Elaina Schill
Posts: 191
11/14/2018
|
I've been scribbling along for a couple months, trying to wrap up a rather torrid self-insert/Pirate-Poet fanfiction and because of the Poet's occupation and stance on the issue of Clay Men, I've been doing a lot of thinking about it myself. So I'm throwing it out to everyone to discuss because I'm curious. Do you believe Clay Man labor is moral? They are sentient automatons, created in Polythreme by the King with a Hundred Hearts, so in theory their autonomy would not belong to themselves. But then again, wouldn't this stance fall apart when compared to child rearing? Do children belong to their parents, bowing to their every want and whim? I understand that Clay Men are paid as a tithe to London, and that the 'Unfinished' ones are more likely to be the ones with a higher developed sense of self and emotions. The Pirate-Poet is not Unfinished but instead 'wrote herself free,' or somehow broke that agreement with her writing. It's sort of unclear. What would also be interesting would be bringing the race card into it, and comparing the issue with American slavery. That might be a bit overboard.
In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts! If I've said anything wrong, please let me know!
--
Main, Phiri Ulfur, the Cunning Shadow. Their heart belongs to a Pirate-Poet across the Zee.
Alt Vermillion Liminate, the Tragic Scholar.
Alt #2,Lady Jacqueline Blackwood, the Savage Beauty.
Alt #3, Veracity Taylor, the Dame of the Docks.
The Dogged Seeker, self explanatory.
I will accept any social actions on Fallen London(unless its a box of live rats. I already got rid of the d---ned things once and am not eager to repeat the endeavor).
|
|
|
0
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/16/2018
|
Iona Dre'emt wrote:
PSGarak wrote:
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts.
That's true, but do we know for sure the full extent of the relationship between KWHH and the Clay Men besides the fact that they're spawned from his dreams. Can he exert control over them? Are the emotions they feel his emotions? Are their opinions his? Etc etc. I believe they still have some sort of individuality, and just because he created them, unless they are LITERALLY part of him instead of using a part of him to be created (like the parent metaphor I was trying to make sense of) then I'm with you in believing there's multiple 'people' involved.
These are all excellent questions ... with no clear answers. But the individual Clay Men we have lore for certainly appear to have differentiated personalities, so I agree with the multiple people line. If this is, in fact, the case, then the most moral form of employment of Clay Men is one that treats them with kindness and provides them with opportunities for personal development and, ultimately, the independent pursuit of their own interests and full citizenship.
A trickier question is whether or not London should cease the importation of Clay Men entirely.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Guest
11/20/2018
|
You manage to arm wrestle one successfully by employing thirteen different kinds of dirty tactics all at once and pinning the thing while it puts up literally no resistance at all, and you employ similarly opportunistic means to kill one.
Contrarily when a Clay Man bodyguard took a swing at me in deadly earnest in an exceptional story I just went through his fist quite literally goes clean through a brick wall (which he subsequently gets caught in momentarily allowing an escape). Really wasn't exaggerating in the slightest.
And is there a difference? The PLACE WITH VERY LITTLE SCREAMING seems to imply Unfinished Men and otherwise independent Clay Men are one and the same- it's just that the former are "born" that way with common physical markers denoting their condition.
As to why it would hurt:
You know those dockside riots (that appropriately enough are largely about Clay Men edging out other workers)? Yeah, imagine that same riot with Clay Men doing the rioting. They could tear apart half the city without breaking a sweat.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Guest
11/21/2018
|
Ixc wrote:
The Unfinished Men are only violent when they have a reason to be. Jasper and Frank are violent, yes, but that’s because their work is that of criminals. Giving Clay Men rights makes them less dangerous, as it makes them part of society, including the Unfinished ones, and it costs them to break the laws of society. On the other hand, if a Clay Man is banished from a typical means of work or purpose, some will likely turn to criminal work, making them more dangerous, not less. Giving Clay Men rights would make it less likely for them to show up to people’s houses and murder them, as you describe.
