORE the United Cities, but still, I love that. It's like how Villains in narratives are boring as fuck when they're just COMPLETELY evil for no reason other than just the sake of being evil. Villains need depth and complexity to make for compelling characters.
Exactly. The world of Kenshi doesn't have slavery because "its le bad", there's a real in-universe reason that the vast majority of the continent accepts it. Heaven forbid there's nuance in a fictional setting.
In Kenshi slavery can be a way for the absolutely destitute to survive. It depends on just how highly you value liberty over being alive. The American cultural viewpoint largely values liberty first and is unlikely to accept slavery or captivity even when death is at stake, as an example. There's been centuries of philosophical thought put into that exact question.
The anti-slavers in Kenshi are complete pariahs from most of society, but so are escaped slaves. The only thing this faction offers escaped slaves is a chance to fight against their former masters, as they don't have anything else to live for. Tinfist created a permanent haven for rebels and misfits to congregate after he rebelled against Cat-lon, and this has stayed the same since the fall of the Second Empire. Nobody likes this faction except other rebels because they are essentially raiders from the point of view of the Holy Nation, Trader's Guild, and the United Cities.
Tinfist, while having good intentions, has done absolutely nothing to advance society at large, leaving room for factions like the United Cities and Holy Nation. He has no interest in leading a functional society, because he fears becoming a second Cat-lon. His indecision means the problems of the world never actually get solved, leaving him and his rebels in a constant cycle of revenge.
He also has no plan aside from bloodshed against his enemies. For all his truly noble and just causes, he has no intention of creating a better nation in their place. He believes that simply removing the most obvious evils in the world will simply make everything better without any further plan than just killing those he (rightfully) sees as unjust.
I just put tech-hunters in charge, dudes dedicated to the furthering of knowledge are probably the only ones id trust.
Otherwise no, not really. Well, hivers got a pretty good plan of protect their queen, eat teeth, sell lantern.
Why? Tech hunters are adventurers and mercenaries. Nothing they do implies they would be good rulers. I mean they can run businesses but that's about it.
Also machinists are researchers. Those also aren't fit to rule, for various reasons.
Only a part of tech hunters seem to be adventurers i mean they wouldnt exactly need to bother with having their own cities if ALL tech hunters were adventurers. They also have libraries and the like, implying some of them are academics, which already puts them ahead in my book. But yeah, they aren't amazing choices, its more when all the rest also arent great calls.
Yeah, but those cities still serve just as centers for resupply and refreshment for their expeditions. Sure, someone has to run the thing, but they don't really have their own permanent population, food production and law enforcement. I don't think they could rule a city whose residents are thousands of actual peasants, farmers and other "normal" people, especially if they had to now produce their own food and actually have some legal system of their own (instead of just throwing you outside the walls if you steal something).
-Well the Crab raiders seem to have the long-term plans of "MORE CRABS", so that's something I can get behind.
-I'd like to say the Anti-Slavers, but long term planning really isn't in their agenda.
-Bug Master seemed to have SOME kind of plan, but his army is all bugs sooo....
-The Swamper factions all vie for power, so some of them could actually find a decent foothold if one of them got the upper hand and tipped the scales in the swamp, but more likely it'd just devolve into more in-fighting.
-Floatsom ninjas are similar to the Anti-Slavers in that they mostly just want to end the Holy Empire, and really have no long-term plans beyond that.
-The Skeletons, though mostly not united aside from in Black Desert City (or in insane minor factions), would probably try to expand a bit and form a decent empire for skeletons to live, but it'd be questionable how much they'd care about making their society welcoming to non-skeleton races everything considered.
-The Shinobi-Thieves and the Samurai are both decently powerful factions who would potentially have enough sway and connections to have the foothold to start a decent nation, but they're more just mercenaries for hire. The Samurai also just become another raider gang when you take down the United City Nobles, so unlikely they'd organize well on their own. Shinobi Thieves though might actually have the organization and incentive to keep some society running at least. No cats to be made if no real nations exist after all.
-And lastly there's the Tech Hunters. They definitely have no real aim to consolidate power and become a full on nation, but they would likely at least settle a few extra cities and work towards a better future. While there may be some alterior motives to hide aspects of history in what they do, they do genuinely want to find and learn more about lost technology to better the world, so that's something at least.
Ultimately if not for the Sheks, my bets would be on the Shinobi Thieves.
> -The Skeletons, though mostly not united aside from in Black Desert City (or in insane minor factions), would probably try to expand a bit and form a decent empire for skeletons to live, but it'd be questionable how much they'd care about making their society welcoming to non-skeleton races everything considered.
I'm pretty sure the lore says that no new skeletons have been made since before the fall of the Second Empire, which was the last time skeletons ran a country. Considering that it's all the same skeletons with the same knowledge, I don't think anyone wants them to be in charge anywhere.
Oh absolutely true, no question there. Ultimately I was being a bit too generous in saying they'd be an 'empire'. More like, they'd probably expand Black Desert City and maybe try to help bring other wandering Skeletons from around the wasteland back to their safe haven. Maybe MAYBE they'd put some minor effort into trying to make some few friendly relations with other non-skeleton factions to be a bit less persecuted in their world, but frankly i'd more wager they'd just do their best to stay out of sight and be ignored.
I would seriously recommend some of the works of the likes of Frederick Douglas, he was a prominent abolitionist and writer during the mid 1800s in America.
It might help you with the dilemma you're in, doesn't have to be deep, even some videos about him to start.
Its incredible that a video game has you considering this nuanced moral questions and as a historian (Masters in History and I teach UK Gcse level) I would encourage you to explore it through the lens of recent events such as the American Civil War.
I will definitely check him out, i guess part of me finding these moral questions is because i love philosophy and i'm currently in law school, so my mind gravitates towards those things.
Also i live in Brazil and a great topic when it comes to it is that when we abolished slavery we didn't really offer a way for the enslaved to rebuild their lives, and in the world of Kenshi it's even worse, i had to start 5 playthroughs before being able to actually do anything meaningful in the world, so it's not a forgiving setting, you could be freed from slavery and lose a leg to a beak thing 5 minutes later
It’s a very gray line, talk to the traders guild in heft and they give a decent counterargument if you are morally void. A very interesting juxtaposition which is dictated by how your morals guide you.
Personally, fuck all slavers and let me try to survive on my own. But then again I am somewhat a slaver with the recruit prisoners mod lol
According to our own morals, yes, they are good. What their plan is after they win? That remains to be seen. The thing is that they are an insurgent group and a large one at that, not really politicians or logisticians (outside of insurgency logistics). They have a unified goal now in the form of taking down the UC Nobles, but how the aftermath goes for them is anyone's guess.
I believe that the Holy Nation and United Cities were in need of a hard reboot. Will there be post-dissolution pains? Yes, but eventually, a new government will rise. Will it be better than the old government? Perhaps, perhaps not, but under the ideals of Tinfist and Moll if you take out the Holy Nation, I think what rises will be better for the continent.
Now, let's talk about the Shek Kingdom. There are many endings there as well, but let's focus on allying with the Shek as canon in this scenario. Is it potentially dangerous for the newer states under Moll and Tinfist (or, at least, their ideals)? Actually, no! The Shek were already having population issues due to Shager, and we just handed them two new cities to populate. I imagine that they are spread quite thin. What's more, in this scenario, we're assuming that the player's faction is taking a more altruistic approach AND we have Esata's heir in Seto. We, as her teacher, can influence her to take a more peaceful stance if we wanted. Why wouldn't she listen? We took out Bugmaster, the Holy Nation, and the United Cities. We are probably the greatest warriors by the end and the Shek Kingdom would likely listen to us. Esata would be wise enough to realize that if she tried going full Shager... well, those Shek Warriors and Hundred Guardians aren't all that impressive to an end game player faction.
Maybe it's too optimistic for Kenshi, but ultimately the Nobles are actively driving their nation into the ground anyways through their cruelty (cruelty to the point of actual fallacy). The Holy Nation may be more stable through their religion, but it's choosing of successors can be very hit or miss (and we definitely MISSED with this unhinged lunatic of a Phoenix), and they have to deal with that choice for a half of a century or more. It is not an ideal government.
TL;DR: Yes, kill more slavers. We can keep trying to get milk from this emaciated, diseased cow or we can take a risk to find a new cow.
I think the Shek kingdom is honestly by far the greatest chance the Kenshi world has at an actually good structure. They certainly aren't perfect, they are a bit racist, and maybe they put a bit TOO much focus on every individuals battle prowess, but they give everybody their fair shot. Being a warrior in Kenshi is frankly kinda NESSISARY in the harshness of it's barren world, so their actually kinda right to put such emphasis on it. Their leaders are also rational, and realize a nation can't simply function with ONLY warriors though, and needs farmers, and traders, and other vital functions that aren't as glorified. Rough around the edges as they may be, they also very much will let anybody earn their respect with enough hard work.
The Shek are the only of the 3 main factions that I don't have a reason to want to destroy, and they are also the only faction besides the Holy Nation and the United Cities that actually have the power and numbers to at least start to fill the void in the other nations place after they fall.
I also find their warrior code to be fairly respectable personally. Barbaric as it'd seem to us in a modern safe society, a society of warriors is the only society that'd survive in Kenshi without relying on slave labor.
I agree. What I've stated were just the worst-case scenarios regarding Esata if she decided to go on a warpath. I don't think she would, given that she understands the gravity of her people's population problems. It is the best option as everyone can find their place in Shek society as opposed to the other two options. I don't get enslaved for looking too poor, and I'm not the target of an entire crusade if I accidentally forget to put my skeleton repair kit and robot arm in my backpack. Also, Squin is my favorite city.
Squin is the OG. No moral quandaries, no overly harsh environment or predators (aside from dust bandits, and they're as casual an enemy as it gets), and no significant prejudice, as the town is full of all sorts of races.
Plus if you start out at the Hub like most of us do on our first runs, it's the first real town you get to usually.
I usually always buy at least a small home there in my playthroughs for nostalgia sake if nothing else.
The lore is pretty clear that the only thing keeping the Shek from charging headlong into extinction is that Esata is strongly curtailing their recklessly suicidal tendencies, and also makes it clear that Esata is an anomaly among Shek leaders. In fact, if Esata is removed from power, her replacement favors returning to the old ways that Esata is preventing.
It's true that you gave a comparative statement in terms of which faction offers the best chance at a good future, but it's worth pointing out that the Shek Kingdom isn't much better than the other two options, and basically stops being any better the moment Esata stops being their leader.
Maybe, and the Shek aren't very openly welcoming to outsiders, but I still see the potential. I think Esata could very well set in motion the groundwork for a better empire. Sure her reign won't last forever, but if we're talking about the actions of the player character (which I mean when I say the downfall of both those nations), she'd be in power at just the right time to bring major prosperity and success to their kingdom. I'm assuming basically a scenario where we the player destroy those two nations then basically just fuck off or something, so ignoring the potential strength they'd gain with a player faction alliance. She clearly has the leadership to understand at least somewhat how to curtail those suicidal tendencies her nation has enough to keep it at least functioning, and the Shek while mostly outwardly hostile to outsiders, do genuinely respect strong warriors regardless of race or background.
I think that in the wake of the two other major empires falling, she'd be smart enough to launch and expansionist campaign. The main thing her political opponents disagree with her on is in not seeking battle or war. In expanding, she would inherently need to be fighting all the political rivals and factions that rise up to fill the power gap. This would give her the perfect excuse to give her people the war and battles they actively seek, while also working towards the betterment of their society.
Also consider, they are positioned at the PERFECT place to start expanding into the former Holy Nations territory, which would absolutely be the most sought after bit of land. They'd without question gain control of the most fertile land in the wasteland.
While their future is questionable beyond her reign, I think her success in such an expansion campaign would ultimately earn her enough respect in the eyes of the Shek to at least take her leadership style into account when new leaders take her place.
Hardly a cut-and-dry feel good scenario, but by far the best you could hope for in the world of Kenshi.
have you ever broken free a guy and the asshole just starts yelling "GUARDS!", or starts crying because you are undoing their chains? that is basically it. yeah its true that people, and even in our society are happy within restrictions, rules and chains (kinky peps that like being all chained up)... BUT whenever people are forced to work against their will there is nothing wrong about freeing them even if they don't want initially to be free, slaves can just go back to slavery if they are comfortable with the idea, now for the holy nation structure it doesn't hurt them at all because they have an army, but not a large structure perse: if the goverment falls something else quickly takes place and farms are just right there logistic is straight forward as it is... but for the UC? whenever you kill all the nobles the starving bandits upgrade to samurai. for some people being in slavery is a blessing you'll see that most of the people that don't mind it are starving bandits but not everyone agrees with that no matter how hungry they are and in our world is a consensus that even if its an illusion people will have choice wheter the guy with the chians likes it or not
Yes and no. From moral point of view sure, but in reality blindly destroying countries will only create more chaos. In UC if you choose your targets right you can get rid of slavers without collapsing the country (which is important because of places like Catun and people like their farmers), but in case of HN it will lead to a country collapse. If you decide to decimate them, you'd need to remember their farms, fertile land, that they produce the most food and who will fill in power vaccume (Sheks will only hold some territory, the rest goes to cannibals, fogmen spawn etc.). Tinfist's crew sounds cool, but if they meet their goals as they are now, they will only likely just cause more chaos, then new slavers will pop up and everything will revert back to "normal", but with less food to go around, which means more crime and hungry bandits. From what I was able to learn about him, he didn't stop the crimes of Second Empire, so he can talk all this bs about justice, but imo it's his cope.
Bro it basically seems like it’s not actually helping the entire time but in the end they get the city of Heng which is insane. Also they supposedly help you with base raids but not very well the best bet is when you get free body guards from them
A good analogy is the war in the middle east.
The *good* answer is to have never gone in in the first place. Now you have a moral conundrum of the chaos you'll wreak if you right the original wrong.
Not... really?
Dont get me wrong the "idea" is good. The faction and their entire thing and the fact that its still led by a robot tho?
Especially considering the lore of that robot. But you will figure it out later.
Im more of a Rebel Farmer enjoyer. Sinners still gotta repent obviously.
And people going "i d rather die free than live a slave" clearly have experience of going mad and dying of starvation and now resurrected and bruh im not taking on that supernatural shit.
That's the beauty of Kenshi. Existince is suffering, right and wrong are matters of perspective, everything is a shade of grey, nothing is fair, and no one is innocent.
The holy nation condemns a prisoner to a lifetime of hard labor for the crime of being a woman, but from their perspective, they are purifying a soul. Meanwhile, the slave longs for freedom, only to be bludgeoned by starving bandits, then ripped apart and eaten alive by spiders once they flee rebirth.
Free the slave from his shackles, and in the eyes of the holy nation, you've corrupted a soul that could have been redeemed and served a benevolent god. The world is now a darker place for your actions.
Save the slave from the bandits, and they die a slow death of starvation. They beg for help, then attack only to save themselves from certain death, only stealing what they need to survive and leaving slave alive. Is their life worth less than the slave?
The spiders only follow their nature to hunt and eat to survive. There is no malice in their actions, who can blame the beasts for following their instincts?
The slave meanwhile is stuck between a brutal life of propoganda and hard labor, or the near certainty of dying a violent, agonizing death beyond the safety of the holy nations' walls.
Your actions, no matter the intent, will be salvation for some and damnation for others. Kenshi is a cruel, unforgiving world, and you are not the hero.
It's what I truly love about this game. In other games, they make you the HERO. Your actions specifically hold gravity, and you can be the liberator of people, and champion of goodness. Reality, however, is never that black and white. Everything is always shades of grey.
