In need of an outside perspective

[Amanita]

I hope I'm right here in the world-building forum with something I'd like a quick outside opinion of.
What would you disapprove of more?
A country that rules over a conquered nation very harshly and brings every man, woman or child who seems even slightly rebellious to their main country to work as slaves and be used as "human ressources". Literally. (They believe that these people are wild barbarian who need to be forced into "civilised life" by such means.)
Or a country that "invents" the use of poison gas in war in my world. (Most of the time against soldiers and not civilians.)

 

[TWErvin2]

I guess it depends on what you mean by disapprove and who is doing the disappoving.

As a reader?
As a 'citizen' of the conquered nation?
As a 'citizen' of the conquering nation?
As soldiers and the occasional civilian being gassed?
As a soldier or civilian of the nation that uses the poison gas on enemies?

Knowing this would make it easier to answer.

 

[Forsta-Phoenix]

From my particular perspective I dissaprove of the country that enslaves a person for any misdemeanour more than a country that invents poison gas. But then again I am neither an enslaved barbarian or a soldier in a trench with no gas-mask.

These enslaved people, are they from a culturally/technologically equal society just different enough to be used as slaves or are they genuinely a barbaric race who commit atrocities of their own?

But other than that what TWErvin2 says, a tad more background and clarification would help!

 

[Map the Dragon]

If I am to judge simply from the perspective of a reader, I think I would rather read about the cultural twists and complications that come with the issues of 'barbaric' slavery. However, you have to make sure you are original here, as this has almost become a cliche in our genre.

Now if you're going with the 'gas' motif (perhaps as fantasy/sci-fi cross?), that has the taste of something more original and if done with good writing and within a decent plot, you could have something there.

 

[Amanita]

Thank you for anwering. The question was aimed at the readers, not at any in-world groups.
I admit that a bit of background might be in order. That’s always a bit of a dilemma on an internet forum, overly long posts or too little information.

These enslaved people, are they from a culturally/technologically equal society just different enough to be used as slaves or are they genuinely a barbaric race who commit atrocities of their own?

They, maybe I should give their name, the Tessmari definitely do have cultural practices which are deemed barbaric by the others such as the idea that it’s honourable to ritually torture prisoners. The main problem for their neighbors used to be the fact, that they liked to take things they wanted from them by raiding bordering lands and plundering. Rape also wasn’t an uncommon occurrence in the process. Central government also doesn’t work form them very well because there are different tribes with lots of infighting which tends to turn rather nasty.
The Ruarians started conquering Tessmar because they wanted to protect their territory but later discovered that it was rich in commodities which made ruling the whole country seem to be a sensible idea to them. The Tessmari resisted as well as they cut but the Ruarians had superior weapons and military organization while they Tessmari still didn’t manage to unite and therefore they where vanquished and the Ruarians started to use some of them as slaves.
This was done to discourage resistance, and for a variety of others reasons. Some Ruarians believed that they could turn them into “civilized” people by hard work and discipline, others believed in their racial superiority and/or just wanted revenge for past wrongs while some had practical reasons for using them. This is an late 19th/early 20th-century setting with plenty of dangerous and hard jobs which led to workers’ protests in Ruaris that threatened the business owners. Using Tessmari slaves for the worst tasks and giving Ruarian workers power over them was supposed to make them disapprove of their situation less. (Ruarian criminals and government critics where used as slave as well.)
People in another county ruled by Ruaris, Elavien, are treated a bit better but are forced to work for the Ruarians as well. Unlike the Tessmari they aren’t brought to Ruaris itself but work on plantations in their home country as well.

Their neighboring country Arunien is on an equal technological and military level but unlike the Ruarians they usually don’t conquer the countries their interested in but make contracts with powerful people who make sure that they get the goods they want. With Tessmar which is completely under Ruarian control by now this isn’t possible anymore however and they’re also arguing over a province which has been usurped by the Ruarians in a past war but where the inhabitants would prefer to belong to Arunien.
The Ruarians also threaten Arunien’s business interested by building large cartels which are supposed to dominate the entire market and get Arunian companies out of business.
All of this, combined with a bit of moral outrage because of the Ruarians’ treatment of the conquered peoples leads the two countries into war.
As mentioned above, they’re military forces are relatively equally matched however and the war drags on for a long time which leads the Arunians to try to gain an advantage by the use of poison gas.

As you can see, these are not two story ideas but both is part of the same one.

Well, that’s the background. I hope anyone’s been reading, it’s become a bit too long once again.

 

[BeigePalladin]

meh, poison gas, not that bad, it was used for years before people started complaining, and no-one realises how darned easy it is to overcome - a D- in unpleasant at best

all in all, neither of them are really disaprovable.

I mean, in regards to history, using the concoured people as labour only after they've played up is downright freindly, mostly it'd be slave-labour first for the first 50-ish years, second class citicen after that, and any rebbelion equaling death

so I'd like both of them as my neightbours please . those people they subjigated however, them I dissaprove off.

 

[Hans]

That's hard to say. From a reader's standpoint I think I would disapprove more with the gas.

The slavery you have sounds a lot like Greek practices (He doesn't know Homer by heart? Must be a barbarian). Vew people disapprove with the Hellenian culture. There are a lot phantasy settings with slavery without anyone objecting.