I'm gonna try to spell this out one more time:
Clay Men under normal circumstances are *incapable of choosing to do harm* because they're compulsively subservient. If you give them all carte blanche to do as they will, they *stop* being compulsively subservient in fairly short order, and suddenly they have the choice of whether or not to do you harm like every other Unfinished Man. And like so many Unfinished Men, a lot of them are going to capitalize on that option. You're effectively lobbying to give them the option to hurt you, and then claiming it will result in less violence. To say that it makes very little sense doesn't even begin to do it justice.
And on top of that, giving them theoretically equal standing with 19th century imperialists who don't even look kindly on foreign *humans* is not going to result in peaceful cooperation, it's going to result in pogroms and riots.
Oh, and Lyme is definitely being groomed to do everything else his "uncles" do since they send him to shake down the Sardonic Music Hall Singer (he's not exactly good at the job, but still).
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/23/2018
|
The thread has made me want the Dauntless Campaigner back more than ever.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/23/2018
|
‘Stops’ was sloppy and, thus ambiguous, shorthand. To be more precise: Why does the frequency and intensity of violence between individuals and groups and humans vary and vary greatly?
I ask this in response to your assertions that humans are genetically predisposed to favor violence and other ills and as such, “no amount of social engineering that can fix what's wrong with human society.” Since violence, etc. has been be reduced in times and places, and since humans have been genetically the same (essentially) for a very long time, genetics are not the sole determinate of human behavior. Indeed, very many people have lived and do live peacefully and prefer not to be violent. My reference to gay marriage and voting writes addresses your second assertion by pointing out that human societies have successfully fixed, or at least ameliorated, wrongs.
Isaac Gates wrote:
Oh, and pacifist cultures only exist when there's literally zero: resource scarcity, rivalry, ideological dissent, racial tension, or competition of any kind.
The pacifist cultures created by early Christianity, Ghandi’s civil rights movements, and King’s civil rights movement were a response to all those things. And while pacifism fails in the face of pure hatred devoid of moral qualms, all of the above persisted and lead to great moral advances … presumably because humans are not biologically forced to be red in tooth and claw.
Isaac Gates wrote:
Because pacifism isn't a tenable ideology in a world where the only thing that determines survival is natural selection. Which is precisely why: conquest, violence, cruelty, tribalism & xenophobia are built into our genes.
Natural selection isn’t the only thing that determines survival. There’s also genetic drift, and, since the advent of humans, cultural selection. Further, in addition to engendering the genetic and behavioral capacity for violence, etc., natural selection and cultural selection also yield peaceful cooperation within and between species.
As to Clay Men, here are some bits of lore that I believe show ‘Finished’ Clay Men are capable of recognizing kindness and cruelty, having affinity to those who offer the first and aversion to those who offer the second, and for desiring self determination:
1) The tea shop is in a quiet side street. The owner is refusing to serve a pair of Clay Men their pot of tea and sponge cake.
Inform the owner that his prejudice is intolerable. You will patronise more humane establishments in future.
You throw down your napkin with some force and march out with the two Clay Men. They don't quite know what to make of you, but they recognise a gesture of support when it's offered.
2) Recruit Clay Man labour
Many who frequent the Quarters dream of a change of employer.
3) The special status they award masterless Clay Men – somewhere between prophets and bombs
4) You spend the day restoring sagging loam faces and filling dents in earthy shoulders. They pay you in impurities panned from their vein of fresh clay: nuggets of gold, fragments of jade.
5) Emancipate a Clay Man
Free him from your service – from everyone's service.
Masterless
Obtaining the necessary licences and certificates is exhausting – even by the Bazaar's baroque standards of bureaucracy. It's almost as if the Masters don't want Clay Men freed.
You cross the last 't' with a flamboyant stroke. You dot the final 'i' hard enough to put a hole in the paper. With that, the Clay Man has no master but himself. The poor s_d's in the same boat as the rest of us, now.
