Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

...what other, seemingly similar, things could be implemented with it?

I would like, if possible, to be able to assign punishments to dwarves from the justice screen (You just used the only steel bars, half of our flux, and the last of our leather in the fortress to make a PICCOLO? Twenty strokes from the Hammerer!), and/or for a better understandiong of cause and effect so that dwarves who drop chunks of walls onto others will be tried as murderers. It would make justice systems useful rather than a hindrance.

Thoughts?

[antymattar]

As od as this sounds, I wouldnt like that. Shoure, smarter dwarves means more... something. But the justice system is about what dwarves do to dwarves not about what the player does to dwarves.

[coolio678]

I jsut want it to have a lower chance of insanity. My soldier went into a tantrum, killed his war dog, and was then chained in prison. Later, we went berserk in the dungeon, and the rest of my military was forced to kill their squadmate. Eventually, I forgot wells froze in the winter if outside, and the tantrum spiral that engulfed the fortress after a couple people dehydrated, made me abandon. (that end part there was irrelevant) So I would like to be the "sheriff" in a way, by setting the punishment/ choosing who the crook is.

[Gizogin]

Sure, there are situations where you really have to question the current justice system (export bans while the caravan is two feet from leaving the map, anyone?), but handing complete control of justice over to the player just seems like a cheat to me.  Who could say that they wouldn't just use the justice system to either arbitrarily protect or punish a certain dwarf?  The current justice system, while odd, just adds to the challenge, and therefore to the fun.

[nighzmarquls]

I propose a compromise of MAXIMIZED fun

Give dwarves unhappiness and thus greater tantrum potential if those that they believe have wronged them are not punished.

Alternatively depending on personality type you could have dwarves find innocent punishment even more tantrum worthy.

Suddenly the 'cheater powers' the player has been given become an entirely new way to dig themselves into a seething mass of hate and blood lust.

[astaldaran]

It would be cool if say Dwarfa and Dwarfb are friends while Dwarfb, Now dwarfc hates (grudges) dwarfa,

Now a vampire killing happens by dwarfV; dwarfc sees his opportunity and he claims to be a witness to the crime and says Dwarfa is the vampire.  dwarfa gets locked up awaiting trial. Since dwarfb is friends with dwarfa, he knows that dwarfc has a grudge against his friend and doesn't trust him so dwarfb accuses dwarfc of lying.

Only dwarfa gets thrown in jail immediately to wait for trial (since he is allegedly dangerous) but then the magistrate or judge (or I suppose it could be the current mayor-I think an elected position would be a good..though that is an American thing..historically judges have always been appointed in other countries) presides in a courtroom and both dwarfa and dwarfc come and argue their case

---the judge determines which one to believe by one of two ways. 1) if he is dishonest then he chooses whichever dwarf he likes better dwarfa and b vs c 2) If he is honest then he uses his skills to try to discern which one is lying and then just makes up a decision---if he has leadership abilities then he will err on the side of keeping the vampire in jail since it helps morale not to have  vampire roaming..even if it is only an illusion. 

If he determines that dwarfc lied, then dwarfa is released and dwarfc is punished severely.

If he determines that dwarfc is truthful then he orders the execution of dwarfa.

Basically the judge would have some sort of matrix (likes and dislikes of people involved) and that would determine who he believes.
The same logic would apply if there had also been a witness of the real killing or not; will he believe them?


On another note I think if a dwarf becomes a lawgiver of some sort then, if they are corrupt, they should immediately try to use the justice system to hurt anyone they have grudges against.

Some dwarvs should get bad thoughts and grudges of the lawgiver if corruption is on going--and this would help determine future elections.

[sweitx]

One way that may-be fun is to have "law-giver" (aristocrats and nobles, for example) to have varying "preferences" for punishment (or lack thereof) for different crime.