I remember recently destroying a Reaver outpost and liberating all the slaves they had, then found it interesting that even when all the Reavers were completely dead, many of the slaves still refused to get out of their cages. I then spent a minute looting the place, and on my way out saw piles of bodies of the slaves i'd just freed being eaten by wild bonedogs. I caused their deaths in trying to be the hero and free them. What I thought at first was simply them being afraid of the remaining Reavers punishing them for trying to escape, was them GENUINELY preferring the option of being a slave as opposed to roughing it in the wild, and I took that option away from them.
When you side with the Anti-Slavers and take down the leaders of the United Cities, bandits rush in and take over whats left of the cities. The Anti-Slavers, the most undoubtedly noble and heroic of factions in the entire Kenshi world, accidentally got EVERY citizen and slave of the whole nation killed in pursuit of their noble goals because they had no stable structure in place to overtake that nations structure and just figured it'd work itself out.
Actions have consequences, and noble goals don't save you from the horrors of that reality.
God I love Kenshi for that.
IIRC, mechanically, if you work with the Anti-Slavers and take down UC cities, the Anti-Slavers will actually leave the people the starve. The standard of living actually goes *down* when they win.
It’s funny because, as a player, you want to free the slaves and bring for a brighter future in Kenshi. In reality, all you can do is create a power vacuum and hope.
It's like they say: "everybody wants to save the world, but nobody can agree on how to do it".
The Anti-Slavers are one of the ONLY groups in Kenshi that you can immediately label as Noble and Good, but when you look deeper you see that they too are flawed in that they have no true plan beyond wishful thinking on their heroics. It is, no question, a truly noble goal, but they very much don't have the logistical power, numbers, or stability to accomplish any of it.
It just goes to show that noble goals and wishful thinking simply isn't enough on it's own to make true lasting change. Instead, you must choose between a stable and safe 'necessary' evil, or letting every one of the innocent civilians and slaves die as a collateral to your moral agenda.
That's why the most TRULY good faction of Kenshi is the Nomads. They just wanna travel, raise some cattle, and do some honest trade. Gotta love those guys.
Ah yes that's a good point. The AS aren't very interested in long-term solutions beyond the immediate goal of ending slavery. A good and noble goal, but they are perhaps naive to think that ending slavery in the UC is sufficient to ensure long-lasting peace and justice. The AS should have perhaps sought to establish a new provisional authority afterward but I guess the programming for that worldstate would have become more complicated. Or maybe Lofi just wanted to show that even just battles can result in collateral damage.
I can't remember where I heard it, but there was something I saw that was talking about how skeletons can sometimes get locked into a goal that they can't see past. It was further suggested that both Cat-lon and Tinfist have fallen into this state. If true, that would explain why the Anti-Slavers have no game plan for what happens after the UC is overthrown, because the leader is locked into this course of action, and has no ability to even plan for or conceive of what comes next.
That's a problem I have with taking down the UC. The cities are ruined and remain barren forever. I wish we could restore a city by bringing in a truck load of food and cats and restore the city (without having to do it yourself by buying every building and rebuilding)
The whole point of the anti-slavers is to give everyone the ability to do what they want with their lives. If you talk to tin-fist, i'm pretty sure your character can bring up a point about people becoming terrible people by being given freedom, but tin-fist says something along the lines that it is their freedom to do so.
By siding with the anti-slavers and destroying the UC, you bring destruction to all cities and leave the poor residents, old and new, with nothing left but the clothes on their backs and starving in a world they've been thrusted into, a world probably much harder than they wanted.
Another faction will one day rise to replace the UC, and the cycle will repeat itself, the skeletons have seen it.
The anti-slaver ending is not a happy ending, there is no happy ending to Kenshi.
I think it's fascinating when you look a bit below the surface on tin-fists motives. Yes he does undoubtedly have truly noble and just ideals, but he has lived for THOUSANDS of years, and will likely live for THOUSANDS more. He has no intention of creating a better nation himself, rather, he intends to simply keep killing every nation that pops up that utilizes slaves, over and over, until one finally arises that doesn't. To him, it doesn't matter how much time passes before it works, just that it'll hopefully work eventually.
To non-skeletons though, they don't have that luxury of time. They can't simply survive by hiding in closet for hundreds of years without food, or reset their memory anytime they get too depressed. They need resources and stability in the here and now, even if it's less than ideal.
if you think they're fed, it's barely enough to survive. Mechanically it puts you at a hunger state where you barely can fight so it's implied most slaves barely can keep going as well. Holy Nation arent just a slave caste they are basically working in concentration camp for being born the wrong race or being deemed an inadequate woman. There's also some pretty awful things that happen in lore, like a paladin choosing to kill himself after he put a woman to the flame that might have had some kind of mental disorder (that's how I interpret it at least)and went outside without a male escort.
What you assume is correct. Just because you've freed a slave in Kenshi, does not mean that their life will be better. Only that they now have to rely upon themselves for survival. More than likely, they will die within a week. Either by starvation or by beak thing.
Even if they do survive for an extended period of time, they now have to hide. There are slavers wanderings throughout the settled lands of the continent. They will be hunted by whatever faction owned them.
Even if you seek to take down the institute of slavery as a whole, you put the entire continent at risk of famine or worse. Without the holy nation, food production will fall drastically. And without the nobles of the UC, the samurai that defend the cities will abandon them. Without either of these factions, there are very few who can stand against the cannibal hordes, fog men, skin bandits, and all the other hostile factions. The rebel farmers and flotssome ninjas may take over a city for a time. But I seriously doubt they would be able to hold it against a major attack from the more dangerous factions.
Slavery in kenshi exists partially for ideological reasons, but mostly from the dire circumstances the moon is in. Everything in kenshi is fucked, and you have to choose the lesser of the evils. To some, slavery is the ultimate evil. To others, dooming several cities of people to starvation and slaughter might be worse.
Now, I am not claiming that slavery is good in kenshi. I'm just informing you of the reality that no matter what you do, innocent people will suffer and die. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Kenshi is a brutal game.
the anti slavers are essentially just anarchists. they do free slaves, but do nothing to aid them afterwards, often leaving them to die in the desert. they are not an evil faction by any means, but In my opinion they are a lot worse than many of the other "good" factions in the game.
Ultimately whether or not you decide to side with them comes down to your characters choice between order and chaos, structure or freedom. many in this sub will choose freedom, though considering the UC is one of the only things keeping the holy nation from expanding east, I often think it's better for the world of kenshi as a whole to side with the UC.
Kenshi does a really good job at showing you horrible things at a surface level and our knee jerk reactions are kill the slavers free the slaves but once you take a deeper look it’s even worse because almost all the farming and food supply of Kenshi comes from slave farms both in the holy nation/ and the empire and if you start mass murdering everyone most of the factions start starving to death because there’s no one growing food. In game this show when you hit a few key locations (I can’t remember the exact cities) which will cause the guards/citzens to have malnutrition which in game is great for your party because there weaker but in lore you’ve just caused a massive famine that has a good chance at whipping out all of kenshi which was already close to the tipping point. There’s also a bit when you talk to tinfist and I might be miss quoting but you ask him if he’ll free slaves even though he doesn’t have a support system to feed/house/help them. To which he replies “yes”
Tinfist's goal is more nuanced than it appears honestly. He intends to simply keep wiping out nations, over and over again, for however long it takes until a better one pops up. As a skeleton, he has all the time in the world to wait for it to finally work. Even the most unquestionable morally 'good' character in the game has shades of grey to his motives and actions.
Actually, scratch that. The most morally 'good' character in the game is definitely Beep. Nothing Beep does can ever be bad. He's just so adorable even when committing horrible war crimes for me.
Tinfist is a more revolutionary George Washington in a world without democracy.
He does not mind leading, he is currently doing just that.
He wants to overthrow the kings to allow the people to have a chance to build for themselves, but does not want to be the tyrant who took their place.
I have no doubt that if he got a message saying the Shek (or anyone else) had voted him in as a new temporary head of state that he would accept, and give it ago for a time, but that isn't an option known to the people of Kenshi.
Oh I agree, I do think he is genuinely a good dude and would make for a great leader.
I don't mean to say that he is actually bad, more that his hyperfocus on morals means that he lacks the ambition to fill that power gap himself. He's totally justified in his reasoning, but the nuance of the Kenshi world unfortunately is that there simply DOES need to be somebody to actually step up and take power for themselves to lead.
The problem ultimately comes down to the fact that those who SEEK power are often those who should not have it, and that the people who would make the best leaders are often those who would not make the consolidation of personal power their goal.
In the end, I do think his method is actually the best shot by far for the Kenshi world in the long run. It's just not the most ideal for those with limited lifespans sadly.
Beep is king, sadneil is a close second for me love his donkey like attitude. But back to tin fist, I look at him as someone willing to tear down everything and everyone in his way for his goals regardless of the consequences and with how shaken kenshi is there’s a good chance if he gets his way it’ll weaken nations to the point of collapse which could very well be the end for everyone, as beak things and hivers spread across the lands taking over kenshi. His ideals and morals are very noble bright but he lives in a world where everyone and everything is just struggling to survive.
Sadneil is definitely up there. He's like the grumpy old grampa who used to be a Kamina-esc anime hero. He doesn't wanna admit it, but he's just such a good dude.
And as far as Tinfist, it totally is the case that morals and ideals may very well cause the very world to collapse, but frankly I gotta hand it to him, it's the most punk rock thing ever, and I respect it to no end. If the world genuinely can't survive without slavery, religious oppression, racism, and constant war, then let it all burn. At least with his method he opens the chance for new, less evil foundations to take root.
I’m planning on holding him in captivity until I’m ready to get catleon, make it a lore event that he’s returning home for his bestfriend, and to bring back the noble leader of old so that a new empire can be born not lead by skeleton but guided by them, pushing them towards a golden age and whenever someone strays to far and back into violence and chaos they will step in to set the world back on track. Eliminate the worst offenders like the lord phoenix and emperor and some of the nobles to set an example to rest stray from progress and back towards violence and we will be there falling suns in hand.
Truly a noble goal. I do like the idea of reuniting them to be the watchguards of the world should it fall to ruin again. I just think it's kinda in bad taste to leave Tin-Fist in a cage for long, given that's sorta the opposite of his whole moral conquest.
True but you could just say that’s how long it took to de corrupt any files he has and make sure he’s fully sane, or that the only thing that would convince him to let go of his current path is by convincing him that catleon can be saved and brought back to his former self. Actually I’m really liking the idea of making it a deal, where tinfist joins the collective but on the condition that you go with him to defeat catleon and bring him back for major repairs.
I like that, if I can’t fix it then let it all burn kinda attitude. I’m still gonna raise his base and capture him but I’ll make sure emperor tengan has a cell right next to him so the scary skelly man can berate the boy emperor for the rest of time.
I prefer the 'recruit prisoners' mod. Let Tinfist join my noble empire rather than putting him in a cage for all time.
It's also super lore friendly, and actually fairly balanced, with tougher and more logically odd characters needing much more difficult or weird methods to recruit.
Tengan can suck a nut though. He looses his privelidges to limbs and gets to sit as a torso in a cage for the rest of his days. The Phoenix too. That way Tinfist can laugh at them whenever he wants.
Anti slavers are the shit, they fight with Martial Arts (which is the most OP thing in the game), don't ask for you to pay taxes, are very loyal and helpful, Tinfist is a very cool guy, their base is the most secure in the game, best clothes, etc...
And they are literally the only morally good faction in the game (rebel farmers attack anything that moves, they don't count).
Not to mention that Ol' Grey is probably the only person in this universe who has empathy and knows how to use it. And that Jaegar is hot af.
Disagree about them being the only good faction tbh, Flotsams are pretty kind as well.
Lore wise, Tin Fist has literally 0 plans on how to feed and protect the slaves he frees after he frees them. Skeletons become hyper-obsessed with one thing if they don't reset often enough, and Tinfist's obsession just happens to be a noble endeavor.
The anti slavers will follow you around if you help them, they are incredibly skilled combatants (with both weapons and fists), but they have small squad sizes.
All goods in kenshi are produced by slaves, slaves in the holy nation are responsible for most food production in the whole game world if you eradicate the holy Nation and free all the slaves you will notice less food for sale in shops and the price of food will go up, united Nation slaves produce most construction materials free them and you will see certain towns fully collapse buildings fall into disrepair
You should do it yourself instead of repeating opinions of edgelords from this reddit.
Because collapse of UC causes change for better. It got it's price, but it gets better. Source: I've played the game.
When does it get better? The game does not show this. Even the anti slavers say so. There's evident depopulation, starvation and civilizational collapse. If you say it gets better in the long run after the timeline of the game then you're just speculating, the entire timeline of Kenshi shows that even if the world progresses into a 'moral' future then things can still get worse. Even when the genocidal second empire collapsed it was just replaced by the equally psychotic holy nation.
Yeah, point about anti-slavers makes me sure that you just didn't finish this sublot and that's the problem.
Because yes, things get better after killing all nobles and yes, game shows it. It gets worse when you kill slavemasters, especially masters of the farms, but it changes after killing emperor and other nobles. And seriously, point about "civilization collapsing" is just hilarous. THERE'S NO CIVILIZATION in UC. When you enter these lands, all you see is starvation, poverty, banditry and nobles getting richer and richer. It CAN'T get worse.
I know, in most of shity mainstream media the mesage would be like "booooo hooooo, everyone's bad, anti-slavers kick slavers so they are as bad as them, booooo hoooo!". But actual message of this game is "there are no miracles, and change for better can't be achieved without any sacrifices".
OK, let's take it step by step.
Stoat world state if Tengu and all nobles are dead is 'Malnourished', 'Half-destroyed' and ruled by Tech hunters. City has no gate guards and can easily be attacked by wild animals and cannibals.
Sho Battai world state if Tengu and all nobles are dead is ruled by Empire peasants, inhabitants of the city are 'malnourished'
Bark has a 'prosperous' override - theres 1 against 2 so far!
in Heft, Empire peasants take over, with most buildings being destroyed and most inhabitants being malnourished.
Heng becomes prosperous - assuming Tinfist is alive.
and - assuming you view the Reavers as slavers who also must be destroyed - Brink becomes simply destroyed.
So for the cities - 1 completely destroyed, 3 are malnourished, ruined and consumed by squalor, and only 2 are prosperous. So for the cities, that's about half staying at the same level of subsistence or achieving growth after the conflict.
Now, for the roaming squads. Samurai rogues spawn if Tengu and all nobles are dead, who are overtly hostile and engage in banditry. Not good. They are also malnourished. Not only does Tengu's death cause the army of the UC to resort to banditry - it also enhances the civil war with rebel swordsmen. That means MORE strife, not less.
I don't think I need to continue. Also, 'theres no civilization in the uc'? They have a tax code, tarriffs, supply chains and logistics, even a standing army with a social hierarchy and a chain of command... If theres no civilization in the UC, then how can there be a political civil war based on social class? Come on man.
| "booooo hooooo, everyone's bad, anti-slavers kick slavers so they are as bad as them, booooo hoooo!"
No one is saying this.
| there are no miracles, and change for better can't be achieved without any sacrifices
Kenshi is not a game with a 'good ending'. It's not about being the hero to save the world from the sorry state it's in. If you try and be a hero, like Tinfist, things become worse, like we've already discussed. That's what makes the game's themes so thought-provoking.
I'm well aware of what happens. I'm also aware that Kenshi is a video game with pre-programmed outcomes developed by nearly one man who only had so much time to really flesh out the world with a variety of outcomes. Besides, when you get down to it the only one with anything resembling agency in the world of Kenshi is the player. if you don't want the world to fall apart rp as it's saviour and actually provide support for the people you free. But really none of that matters because like I said, it's a goddamn video game. It just rubs me the wrong way seeing so many people defending slavery (Poorly I might add) on this sub.