Down in the Clay Quarters his compatriots welcome him with reverential handshakes. Nor are you forgotten. They pile you with gifts: oddities unearthed from the tunnel walls, secrets told unwisely in their presence.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/24/2018
|
I admit this thread has exposed once more how subtle the FL writing is. It spoke of colonialism in a way so subtle that you HAVE to begin as one of the colonialists (instead of behaving like a 21st century person)... until instances persuade you otherwise. Amazing.
Oh and something else: altruism and compassion have been shown to be positive evolutionary traits. People need those to survive. I don't know about Clay Men but... the writing doesn't suggest they would be different.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Elaina Schill
Posts: 191
11/27/2018
|
I made this thread mainly with the intent of learning more about what people see in the nuanced writing that I'm too blind to notice, and damn I've done that five times over. Thanks to everyone who replied! That being said, there are multiple instances where Clay Men are capable of compassion and gentleness(Lyme & child, Lyme & cat), and to be honest if I was stuck in a cargo hold for months with the intent of eventually being sold into what is essentially slavery, I think I'd go berserk too.
Just because they're PHYSICALLY dangerous, though, doesn't mean that they don't deserve the opportunity to grow into individuals (as they've shown themselves capable of) and learn and develop. One could argue that the tigers in the Labyrinth are equally as dangerous and have access to Parabola, and you are able to physically best the Pirate-Poet in a duel in Sunless Sea by yourself. One on one. So even if they are capable of immense feats of strength, they can be beaten by humans and I don't think that introducing them to society as equals will tip the balance by a lot. After all, Londoners have shown themselves to be accepting of pretty much anything(the city was STOLEN by BATS for Christ's sake).
I don't quite have the attention span as of right now to read through all the replies, but I love how this conversation is going so far, and please correct me if I've said anything wrong.
--
Main, Phiri Ulfur, the Cunning Shadow. Their heart belongs to a Pirate-Poet across the Zee.
Alt Vermillion Liminate, the Tragic Scholar.
Alt #2,Lady Jacqueline Blackwood, the Savage Beauty.
Alt #3, Veracity Taylor, the Dame of the Docks.
The Dogged Seeker, self explanatory.
I will accept any social actions on Fallen London(unless its a box of live rats. I already got rid of the d---ned things once and am not eager to repeat the endeavor).
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
11/21/2018
|
What hatred? Most Londoners don't hate them, they view them as mindless automatons- which is what they are absent outside meddling 99% of the time. You don't need to breed hatred when indifference will do the job.
And for the last time: they're capable of everything we are once awakened- and significantly more. Making them *more* dangerous. And they're specifically a danger *to us* and they're *only* a danger to us given free reign.
(There is no segment of the human population that's naturally subdued and compliant to the point of mindlessness absent outside influence, so please stop conflating Clay Men with human slaves. It's a weak comparison at best and a fallacious moralistic argument at worst.)
And the short answer is nothing, nothing prevents violence between different groups of people full stop. And the fact is that the problem's going to be even worse between humans and non humans- see the Rubbery Men for details. Thing is, unlike the Rubbery Men Unfinished Men are *very* capable of violence and *excel at it*.
Long story short: yes, we're dangerous by default. Thing is, they aren't... *unless you go out of your way to make them more like us*- in which case they're suddenly capable of all the horrible shit we are- only they'd be significantly better at it *and have specific cause to want to do said horrible shit to us*.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/23/2018
|
Given that the rate of murder and violence fluctuates dramatically over time and across cultures (and indeed, given that pacifists and pacifist cultures exist), and given that ‘we haven't meaningfully changed as a species since the paleolithic era,’ something other than DNA must contribute to the frequency human violence.
Isaac Gates wrote:
there is no amount of social engineering that can fix what's wrong with human society
In the United States slavery ended, voting rights are no longer restricted by race or sex, the sex of partners no longer determines their right to marry, and businesses may no longer pay their employees in scrip. In the U.S. (and many other countries) many things wrong with human society have been fixed (or, at the very least, are far better than they once were).