The gas is a bit nearer, historically speaking. We have first hand reports about it's effect in the field. And it got banned not long after it had become widely usable. It is not commonly used in phantasy, so to the reader it is more of a surprise.

As said above it is hard to decide. If build cleanly into the culture in question I think both would be accepted.

 

[Amanita]

Thank you.
So, if I want my potential readers to sympathize with one side and view the other as "evil", I have to think of something else to add. But first, I have to decide if I want that.

 

[Ravana]

Definitely the first of those options, for all cases. "Poison" gas is a weapon that has been deceptively demonized in our culture–not that it isn't potentially horrific, but because of its wide-scale use in WWI. It was a convenient scapegoat for incompetent leaders to shift the blame onto. In reality, it caused far fewer casualties than any other weapon used: fewer than 1% of all deaths and fewer than 4% of all casualties. It wasn't even relatively lethal, as fewer than 3% of all gas victims died, and the vast majority were fit for combat duty again within weeks. When you consider that roughly a quarter of all soldiers who fought that war were killed–that's reported deaths: throw in missing, and that number climbs to close to 40%–it becomes pretty obvious that gas was far less lethal than the other weapons it was fought with.

What made it so "unacceptable," I think, was that it was so impersonal, at a time when people were still trying to pretend that war was a noble undertaking, and that there was such a thing as chivalrous behavior toward the enemy. You could shoot the man who was machine-gunning you or firing artillery shells at you; you can't shoot a cloud of gas. Well, you can, but it doesn't do a lot of good. (Even worse, from the point of view of the people in charge, it might actually kill officers who were otherwise safe behind the lines.) But it's simply hypocritical to consider the use of gas as a greater war crime than carpet-bombing cities, or less humane than flamethrowers.

The unbalanced prejudice against gas can probably be brought to light best by comparing reactions to the mention of "chemical warfare" to reactions to mentioning "biological warfare," which is every bit as impersonal, even more indiscriminate, and in most cases more lethal… but which didn't traumatize an entire generation of Western society. In other words, the relatively greater horror in which we regard poison gas is an accident of history. The same contrast can be seen within the category of biological weapons as well: we are far more likely to react strongly to references to "plague" than to "yellow fever," "anthrax," or even "smallpox," all of which are more dangerous–for the simple reason that none of those once wiped out a third of Europe's population at one go. Since that wasn't being used as a weapon, though, it didn't enter our historical memory in the same way, and as a result we don't think of it the same way we do chemical warfare. (Most people don't even realize that Yersinia pestis is still around, in fact… probably because it's so easy to treat and even easier to prevent.)

You also run into definitional problems: anyone can use smoke against an enemy, for instance, without being accused of "gassing" them, even though that's precisely what they're doing. Lachrymatory and regurgitant agents (tear and nausea gas) are so commonplace we don't even think twice about them. Pepper spray is simply chemical warfare on a personal scale. Does it really matter that much that these are "less lethal" methods of doing the same thing?

So while I, as a reader, would certainly react with a well-trained disapproval to the use of poison gas, I would regard a society that employ slavery as far worse–I see no reason why the widespread historical acceptance of an evil institution ought to make me view it as less evil.

 

[fcbkid15]

i would have to say the country enslaving people for nothing really. This depends on when it takes place though, if in the future it would be highly dissaproved, we should be way past that. if in the 1800s or something like that it would be slightly acceptable.

 

[Donny Bruso]

I have to say that on the face of it the use of a weapon against a legitimate military target is far less repugnant to me than enslavement for essentially no reason. Yes the gas may have less than wonderful effects, but that all depends on how you write it. If you make it kill painlessly and quickly that's one thing. Even if they suffer for a few minutes that's still better than a lifetime of slavery in my mind. Of course that also depends on how the owners treat their slaves. Historically there is a wide range of how slaves have been treated. Some were considered to be educated, valuable people and were well treated, even respected; while others were considered nothing more than meat.

So there isn't a short answer except that it all depends on how you write it.

 

[Urethule111]

I wouldn't necessarily disapprove of either of them. It all depends upon the context. In our own time frame, both Poison gases, and Slavery have been outlawed on an international level. Through the cultural developments of our society during the past few hundred years, the use of either, particularly slavery, is unthinkable. That said, the United States Military, as well as dozens of others world wide still produce forms of poison gas for use in warfare. Now, as to the slavery issue, it could be that your world has not yet experienced such a Cultural Crucible like the American Civil War, where the last vestiges of slavery tore the country apart. Most of our own sensibilities towards slavery derive from ideas presented in the constitution, that all men, and all races of men are equal, and deserve to be treated as such. Not all cultures have this perspective. Thus if you were writing a story in Ancient Rome, you could not do so without slaves, because to them it was the natural course. So you simply need to decide how your culture feels about the issue. Your readers will accept what you present to them.

In regards to the Poison gas, I offer this to think about. From earliest history, weapons and methods have been evolving to become more lethal. When the first poison gasses were produced and used in World War I, it was simply seen as another tool with which to win the battle. The use of these gasses was banned for humanitarian reasons, similar to the reason behind the abolition of slavery. So as to the invention and use of poison gas, you simply need to decide where your society falls on the "Military Spectrum" meaning how far has the lethality of the weapons in your world advanced. As to the USE of the gas, that is a cultural issue. Please forgive this rambling reply. I hope I have helped in some small way.