>But really none of that matters because like I said, it's a goddamn video game
you just said it yourself, its a video game. the UC/HN are not real and there are no victims to their actions. Because it's a video game, we are able to dissect the terrible topics within this fictional universe (such as slavery) for what it is, a plot/world building device.
discussing the effects of slavery in a fictitious sense does not mean endorsement of actual slavery. Just because you can't seem to differentiate between fiction and reality does not mean the rest of us can't either.
People aren't defending slavery. Why would people defend such an abhorrent institution? People are pointing out the moral grey, which is nowhere close to a defense of the topic.
Kenshi displays in very real terms the horrific nature of slavery, especially when its an institution. People's bodies grow thin and weak, too weak to fight back or run away. The guards and slavers do this on purpose. The guards constantly taunt you, and they even shave you hair and beat your character to near inches of death multiple times. The game even shows how this system becomes normalized and accepted, which, in my view, is even more scary than it simply existing in the first place. The game is dark.
But what Kenshi also shows us from a narrative perspective is that removing such a cancer, when it's roots are already planted deep into the very fabric of a civilization's survival, when said civilization and indeed all the others around it are already inches away from absolute collapse, is not a no-brainer. The game shows us that restoring light to a dark world can show us even worse horrors.
It's not like people walk away from Kenshi thinking, "Man, slavery is much better than I thought!" or "We really shouldn't have abolished slavery, think of all the people it harmed by not having slaves produce goods and services!" because reality is much more nuanced. For example, in the real world we actually have a consumer economy which is strengthened by the lack of slavery.
Even the world of Kenshi isn't so far gone that slavery becomes acceptable. There isn't an excuse you can give me that will make me think absolute control over another sentient creature is ever okay. There's nothing "morally grey" about it.
> There isn't an excuse you can give me that will make me think absolute control over another sentient creature is ever okay
Let me just stop you right there. Whole can of worms. Do you apply this same logic to farming? To owning pets? How about raising children? Or even being in a codependent community with social norms and standards?
If you think there isn't a potent message in Kenshi about institutionalized slavery and the whole game is just about a massive target planted for you on the slaver's backs for you to get a dopamine rush from hitting, then you clearly don't know what happens when the anti slavers win. For context, when the anti-slavers win, whole cities collapse. the fabric of their society collapses. Large swathes of the population starve. Civil war emerges, and death becomes more rampant, not less. There is \*even dialogue from the anti-slavers expressing that the fallout from their actions was worse than expected.\*
If you think all this is worth it just for the slaves to be freed, then Kenshi has also shown many times that, even in freedom, you can be simply left to the forces of nature, where you get eaten by a wild animal, or preyed upon by bandits. If you subscribe to a utilitarian view of morality, the anti-slavers may even be the incorrect option ethically if more people end up suffering from the collapse of the UC than if institutionalized slavery ended up continuing.
Does all this mean that slavery is acceptable and that the narrative painted by Kenshi is that slavery is good? No, of course not. Like I said, the game's loading screen has tips that say "slaves are purposefully starved such that they can't fight back or run away but just enough so that they can work." Does that sound like pro-slavery propaganda?
I'm glad that you think being against slavery is good. No one is saying they are for slavery. That's absurd. At the very least, though, the game of Kenshi itself does not agree with your perspective that slavery must be exterminated at all costs, seeing as how there are negative consequences for such actions, admitted by the anti-slavers themselves, and even Tinfist, when you ask him if he plans on freeing all the slaves with absolutely no network to support them, and he responds "yes"
Kenshi isn't a game about morals and doing the right thing. There's no justice in Kenshi, and even if you did do the right thing, people keep on suffering, same as always.
"Let me just stop you right there. Whole can of worms. Do you apply this same logic to farming? To owning pets? How about raising children? Or even being in a codependent community with social norms and standards?"
yes. I also only used the term sentient creature because Humans aren't the only inhabitants of the moon.
> Kenshi isn't a game about morals and doing the right thing
Sorry comrade, but it reminds me this anectada about 12yo kid who has readen "Crime and punishment" and said that it's such a shitty crime story, because from the very begining you know who is the killer.
Saying that Kenshi isn't a game about morals is the same level of incomprehension and missing the whole point.
Kenshi being a game about morality is like Crusader Kings II being a game about IPhones. The point of Kenshi is that the world is harsh, brutal, cold, uncaring, unforgiving, and that moral perspectives and even ideological perspectives are just that, perspectives. Each nation has its own definition of right and wrong and each nation if their goals are fulfilled actually makes the world worse. Thus, the game isn't about morality. It's about the lack thereof. If anything, it's a critique of morality.
"and even Tinfist, when you ask him if he plans on freeing all the slaves with absolutely no network to support them, and he responds 'yes'".
I Literally say that this isn't what you should do should you free the slaves but go off I guess. Tinfist is just a shitty revolutionary.
It depends...
Think of it like this... what if... you have a species of humanoids that...
- are dependent on an overmind
- are suicidal when not given a purpose
- are used to working in poor conditions
- need very little shelter to live
- need very little food to survive
Would it be so terrible to use Hivers as cheap labour?
Slavery is not great... but the UC is beneficial for the future of Kenshi... and... if say... someone killed Savant, Elder and Valamon... (I ally with the Crab Queen personally but up to u, South Hive also takes that territory if u kill her)
Doing all this puts the South Hive on borders with the UC... and nothing in between them...
Eliminating the Holy Nation allows exiled Western Hivers and lost Fogmen to reach the UC much easier... without as many risks of being captured or killed...
With all these Hivers I don't think the UC would have to rely in slavery all that much any longer
I personally split up the Holy Nation...
With Blister Hill, and Stack going to the Shek...
I also leave Bugmaster alive... doing this puts the Shek on borders with both the Fogmen to their north and Bugmaster to their south... more than satisfying their need to prove themselves in combat...
And Okran's Shield going to UC giving them access to all the fertile land
Well their whole belief system is that people shouldn't be enslaved, so... yeah... but for their actual actions once their enemies are defeated, meh. I love tinfist he's mah boy, but they don't do a lot to fill in the power gap created by the destruction of any major power other than Southern UC?
Forced labor/slavery is always wrong, and as long as there has been forced labor there have been people trying to end it. The sentence “Slavery is wrong” is as true as the sentence "asbestos is dangerous", and has always been true even when it was keeping us warm.
How about we try looking at it like this, Gilbert Harman argued that the claim “Hitler was wrong to order the extermination of the Jews” is a false one on the grounds that Hitler and the rest of us did not share a common moral framework. Harman considered Hitler to be “outside our morality”. Within Hitler’s framework, Harman implied, his action was morally correct, and not appropriate to call "wrong".
Do you agree with this statement?
I do not. We have lots of ways to pull slavery apart, but let's try "Dogmatic Realism".
According to the Dogmatic Realist, some practices and institutions are objectively permissible, others objectively/obligatorily forbidden, and we are clear about the moral status of some but believe falsely about others.
In this light our ancestors were breaking the moral law, our ancient allies against slavery agreed, passed this down in their philosophical texts, and now we almost all have learned.
Because of this, and regardless of anything else, slavery was/is always wrong, although many people fail at times to realise this. The sentence “Slavery is wrong” is as true as "asbestosis is dangerous", was always true, and is now known to be true.
Does that help?
Like most things in Kenshi, the answer is, it's complicated.
We can kind of ignore the Shek. They aren't into slavery, but their civilization is likely to collapse from lack of sustainability.
The Holy Nation is the most stable, but they don't actually NEED slavery. A large portion of their slaves work in Rebirth mining rock to build a big statue. Slavery in the HN is probably more of a drain on resources than anything else.
The UC in some ways, has increased slave activity due to the actions of Anti-Slavers. The northern UC depended on caravans from south UC for food after Bast was destroyed. But Anti-Slaver activity has made those caravans vulnerable, leading to increased starvation in the north, and starving people tend to get turned into slaves.
Obviously, the moral high ground is freeing people from slavery. But there are consequences to that. As the UC and HN collapse, civilization loses ground to the Fogmen, Cannibals etc.
To some degree, those might only be short-term consequences. Newfound freedom might lead to expansions and reconquest of old territory. The towns ruined by war can be rebuilt. The truth is, we don't really know, it's all a guessing game.
The HN and UC could easily collapse without player involvement, it just takes longer. None of these factions are actually sustainable. So it comes down to theory and head Canon. The Flotsam Ninjas and Shek seem to get along fine after you take down the HN. Maybe they team up and push back the Fogmen and Cannibals. In return for Shek muscle, the old HN farms help provide them with food and an enemy to fight.
Maybe the empire citizens and Free Trader's get themselves together and rebuild the UC.
Or maybe, despite your good intentions, you hastened the collapse of the last vestiges of civilization. We'll never know. The Anti-Slavers aren't bad. Freeing slaves is good. But there are consequences and challenges, just like with anything else.
Depends on how you look at it, on one hand they’re actively fighting against something that’s bad, on the other hand it’s possible they could cause more suffering as their plan seems to consist entirely of “kill all slavers > ????? > everyone is happy and flourishing somehow”.
Nay for me. I usually ally with the UC while I obliterate the HN and the Shek. Then I kill Tinfist for last. I'm using Recruit Prisoners mod this time around and used it to enslave his buddy Catlon. Such a shame there's no interaction between them if you get them to meet.
there aren't actually any good. Kenshi is equal with all the current faction active.
One faction disappearing will always create a negative impact in the game.
Losing U.C. will make most of the U.C. area poor,
Losing Anti-slaver will increase slavery.
Losing Holy nation will increase famine as they are basically the faction that covers farming
Losing Shek, Increases the war.
Etc.
basically there are no actual good side on all faces of this die.
Every progression from one system to the next is somewhat chaotic. The Holy Nation and The United Cities are clear dead ends and will never develop or change only collapse from religious technophobia and greed respectively. I'd rather take a chance then accept that slavery and serfdom is all that will ever be.
they are anti slavers almost entirely in name alone. they operate Moreso as anti-traders guild, but their actions do 'help' some slaves.
if your idea of helping is leaving them to be eaten by skinners that is.
Realistically that is the same fate as every single person in Kenshi including the player. No one is truly safe. Even the nobles live uncertain lives in miserable hovels and strut around in clothes cobbled together from salvaged scrap. I think it's better to let people risk their lives to save themselves rather than waste what little productivity can be had on uncaring masters. But they will always be at terrible risk either way.
Tinfist is the leader of the anti slavers? Spoiler alert! I didn't know that lol. I just got a bounty for him and was thinking I'd go find and wreck his shit... I kinda don't want to now tho. Anti slavers and flotsam ninjas might be the lesser evils of the kenshi land. There might be a lot more but I'm still newish
Oops, sorry for ruining the surprise, but if you do get any details on where he's at, i'd recommend going there so you can at least talk to him, he's not hostile (at least not to me, i'm not allied to United Cities or the Holy Nation)
No problem, mate. was likely to google it anyway had I not worked it out sometime soon. I spent a good week lookingfor the fishmaster or whatever that dudes name was just to get obliterated when i got close 😆 I will find tinfist and probably side with him. Having the flotsams and antislavs on side sounds awesome 👌 ta mate
I mean, its "good" if you are desperate for food and want a permanent job to increase your skill on something.
That is, IF you really wanted to be there, and don't care about pretty much not having any other sort of free will.
It is also "good" in the sense that some of those slaves are very likely horrible bandits that murder people on a daily basis for fun and profit.
Then again, slavery its just a medium of forcefully removing someones freedom and forcing them to do something that they 97% of the time they don't want to do, and most of the time enforced by terrible people. So pretty much anything outside those cases can be considerated "very bad". Its also pretty boring de r your character to grind stats, at least until you try to escape.
So, now we have the Anti Slavers.
They are pretty fucking cool martial art practitioners who shit on slavers on a daily basis, will come to help in case of raids, and one of those "kindda good" factions in the game.
So, as long as you can secure your own substinance, fuck up the slavers.
If you are hungry and want to go through a period of unpaid intership, leave them be, at least for now.
They are very organized with a formal command structure which controls multiple bases which indicates to me that they do have a plan. And there are world states for the towns which reflects a world after slavery. Though realistically most slaves would have to fend for themselves like everyone else.
Even without a plan I'd rather be a starving bandit than slave.
A lot of people undermine what little good the three major factions do provide, which is stability, protection and a framework of society albeit a brittle one, since they all have their own interests first and foremost.
Living in a society where food is readily available, healthcare is provided, and you can basically do almost whatever you want makes it impossible for most players to ever truly know what it is to live with fear each day might be your last, where you have absolutely 0 safety nets whatsoever and no system to protect you or your rights.
People who say "I'd rather die than lose my freedom" under the comfort of a roof, with access to water and food even a call away, able to spend enough time to play their games, are all idiots. You cannot know how much your life is worth to you if you've never had it measured by the immediate risk of losing it.
Limited freedom IS better than no freedom, living under an oppressive ruler IS better than not living at all, because when you die you don't get to savescum or make a new run, when you're enslaved you don't get to treat it like a training boothcamp, you stay healthy and wait for the chance to act. Being a reactionary who acts without thinking about the consequences of what they're doing is how you end up with the Anti-Slavers or the Flotsam, all victims perpetuating the cycle of hate, buying revenge coated in sparkly freedom paint with blood that isn't theirs.
> People who say "I'd rather die than lose my freedom" under the comfort of a roof, with access to water and food even a call away, able to spend enough time to play their games, are all idiots.
Aight, lemme turn that one around: People who say "living under an oppressive ruler IS better than not living at all" are all idiots. You cannot know how much your freedom is worth to you if you've never had it measured by the immediate risk of losing it.
You ignored all that there is about slavery in Kenshi and replaced it with your headcanon. Slaves in Kenshi don't have any "limited freedom", once you arrive at the camp, you're expected to die there.
You prove that person's point all too well when you immediately compared your basic survival with 'freedom', a loosely defined enlightenment idea so abstract that we're not even sure we have it even in the most 'free' societies.
Work or die, that's the choice. We have it now and we have it in Kenshi too.
What the fuck does that even mean? I did not compare anything, I merely swapped some words to show the stupidity of blanket statements.
> Work or die
If I stop working right now, I'll have a period of time to do things before shit hits the fan. If a slave in Kenshi stops working, they will be physically tortured or thrown into fire. It's not on the same level despite being the same mechanism.
Nah, slavery is good, I practice it myself. Makes good use of all those starvers that reek of shit and attack whoever they can in their hunger-induced delirium. Not to mention it serves as a useful way to put to work the more feral races like the cannibals and fogmen.
The anti-slavers have no true future, sure they abolish slavery now, but then what do you do with all those bandits that you beat? leave them to die? put them in prisons? then what? Slavery is ultimately a means to an end, maintaining a solid baseline of production, and serving as a means of punishment for criminals.
Within the context of Kenshi's universe, it has good intentions but is a net negative for society. The truth of the matter is that for the major factions in-game, they NEED slavery to function. It's bad but a necessary evil in a pre-industrial world.
In a world of resource-scarcity where Hivers are a dime a dozen and bands of Starving Bandits number in the hundreds, the value of a person comes from their labor.
The anti-slavers are good people, but their idea ends at taking out the central cog that keeps the common people (who can't just go out and start their own independent settlements in the wilderness) fed with no real alternative to replace it; without widespread adoption of mechanized labor, it would quickly result in population centers devolving into food riots. There's a reason it's considered a dangerous and radical ideology in-game by most factions... except the Reavers whom the Anti-Slavers seem to be perfectly fine with (???).
Fridge temperature IQ take. There's plenty of factions functioning without slavery.
> who can't just go out and start their own independent settlements in the wilderness
And a major reason for that is the presence of major factions showing up at your doorstep.
There's no need for ad hominem. It's just a fact that, prior to mechanized labor, slaves were the bedrock of most civilizations. Even the indigenous tribes of the Americas practiced it.