For example, you can have a dwarf that got elected to a mayor position.  The dwarf have a fondness of dogs.  So shortly after election, she would "amend" the law to provide harsher penalty for crime that involved harming a dog (not a mandate like prohibition on exporting dog related products, although more then likely she would issue one).
Conversely, the dwarf might have a more "destructive" personality, and would lower the penalty for breaking stuffs.

On a mechanics side, effectively a dwarf in the law-making position would either add or remove new laws to an existing default laws.
For example

Default (catch all if more specific laws are not given):
Export ban violation on Any - 10 ~ 20 hammering
Ignored a production mandate Any Noble/Item - 10 ~ 20 hammering
Vandalism of Any Object - 5 ~ 10 months of jail
Attack of a dwarf/tame animal - 5 ~ 10 beating
Killing of a dwarf/tame animal - 5 ~ 10 hammering

Additional can be subscribed by combining the following.
{Violation} of {Target 1} - {Punishment}
NOTE: Target 2 only apply for production mandates.

{Violation} are in the following categories:
1. Export ban violation
2. Ignore production mandate
3. Vandalism
4. Attacking
5. Killing

Target:
Target depend on the violation listed but can fall into broad categories.
For example, you can have...
Vandalism of Furniture
Vandalism of Chairs
Killing of any pets.
Killing of pet cats.

Punishment:
Again, like existing system.
1. Hammering
2. Beating
3. Imprisonment

A law generated from a dwarf's preference might be as followed.
1. Pick a target (something she likes/hates)
2. Pick a violation (should make some sense, although technically all would work with some override.  Like vandalism of cat would be overrode to killing/attacking cat).
3. Pick a punishment (if law-giver likes {Target}, proscribes harsher penalty then default.  If law-giver hates {Target}, proscribes weaker penalty then default).

So, for example, a cat loving dwarf will look at existing law ("Killing of a dwarf/tame animal - 5 ~ 10 hammering") and decide to make a more specific law ("Killing of a tamed cat - 50 hammering").

Law resolution:
I imagine a pattern matching structure, where the "laws" are picked by how well their {Target} matches.  And only laws whose full list of raw-tag matches will have apply.  And if more then 1 law applies, use the latest law (in short, laws are resolved in stack order, the newest law overrides oldest laws). 
Let's say you have the following laws (amendment number is the order in which they're introduced).
Default: Killing of a dwarf/tame animal - 10 hammering (just dwarf/tame animals, no additional tag)
Amend 1: Killing of an owned pet - 20 hammering (must have an owner.)
Amend 2: Killing of a cat - 20 hammering (must have [CREATURE: CAT] tag)
Amend 3: Killing of a an owned pet cat - 100 hammering (must have [CREATURE: CAT] tag AND must have an owner)
Amend 4: Killing of a vermin hunter - No penalty. (must have [HUNTS_VERMIN] tag).

And now, someone killed a cat that have no owner.  Amend 1 won't apply, since it doesn't have an owner.  Amend 3 won't apply, since the "have an owner" criteria won't match.

Amend 2 would apply, since it's a cat, which have [CREATURE: CAT] tag.  Amend 4 would also apply, since a cat has [HUNTS_VERMIN] tag.  In this case, Amend 4 would be used (even if cat is more specific, amend 4 is the newest law, made by say some dwarf who really hate vermin hunters).

In summary of law resolution:
1. Default laws are always resolved last.
2. Laws are checked from the newest first.
3. The first law that has all it's required tag fulfilled in the target of the dwarf's crime, that's the law that's used (even if the later law is more general then previous ones).

Removal of law by dwarf:
Dwarf can remove/update laws they don't like (exclude default laws, which they can only modify).  Dwarf will compare amended laws to the default punishment and determine whether they're "appropriate" given their preference.  A cat-loving dwarf might strike out laws that proscribe weaker punishment then default on crimes against cat.  Or might make the default punishment weaker as to make the "weaker" punishment harsher in comparison.