Isaac Gates wrote:
Except the part where they are? The murder rate has never, ever been zero anywhere on earth, there's always one or more ongoing wars- need I go on?
What if you apply this logic the other way? Far, far more people never murder and never get murdered than do commit murder or get murdered. And there’s always one or more ongoing peaces.
I’m not saying humans are by nature virtuous--as you rightly point out, we have done and continue to do horrible things to each other and other species. Rather, I advocate that the sine qua non of humanity is behavioral flexibility, for both good an ill. Assessments of humans as inherently violent or peaceful are views that are really really knee jerk & short sighted.
Isaac Gates wrote:
They have no cause to resent us unless we *give them the capacity for resentment*
Compliance does not logically imply the absence of resentment. That said, it is possible that ‘Finished’ Clay Men don’t harbor resentment. I will need to read Clay Man lore more closely.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
11/21/2018
|
Past grievances (which are many and grievous), backlash from what would definitely be heightened tension with the human population they'd be competing with for employment and space, desire to secede from the empire and govern themselves, bargains struck with a rival power, desire for hegemonic primacy over their physical inferiors, there's lots of reasons.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Azothi
Posts: 586
11/21/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
1) Never said Jasper & Frank were representative of all Clay Men, said they were representative of *Unfinished Men* IE: what happens when Clay Men achieve independence. If you're looking for more dangerous examples, there's the Pirate Poet (who is despite her eloquence *a pirate*), the Missing Heiress' "lover" (there was never any indication that she consented to what he did to her), the Adventuress' bodyguard from Sunless Sea, July's bodyguard I described above, etc. Also: Lyme is actively being trained by Jasper & Frank to join in their business- so he's not exactly the best example to choose. Nothing you've listed is something that humans are not capable of. You're defining all Clay Men who achieve independent thought as "Unfinished", with all the dangerous connotations associated with that word, rather than, for instance, defining "Unfinished" as Clay Men who achieve independent thought. That removes the inherent bias created by the idea of the "Unfinished" and forces one to examine the Clay Men in the context of what they are - automata seemingly capable of love, hate, affection, care, abstract thought, art, science, and writing. In other words, Clay Men who can act like humans, who you're arguing should be denied equal rights.
The Pirate-Poet is an anti-authoritarian, violent artist-pirate, which stands in contrast to the highly authoritorian and methodical Jasper and Frank. July's bodyguard is employed to protect her; you're the one who's breaking and entering. Remember, humans are far more resilient in the Neath, where death is only a temporary inconvenience (the same cannot be said for Clay Men). Barnabas, if given the choice, chooses the middle path of rebellion and obedience: he could very easily kill the Delightful Adventuress (given that she just tried to kill him), but he instead takes her to face justice with the Wildweald Court. There are humans more dangerous than that. Lyme is being recruited into Jasper and Frank's business, but not as an enforcer - he's there to keep books and write records as a business associate. You're also ignoring all of the other aspects of Lyme's personality, from his friendship with London's cats to his sympathy for the dockers to his happiness exploring London and learning about people from all different walks of life. When explicitly trained in independent thought and philosophy, he starts asking questions for himself. He can ask himself if he wants to work for Jasper and Frank, or for Mr Fires, or for the neddy men, or himself, or Clay Men, or for society - he gains free will, in a way. This can be viewed as dangerous by people with interest in maintaining the current stratified order, but it is clear that Lyme in particular is an example of a Clay Man growing into his personality.
And my point still stands: two data points is not enough to draw conclusions about the entire sample, whether it's all Clay Men or just Unfinished Men.
Isaac Gates wrote:
2) The point really wasn't about the legal ramifications of giving them rights, it was about the consequences of encouraging all Clay Men to think for themselves and therefore making them Unfinished- because as I've said many many times that would be incredibly dangerous. You give a historically oppressed class with superpowers who are only held in check by an ingrained compulsion towards servitude free reign and bad things *will* happen. Guaranteed. This is inherently a contradiction. If Clay Men can think for themselves, they are not only held in check by an ingrained compulsion towards servitude. And my point wasn't about the legal ramifications of giving them rights - my point was that societies exist to allow individuals of different backgrounds to coexist, and that equal rights is a tool used to minimize the risk of violence within that society.