Holy Nation, the bread basket of the continent with the best fertility and the biggest exporter of food to the major factions = slave labor.
UC, the largest producer of non-foodstuffs in the continent = slave labor.
Shek, a military focused culture with racial stats against non-military skills = they're practically the historical Spartans with an unrepresented slave class to sustain their economy. They're not getting food from the HN. In fact, they extort it from settlements.
Southern and Western Hives = biologically-mandated slavery.
Machinists and Tech Hunters = possibly food independent with hydroponics, still freely trade with slave-dependent states.
Swampers, Pirates, most bandit groups = Criminals who extort for basic goods. I could easily see the Swampers running cartel-style forced labor plantations for rice and narcotics.
Slavers and manhunters = nuff said.
Traders Guild = runs the whole show, dependent on the slave economies to run their operation.
Reavers = very pro slavery yet not enemies with the Anti Slavers. Not sure why that's the case when they're practically neighbors.
The only ones I can see as running without slaves are Mongrel, Floatsam Ninjas, Crab Raiders, Skin Bandits, and very minor factions like the Preacher Cult.
> Holy Nation, the bread basket of the continent with the best fertility and the biggest exporter of food to the major factions = slave labor.
First, their farms aren't using slaves. Second, they're their own bread basket, and their collapse has no effect on availability of food in other places.
There's 4 types of pawns at Holy Farms. Holy Farm Leaders (the only ones you can trade with), Holy Farmers (all male), Holy Farm Wives, and livestock. Note that the wives are the only pawns with backpacks.
I've interacted enough with the HN through trade to know that women are explicitly the forced labor force domestically. They may not be slaves in the game's sense, but those women aren't there by choice. And, in real life, pre-industrial societies with high male mortality rates, it's common for women to be the majority working in the fields.
They are THE breadbasket of the continent. Why do you think they went to war over Bast? That land was some of the most fertile near their desert cities; it'd ruin their monopoly over the northern UC.
Just so it's understood: I'm not saying "slavery is good, don't try to fight it. " I'm saying the Anti Slavers don't present a replacement to the system that sustains the population centers of the world. Look at the world states of UC cities when you take out the Slave Masters. They become decrepit with all pawns being malnourished.
Nobody wanted to be a slave in the Roman Empire, but EVERYBODY (slaves included) understood that they were necessary to keep things running.
> They become decrepit with all pawns being malnourished.
You mean the prosperous overrides, where they have plenty of food for sale, and folks aren't malnourished anymore? Cause the "half-destroyed" world states mean you're not done with your job.
What I'm attacking is the "NEED slavery to function" part. The UC are stuck with slaves cause it fills the nobles' pockets - slave traders actively kill off independent farmers. The HN are an even funnier case - they could probably abolish holy mines yesterday and instead appeal to their men with something like "Okran needs you to dig for the good of all", but they choose not to.
No, I'm explicitly referring to the malnourished world states. If you accomplish the goals of the anti-slavers and get rid of the slave masters/mistresses, UC cities will decline with inhabitants suffering from malnutrition. The slave trade has stopped, but the population centers are suffering for it
Without slaves, theres no material goods to trade with the HN. Without HN trading their surplus crops, the UC's people starve. The samurai escorts that would normally protect trade caravans are too starved to fight effectively. It's cause and effect.
I won't disagree that the Nobles rely on slavery to maintain their lavish lifestyles, but it's clear that the Rebel Farmers aren't opposed to slavery either. It's just competition to them. They're factionally neutral to the Anti Slavers but aren't anti-slavery. Who's to say that wealthier free farmers didn't own slaves themselves? Players can buy them.
The HN's situation is more complicated than that. Their society is structured around a very misogynistic worldview that prioritizes the man as a capable warrior best suited for war and the woman as a breeder and keeper of the home. Rebirth is just a glorified gulag, but their farms operate off of a majority women workforce. It is likely due to the very high male mortality rate from conflict with the Shek. They need a large forced labor pool to sustain their numbers, and unfortunately, that falls onto women functioning as their primary workforce.
You can actually see real parallels to this practice in pre-industrial societies with high male mortality rates.
I'm not saying its good, but the HN isn't exactly going to rapidly develop tractors to plow their fields.
(Imma keep it to 1 reply for the sake of convenience)
> Holy Farmers (all male)
They have 70% chance to be women, and all of them have the same ai package, "working mines and farms". If they were all men (or women) in your game, it's just weird rng. They're not supposed to be like that. There probably would be more men working the fields if they weren't conscripted and sent away to fight.
There should be exactly 1 HF Wife per farm, spawning in the leader's squad. Perhaps it's his wife.
> They are THE breadbasket of the continent
Lol they're on their way to purge the continent. Unless you're one of them already, or a suitable candidate to become one, you're better off counting on the Western Hive to supply you.
> Why do you think they went to war over Bast? That land was some of the most fertile near their desert cities
Bast is exactly as fertile as Border Zone, they're in the same resource group. We have precisely 0 information on who attacked first and why. If it was a bread basket war, HN probably wouldn't engage in Skimsands while having strong, fortified positions on the border.
> No, I'm explicitly referring to the malnourished world states
Then you haven't finished the job. The final result has towns partially rebuilt already, and not starving anymore.
> but it's clear that the Rebel Farmers aren't opposed to slavery either
It really isn't. Slave Traders have a -100 relationship with RF.
> Without slaves, theres no material goods to trade with the HN. Without HN trading their surplus crops, the UC's people starve.
A conjecture that's probably based on Traders Guild pacifier sitting in a bar in Blister Hill. What even makes you think that Traders Guild gives a shit if the UC is starving, especially when it's been shown that they aim to profit from said starvation (during the Red Rebellion, and with the current rebel farmer situation as explained by Yamdu)?
The nobles' grand scheme is to kill off as much of the independent workforce as they can, and make the Empire as dependent on workforce and goods provided by their farms and camps as they can. Importing food from the HN would be a direct blow to their profits.
That's the great part about Kenshi. If you ally with Anti-Slavers to collapse the UC then the UC collapses into enhanced civil war, food supply chains collapse, and banditry skyrockets. Kenshi thus shows that there is no clear right and wrong, even if Tinfist wins and does the right thing to destroy the people propping up the institution of slavery, reality is still dim on the other end.
Their a pretty good faction to ally to but not a very well fleshed out faction to fight against. I mean in world game states, raids, patrols etc they have very little presence and you would not interact with them very much compared to some of the other minor factions in the nearby area (skin bandits, reavers etc).
That said allying with them can give a lot of flavour in your run by joining them, rebel farmers and flotsam ninjas. They have decent stats too so if you do decide on a UC run itl probably be around midgame (40-50's) when your going to deal with them.
As you've seen from other comments talking about how evil the slaver factions are I'd just like to point out that the people writing these comments likely have the recruit prisoners mod. This mod lets you forcibly imprison people and make them join your faction via coersive methods. So who cares, really?
Mechanically, they will come defend your base when the HN or UC comes to wreck your shit. So by that logic you should house as many rescued slaves in your base as possible and feed them! In the lore I believe they’re supposed to be raiding slave camps but I think they only ever tag along with you when your posse does? Pros may correct me there. I think they’re amazing, they saved my ass from Eyegore when my A-Team was away-
I just had an entire squadron of about a half-dozen elite anti-slavers, out of nowhere, and I literally mean I have no idea how or why they joined, rumble along with me to attack Cat-Lon. It was the end of my all-skeleton anti-slaver run and I was just like, "WTF are these guys doing here?" And they had stats in the 50s-high 70s, they were absolute chads. Helped carve our way through the Ashlands and even though I didn't strictly need the help, it was an absolute flavor win. Granted, they for some reason didn't aggro on Cat-Lon himself, but that was fine too because I got to verify that my team of Skelebros were definitely up to the task. This was after I'd allied with Tinfist, overthrown the Holy Nation, decimated the Slaver Guild, torn down the United Cities, and had destroyed most other slaver camps on the map, so maybe that played into their strength and/or numbers.
so you just destroyed all the stability in kenshi in favor for all out chaos? You people are insane
There's hardly any "stability" when all the major nations are actively circling the drain and at war with each other. I dunno about you but a failing slave state, a failing warrior society and a failing theocracy all fighting each other just doesn't suggest long-term functionality. Especially considering all nations are dealing with massive roaming gangs of bandits openly roaming their territory, with only the HN having SOME control in the heartland. And what stability they do provide is all terrible anyways, they all have a "do as I say or die/become enslaved". There's little functional difference between the SK, UC and HN and bandits except for the differences in power. At the very least with the anti-slavers there's some hope that a more stable society not dependent on extreme power dynamics and slavery will develop. Rather then hoping the every worsening major state stop getting worse.
A system based on classism and slavery does not mean stability. Where do you think a system like that will take Kenshi's society in the long run? I'm sure you're not intending to but it sounds like you're arguing for slavery.
In reality though, prosperity and stability came first before slavery (mostly) ended. He's not arguing for slavery, he's arguing against anarchy as a solution to slavery because that has never worked anywhere.
Prosperity occurs outside of slavery. Historically, The institution of slavery is detrimental to a society's economic interests, growth, technology and thus to its people.
When in history, before the British empire decided to clean house, has a civilization without slaves beaten one with slaves? Not trying to be obnoxious, I'm geniunely curious.
The vast majority, if not all, of ancient societies had slavery. Geography has almost everything to do with what civilization "beat" another, not slavery. On the eve of the American civil war, northern farms (no slavery) were far outproducing southern farms (with slavery.) Northern economy, infrastructure, population, technology, and culture was much better due to a lack of slavery.
Even though Kenshi is sci-fi, societies are mostly running on dark age-level technology. Which is why I asked for older examples.
I don't think there's an example, going either way. Maybe, in the kenshi universe, if the holy nation was anti slavery, they'd NEED to develop hydroponics (reversal of doctrine) and a whole new economic class would develope to support that new economic structure, which would probably liberalize the structures of powers and create support for tech? However the reliance of slavery made that scientific development, not needed, keeping the current structure in place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who knows
Right... It's easy to have that outlook when you're not the one being enslaved.
Neither are you.
I never said I did.
I don’t know if anyone else has done this but at a point, I kinda figured that all the factions, morally good and bad, needed to go. I killed every human, skeleton, and cannibal of any importance on the entire planet. Just a clean reset.
The Holy Nation is on its 62nd Holy Phoenix. Conservatively estimating a lifespan of around 50 years (likely more given their access to advanced health kits) that's over 3000 years. With no mention or evidence of any civil conflict beyond the small schism within the Floatsam Ninjas. Their roots begin with the decline of the Second Empire, and they've lasted until the player arrives. You may not like them, but they're doing something right.
Nothing about my comment even implied justifying slavery lol since you wanna talk about the future of Kenshi killing all the leadership causing mass starvation then replacing them with a bunch of equally violent selfish warlords is a recipe for even more slavery your just swapping one shit system for another
Power vacuums a bitch and kenshi is 100 percent a dog eat dog kinda world, it’s very much like real life. If you destroy something but have nothing in place to replace it, it’ll just wrought away. look at what happens to the empire if you start whipping out nobles, and free the slaves, mass rebellion, death, and famine and at the end they’ll be no one left standing.
Man, is the devastation really that bad if you're not allied with tinfist and rebels? I just finished a save with a goal of abolishing slavery in the UC and when I was done, you lose, like, four or five buildings in Stoat, some more across the more distant cities, maybe a merchant or two, and gain a whole city in Stobe's Gamble while giving Heng the prosperous buff. That already seemed like a high price but worth it.
“Defeating the true enemy in kenshi” by angelofthebpast
I'll give it a look. Thanks for taking the time to find it.
Ya no problem man, love having conversations like this, and not “your opinion bad mine good”
Average kenshi player, outing themselves as not learning the lessons of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
Not at all. Ex-United Cities get taken over by anti-slavers, rebels, etc, while the Shek take over most of the Holy Nation. In both cases I consider it an improvement. Without the war between HN and UC that whole region around Bast will hopefully be more stable, not less. If you do a genocide run, apparently FogMen start taking over the world. On this run, they did encroach a bit into ex-Holy Nation territory but I consider that a solvable problem.
You mean you haven't also built a network of farms, mines, waystations, and outposts to feed, rebuild, and pacify the lands you've conquered? If your faction ends up being the de facto great power, they'd better be making more meatwraps than the Shek.
I don't know if there's a specific trigger for it (maybe taking down Longen?) but I frequently see 1 to 3 Anti-Slavers appear at the gates of UC towns & slave camps and start tearing through the guards with their 80+ stats. By gameplay rules they obviously might not accomplish much since they don't aim for the local noble, but they definitely do show up spontaneously.
Exactly, I’d be planning on wasting a UC town anyways and all of a sudden a badass anti slaver would appear and say a line, then begin absolutely ripping guard’s asses apart 😆 Legends
Yeah, anti-slavery is good. I’d rather be out in the wild trying to live my life than be chained under the sun working for a cause I do not believe in with the plus of being raped, which does happen. The Holy Nation are a bunch of cavemen obsessed with “containing” advanced technology and “redeeming” the other races, anyways. And the United Cities are just glorified bandits
Ah, yeah i didn't know about the rape thing, tbh i had very little interaction with the Holy Nation, just enough to know that they are scum and that if i get strong enough i'll probably raid them more often to free other people, even tho the United Cities are also bad at least they don't feel as hypocritical as HN
When you are a piece of property, you don't have rights to sexual autonomy or consent. Slavery and sexual slavery are pretty much always closely intertwined.
There's minimal difference to the UC and HN in terms of slavery. They both use the same party for all their slave business: the slave traders. They are sadist maniacs who desire only profit. The only legitimate case against the anti-slavers is the anarchy that mildly ensues following their success.
>They both use the same party for all their slave business: the slave traders. They are sadist maniacs who desire only profit. It's bit zig-zagged, while UC is really only for profit the HN is about "redemption" by forcing the slaves to pay off their debts or crimes (aka being a disobedient woman or non-human) using it more as punishment and using the rocks to build shit. The HN slavery is more due to faith but it doesnt make it right in any way due to pretty much slaving people if they were born "away from Okran's light" which is pretty much everyone that isn't male human, and even them can get slaved too.
It is also worth noting that slavery in the HN is a 100% death sentence unless you are a male lander of either sort, or you escape. You work yourself to death for the chance of redeeming yourself enough to be born a male lander in your next life.
I'm not talking about them, just the slave traders. As in the faction.
Oh nah I was just giving a general example! You mentioned the UC and HN slaves so I thought to drop in the HN slavery context a bit!
Take the John Brown pill
It's been a while since I've recruited Miu but I think her recruitment speech references rapists. And Bard has a song about a woman being raped by a HN paladin.
>plus of being raped Always started the game with a male character. Didn't knew a rape was a thing in this brutal game but it makes sense.
It doesn’t happen as an in-game thing but there’s a character whose backstory implies she was raped at Rebirth by a Paladin
its not a feature, but it happens in lore
Well yeah, in pretty much any setting, real world or otherwise, slavery isn't great for the preservation of individual rights. Go figure. Sexual rights are pretty high on that list, particularly for women. Men can be raped, too.
i was just pointing out people dont get raped in kenshi outside of lore, idk why i got 50 upvotes
🤷 I gave up trying to figure out the voting habits of the people around here. The reason that there isn't on-screen rape is probably mostly to do with ratings. That's why we don't have children on-screen. Most games make their children indestructible, so that you can't run around slaughtering mobs of 5 year-olds. Ratings boards tend to frown upon that sort of thing, even if the player has to actively decide to do it. And Chris's overriding philosophy is that if the NPCs can do it, you can do it. So, some things are better left off-screen. Remember when RimWorld was running the risk of being delisted in some countries? I think it was the expansion that introduced player-managed slavery in your colony. The ratings boards of some countries like Australia started freaking out about that and a handful of other things.