[EmperorJon]

Spoiler: "condensing down quote" (click to show/hide)

It would be cool if say Dwarfa and Dwarfb are friends while Dwarfb, Now dwarfc hates (grudges) dwarfa,

Now a vampire killing happens by dwarfV; dwarfc sees his opportunity and he claims to be a witness to the crime and says Dwarfa is the vampire.  dwarfa gets locked up awaiting trial. Since dwarfb is friends with dwarfa, he knows that dwarfc has a grudge against his friend and doesn't trust him so dwarfb accuses dwarfc of lying.

Only dwarfa gets thrown in jail immediately to wait for trial (since he is allegedly dangerous) but then the magistrate or judge (or I suppose it could be the current mayor-I think an elected position would be a good..though that is an American thing..historically judges have always been appointed in other countries) presides in a courtroom and both dwarfa and dwarfc come and argue their case

---the judge determines which one to believe by one of two ways. 1) if he is dishonest then he chooses whichever dwarf he likes better dwarfa and b vs c 2) If he is honest then he uses his skills to try to discern which one is lying and then just makes up a decision---if he has leadership abilities then he will err on the side of keeping the vampire in jail since it helps morale not to have  vampire roaming..even if it is only an illusion. 

If he determines that dwarfc lied, then dwarfa is released and dwarfc is punished severely.

If he determines that dwarfc is truthful then he orders the execution of dwarfa.

Basically the judge would have some sort of matrix (likes and dislikes of people involved) and that would determine who he believes.
The same logic would apply if there had also been a witness of the real killing or not; will he believe them?


On another note I think if a dwarf becomes a lawgiver of some sort then, if they are corrupt, they should immediately try to use the justice system to hurt anyone they have grudges against.

Some dwarvs should get bad thoughts and grudges of the lawgiver if corruption is on going--and this would help determine future elections.

What if the judge is dwarfV. XD

[astaldaran]

Spoiler: "condensing down quote" (click to show/hide)

It would be cool if say Dwarfa and Dwarfb are friends while Dwarfb, Now dwarfc hates (grudges) dwarfa,

Now a vampire killing happens by dwarfV; dwarfc sees his opportunity and he claims to be a witness to the crime and says Dwarfa is the vampire.  dwarfa gets locked up awaiting trial. Since dwarfb is friends with dwarfa, he knows that dwarfc has a grudge against his friend and doesn't trust him so dwarfb accuses dwarfc of lying.

Only dwarfa gets thrown in jail immediately to wait for trial (since he is allegedly dangerous) but then the magistrate or judge (or I suppose it could be the current mayor-I think an elected position would be a good..though that is an American thing..historically judges have always been appointed in other countries) presides in a courtroom and both dwarfa and dwarfc come and argue their case

---the judge determines which one to believe by one of two ways. 1) if he is dishonest then he chooses whichever dwarf he likes better dwarfa and b vs c 2) If he is honest then he uses his skills to try to discern which one is lying and then just makes up a decision---if he has leadership abilities then he will err on the side of keeping the vampire in jail since it helps morale not to have  vampire roaming..even if it is only an illusion. 

If he determines that dwarfc lied, then dwarfa is released and dwarfc is punished severely.

If he determines that dwarfc is truthful then he orders the execution of dwarfa.

Basically the judge would have some sort of matrix (likes and dislikes of people involved) and that would determine who he believes.
The same logic would apply if there had also been a witness of the real killing or not; will he believe them?


On another note I think if a dwarf becomes a lawgiver of some sort then, if they are corrupt, they should immediately try to use the justice system to hurt anyone they have grudges against.

Some dwarvs should get bad thoughts and grudges of the lawgiver if corruption is on going--and this would help determine future elections.