Furthermore, you're ascribing too much value to "superpowers" for the Clay Men, I believe. They're strong and resilient. That's useful enough. They only possess limited dexterity, however, and they're far from impervious. Marsh-wolves can tear their throats out, and they're flesh and blood animals. Jack-of-Smiles can kill them. There are some lines of work that Clay Men will just be inherently better at. That does not include ruling. And remember that this is the Neath, where humans can die and still be fine, whereas Clay Men have only the one life to live.
Your argument is essentially the same argument used against freeing slaves. You have a historically oppressed class supposedly only held in check by an ingrained compulsion to servitude. Give them free rein and bad things will happen, guaranteed, or so it was said. Racial tensions continued to exist and reached new areas because of the expanded economic capabilities of freedmen, but these "bad things" were more often violent actions taken against the former oppressed class. When we look at history, we do not see the act of giving equal rights causing violent uprising; rather, we see violent uprising to establish equal rights for the oppressed, or we see the oppressed violently killed by the powerful because they don't have equal rights and are not treated as human.
Isaac Gates wrote:
3) There's a reason why "Unfinished" has negative connotations- it's because a Clay Man unrestrained by the compulsions I described above is *dangerous*. Whether or not they engage in aggressive behavior the fact is their potential to do harm is incredible- it would take a dozen men with pickaxes to threaten one in a stand up fight. If Clay Men are unrestrained from their compulsion to servitude, it does not mean they are unrestrained in all other aspects. If you give them free will, then you give them the choice to engage in aggressive behavior or not. I've made the case previously that societies are structured to allow individuals to collaborate and protect themselves in a non-violent manner. And by your reasoning - "the fact is their potential to do harm is incredible" - we should strip away the rights of all humans, since all humans have incredible potential to do harm. Even the worst felons maintain a basic level of human rights in our society.
Isaac Gates wrote:
4) I never said humans weren't dangerous, I said Clay Men are dangerous in ways we aren't. A human being can do a lot of harm with the right tools and a bit of planning- an Unfinished man can do the same amount of harm *bare handed and naked*. Also let's not forget that Clay Men can also do all the things we can once they're "awakened" (for lack of a better term) to the possibilities of life outside indentured servitude. IE: set fires, plant explosives, use firearms, etc. Except once more: they can also dispatch an entire building's worth of people with their bare hands in a matter of minutes. No, you're not saying humans aren't dangerous. Your argument, however, is that because Clay Men are dangerous, they should not be given equal rights. You must subsequently distinguish, as you've done here, why Clay Men are dangerous enough to warrant not granting them equal rights. You appear to have focused on the physical capabilities of an Unfinished Man - the idea that they can "dispatch an entire building's worth of people with their bare hands in matter of minutes."
Which means, of course, that a 200 kilo heavy, 2 meter tall (440 lb / 6'9") man easily capable of lifting a baby elephant is not dangerous enough "bare handed and naked" to deny them their rights, but a Clay Man is. Tell me, where do you draw the line?
Isaac Gates wrote:
5) As I said above, giving the Clay Men more rights wouldn't allay tensions with the rest of London, it would increase them. People are inherently tribalistic, xenophobic and reactionary- quote Tommy Lee Jones:
"The person is smart, *people* are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
So even if the Clay Men didn't initiate hostilities with the rest of London (which they'd have ample cause to do as I explained above), hostilities would still inevitably crop up. And once they did... well, there'd be about a dozen pancaked human beings for every shattered Unfinished Man on the street.