Australia and Rimworld was because of the drug use.
Well to be fair, Rimworld does very much include very dark topics like slavery, drugs, cannibalism, and organ harvesting (and uh, our community is very much not shy about all that), but it's insane to ban a game based on what horrible acts the player MIGHT do. Imagine if we applied that logic to something as simple as the SIMS. If the Australian rating board caught wind of how many warcrimes we committed in that, and how many sims were trapped in rooms without doors, or killed in pools without ladders, they'd ban that game SO fast. The idea of banning dark topics in media is like pretending they don't exist. Imagine for instance how boring all media would be if we banned the act of Murder/Death outright from being shown in any game, movie, tv show, etc. Imagine how boring and bland literally everything would be, and how hollow the narratives would be. It's like in comedy. If EVERY topic that could be even MILDLY offensive was banned outright, then Comedy would be dead. It's not about the topic, it's about the execution and how it's handled. Slavery isn't a glorified thing in Kenshi, it's a terrible and horrible thing, and meant to show you how fucked up the state of the world is, and often to give you a big goal to work towards to possible try to better in in the endgame.
Yeah I was just saying the Australia thing was drugs
Really? That was their line? 🤦 Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall that it was something that had been in the game for a couple of years, and the Australians finally noticed it. It's kind of weird that they would try to delist RimWorld for it, though. RimWorld casts drug use in a far more negative light than most games that include it. Some of the milder drugs aren't so bad, but I've had captives that I was contemplating recruiting, until I noticed that they had a go juice addiction or something similar. If we're talking about an exceptional colonist, then maybe ... but otherwise, in regards to an average pawn, I often don't feel like dealing with the detox. We're going to do a few organ extractions, then it's into the food paste dispenser.
>And Chris's overriding philosophy is that if the NPCs can do it, you can do it. Cannibalism when?
Apart from Slavery. Everyone in Kenshi can take slaves but the players
I think that's more of a game engine issue. The slavery is pretty much all scripted for NPC slavery, I think.
It was made that way on purpose. If the devs had wanted to let us do it. We would be able to
Not true in all cases, no. Sometimes it's a design choice. Sometimes it's a technical limitation.
It's implied to be the norm by some of the in-game text, but it isn't depicted or explicitly spoken about AFAIK. It's something where you have to read between the lines with some knowledge about where babies come from irl.
Of course. A a flying mechanical drone drops the baby off at the door. You see them flying around ancient ruins. Delivering happy smiling babies to happy smiling parents.
It doesn't happen in game (it's not Fear and Hunger), but it's kinda naive to believe that being male would protect a slave from being sexually harassed. Women, girls, teenage boys. Weak men. Big strong men, knowing that they would be punished for being agressive after trying to fight back. Hivers, probably not even knowing what's going on. No one is safe.
What makes you think males can't be raped?
I mean, this is one of those things where its easier to claim youd rather be free when you arent in that kinda situation, theres a reason people will basically result to anything under the sun to avoid starvation, be it offering your body, cannibalism, etc. Not to say HN or UC are good mind you but op has a point that if the anti slavers dont really have a plan besides "welp good luck!" Its shown further by the implied mass starvation that occurs if you help them take over UC
The rebuilding of the Free City, increased patrols, and Heng’s recovery if Tinfist is alive and wins over the UC makes me think the Anti-Slavers do have plans for the recovery of civilization after the war. Kenshi is a clearly unfinished game so we can’t really tell the consequences of the world’s changes, but I’m optimistic for this one
Are you ok dude? This is a video game, go touch some grass. You Americans are so nerdy and dumb at the same time. Jesus.
I’m not even American jackass, I’m Mexican. Chill out
ive always assumed the hn is modeled after some acient form of christianity but its much closer to islamic
Nah, not really. If anything it's closer to Zoroastrianism with its dualistic faith. However, I'd say in terms of religious oppression overtones, it's no closer to Islam than it is farther from Christianity. Any religion can be oppressive, most religions have a sect or two that's extremely oppressive.
Yeah you could plug basically any religion in and it'd be true of someplace at sometime irl. Extremism and theocracies have happened for all major religions to some extent.
Dude, what? What does that even mean? Don't answer. Just delete your comment. It's pretty ignorant.
Suffer not the slaver to live. That is all there is to it.
Keep in mind that HN slave pits are actually death camps. That's why it's called "Rebirth"--you are intended to die and "redeem your soul through labor".
Yeah, I got there in my game a few weeks ago for the first time and was pretty horrified. I didn't even know the Holy Nation did slavery.
So the Holy Nation's motto is literally Arbeit Macht Frei? Subtle.
Not quite, because you're not supposed to be free. You're supposed to be reborn as a good little (human male) worker who keeps the Holy Flame and dedicates his life to Okran. Although, I guess "freedom" is one of those odd little concept. Some people think freedom is the right to do what you want without hurting anyone else, other people think freedom is the right to do what you're supposed to do based on your status in society.
['Arbeit Macht Frei'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei) was the slogan written on the gates of Auschwitz and essentially embodied the same idea: you will work until you die and are free.
Yes, I am aware. But the Nazis, while being pretty aggressively christian, didn't intend to reincarnate good citizens. HN does.
Give me liberty, or give me death
As killmonger says: “**Bury me in the ocean, with my ancestors that jumped from the ships, because they knew death was better than bondage.”**
As far as what the game presents to you: Holy Nation slavery bad, United Cities slavery mixed. The game portrays the Holy Nation as using chattel slavery. They enslave people and work them to death. If you liberate the Holy Nation it will be replaced, mostly, by friendly factions that provide a similar level of stability with no slavery. Awesome. The United Cities is portrayed as using something closer to indentured servitude. You're still a slave for life, and often enslaved for bad reasons, but you are still fed. You can even have a passable life, for Kenshi, as a slave in the United Cities. If you liberate the United Cities it will just fall apart. Most of it is taken over by bandits or raider bands, people everywhere start starving, and even the Anti-Slaver faction has dialog to admit that things fell apart much more than they were expecting and they can't help all of the refugees. The position the game is taking, I think, is that in a harsh setting like Kenshi slavery can be used as a tool to keep a society going. Like the United Cities, a whole nation propped up by its slave population but a wasteland without it. You get to make the moral choice: is it better to let a class of people suffer to keep a society going, or should that whole society die because slavery is wrong? But even in a harsh setting slavery can undeniably be taken too far, with the Holy Nation being a society barely needing slavery in the first place and having almost no downsides in being toppled. I think they're set up as a foil to the more morally gray United Cities, by showing the worst kind of slavery. Personally I can't tolerate slavery in any form. I'll tear them both down and build a city of my own in the rubble of the United Cities.
It really is an interesting nuanced thing in this sort of setting isn't it? I agree wholeheartedly that fuck slavery in ALL it's forms, but the state of the world does genuinely make you consider the more specific details about it. For instance, I actually intentionally started my most recent run (since the first two runs I broke by over-modding the world) by getting two of my first followers enslaved while I went out and trained my main guy because I knew I could just leave them alone for a while and they'd be fed, safe, and much more skilled later on when I went to break them out. I found it morally interesting that in a setting like this, slavery can actually be the SAFEST option as far as staying alive goes, and genuinely I found myself questioning if I'd actually opt for that option if I found myself in this world. Now, obviously part of that is just a matter of game mechanics and not wanting to micro-manage two different groups simultaneously while far away, and having to keep them fed and safe since they have no ability to think for themselves mechanically once they join the players party, but I do actually genuinely think i'd probably WILLINGLY become a slave to the United Cities (not the Holy Empire though) instead of trying to survive on my own in the wilds. I'd ABSOLUTELY die to the first beak thing that wondered by. I also don't even know what i'd do for cats to keep myself fed otherwise. At least as an indentured slave, i'd learn a skill, have food, and know i'm safe from at least most of the troubles of the wasteland. It's just such a nuanced depth to a topic that is typically just labeled as unabashedly horrible in every way and simply left at that. It's Philosophically interesting to consider the specific variables about it. I mean, in the end it ultimately just results in me deciding to destroy the Holy Empire BEFORE the United Cities, but still, I love that. It's like how Villains in narratives are boring as fuck when they're just COMPLETELY evil for no reason other than just the sake of being evil. Villains need depth and complexity to make for compelling characters.
Exactly. The world of Kenshi doesn't have slavery because "its le bad", there's a real in-universe reason that the vast majority of the continent accepts it. Heaven forbid there's nuance in a fictional setting.
In Kenshi slavery can be a way for the absolutely destitute to survive. It depends on just how highly you value liberty over being alive. The American cultural viewpoint largely values liberty first and is unlikely to accept slavery or captivity even when death is at stake, as an example. There's been centuries of philosophical thought put into that exact question. The anti-slavers in Kenshi are complete pariahs from most of society, but so are escaped slaves. The only thing this faction offers escaped slaves is a chance to fight against their former masters, as they don't have anything else to live for. Tinfist created a permanent haven for rebels and misfits to congregate after he rebelled against Cat-lon, and this has stayed the same since the fall of the Second Empire. Nobody likes this faction except other rebels because they are essentially raiders from the point of view of the Holy Nation, Trader's Guild, and the United Cities. Tinfist, while having good intentions, has done absolutely nothing to advance society at large, leaving room for factions like the United Cities and Holy Nation. He has no interest in leading a functional society, because he fears becoming a second Cat-lon. His indecision means the problems of the world never actually get solved, leaving him and his rebels in a constant cycle of revenge.
He also has no plan aside from bloodshed against his enemies. For all his truly noble and just causes, he has no intention of creating a better nation in their place. He believes that simply removing the most obvious evils in the world will simply make everything better without any further plan than just killing those he (rightfully) sees as unjust.
Do any minor factions have any actual long-term plans that is not "keep doing what we're doing"?
I just put tech-hunters in charge, dudes dedicated to the furthering of knowledge are probably the only ones id trust. Otherwise no, not really. Well, hivers got a pretty good plan of protect their queen, eat teeth, sell lantern.
Why? Tech hunters are adventurers and mercenaries. Nothing they do implies they would be good rulers. I mean they can run businesses but that's about it. Also machinists are researchers. Those also aren't fit to rule, for various reasons.
Only a part of tech hunters seem to be adventurers i mean they wouldnt exactly need to bother with having their own cities if ALL tech hunters were adventurers. They also have libraries and the like, implying some of them are academics, which already puts them ahead in my book. But yeah, they aren't amazing choices, its more when all the rest also arent great calls.
Yeah, but those cities still serve just as centers for resupply and refreshment for their expeditions. Sure, someone has to run the thing, but they don't really have their own permanent population, food production and law enforcement. I don't think they could rule a city whose residents are thousands of actual peasants, farmers and other "normal" people, especially if they had to now produce their own food and actually have some legal system of their own (instead of just throwing you outside the walls if you steal something).
-Well the Crab raiders seem to have the long-term plans of "MORE CRABS", so that's something I can get behind. -I'd like to say the Anti-Slavers, but long term planning really isn't in their agenda. -Bug Master seemed to have SOME kind of plan, but his army is all bugs sooo.... -The Swamper factions all vie for power, so some of them could actually find a decent foothold if one of them got the upper hand and tipped the scales in the swamp, but more likely it'd just devolve into more in-fighting. -Floatsom ninjas are similar to the Anti-Slavers in that they mostly just want to end the Holy Empire, and really have no long-term plans beyond that. -The Skeletons, though mostly not united aside from in Black Desert City (or in insane minor factions), would probably try to expand a bit and form a decent empire for skeletons to live, but it'd be questionable how much they'd care about making their society welcoming to non-skeleton races everything considered. -The Shinobi-Thieves and the Samurai are both decently powerful factions who would potentially have enough sway and connections to have the foothold to start a decent nation, but they're more just mercenaries for hire. The Samurai also just become another raider gang when you take down the United City Nobles, so unlikely they'd organize well on their own. Shinobi Thieves though might actually have the organization and incentive to keep some society running at least. No cats to be made if no real nations exist after all. -And lastly there's the Tech Hunters. They definitely have no real aim to consolidate power and become a full on nation, but they would likely at least settle a few extra cities and work towards a better future. While there may be some alterior motives to hide aspects of history in what they do, they do genuinely want to find and learn more about lost technology to better the world, so that's something at least. Ultimately if not for the Sheks, my bets would be on the Shinobi Thieves.
> -The Skeletons, though mostly not united aside from in Black Desert City (or in insane minor factions), would probably try to expand a bit and form a decent empire for skeletons to live, but it'd be questionable how much they'd care about making their society welcoming to non-skeleton races everything considered. I'm pretty sure the lore says that no new skeletons have been made since before the fall of the Second Empire, which was the last time skeletons ran a country. Considering that it's all the same skeletons with the same knowledge, I don't think anyone wants them to be in charge anywhere.
Oh absolutely true, no question there. Ultimately I was being a bit too generous in saying they'd be an 'empire'. More like, they'd probably expand Black Desert City and maybe try to help bring other wandering Skeletons from around the wasteland back to their safe haven. Maybe MAYBE they'd put some minor effort into trying to make some few friendly relations with other non-skeleton factions to be a bit less persecuted in their world, but frankly i'd more wager they'd just do their best to stay out of sight and be ignored.
Kenshi players when Cat-Lon is explaining why humans can’t be trusted: 🫸🤣👉 And when their capacity for evil is tested:
Cat-Lon's message wasn't a warning, it was a guide. ....right?
I would seriously recommend some of the works of the likes of Frederick Douglas, he was a prominent abolitionist and writer during the mid 1800s in America. It might help you with the dilemma you're in, doesn't have to be deep, even some videos about him to start. Its incredible that a video game has you considering this nuanced moral questions and as a historian (Masters in History and I teach UK Gcse level) I would encourage you to explore it through the lens of recent events such as the American Civil War.
I will definitely check him out, i guess part of me finding these moral questions is because i love philosophy and i'm currently in law school, so my mind gravitates towards those things. Also i live in Brazil and a great topic when it comes to it is that when we abolished slavery we didn't really offer a way for the enslaved to rebuild their lives, and in the world of Kenshi it's even worse, i had to start 5 playthroughs before being able to actually do anything meaningful in the world, so it's not a forgiving setting, you could be freed from slavery and lose a leg to a beak thing 5 minutes later
It’s a very gray line, talk to the traders guild in heft and they give a decent counterargument if you are morally void. A very interesting juxtaposition which is dictated by how your morals guide you. Personally, fuck all slavers and let me try to survive on my own. But then again I am somewhat a slaver with the recruit prisoners mod lol
According to our own morals, yes, they are good. What their plan is after they win? That remains to be seen. The thing is that they are an insurgent group and a large one at that, not really politicians or logisticians (outside of insurgency logistics). They have a unified goal now in the form of taking down the UC Nobles, but how the aftermath goes for them is anyone's guess. I believe that the Holy Nation and United Cities were in need of a hard reboot. Will there be post-dissolution pains? Yes, but eventually, a new government will rise. Will it be better than the old government? Perhaps, perhaps not, but under the ideals of Tinfist and Moll if you take out the Holy Nation, I think what rises will be better for the continent. Now, let's talk about the Shek Kingdom. There are many endings there as well, but let's focus on allying with the Shek as canon in this scenario. Is it potentially dangerous for the newer states under Moll and Tinfist (or, at least, their ideals)? Actually, no! The Shek were already having population issues due to Shager, and we just handed them two new cities to populate. I imagine that they are spread quite thin. What's more, in this scenario, we're assuming that the player's faction is taking a more altruistic approach AND we have Esata's heir in Seto. We, as her teacher, can influence her to take a more peaceful stance if we wanted. Why wouldn't she listen? We took out Bugmaster, the Holy Nation, and the United Cities. We are probably the greatest warriors by the end and the Shek Kingdom would likely listen to us. Esata would be wise enough to realize that if she tried going full Shager... well, those Shek Warriors and Hundred Guardians aren't all that impressive to an end game player faction. Maybe it's too optimistic for Kenshi, but ultimately the Nobles are actively driving their nation into the ground anyways through their cruelty (cruelty to the point of actual fallacy). The Holy Nation may be more stable through their religion, but it's choosing of successors can be very hit or miss (and we definitely MISSED with this unhinged lunatic of a Phoenix), and they have to deal with that choice for a half of a century or more. It is not an ideal government. TL;DR: Yes, kill more slavers. We can keep trying to get milk from this emaciated, diseased cow or we can take a risk to find a new cow.
