Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joakim]

Don't forget.  When you're surrounded by dwarves in full plate, or facing a long run away from chasing dwarves with no idea of the local terrain and no supplies, surrender starts to look like a great option.  Especially if you have a reputation for not torturing your opponents to death (although that reputation may make them more likely to attack in the first place, so it's a trade-off)

Could possibly start training the dogs to either immobilize or kill, as well.

I agree. Why fool around with non-lethal weapons when you can threaten to kill them with your lethal one? Any soldier that cannot outrun or outfight the dwarves could throw down their weapons depending on their personality.

[Starver]

This thread looks like a topical point to mention something that I just had happen to me, though I know this is probably old-hat to the veterans of the game...

In a fort I was building this weekend my first year's (Summer 301) Human caravan came with its assorted human Merchants, protected by Hammerdwarfs, Speardwarfs and Axedwarfs (which isn't something I'd paid attention to, before, but I assume is fairly usual).  But alongside them was "Zolak Utesespo, Goblin Outpost Liaison", the Diplomat.

Had to do a double-take, on that one when I saw the entry on the Unit List, but trade (and diplomatic discussions) went ahead as expected, and the Goblin civilisation is still listed under the Petty Annoyance/Death import/export style of diplomacy, so it was on behalf of the humans after all.

Anyhoo, apropos of the subject of this thread: if kidnapped dwarfkids can come back in later assaults as enemies, and the humans manage to employ diverse humanoids in official capacities beyond merely those of mercenaries, then why not something (perhaps an application of Stockholm Syndrome?) that can be applied not only to beasts passively caged, but also to captured beings?

(Actually, the number of times I've accidentally let a mountain goat escape and cause havoc in my Dwarven Halls, meaning I've had to send one or other branch of the military in there to slice it up because it was averse to the adhoc cage traps I tried to set up...  I really need to perfect some way of non-lethally herding these occasionally troublesome creatures (occasionaly precious but as yet untrained breeding stock) that's akin to the "capture, not kill" idea...)

[Domini0n]

or "coercion" using the hammerer?

[Organ]

Just for the sake of throwing ideas out there, maybe a net of leather thongs?

[Antsan]

I'm pretty sure torture is unthinkable according to dorf ethics.

 but not player ethics.

And not goblin ethics, I think. And they cannot torture at the moment. Or am I missing something?

@topic:
Sounds like a good idea to me. Whether an enemy is captured, killed or just send running could depend on ethics, orders and skill. Doesn't have to depend on one factor, I think.
Non-lethal weapons would allow more diverse civilizations, even some, where "kill an enemy" is not acceptable. But this would need some way to differenciate between self-defense and attacking by your free will.

[HatfieldCW]

Mount & Blade has a command to make your soldiers switch to less-lethal weapons.  It allows more prisoners after the battle, and thus more profit from the slave trade.  Could a squad get a new toggle, like the Standing Down/On Duty distinction, allowing them to either use less lethal weapons or just refrain from attacking unconscious enemies?  I'd actually prefer if they'd ignore the bad guys that have "gone down", instead of spending valuable time executing a neutralized adversary instead of dealing with the more prominent threats.  In Adventure mode, I'll routinely let a guy twitch in a pool of his own blood while I deal with his mates, then go finish the job when the area's secure.