I couldn't have said it better myself: people are inherently tribalistic, xenophobic and reactionary. "The person is smart, *people* are dumb panicky dangerous animals." That's precisely the purpose of a society - the social contract that binds the tribe together. There are two aspects to this. On the one hand, we don't murder because we know that if we're caught, the tribe will exact judgement on us. The risk tends to outweigh the benefit. On the other hand, we don't make cost/benefit analyses for murdering the people around us; we just don't think about murdering them, even if they annoy or frustrate us. We've been interpellated with this inhibition to not murder fellow humans - it's a part of the culture and society around us. By integrating the Clay Men into society, they become part of the tribe. By contributing to the economy as free agents, they become more trusted. There will be those who they displace, and there will inevitably be tension there, but that does not equate to full-blown class warfare.
Humans may be tribalistic to a fault, but do not underestimate the capability of humans to adapt to their surroundings. Consider the case of racial minorities in the western world. Asians went from savage apes of the Orient to accusations of being "the privileged minority". In the United States, racism against the Irish went from fear and mistrust (even considered worse than the enslaved African races) - an attitude that persisted into the past half century - to being viewed as part of the dominant "white" race. There were not violent uprisings that placed them into power, even though there was and continues to be significant racial tension. You assume that "hostilities" - which are inevitable - automatically lead to racial or class warfare, which has not been demonstrated to be accurate.
--
Azoth I, the Emissary of Cardinals - A Paramount Presence (not currently accepting new Proteges)
Away to where the Chain cannot bind us.
 Hesperidean.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
11/21/2018
|
The point wasn't about *what* motivates those specific Clay Men to be dangerous- it's *that* they were dangerous. Explaining that the poet's violence is motivated by rebellious tendencies or that Barnabas was motivated by revenge is purely quibbling at that point (and for the record giving her over to the soul stealing apes was almost certainly crueler than tearing her head off).
And yes, I'm focused on the aspect of independence that involves the possibility for violence *because that's the one you should be worried about*. It's incredibly easy to moralize about a subject like this from an outside position of absolute safety. Now say that Unfinished Men are real, and one is standing outside your front door right now. It has ample cause to hate you and your entire species, and the only thing stopping it from tearing through your door like cardboard and ripping you apart is the *possibility* that it's newly awakened nature is benevolent and forgiving- rather than violent and vindictive like so many examples I cited.
And I'm sorry, but social engineering doesn't even come close to stopping violence and tension even between different groups of humans. Do you seriously think it would stop violence & tension between humans and *actual magic golems*? Especially when the people who'd be enforcing society's rules are physically incapable of stopping an Unfinished Man?
And yes, death is significantly less permanent in the Neath most of the time- except when it isn't. You as a normal person can see your way to permanently murdering a number of people with enough effort just by chopping them into small enough pieces- an Unfinished Man can do that bare handed. And the fact that they only have one life to live doesn't make them any less dangerous- see The Snuffers for details. Also they're not *just* strong enough to tear down a building single handedly, they're also: ageless, never tire, don't require food or water and can freely repair any damage done to them with ordinary clay. They are effectively the Neathy equivalent of Terminators. You can point out how dangerous people can be as much as you want, Clay Men are always going to be more dangerous *because everything dangerous we can do they can do better* and *they have specific cause to want to do us harm* meaning they're dangerous *to us*. Which is why *we* (the normal humans in this scenario) would be remiss to give them free reign because they'd then have the ability to use it to screw us over.
And it's not a contradiction, they're restrained by their compulsion to serve until they're conditioned out of said compulsion by the right stimulus- stimuli that're denied to them under the conditions they normally live.
Oh, and took *hundreds of years* for asians to go from one state to the other, and there were countless massacres and atrocities along the way- which is very much my point... save that in this case the massacres and atrocities would involve half ton monsters made out of masonry.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
11/19/2018
|
Equating the relationship between Clay Men and the KWHH to a child & their parents seems like a false equivalency.
When two people conceive a child they're effectively creating a younger version of themselves- meaning a being with: needs, wants & potential equal to their own. This is not the case with the Clay Men & the KWHH... the more apt comparison would be: homunculus & alchemist. They're objectively lesser beings, a small portion of a greater whole split off and sold to pay the KWHH's debts.
Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once. Now think, who are the two most prolific Unfinished Men in the setting? *Jasper & Frank*. Do you *really* wanna find out what happens when several thousand immortal golems with the strength to tear through a brick wall with their bare hands start prioritizing their own self interest?
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/19/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/14/2018
|
I think they’re like children, honestly. They haven’t really had a life other than working. I think they can learn to think for themselves (judging by Lyme).
Also, your character sorta tries to make choices for them (on the card for the clay bearers), where you set out to teach them “whether they like it or not”, which seems to me to be a reflection of London’s view on them as a whole. I think London views them as wanting to be forced to work, which reminds of the attitudes of Americans towards slaves.
Anyway, it’s definitely not moral.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/14/2018
|
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts. From that perspective, all of Clay Labor together is actually one guy working part-time. If there is immorality in this arrangement, it is in Hundred-Hearts' vassalage to the Masters. The indentured nature of the Clay Men is just a reflection onto the human scale of the reduced state of that King and his country. Which one might interpret as a statement on the nature of colonialism.
...I think I'm in over my head on this train of thought. I'm not entirely on board on the axiom that there is only one "person" in this picture. But, it is justifiable in the lore.
Is there any evidence that the Clay Men have a spot on the Chain, and if so, where?
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Elaina Schill
Posts: 191
11/15/2018
|
PSGarak wrote:
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts.
That's true, but do we know for sure the full extent of the relationship between KWHH and the Clay Men besides the fact that they're spawned from his dreams. Can he exert control over them? Are the emotions they feel his emotions? Are their opinions his? Etc etc. I believe they still have some sort of individuality, and just because he created them, unless they are LITERALLY part of him instead of using a part of him to be created (like the parent metaphor I was trying to make sense of) then I'm with you in believing there's multiple 'people' involved.
I have no idea about the Chain thing. Sorry.
--
Main, Phiri Ulfur, the Cunning Shadow. Their heart belongs to a Pirate-Poet across the Zee.
Alt Vermillion Liminate, the Tragic Scholar.
Alt #2,Lady Jacqueline Blackwood, the Savage Beauty.
Alt #3, Veracity Taylor, the Dame of the Docks.
The Dogged Seeker, self explanatory.
I will accept any social actions on Fallen London(unless its a box of live rats. I already got rid of the d---ned things once and am not eager to repeat the endeavor).
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
11/20/2018
|
Maybe, but like so many hamfisted fictional metaphors for the racially persecuted (IE: robots, monsters, witches, mutants, etc.) Clay Men are objectively dangerous in ways that normal humans just aren't.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/20/2018
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/20/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once. Now think, who are the two most prolific Unfinished Men in the setting?
Unfinished Men and rebellious Clay Men actually appear to be different, as in being a rebellious or thinking clay man does not mean they’re Unfinished. Also, giving them the vote would not cause them to become Unfinished, as it’s something a Clay Man is ‘born’ with.
Also, Clay Men are really only a little stronger than humans, as you, early in your Dangerous career, are able to beat them at arm wrestling and even kill one (when Jack possesses one). So giving those hamfisted stand-ins for racial minorities equal right wouldn’t hurt; in fact, giving them legal protection and protection against discrimination would allow them to have standing in society, giving them legal means of earning a living and a voice in gov.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/16/2018
|
Somewhere it is claimed that the Clay Men all share a single soul (assumedly the King's), and that's why the Devils show no interest in them. That claim is the basis of my argument.
That doesn't really answer the question, though. We don't even know the full relationship between a regular human and their own soul, much less exceptional cases like the King With a Hundred Hearts. They certainly appear to have their own individual motivations and desires, even though they don't pursue them.
It really depends on to what degree your ideal of morality is based on metaphysics. Contemporary London would have tied the two together much more than our modern sensibilities would, and the question of whether Clay Men have a soul would likely have a big place in any discourse on the topic. It would also probably have a prominent place in the same debate in Fallen London, but in a rather different manner.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+1
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/16/2018
|
I just remember the source: it's a rare success when upconverting wines!
https://fallenlondon.fandom.com/wiki/The_Affable_Monsignor_has_a_particular_taste_for_the_'44
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/21/2018
|
Huh. Put that way, anything but equal rights seems insane and cruel.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/23/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
And the short answer is nothing, nothing prevents violence between different groups of people full stop.