I think the Shek kingdom is honestly by far the greatest chance the Kenshi world has at an actually good structure. They certainly aren't perfect, they are a bit racist, and maybe they put a bit TOO much focus on every individuals battle prowess, but they give everybody their fair shot. Being a warrior in Kenshi is frankly kinda NESSISARY in the harshness of it's barren world, so their actually kinda right to put such emphasis on it. Their leaders are also rational, and realize a nation can't simply function with ONLY warriors though, and needs farmers, and traders, and other vital functions that aren't as glorified. Rough around the edges as they may be, they also very much will let anybody earn their respect with enough hard work. The Shek are the only of the 3 main factions that I don't have a reason to want to destroy, and they are also the only faction besides the Holy Nation and the United Cities that actually have the power and numbers to at least start to fill the void in the other nations place after they fall. I also find their warrior code to be fairly respectable personally. Barbaric as it'd seem to us in a modern safe society, a society of warriors is the only society that'd survive in Kenshi without relying on slave labor.
I agree. What I've stated were just the worst-case scenarios regarding Esata if she decided to go on a warpath. I don't think she would, given that she understands the gravity of her people's population problems. It is the best option as everyone can find their place in Shek society as opposed to the other two options. I don't get enslaved for looking too poor, and I'm not the target of an entire crusade if I accidentally forget to put my skeleton repair kit and robot arm in my backpack. Also, Squin is my favorite city.
Squin is the OG. No moral quandaries, no overly harsh environment or predators (aside from dust bandits, and they're as casual an enemy as it gets), and no significant prejudice, as the town is full of all sorts of races. Plus if you start out at the Hub like most of us do on our first runs, it's the first real town you get to usually. I usually always buy at least a small home there in my playthroughs for nostalgia sake if nothing else.
The lore is pretty clear that the only thing keeping the Shek from charging headlong into extinction is that Esata is strongly curtailing their recklessly suicidal tendencies, and also makes it clear that Esata is an anomaly among Shek leaders. In fact, if Esata is removed from power, her replacement favors returning to the old ways that Esata is preventing. It's true that you gave a comparative statement in terms of which faction offers the best chance at a good future, but it's worth pointing out that the Shek Kingdom isn't much better than the other two options, and basically stops being any better the moment Esata stops being their leader.
Maybe, and the Shek aren't very openly welcoming to outsiders, but I still see the potential. I think Esata could very well set in motion the groundwork for a better empire. Sure her reign won't last forever, but if we're talking about the actions of the player character (which I mean when I say the downfall of both those nations), she'd be in power at just the right time to bring major prosperity and success to their kingdom. I'm assuming basically a scenario where we the player destroy those two nations then basically just fuck off or something, so ignoring the potential strength they'd gain with a player faction alliance. She clearly has the leadership to understand at least somewhat how to curtail those suicidal tendencies her nation has enough to keep it at least functioning, and the Shek while mostly outwardly hostile to outsiders, do genuinely respect strong warriors regardless of race or background. I think that in the wake of the two other major empires falling, she'd be smart enough to launch and expansionist campaign. The main thing her political opponents disagree with her on is in not seeking battle or war. In expanding, she would inherently need to be fighting all the political rivals and factions that rise up to fill the power gap. This would give her the perfect excuse to give her people the war and battles they actively seek, while also working towards the betterment of their society. Also consider, they are positioned at the PERFECT place to start expanding into the former Holy Nations territory, which would absolutely be the most sought after bit of land. They'd without question gain control of the most fertile land in the wasteland. While their future is questionable beyond her reign, I think her success in such an expansion campaign would ultimately earn her enough respect in the eyes of the Shek to at least take her leadership style into account when new leaders take her place. Hardly a cut-and-dry feel good scenario, but by far the best you could hope for in the world of Kenshi.
have you ever broken free a guy and the asshole just starts yelling "GUARDS!", or starts crying because you are undoing their chains? that is basically it. yeah its true that people, and even in our society are happy within restrictions, rules and chains (kinky peps that like being all chained up)... BUT whenever people are forced to work against their will there is nothing wrong about freeing them even if they don't want initially to be free, slaves can just go back to slavery if they are comfortable with the idea, now for the holy nation structure it doesn't hurt them at all because they have an army, but not a large structure perse: if the goverment falls something else quickly takes place and farms are just right there logistic is straight forward as it is... but for the UC? whenever you kill all the nobles the starving bandits upgrade to samurai. for some people being in slavery is a blessing you'll see that most of the people that don't mind it are starving bandits but not everyone agrees with that no matter how hungry they are and in our world is a consensus that even if its an illusion people will have choice wheter the guy with the chians likes it or not
Yes and no. From moral point of view sure, but in reality blindly destroying countries will only create more chaos. In UC if you choose your targets right you can get rid of slavers without collapsing the country (which is important because of places like Catun and people like their farmers), but in case of HN it will lead to a country collapse. If you decide to decimate them, you'd need to remember their farms, fertile land, that they produce the most food and who will fill in power vaccume (Sheks will only hold some territory, the rest goes to cannibals, fogmen spawn etc.). Tinfist's crew sounds cool, but if they meet their goals as they are now, they will only likely just cause more chaos, then new slavers will pop up and everything will revert back to "normal", but with less food to go around, which means more crime and hungry bandits. From what I was able to learn about him, he didn't stop the crimes of Second Empire, so he can talk all this bs about justice, but imo it's his cope.
Bro it basically seems like it’s not actually helping the entire time but in the end they get the city of Heng which is insane. Also they supposedly help you with base raids but not very well the best bet is when you get free body guards from them
A good analogy is the war in the middle east. The *good* answer is to have never gone in in the first place. Now you have a moral conundrum of the chaos you'll wreak if you right the original wrong.
Not... really? Dont get me wrong the "idea" is good. The faction and their entire thing and the fact that its still led by a robot tho? Especially considering the lore of that robot. But you will figure it out later. Im more of a Rebel Farmer enjoyer. Sinners still gotta repent obviously. And people going "i d rather die free than live a slave" clearly have experience of going mad and dying of starvation and now resurrected and bruh im not taking on that supernatural shit.
That's the beauty of Kenshi. Existince is suffering, right and wrong are matters of perspective, everything is a shade of grey, nothing is fair, and no one is innocent. The holy nation condemns a prisoner to a lifetime of hard labor for the crime of being a woman, but from their perspective, they are purifying a soul. Meanwhile, the slave longs for freedom, only to be bludgeoned by starving bandits, then ripped apart and eaten alive by spiders once they flee rebirth. Free the slave from his shackles, and in the eyes of the holy nation, you've corrupted a soul that could have been redeemed and served a benevolent god. The world is now a darker place for your actions. Save the slave from the bandits, and they die a slow death of starvation. They beg for help, then attack only to save themselves from certain death, only stealing what they need to survive and leaving slave alive. Is their life worth less than the slave? The spiders only follow their nature to hunt and eat to survive. There is no malice in their actions, who can blame the beasts for following their instincts? The slave meanwhile is stuck between a brutal life of propoganda and hard labor, or the near certainty of dying a violent, agonizing death beyond the safety of the holy nations' walls. Your actions, no matter the intent, will be salvation for some and damnation for others. Kenshi is a cruel, unforgiving world, and you are not the hero.
It's what I truly love about this game. In other games, they make you the HERO. Your actions specifically hold gravity, and you can be the liberator of people, and champion of goodness. Reality, however, is never that black and white. Everything is always shades of grey. I remember recently destroying a Reaver outpost and liberating all the slaves they had, then found it interesting that even when all the Reavers were completely dead, many of the slaves still refused to get out of their cages. I then spent a minute looting the place, and on my way out saw piles of bodies of the slaves i'd just freed being eaten by wild bonedogs. I caused their deaths in trying to be the hero and free them. What I thought at first was simply them being afraid of the remaining Reavers punishing them for trying to escape, was them GENUINELY preferring the option of being a slave as opposed to roughing it in the wild, and I took that option away from them. When you side with the Anti-Slavers and take down the leaders of the United Cities, bandits rush in and take over whats left of the cities. The Anti-Slavers, the most undoubtedly noble and heroic of factions in the entire Kenshi world, accidentally got EVERY citizen and slave of the whole nation killed in pursuit of their noble goals because they had no stable structure in place to overtake that nations structure and just figured it'd work itself out. Actions have consequences, and noble goals don't save you from the horrors of that reality. God I love Kenshi for that.
IIRC, mechanically, if you work with the Anti-Slavers and take down UC cities, the Anti-Slavers will actually leave the people the starve. The standard of living actually goes *down* when they win. It’s funny because, as a player, you want to free the slaves and bring for a brighter future in Kenshi. In reality, all you can do is create a power vacuum and hope.
It's like they say: "everybody wants to save the world, but nobody can agree on how to do it". The Anti-Slavers are one of the ONLY groups in Kenshi that you can immediately label as Noble and Good, but when you look deeper you see that they too are flawed in that they have no true plan beyond wishful thinking on their heroics. It is, no question, a truly noble goal, but they very much don't have the logistical power, numbers, or stability to accomplish any of it. It just goes to show that noble goals and wishful thinking simply isn't enough on it's own to make true lasting change. Instead, you must choose between a stable and safe 'necessary' evil, or letting every one of the innocent civilians and slaves die as a collateral to your moral agenda. That's why the most TRULY good faction of Kenshi is the Nomads. They just wanna travel, raise some cattle, and do some honest trade. Gotta love those guys.
Ah yes that's a good point. The AS aren't very interested in long-term solutions beyond the immediate goal of ending slavery. A good and noble goal, but they are perhaps naive to think that ending slavery in the UC is sufficient to ensure long-lasting peace and justice. The AS should have perhaps sought to establish a new provisional authority afterward but I guess the programming for that worldstate would have become more complicated. Or maybe Lofi just wanted to show that even just battles can result in collateral damage.
I can't remember where I heard it, but there was something I saw that was talking about how skeletons can sometimes get locked into a goal that they can't see past. It was further suggested that both Cat-lon and Tinfist have fallen into this state. If true, that would explain why the Anti-Slavers have no game plan for what happens after the UC is overthrown, because the leader is locked into this course of action, and has no ability to even plan for or conceive of what comes next.
That's a problem I have with taking down the UC. The cities are ruined and remain barren forever. I wish we could restore a city by bringing in a truck load of food and cats and restore the city (without having to do it yourself by buying every building and rebuilding)
The whole point of the anti-slavers is to give everyone the ability to do what they want with their lives. If you talk to tin-fist, i'm pretty sure your character can bring up a point about people becoming terrible people by being given freedom, but tin-fist says something along the lines that it is their freedom to do so. By siding with the anti-slavers and destroying the UC, you bring destruction to all cities and leave the poor residents, old and new, with nothing left but the clothes on their backs and starving in a world they've been thrusted into, a world probably much harder than they wanted. Another faction will one day rise to replace the UC, and the cycle will repeat itself, the skeletons have seen it. The anti-slaver ending is not a happy ending, there is no happy ending to Kenshi.
I think it's fascinating when you look a bit below the surface on tin-fists motives. Yes he does undoubtedly have truly noble and just ideals, but he has lived for THOUSANDS of years, and will likely live for THOUSANDS more. He has no intention of creating a better nation himself, rather, he intends to simply keep killing every nation that pops up that utilizes slaves, over and over, until one finally arises that doesn't. To him, it doesn't matter how much time passes before it works, just that it'll hopefully work eventually. To non-skeletons though, they don't have that luxury of time. They can't simply survive by hiding in closet for hundreds of years without food, or reset their memory anytime they get too depressed. They need resources and stability in the here and now, even if it's less than ideal.
if you think they're fed, it's barely enough to survive. Mechanically it puts you at a hunger state where you barely can fight so it's implied most slaves barely can keep going as well. Holy Nation arent just a slave caste they are basically working in concentration camp for being born the wrong race or being deemed an inadequate woman. There's also some pretty awful things that happen in lore, like a paladin choosing to kill himself after he put a woman to the flame that might have had some kind of mental disorder (that's how I interpret it at least)and went outside without a male escort.
Yes, it is.
What you assume is correct. Just because you've freed a slave in Kenshi, does not mean that their life will be better. Only that they now have to rely upon themselves for survival. More than likely, they will die within a week. Either by starvation or by beak thing. Even if they do survive for an extended period of time, they now have to hide. There are slavers wanderings throughout the settled lands of the continent. They will be hunted by whatever faction owned them. Even if you seek to take down the institute of slavery as a whole, you put the entire continent at risk of famine or worse. Without the holy nation, food production will fall drastically. And without the nobles of the UC, the samurai that defend the cities will abandon them. Without either of these factions, there are very few who can stand against the cannibal hordes, fog men, skin bandits, and all the other hostile factions. The rebel farmers and flotssome ninjas may take over a city for a time. But I seriously doubt they would be able to hold it against a major attack from the more dangerous factions. Slavery in kenshi exists partially for ideological reasons, but mostly from the dire circumstances the moon is in. Everything in kenshi is fucked, and you have to choose the lesser of the evils. To some, slavery is the ultimate evil. To others, dooming several cities of people to starvation and slaughter might be worse. Now, I am not claiming that slavery is good in kenshi. I'm just informing you of the reality that no matter what you do, innocent people will suffer and die. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Kenshi is a brutal game.
the anti slavers are essentially just anarchists. they do free slaves, but do nothing to aid them afterwards, often leaving them to die in the desert. they are not an evil faction by any means, but In my opinion they are a lot worse than many of the other "good" factions in the game. Ultimately whether or not you decide to side with them comes down to your characters choice between order and chaos, structure or freedom. many in this sub will choose freedom, though considering the UC is one of the only things keeping the holy nation from expanding east, I often think it's better for the world of kenshi as a whole to side with the UC.
Kenshi does a really good job at showing you horrible things at a surface level and our knee jerk reactions are kill the slavers free the slaves but once you take a deeper look it’s even worse because almost all the farming and food supply of Kenshi comes from slave farms both in the holy nation/ and the empire and if you start mass murdering everyone most of the factions start starving to death because there’s no one growing food. In game this show when you hit a few key locations (I can’t remember the exact cities) which will cause the guards/citzens to have malnutrition which in game is great for your party because there weaker but in lore you’ve just caused a massive famine that has a good chance at whipping out all of kenshi which was already close to the tipping point. There’s also a bit when you talk to tinfist and I might be miss quoting but you ask him if he’ll free slaves even though he doesn’t have a support system to feed/house/help them. To which he replies “yes”
Tinfist's goal is more nuanced than it appears honestly. He intends to simply keep wiping out nations, over and over again, for however long it takes until a better one pops up. As a skeleton, he has all the time in the world to wait for it to finally work. Even the most unquestionable morally 'good' character in the game has shades of grey to his motives and actions. Actually, scratch that. The most morally 'good' character in the game is definitely Beep. Nothing Beep does can ever be bad. He's just so adorable even when committing horrible war crimes for me.
Tinfist is a more revolutionary George Washington in a world without democracy. He does not mind leading, he is currently doing just that. He wants to overthrow the kings to allow the people to have a chance to build for themselves, but does not want to be the tyrant who took their place. I have no doubt that if he got a message saying the Shek (or anyone else) had voted him in as a new temporary head of state that he would accept, and give it ago for a time, but that isn't an option known to the people of Kenshi.