What if the judge is dwarfV. XD

Then it is simply beautiful

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

It would be nice if it was like a game of Clue but some things would have to change:

a) When a crime is being commited any typical notices in the reports or message history must be omitted. Instead the notice that discusses the crime only occurs when a dorf who witnessed or was victim of the crime comes forward. This is relating in a number of ways to crimes:
*Tantrum dorf destroys a bed of a dorf. The dorf will report the crime when they go to their room and see they no longer have said item.
*dorf was victim of assault. dorf who was victim, or any witness will report the crime. Then each witness and the victim give their testimony as well as the perpetrator, and the possibility can be that perpetrator claims he was attacked first and maybe some witnesses were his friends and would claim the same thing.
*Unreported crimes would go unreported, or maybe after a certain time "statutes of limitations takes effect and the standard report that used to occur will go forth like the notice of a furniture being destroyed by tantruming dwarf.
b) Judgements should be final. If you make a mistake in charging a dorf you should have to suffer the consequence.
c) Dorfs who are wrongly accused and jailed or beaten for crimes they did not commit should get a major negative thought as a result. The longer the sentence, or the more severe the beating the more negative the thought should be. On the same token, a victim of a crime that goes unsolved would get a negative thought depending on severity of the crime after the statute of limitations for the crime expires.
d) To fix loyalty cascade. When a dorf becomes enemy of the civ, the justice department should be able to arrest for treason before things get too crazy. Once the loyalty cascade starts to spiral out of control it should be more difficult to correct, unless you have a strong police force.
e) In the event of an unreported crime, depending on the type of crime the Sheriff should be able to investigate the crime scene, be it a dorf or furniture, etc. random generation would create some clues based on the location, and those involved. For instance a strand of certain color cloth might be found on a dead dorf body which can help narrow suspects, by seeing what color clothing different dorfs are wearing.
f) Maybe certain skills can help in investigating a crime scene, while other skills might help in a criminal leaving less evidence at the scene.

[Spish]

Methinks that guards handing out beatings should rely on bashing attacks even when equipped with lethal bladed weapons. IE they smack them around with the shaft of their spear (along with the occasional gut punch or football punt) rather than eviscerating them with the point. If Toady can make sparring recruits hold back, I don't see why he can't do this. Or heck, make them options under the squad schedule/noble settings (Allow blades, Blunt only, Fists only, etc.). It's annoying that you can't arm your guards with decent weapons without turning them into murder machines.

Also it would be nice if you could move prisoners to different chains/rooms, rather than the ones the game chooses for you... like, say, if you have an execution/torture chamber/garbage disposal. Or if you want to use a prisoner as bait for a forgotten beast. Especially the insane ones.

[astaldaran]

maybe your police forces/palace guards could have different alert levels? The alert level tells them how severely to enforce law and order. So for example at the lowest level they are willing to let things slide and when things do get punished they do it in a less severe way...so for a mild crime they might just take the dwarfs bed away for a month or something while for the most severe crime that results in the death penalty they do it privately and quickly--maybe they force the dwarf to consume enough alcohol to kill him (is that possible with dwarves?)

While at the highest alert levels the military commander takes over and the military enforces martial law. if they so much as see a crime they don't even both having a trial; they simply punish...theft--cut of the hand...forget beating they use the sharp ends of their weapons, etc.

[nighzmarquls]

This is a bit in depth for any initial implementations, Also it starts to add ALOT of AI to the system depending on how you handle it.

However it might be interesting if 'trials' occur as a kind of minigame that expands on conversations/trading.

Then it would be more possible to input in the more complex layers of the AI decision making system during a trial while everything else is on hold rather then trying to constantly run thinking checks on these kind of things all the time.

This also will make the justice system a bit more easily portable between both adventure and fortress mode (come on who would love the chance to plea their innocence to the corrupt demonic god-imposter judge of a human civilization?).

[Pandimo]

come on who would love the chance to plea their innocence to the corrupt demonic god-imposter judge of a human civilization?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHmDnfD6I

Yes... I can almost see the justice system turning into the climax of an action film...
Or a pink Floyd song...

[dwarfhoplite]

I prefer less direct control.