Not really? Once we conquer them there will be some discrimination and cultural clash, obviously, but as time goes on they will start intermingling with our people, talking, befriending, marrying, etc. until eventually they stop being a conquered people and simply become part of our population.
The Arthwyd are not here. They actually don't even exist yet, but the people that will one day become the Arthwyd are halfway across the globe. We are nowhere near the Arthwyd and these three-hugging priests are not them. They're just hippy nature-worshippers.
I know. Doesn't change the fact that as a slave state they wouldn't like us and I want them to like us.
To state that such a course of events is just how things happen shows an astounding lack of understanding of both history and current events. Buried in that vision of how things go is an enormous number of assumptions of how things are going to go and what actions we are going to take. Put simply if this is the game plan then we are just going to be replaying the same thing, which brings me back to my original question why does this quest exist when there are two other quests that went in that direction that are still currently running.
*sigh* You do you, man. I'm not basing my civ choices off of attempting to appeal to a civ we're not sure when or even if we'll meet yet, but that's just me.
Welp, we have Word of God. Let's gear up to fight those arrogant catgirl-fetishists. There can only be one King of The Hill, after all.
That's just one reason I don't want slavery. Another is that I think slavery is just a giant hassle that I don't want to deal with and one that will cause issues eventually. A big one is relations with non-slave states, another is the constant revolt risk.
I'm not actually invested enough in this whole slavery business to argue over it. I'm mostly just voting for it because, even though we have our differences, I respect Random and he's been asking for this for a really long time. Also, we haven't done slaves yet, so I'm willing to give it a shot.
Most of the time slave revolts only cause problems from slave dependency. If you had slaves doing all the economically important stuff then replacing slaves after they revolt would be a sticky mess.
It isn't about this specific decision per se but more that I don't think that this decision is independent from future decisions. I strongly suspect that if we follow the same path on this decision we will do the same for other decisions and with two other quests following the same general path it will feel less like an interesting new civ and more like "generic SV civ with obligatory minor differences". I in no way think it is your fault or are blaming you and I'm sorry if I gave off that impression. It is just I have a bad feeling that going with the same thing on this vote is going to mean that, for whatever is different, further votes will ensure the "soul" (for lack of a better word) of the civ would be the same and that just seems really boring to me.
On the other hand, island nation against a nation with basically zero naval focus. Theres a reason Britain could be thorough assholes for much of the age of colonization. Nobody could get to their core lands.