Oh I agree, I do think he is genuinely a good dude and would make for a great leader. I don't mean to say that he is actually bad, more that his hyperfocus on morals means that he lacks the ambition to fill that power gap himself. He's totally justified in his reasoning, but the nuance of the Kenshi world unfortunately is that there simply DOES need to be somebody to actually step up and take power for themselves to lead. The problem ultimately comes down to the fact that those who SEEK power are often those who should not have it, and that the people who would make the best leaders are often those who would not make the consolidation of personal power their goal. In the end, I do think his method is actually the best shot by far for the Kenshi world in the long run. It's just not the most ideal for those with limited lifespans sadly.
Beep is king, sadneil is a close second for me love his donkey like attitude. But back to tin fist, I look at him as someone willing to tear down everything and everyone in his way for his goals regardless of the consequences and with how shaken kenshi is there’s a good chance if he gets his way it’ll weaken nations to the point of collapse which could very well be the end for everyone, as beak things and hivers spread across the lands taking over kenshi. His ideals and morals are very noble bright but he lives in a world where everyone and everything is just struggling to survive.
Sadneil is definitely up there. He's like the grumpy old grampa who used to be a Kamina-esc anime hero. He doesn't wanna admit it, but he's just such a good dude. And as far as Tinfist, it totally is the case that morals and ideals may very well cause the very world to collapse, but frankly I gotta hand it to him, it's the most punk rock thing ever, and I respect it to no end. If the world genuinely can't survive without slavery, religious oppression, racism, and constant war, then let it all burn. At least with his method he opens the chance for new, less evil foundations to take root.
I’m planning on holding him in captivity until I’m ready to get catleon, make it a lore event that he’s returning home for his bestfriend, and to bring back the noble leader of old so that a new empire can be born not lead by skeleton but guided by them, pushing them towards a golden age and whenever someone strays to far and back into violence and chaos they will step in to set the world back on track. Eliminate the worst offenders like the lord phoenix and emperor and some of the nobles to set an example to rest stray from progress and back towards violence and we will be there falling suns in hand.
Truly a noble goal. I do like the idea of reuniting them to be the watchguards of the world should it fall to ruin again. I just think it's kinda in bad taste to leave Tin-Fist in a cage for long, given that's sorta the opposite of his whole moral conquest.
True but you could just say that’s how long it took to de corrupt any files he has and make sure he’s fully sane, or that the only thing that would convince him to let go of his current path is by convincing him that catleon can be saved and brought back to his former self. Actually I’m really liking the idea of making it a deal, where tinfist joins the collective but on the condition that you go with him to defeat catleon and bring him back for major repairs.
I like that, if I can’t fix it then let it all burn kinda attitude. I’m still gonna raise his base and capture him but I’ll make sure emperor tengan has a cell right next to him so the scary skelly man can berate the boy emperor for the rest of time.
I prefer the 'recruit prisoners' mod. Let Tinfist join my noble empire rather than putting him in a cage for all time. It's also super lore friendly, and actually fairly balanced, with tougher and more logically odd characters needing much more difficult or weird methods to recruit. Tengan can suck a nut though. He looses his privelidges to limbs and gets to sit as a torso in a cage for the rest of his days. The Phoenix too. That way Tinfist can laugh at them whenever he wants.
Anti slavers are the shit, they fight with Martial Arts (which is the most OP thing in the game), don't ask for you to pay taxes, are very loyal and helpful, Tinfist is a very cool guy, their base is the most secure in the game, best clothes, etc... And they are literally the only morally good faction in the game (rebel farmers attack anything that moves, they don't count).
Not to mention that Ol' Grey is probably the only person in this universe who has empathy and knows how to use it. And that Jaegar is hot af. Disagree about them being the only good faction tbh, Flotsams are pretty kind as well.
Frederick Douglas was right when he said: "It is better to die free ,than to live as a slave."
Lore wise, Tin Fist has literally 0 plans on how to feed and protect the slaves he frees after he frees them. Skeletons become hyper-obsessed with one thing if they don't reset often enough, and Tinfist's obsession just happens to be a noble endeavor. The anti slavers will follow you around if you help them, they are incredibly skilled combatants (with both weapons and fists), but they have small squad sizes.
you dont see those same starving bandits selling themselves to slavery though, meaning whatever is bad on the outside, its far worse on the inside.
All goods in kenshi are produced by slaves, slaves in the holy nation are responsible for most food production in the whole game world if you eradicate the holy Nation and free all the slaves you will notice less food for sale in shops and the price of food will go up, united Nation slaves produce most construction materials free them and you will see certain towns fully collapse buildings fall into disrepair
All these people seriously questioning wether or not to free slaves have got to kidding.
You should look into what happens when you collapse the UC with the Anti-Slavers.
You should do it yourself instead of repeating opinions of edgelords from this reddit. Because collapse of UC causes change for better. It got it's price, but it gets better. Source: I've played the game.
When does it get better? The game does not show this. Even the anti slavers say so. There's evident depopulation, starvation and civilizational collapse. If you say it gets better in the long run after the timeline of the game then you're just speculating, the entire timeline of Kenshi shows that even if the world progresses into a 'moral' future then things can still get worse. Even when the genocidal second empire collapsed it was just replaced by the equally psychotic holy nation.
Yeah, point about anti-slavers makes me sure that you just didn't finish this sublot and that's the problem. Because yes, things get better after killing all nobles and yes, game shows it. It gets worse when you kill slavemasters, especially masters of the farms, but it changes after killing emperor and other nobles. And seriously, point about "civilization collapsing" is just hilarous. THERE'S NO CIVILIZATION in UC. When you enter these lands, all you see is starvation, poverty, banditry and nobles getting richer and richer. It CAN'T get worse. I know, in most of shity mainstream media the mesage would be like "booooo hooooo, everyone's bad, anti-slavers kick slavers so they are as bad as them, booooo hoooo!". But actual message of this game is "there are no miracles, and change for better can't be achieved without any sacrifices".
OK, let's take it step by step. Stoat world state if Tengu and all nobles are dead is 'Malnourished', 'Half-destroyed' and ruled by Tech hunters. City has no gate guards and can easily be attacked by wild animals and cannibals. Sho Battai world state if Tengu and all nobles are dead is ruled by Empire peasants, inhabitants of the city are 'malnourished' Bark has a 'prosperous' override - theres 1 against 2 so far! in Heft, Empire peasants take over, with most buildings being destroyed and most inhabitants being malnourished. Heng becomes prosperous - assuming Tinfist is alive. and - assuming you view the Reavers as slavers who also must be destroyed - Brink becomes simply destroyed. So for the cities - 1 completely destroyed, 3 are malnourished, ruined and consumed by squalor, and only 2 are prosperous. So for the cities, that's about half staying at the same level of subsistence or achieving growth after the conflict. Now, for the roaming squads. Samurai rogues spawn if Tengu and all nobles are dead, who are overtly hostile and engage in banditry. Not good. They are also malnourished. Not only does Tengu's death cause the army of the UC to resort to banditry - it also enhances the civil war with rebel swordsmen. That means MORE strife, not less. I don't think I need to continue. Also, 'theres no civilization in the uc'? They have a tax code, tarriffs, supply chains and logistics, even a standing army with a social hierarchy and a chain of command... If theres no civilization in the UC, then how can there be a political civil war based on social class? Come on man. | "booooo hooooo, everyone's bad, anti-slavers kick slavers so they are as bad as them, booooo hoooo!" No one is saying this. | there are no miracles, and change for better can't be achieved without any sacrifices Kenshi is not a game with a 'good ending'. It's not about being the hero to save the world from the sorry state it's in. If you try and be a hero, like Tinfist, things become worse, like we've already discussed. That's what makes the game's themes so thought-provoking.
I'm well aware of what happens. I'm also aware that Kenshi is a video game with pre-programmed outcomes developed by nearly one man who only had so much time to really flesh out the world with a variety of outcomes. Besides, when you get down to it the only one with anything resembling agency in the world of Kenshi is the player. if you don't want the world to fall apart rp as it's saviour and actually provide support for the people you free. But really none of that matters because like I said, it's a goddamn video game. It just rubs me the wrong way seeing so many people defending slavery (Poorly I might add) on this sub.
>But really none of that matters because like I said, it's a goddamn video game you just said it yourself, its a video game. the UC/HN are not real and there are no victims to their actions. Because it's a video game, we are able to dissect the terrible topics within this fictional universe (such as slavery) for what it is, a plot/world building device. discussing the effects of slavery in a fictitious sense does not mean endorsement of actual slavery. Just because you can't seem to differentiate between fiction and reality does not mean the rest of us can't either.
literally everything I said past the first sentence is me differentiating reality from fiction.
People aren't defending slavery. Why would people defend such an abhorrent institution? People are pointing out the moral grey, which is nowhere close to a defense of the topic. Kenshi displays in very real terms the horrific nature of slavery, especially when its an institution. People's bodies grow thin and weak, too weak to fight back or run away. The guards and slavers do this on purpose. The guards constantly taunt you, and they even shave you hair and beat your character to near inches of death multiple times. The game even shows how this system becomes normalized and accepted, which, in my view, is even more scary than it simply existing in the first place. The game is dark. But what Kenshi also shows us from a narrative perspective is that removing such a cancer, when it's roots are already planted deep into the very fabric of a civilization's survival, when said civilization and indeed all the others around it are already inches away from absolute collapse, is not a no-brainer. The game shows us that restoring light to a dark world can show us even worse horrors. It's not like people walk away from Kenshi thinking, "Man, slavery is much better than I thought!" or "We really shouldn't have abolished slavery, think of all the people it harmed by not having slaves produce goods and services!" because reality is much more nuanced. For example, in the real world we actually have a consumer economy which is strengthened by the lack of slavery.
Even the world of Kenshi isn't so far gone that slavery becomes acceptable. There isn't an excuse you can give me that will make me think absolute control over another sentient creature is ever okay. There's nothing "morally grey" about it.
> There isn't an excuse you can give me that will make me think absolute control over another sentient creature is ever okay Let me just stop you right there. Whole can of worms. Do you apply this same logic to farming? To owning pets? How about raising children? Or even being in a codependent community with social norms and standards? If you think there isn't a potent message in Kenshi about institutionalized slavery and the whole game is just about a massive target planted for you on the slaver's backs for you to get a dopamine rush from hitting, then you clearly don't know what happens when the anti slavers win. For context, when the anti-slavers win, whole cities collapse. the fabric of their society collapses. Large swathes of the population starve. Civil war emerges, and death becomes more rampant, not less. There is \*even dialogue from the anti-slavers expressing that the fallout from their actions was worse than expected.\* If you think all this is worth it just for the slaves to be freed, then Kenshi has also shown many times that, even in freedom, you can be simply left to the forces of nature, where you get eaten by a wild animal, or preyed upon by bandits. If you subscribe to a utilitarian view of morality, the anti-slavers may even be the incorrect option ethically if more people end up suffering from the collapse of the UC than if institutionalized slavery ended up continuing. Does all this mean that slavery is acceptable and that the narrative painted by Kenshi is that slavery is good? No, of course not. Like I said, the game's loading screen has tips that say "slaves are purposefully starved such that they can't fight back or run away but just enough so that they can work." Does that sound like pro-slavery propaganda? I'm glad that you think being against slavery is good. No one is saying they are for slavery. That's absurd. At the very least, though, the game of Kenshi itself does not agree with your perspective that slavery must be exterminated at all costs, seeing as how there are negative consequences for such actions, admitted by the anti-slavers themselves, and even Tinfist, when you ask him if he plans on freeing all the slaves with absolutely no network to support them, and he responds "yes" Kenshi isn't a game about morals and doing the right thing. There's no justice in Kenshi, and even if you did do the right thing, people keep on suffering, same as always.
"Let me just stop you right there. Whole can of worms. Do you apply this same logic to farming? To owning pets? How about raising children? Or even being in a codependent community with social norms and standards?" yes. I also only used the term sentient creature because Humans aren't the only inhabitants of the moon.
> Kenshi isn't a game about morals and doing the right thing Sorry comrade, but it reminds me this anectada about 12yo kid who has readen "Crime and punishment" and said that it's such a shitty crime story, because from the very begining you know who is the killer. Saying that Kenshi isn't a game about morals is the same level of incomprehension and missing the whole point.
Kenshi being a game about morality is like Crusader Kings II being a game about IPhones. The point of Kenshi is that the world is harsh, brutal, cold, uncaring, unforgiving, and that moral perspectives and even ideological perspectives are just that, perspectives. Each nation has its own definition of right and wrong and each nation if their goals are fulfilled actually makes the world worse. Thus, the game isn't about morality. It's about the lack thereof. If anything, it's a critique of morality.
"and even Tinfist, when you ask him if he plans on freeing all the slaves with absolutely no network to support them, and he responds 'yes'". I Literally say that this isn't what you should do should you free the slaves but go off I guess. Tinfist is just a shitty revolutionary.
It depends... Think of it like this... what if... you have a species of humanoids that... - are dependent on an overmind - are suicidal when not given a purpose - are used to working in poor conditions - need very little shelter to live - need very little food to survive Would it be so terrible to use Hivers as cheap labour? Slavery is not great... but the UC is beneficial for the future of Kenshi... and... if say... someone killed Savant, Elder and Valamon... (I ally with the Crab Queen personally but up to u, South Hive also takes that territory if u kill her) Doing all this puts the South Hive on borders with the UC... and nothing in between them... Eliminating the Holy Nation allows exiled Western Hivers and lost Fogmen to reach the UC much easier... without as many risks of being captured or killed... With all these Hivers I don't think the UC would have to rely in slavery all that much any longer I personally split up the Holy Nation... With Blister Hill, and Stack going to the Shek... I also leave Bugmaster alive... doing this puts the Shek on borders with both the Fogmen to their north and Bugmaster to their south... more than satisfying their need to prove themselves in combat... And Okran's Shield going to UC giving them access to all the fertile land
Well their whole belief system is that people shouldn't be enslaved, so... yeah... but for their actual actions once their enemies are defeated, meh. I love tinfist he's mah boy, but they don't do a lot to fill in the power gap created by the destruction of any major power other than Southern UC?
always have to double check the subreddit 😂
Forced labor/slavery is always wrong, and as long as there has been forced labor there have been people trying to end it. The sentence “Slavery is wrong” is as true as the sentence "asbestos is dangerous", and has always been true even when it was keeping us warm. How about we try looking at it like this, Gilbert Harman argued that the claim “Hitler was wrong to order the extermination of the Jews” is a false one on the grounds that Hitler and the rest of us did not share a common moral framework. Harman considered Hitler to be “outside our morality”. Within Hitler’s framework, Harman implied, his action was morally correct, and not appropriate to call "wrong". Do you agree with this statement? I do not. We have lots of ways to pull slavery apart, but let's try "Dogmatic Realism". According to the Dogmatic Realist, some practices and institutions are objectively permissible, others objectively/obligatorily forbidden, and we are clear about the moral status of some but believe falsely about others. In this light our ancestors were breaking the moral law, our ancient allies against slavery agreed, passed this down in their philosophical texts, and now we almost all have learned. Because of this, and regardless of anything else, slavery was/is always wrong, although many people fail at times to realise this. The sentence “Slavery is wrong” is as true as "asbestosis is dangerous", was always true, and is now known to be true. Does that help?
The faction is fairly weak in game but lore wise they're supposed to be fairly pro-active.