Something must, since different groups aren't continually murdering each other all the time.
Isaac Gates wrote:
Long story short: yes, we're dangerous by default. Thing is, they aren't... *unless you go out of your way to make them more like us*- in which case they're suddenly capable of all the horrible shit we are- only they'd be significantly better at it
I disagree that humans are dangerous 'by default'. We have the capacity to be incredibly dangerous, but the degree that this capacity is realized, for good or for ill, is dependent on a vast array of factors, of which just one--and not the prime one--is genetics.
The response then, to the dangerous potential of people (and Clay Men) is not to lock everyone down into the incapacity for violence; rather it is to build societies where the better angels of our nature can flourish.
Isaac Gates wrote:
*and have specific cause to want to do said horrible shit to us*.
An excellent reason for humans to cease doing those things giving Clay Men the specific cause in question.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Guest
11/23/2018
|
"Something must, since different groups aren't continually murdering each other all the time."
Except the part where they are? The murder rate has never, ever been zero anywhere on earth, there's always one or more ongoing wars- need I go on?
And of *course* we're dangerous by default, we're demonstrably the most dangerous species on earth. We magnify the background extinction rate *one thousand percent* just by existing.
"The response then, to the dangerous potential of people (and Clay Men) is not to lock everyone down into the incapacity for violence; rather it is to build societies where the better angels of our nature can flourish."
And I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but there is no amount of social engineering that can fix what's wrong with human society. What's wrong with humans is in our blood, and our brains, and our DNA- we haven't meaningfully changed as a species since the paleolithic era and spoiler alert: we *cannibalized* our only rivals at that point in history. There's no fixing any of the problems with our nature shy of scientifically rigorous eugenics & genetic engineering- and thanks to one uppity Austrian with an inferiority complex any time anyone mentions either one of those things all they can think about is an ethnic cleansing because people are really really knee jerk & short sighted.
And for the love of god, how hard can you miss the point? They have no cause to resent us unless we *give them the capacity for resentment which is precisely what you're arguing for*- here's how mindless & robotic Clay Men are absent do-gooding:
You can pick up a half dozen Clay Men direct from Polythreme in Sunless Sea, and they will literally stand stock still in your cargo hold staring at a wall for *months* at a time until you reach your destination. Unless of course one of them *happens to be Unfinished* in which case it will go berserk, kill a number of its fellows, your crew, and possibly you because *that's how this goes*. You can fight it, or negotiate with it (both of which are exceedingly difficult) but the fact is that the *default reaction on awakening is violence*.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/23/2018
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/21/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
A small number of Unfinished Men ...
For now ... but 'waking' large numbers of Clay Men might become the enterprise of Revolutionary groups, who, believing as you do, see Clay Man liberation as congruent with overthrow of society or by meddling would-be do-gooders such as myself. Reliance on hate-breeding oppression for safety, in an increasingly liberal milieu--as late 19th century Western society was--is untenable.
Isaac Gates wrote:
And yes, I'm focused on the aspect of independence that involves the possibility for violence *because that's the one you should be worried about*.
Although Clay Men may be more dangerous than humans, humans are really, really dangerous themselves. If independence is reserved only for those with little or no power to cause harm, then we should all be enslaved.
Isaac Gates wrote:
And I'm sorry, but social engineering doesn't even come close to stopping violence and tension even between different groups of humans.
What does stop violence and tension between different groups of humans?
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/24/2018
|
Polythreme’s Unfinished also shows they are born capable of thought and understanding, however people of Polythreme (or London) use the Unfinished as an example of those who choose to rebel. Thus, they hide their intelligence and desire to be free because they also fear becoming like the Unfinished due to rumors, not actual fact.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
+1
link
|