How to Commit A (somewhat) Ethical Purge of Outsiders?


Okay, maybe ethical should be replaced with justified. Probably, but that’s not the point.

I believe I touched on this topic before, but the intent was different. So it might seem familiar. Anyway…

I have this isolated non human culture that lives on the polar region of their world. One day, a ship of explorers arrives on their shore. The natives, who do not want to be discovered by the world, don’t know what to do about this. If they leave the explorers alone, they’ll might discover the natives or evidence of the natives, even if they pick up camp and hide. But they don’t want enflame their eventual discovery by just outright slaughtering the entire crew.

So they sneak onto their ship and discover that they are simply explorers with no general ill intent. So they come to the decision to introduce themselves (this might occur as they search the ship) and let the crew live out their lives with or near that natives and help them survive, but forbidding them to leave. The natives will eventually strip the ship down to the last plank for resources, but I haven’t decided how soon that will occur. But they will certainly sabotage it pretty quickly.

However, not all of the crew is thrilled with this arrangement and will try to escape, or signal for aid, or be aggressive, or so on. Shackleton’s crew was about 30 and the natives aren’t sure who to trust and they simply can’t control thirty people for the foreseeable future. So they need to weed out the threats before they can harm their own people.

How might they weed out the threats in a fair manner? Any ideas? I’m looking for inspiration more than answers.


Their environment is the first thing that comes to mind. Utilizing the harsh conditions of their habitat to batter the aliens into weakness than death. Poisonous food maybe. F_cked up wildlife. Some sort of disease, perhaps. These are just the first things that pop into my head. That way nature ultimately decides who dies and whatnot. Think Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but in a f_cked up sense.


One of the truths here is - peace is the worst thing to greet conquerors with.

If there was one piece of advice I’d give to Native Americans back in the 1600s it would be - kill every white man that comes on your land with fire.

Peace is the worst tactic to use against someone who is coming to conquer. Now since yours are explorers, they might be different. And because they are explorers, I’d imagine they’d be more receptive to the culture. You could easily do a reverse of what Europeans did to Native Americans - have something like smallpox kill 80% of the explorers and have a few left that are really interested in their new world.

Europeans were basically going to die in America because they had no idea how to work the lands. Again, if I could go back, I’d tell the Native Americans to let nature take its course. But they were kind, and they helped. Which usually isn’t a problem, but Europeans of all kinds (spain, England, France) was super into conquering things at the time.

That’s your key delineation here. Your people are explorers, not conquerors. Which means if a bunch die from disease it will be easy to control the rest of them


Actually, I was. Just in a more literal sense. Putting the explorers through tests of character to find the bad eggs. :stuck_out_tongue:


Yeah. Maybe a large man who takes too much from nature gets swept down the river rapids. A woman who’s too competitive gets poisoned by blueberries. Another rich woman who wants everything falls down a cliff. And a man who thinks he knows everything gets…miniaturized…by the native people’s…advanced…technology?? Those are my original ideas. You can’t prove anything.


Option B is to, in a manner, save the personalities of the most dangerous crew onto a magic hard drive of sorts, and put them in storage. Then, technically they weren’t killed.


That still wouldn’t have done anything but postpone their defeat.

Peace would give you a chance to trade with them for weapons. The Tlingit people, indigenous to the Northwest coast, bought many guns and cannons from traders and used it to hold off the Russians for some time.

The thing that really poses a threat is the diseases the explorers will spread


Honestly “tests of character” would make the administrators of said tests seem evil to me and I’d lose sympathy

it’s too sadistic


That is a big thing that really had a hand in wiping the Native Americans out


I’d suggest the Indigenous Arctic people picking one person from the outsiders who is easy to manipulate, but can serve as a leader of the outsider community, and giving them authority over them combined with responsibility to the indigenous leaders. That way, they’ll serve their wishes to maintain their own power


I should probably Pocahontas that or they would just kill all of the explorers to be safe. There’s not much the explorers can offer to justify that risk. Well, nothing that they can’t take once the explorers are dead. The explorers aren’t the same species, so the threat of disease is reduced.

IDK. Perhaps there’s an interesting way to include the disease factor that I’m overlooking. I will consider, but I can’t help but notice a lack of transmitted dieases in fantasy. Magic healers, I guess. The discussion where they make a decision should be an interesting debate to write.


The people might not know of the possibility of disease. Maybe you could make a happy ending, but add an epilogue where everyone dies of plague


For complicated reasons I wont go into, they probably would. But their ancestors were explorers, of a sort. Oh, so it is possible they were already exposed to those diseases. Hmm.


If they have livestock they’re probably okay


I’d suggest watching Shogun, which was released in 1980. It was about an English navigator that ended up in feudal Japan. Gives some interesting ideas for what you’re writing, particularly regarding the ship. If the crew has a task to perform, such as rebuild the ship, it will keep them occupied with a singular goal.


History is never that clear cut. The first Europeans known to land in the Americas were the Vikings, beating Columbus by centuries. Leif Eriksson is believed to have been the first, there’s a lot of debate about if he was truly the first. The first come across what is believed to be Baffin Island, but continue to Labrador, which they called Markland (Forestland). He returned to Greenland after a mild winter, but never had the chance to return. Other’s went, including his brother, for about a decade. They stopped because of the violent encounters. His brother was killed by the local tribes. These were vikings that were raised in harsh conditions and trained for battle, yet they could not prevent a great many deaths. The local tribe(s) were far from peaceful in that region. They did no go from being peaceful to warriors overnight. They were already fierce warriors that had no problem killing every viking they could.


I would never disagree that Native Americans were skilled warriors. They had to be with how much in fighting occurred among tribes.

I was trying to pinpoint a very exact time in history in my comment. More specifically when the first European settlers arrived, not the first Europeans. The reason the Native Americans should have kept them away is because eventually Smallpox would destroy them. I mean in truth, due to disease alone, it was inevitable that Native Americans would face great difficult with Europeans regardless. But again, I was talking about that specific example. There was also a lot of infighting among tribes that prevented them from truly uniting in order to push back the Europeans that were arriving in the north (french) and the south (spain).

In that specific example, I was trying to illustrate that welcoming foreigners with peace is not always the smartest move (in a time where you had no idea who they were or where they came from). i wanted to illustrate to OP that protecting themselves while also being incredibly peaceful is not something that generally works, which means they will have to construct that more carefully. But since the people in OPs post are explorers, versus settlers/conquerors, they have different motives and goals, so it would be different.


Absolutely agree. The Spaniards certainly saw the Aztecs as weak. Of course, had the Aztecs not brutalized all the other tribes, the Spaniards would have had a far more difficult time doing anything. The tribes are still fighting among each other today and refusing to come together. Even when they still had the opportunity to stop western expansion, they refused to put aside their differences.


I don’t think there’s any good way to intend harm on someone who hasn’t done anything to you yet. I’d say your best bet is to make them deserve it.