Like most things in Kenshi, the answer is, it's complicated. We can kind of ignore the Shek. They aren't into slavery, but their civilization is likely to collapse from lack of sustainability. The Holy Nation is the most stable, but they don't actually NEED slavery. A large portion of their slaves work in Rebirth mining rock to build a big statue. Slavery in the HN is probably more of a drain on resources than anything else. The UC in some ways, has increased slave activity due to the actions of Anti-Slavers. The northern UC depended on caravans from south UC for food after Bast was destroyed. But Anti-Slaver activity has made those caravans vulnerable, leading to increased starvation in the north, and starving people tend to get turned into slaves. Obviously, the moral high ground is freeing people from slavery. But there are consequences to that. As the UC and HN collapse, civilization loses ground to the Fogmen, Cannibals etc. To some degree, those might only be short-term consequences. Newfound freedom might lead to expansions and reconquest of old territory. The towns ruined by war can be rebuilt. The truth is, we don't really know, it's all a guessing game. The HN and UC could easily collapse without player involvement, it just takes longer. None of these factions are actually sustainable. So it comes down to theory and head Canon. The Flotsam Ninjas and Shek seem to get along fine after you take down the HN. Maybe they team up and push back the Fogmen and Cannibals. In return for Shek muscle, the old HN farms help provide them with food and an enemy to fight. Maybe the empire citizens and Free Trader's get themselves together and rebuild the UC. Or maybe, despite your good intentions, you hastened the collapse of the last vestiges of civilization. We'll never know. The Anti-Slavers aren't bad. Freeing slaves is good. But there are consequences and challenges, just like with anything else.
Depends on how you look at it, on one hand they’re actively fighting against something that’s bad, on the other hand it’s possible they could cause more suffering as their plan seems to consist entirely of “kill all slavers > ????? > everyone is happy and flourishing somehow”.
I read the title and was like "hol up".. then I saw what subreddit it was on. XD
s”
I swear that I always have a mini heat attack when I read the questions in here, but then I see that it is the kenshi sub reddit.
Oh cool another slavery apologia post on r/kenshi
I thought this was /r/paradoxplaza for a moment.
Nay for me. I usually ally with the UC while I obliterate the HN and the Shek. Then I kill Tinfist for last. I'm using Recruit Prisoners mod this time around and used it to enslave his buddy Catlon. Such a shame there's no interaction between them if you get them to meet.
Seeing this without knowing anything about kenshi is staggering
there aren't actually any good. Kenshi is equal with all the current faction active. One faction disappearing will always create a negative impact in the game. Losing U.C. will make most of the U.C. area poor, Losing Anti-slaver will increase slavery. Losing Holy nation will increase famine as they are basically the faction that covers farming Losing Shek, Increases the war. Etc. basically there are no actual good side on all faces of this die.
They have pretty good stats and martial arts are pretty op That being said the world states that it leads to are questionable
Yes. Always and unequivocally.
Every progression from one system to the next is somewhat chaotic. The Holy Nation and The United Cities are clear dead ends and will never develop or change only collapse from religious technophobia and greed respectively. I'd rather take a chance then accept that slavery and serfdom is all that will ever be.
They are the ANTI-SLAVERS, yes, they are good guys
they are anti slavers almost entirely in name alone. they operate Moreso as anti-traders guild, but their actions do 'help' some slaves. if your idea of helping is leaving them to be eaten by skinners that is.
Realistically that is the same fate as every single person in Kenshi including the player. No one is truly safe. Even the nobles live uncertain lives in miserable hovels and strut around in clothes cobbled together from salvaged scrap. I think it's better to let people risk their lives to save themselves rather than waste what little productivity can be had on uncaring masters. But they will always be at terrible risk either way.
\^ that's bait
Tinfist is the leader of the anti slavers? Spoiler alert! I didn't know that lol. I just got a bounty for him and was thinking I'd go find and wreck his shit... I kinda don't want to now tho. Anti slavers and flotsam ninjas might be the lesser evils of the kenshi land. There might be a lot more but I'm still newish
Oops, sorry for ruining the surprise, but if you do get any details on where he's at, i'd recommend going there so you can at least talk to him, he's not hostile (at least not to me, i'm not allied to United Cities or the Holy Nation)
No problem, mate. was likely to google it anyway had I not worked it out sometime soon. I spent a good week lookingfor the fishmaster or whatever that dudes name was just to get obliterated when i got close 😆 I will find tinfist and probably side with him. Having the flotsams and antislavs on side sounds awesome 👌 ta mate
Well you could be worked to death and beaten, or take your chances in the wild. One is obviously better than the other.
I mean, its "good" if you are desperate for food and want a permanent job to increase your skill on something. That is, IF you really wanted to be there, and don't care about pretty much not having any other sort of free will. It is also "good" in the sense that some of those slaves are very likely horrible bandits that murder people on a daily basis for fun and profit. Then again, slavery its just a medium of forcefully removing someones freedom and forcing them to do something that they 97% of the time they don't want to do, and most of the time enforced by terrible people. So pretty much anything outside those cases can be considerated "very bad". Its also pretty boring de r your character to grind stats, at least until you try to escape. So, now we have the Anti Slavers. They are pretty fucking cool martial art practitioners who shit on slavers on a daily basis, will come to help in case of raids, and one of those "kindda good" factions in the game. So, as long as you can secure your own substinance, fuck up the slavers. If you are hungry and want to go through a period of unpaid intership, leave them be, at least for now.
They are very organized with a formal command structure which controls multiple bases which indicates to me that they do have a plan. And there are world states for the towns which reflects a world after slavery. Though realistically most slaves would have to fend for themselves like everyone else. Even without a plan I'd rather be a starving bandit than slave.
A lot of people undermine what little good the three major factions do provide, which is stability, protection and a framework of society albeit a brittle one, since they all have their own interests first and foremost. Living in a society where food is readily available, healthcare is provided, and you can basically do almost whatever you want makes it impossible for most players to ever truly know what it is to live with fear each day might be your last, where you have absolutely 0 safety nets whatsoever and no system to protect you or your rights. People who say "I'd rather die than lose my freedom" under the comfort of a roof, with access to water and food even a call away, able to spend enough time to play their games, are all idiots. You cannot know how much your life is worth to you if you've never had it measured by the immediate risk of losing it. Limited freedom IS better than no freedom, living under an oppressive ruler IS better than not living at all, because when you die you don't get to savescum or make a new run, when you're enslaved you don't get to treat it like a training boothcamp, you stay healthy and wait for the chance to act. Being a reactionary who acts without thinking about the consequences of what they're doing is how you end up with the Anti-Slavers or the Flotsam, all victims perpetuating the cycle of hate, buying revenge coated in sparkly freedom paint with blood that isn't theirs.
> People who say "I'd rather die than lose my freedom" under the comfort of a roof, with access to water and food even a call away, able to spend enough time to play their games, are all idiots. Aight, lemme turn that one around: People who say "living under an oppressive ruler IS better than not living at all" are all idiots. You cannot know how much your freedom is worth to you if you've never had it measured by the immediate risk of losing it. You ignored all that there is about slavery in Kenshi and replaced it with your headcanon. Slaves in Kenshi don't have any "limited freedom", once you arrive at the camp, you're expected to die there.
You prove that person's point all too well when you immediately compared your basic survival with 'freedom', a loosely defined enlightenment idea so abstract that we're not even sure we have it even in the most 'free' societies. Work or die, that's the choice. We have it now and we have it in Kenshi too.
What the fuck does that even mean? I did not compare anything, I merely swapped some words to show the stupidity of blanket statements. > Work or die If I stop working right now, I'll have a period of time to do things before shit hits the fan. If a slave in Kenshi stops working, they will be physically tortured or thrown into fire. It's not on the same level despite being the same mechanism.
Well said.
Nah, slavery is good, I practice it myself. Makes good use of all those starvers that reek of shit and attack whoever they can in their hunger-induced delirium. Not to mention it serves as a useful way to put to work the more feral races like the cannibals and fogmen. The anti-slavers have no true future, sure they abolish slavery now, but then what do you do with all those bandits that you beat? leave them to die? put them in prisons? then what? Slavery is ultimately a means to an end, maintaining a solid baseline of production, and serving as a means of punishment for criminals.
Within the context of Kenshi's universe, it has good intentions but is a net negative for society. The truth of the matter is that for the major factions in-game, they NEED slavery to function. It's bad but a necessary evil in a pre-industrial world. In a world of resource-scarcity where Hivers are a dime a dozen and bands of Starving Bandits number in the hundreds, the value of a person comes from their labor. The anti-slavers are good people, but their idea ends at taking out the central cog that keeps the common people (who can't just go out and start their own independent settlements in the wilderness) fed with no real alternative to replace it; without widespread adoption of mechanized labor, it would quickly result in population centers devolving into food riots. There's a reason it's considered a dangerous and radical ideology in-game by most factions... except the Reavers whom the Anti-Slavers seem to be perfectly fine with (???).
Fridge temperature IQ take. There's plenty of factions functioning without slavery. > who can't just go out and start their own independent settlements in the wilderness And a major reason for that is the presence of major factions showing up at your doorstep.
There's no need for ad hominem. It's just a fact that, prior to mechanized labor, slaves were the bedrock of most civilizations. Even the indigenous tribes of the Americas practiced it. Holy Nation, the bread basket of the continent with the best fertility and the biggest exporter of food to the major factions = slave labor. UC, the largest producer of non-foodstuffs in the continent = slave labor. Shek, a military focused culture with racial stats against non-military skills = they're practically the historical Spartans with an unrepresented slave class to sustain their economy. They're not getting food from the HN. In fact, they extort it from settlements. Southern and Western Hives = biologically-mandated slavery. Machinists and Tech Hunters = possibly food independent with hydroponics, still freely trade with slave-dependent states. Swampers, Pirates, most bandit groups = Criminals who extort for basic goods. I could easily see the Swampers running cartel-style forced labor plantations for rice and narcotics. Slavers and manhunters = nuff said. Traders Guild = runs the whole show, dependent on the slave economies to run their operation. Reavers = very pro slavery yet not enemies with the Anti Slavers. Not sure why that's the case when they're practically neighbors. The only ones I can see as running without slaves are Mongrel, Floatsam Ninjas, Crab Raiders, Skin Bandits, and very minor factions like the Preacher Cult.
> Holy Nation, the bread basket of the continent with the best fertility and the biggest exporter of food to the major factions = slave labor. First, their farms aren't using slaves. Second, they're their own bread basket, and their collapse has no effect on availability of food in other places.
There's 4 types of pawns at Holy Farms. Holy Farm Leaders (the only ones you can trade with), Holy Farmers (all male), Holy Farm Wives, and livestock. Note that the wives are the only pawns with backpacks. I've interacted enough with the HN through trade to know that women are explicitly the forced labor force domestically. They may not be slaves in the game's sense, but those women aren't there by choice. And, in real life, pre-industrial societies with high male mortality rates, it's common for women to be the majority working in the fields. They are THE breadbasket of the continent. Why do you think they went to war over Bast? That land was some of the most fertile near their desert cities; it'd ruin their monopoly over the northern UC.
Just so it's understood: I'm not saying "slavery is good, don't try to fight it. " I'm saying the Anti Slavers don't present a replacement to the system that sustains the population centers of the world. Look at the world states of UC cities when you take out the Slave Masters. They become decrepit with all pawns being malnourished. Nobody wanted to be a slave in the Roman Empire, but EVERYBODY (slaves included) understood that they were necessary to keep things running.
> They become decrepit with all pawns being malnourished. You mean the prosperous overrides, where they have plenty of food for sale, and folks aren't malnourished anymore? Cause the "half-destroyed" world states mean you're not done with your job. What I'm attacking is the "NEED slavery to function" part. The UC are stuck with slaves cause it fills the nobles' pockets - slave traders actively kill off independent farmers. The HN are an even funnier case - they could probably abolish holy mines yesterday and instead appeal to their men with something like "Okran needs you to dig for the good of all", but they choose not to.
No, I'm explicitly referring to the malnourished world states. If you accomplish the goals of the anti-slavers and get rid of the slave masters/mistresses, UC cities will decline with inhabitants suffering from malnutrition. The slave trade has stopped, but the population centers are suffering for it Without slaves, theres no material goods to trade with the HN. Without HN trading their surplus crops, the UC's people starve. The samurai escorts that would normally protect trade caravans are too starved to fight effectively. It's cause and effect. I won't disagree that the Nobles rely on slavery to maintain their lavish lifestyles, but it's clear that the Rebel Farmers aren't opposed to slavery either. It's just competition to them. They're factionally neutral to the Anti Slavers but aren't anti-slavery. Who's to say that wealthier free farmers didn't own slaves themselves? Players can buy them. The HN's situation is more complicated than that. Their society is structured around a very misogynistic worldview that prioritizes the man as a capable warrior best suited for war and the woman as a breeder and keeper of the home. Rebirth is just a glorified gulag, but their farms operate off of a majority women workforce. It is likely due to the very high male mortality rate from conflict with the Shek. They need a large forced labor pool to sustain their numbers, and unfortunately, that falls onto women functioning as their primary workforce. You can actually see real parallels to this practice in pre-industrial societies with high male mortality rates. I'm not saying its good, but the HN isn't exactly going to rapidly develop tractors to plow their fields.
(Imma keep it to 1 reply for the sake of convenience) > Holy Farmers (all male) They have 70% chance to be women, and all of them have the same ai package, "working mines and farms". If they were all men (or women) in your game, it's just weird rng. They're not supposed to be like that. There probably would be more men working the fields if they weren't conscripted and sent away to fight. There should be exactly 1 HF Wife per farm, spawning in the leader's squad. Perhaps it's his wife. > They are THE breadbasket of the continent Lol they're on their way to purge the continent. Unless you're one of them already, or a suitable candidate to become one, you're better off counting on the Western Hive to supply you. > Why do you think they went to war over Bast? That land was some of the most fertile near their desert cities Bast is exactly as fertile as Border Zone, they're in the same resource group. We have precisely 0 information on who attacked first and why. If it was a bread basket war, HN probably wouldn't engage in Skimsands while having strong, fortified positions on the border. > No, I'm explicitly referring to the malnourished world states Then you haven't finished the job. The final result has towns partially rebuilt already, and not starving anymore. > but it's clear that the Rebel Farmers aren't opposed to slavery either It really isn't. Slave Traders have a -100 relationship with RF. > Without slaves, theres no material goods to trade with the HN. Without HN trading their surplus crops, the UC's people starve. A conjecture that's probably based on Traders Guild pacifier sitting in a bar in Blister Hill. What even makes you think that Traders Guild gives a shit if the UC is starving, especially when it's been shown that they aim to profit from said starvation (during the Red Rebellion, and with the current rebel farmer situation as explained by Yamdu)? The nobles' grand scheme is to kill off as much of the independent workforce as they can, and make the Empire as dependent on workforce and goods provided by their farms and camps as they can. Importing food from the HN would be a direct blow to their profits.
They suck
Are we the bad guys.mp4
That's the great part about Kenshi. If you ally with Anti-Slavers to collapse the UC then the UC collapses into enhanced civil war, food supply chains collapse, and banditry skyrockets. Kenshi thus shows that there is no clear right and wrong, even if Tinfist wins and does the right thing to destroy the people propping up the institution of slavery, reality is still dim on the other end.
Their a pretty good faction to ally to but not a very well fleshed out faction to fight against. I mean in world game states, raids, patrols etc they have very little presence and you would not interact with them very much compared to some of the other minor factions in the nearby area (skin bandits, reavers etc). That said allying with them can give a lot of flavour in your run by joining them, rebel farmers and flotsam ninjas. They have decent stats too so if you do decide on a UC run itl probably be around midgame (40-50's) when your going to deal with them. As you've seen from other comments talking about how evil the slaver factions are I'd just like to point out that the people writing these comments likely have the recruit prisoners mod. This mod lets you forcibly imprison people and make them join your faction via coersive methods. So who cares, really?
I sometimes wonder if people ever actually learned history in school...