The Great Debate! Raiding vs.Trading - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

The Great Debate! Raiding vs.Trading

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
slam-evil
Sep 12, 2010 22:18:37
As election time creeps up on us once again (and I prepare Quest Hooks in the village of Freedom) I found myself thinking upon the age old dichotomy of Trading and Raiding.

Can one exist without the other?
Which came first?
Which is more profitable?
etc etc etc

I have a few thoughts, but you should all say your piece as well!
#2
baronspam
Sep 12, 2010 22:29:46 The one that is more profitable depends on how may guys the other side has. It is very unlikely that a group would practive just one or the other.

A real world example: Vikings. These folks certainly didn't have any qualms about showing up and sacking a village or monestary. But they were also epic traders. When most europeans didn't travel more than 20 miles from their birthplaces in their entire lives, the Vikings were trading as far away as Constantinople.

Maybe the Darksun version of the Vikings is the Elf tribes. They certainly are not above theft, be it by force or stealth, but they also trade and run the elven markets. When an elf tribe spots a caravan, the most likely make a very careful evaluation of the enemy strength, disposition, likely cargo, and runs a very brutal cost/benifit analysis. If they look like easy pickings, they fight, if they look strong but lax, they steal, if they look strong and on guard they offer to do business, or simply pass them by.
#3
OneWeirdCat
Sep 13, 2010 17:48:40 I agree with baronspam. Some slave tribes or wasteland tribes have more to gain by trading, as they actually produce something or salvaged something etc. they can barter/trade for things that they need. They also probably have a better survival rate, as they are prepared for combat, but don't necessarily plan to engage in it.
I think raiding is more the mark of the desperate or the oppurtunistic. Raiding tribes that have no merchantile endevours probably must move around a lot, as they exhaust resources around them. Raiders certainly have something to trade to someone stronger after they have raided the weaker.
#4
Bly2729
Sep 13, 2010 17:53:59 www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0158.html
#5
slam-evil
Sep 13, 2010 20:05:23 Bly that comic is hilarious.

In regards to the vikings; the scarce agricultural land in Denmark, or perhaps their lack of interest in agriculture, is what forced them to raid and pillage. They were definitely as OneWeirdCat says "oppurtunistic"

But who are the raiders raiding, if not for traders. Think about how many caravans are raided on the King's Road every month. By the same coin, the raiders keep the traders competitive, and so stimulate the economy. The two groups balance each other and allow for the most interprising (or the most ruthless) to catch the biggest haul. Such is capitalism.

I picture the head of House Tsalaxia using this kind of logic and trying to get the raiders of the black sands in his pocket.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 slam-evil Sep 12, 2010 22:18:37	As election time creeps up on us once again (and I prepare Quest Hooks in the village of Freedom) I found myself thinking upon the age old dichotomy of Trading and Raiding. Can one exist without the other? Which came first? Which is more profitable? etc etc etc I have a few thoughts, but you should all say your piece as well!
#2 baronspam Sep 12, 2010 22:29:46	The one that is more profitable depends on how may guys the other side has. It is very unlikely that a group would practive just one or the other. A real world example: Vikings. These folks certainly didn't have any qualms about showing up and sacking a village or monestary. But they were also epic traders. When most europeans didn't travel more than 20 miles from their birthplaces in their entire lives, the Vikings were trading as far away as Constantinople. Maybe the Darksun version of the Vikings is the Elf tribes. They certainly are not above theft, be it by force or stealth, but they also trade and run the elven markets. When an elf tribe spots a caravan, the most likely make a very careful evaluation of the enemy strength, disposition, likely cargo, and runs a very brutal cost/benifit analysis. If they look like easy pickings, they fight, if they look strong but lax, they steal, if they look strong and on guard they offer to do business, or simply pass them by.
#3 OneWeirdCat Sep 13, 2010 17:48:40	I agree with baronspam. Some slave tribes or wasteland tribes have more to gain by trading, as they actually produce something or salvaged something etc. they can barter/trade for things that they need. They also probably have a better survival rate, as they are prepared for combat, but don't necessarily plan to engage in it. I think raiding is more the mark of the desperate or the oppurtunistic. Raiding tribes that have no merchantile endevours probably must move around a lot, as they exhaust resources around them. Raiders certainly have something to trade to someone stronger after they have raided the weaker.
#4 Bly2729 Sep 13, 2010 17:53:59	www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0158.html
#5 slam-evil Sep 13, 2010 20:05:23	Bly that comic is hilarious. In regards to the vikings; the scarce agricultural land in Denmark, or perhaps their lack of interest in agriculture, is what forced them to raid and pillage. They were definitely as OneWeirdCat says "oppurtunistic" But who are the raiders raiding, if not for traders. Think about how many caravans are raided on the King's Road every month. By the same coin, the raiders keep the traders competitive, and so stimulate the economy. The two groups balance each other and allow for the most interprising (or the most ruthless) to catch the biggest haul. Such is capitalism. I picture the head of House Tsalaxia using this kind of logic and trying to get the raiders of the black sands in his pocket.