Print

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

[Helgoland]

Forget about black white and gray morals. People here have Violet and Turquoise and Banana as their morals.

Well, I'd say our morals are violent as well as bananas, but until they are applied, you can't know in what exactly they will be in that particular case.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's not that we have problems with...oh, brother, I just made this post.

rtg593, it's not so much that we can't stomach slavery--it's that dwarves can't. And who says that it has to make sense to everyone else?
Dwarves are among the more moral races in DF. They aren't cannibals, or thieves, or slavers, or torturers, or goblins. They are completely opposed to most forms of evil supported in the raws, with most such crimes being either severely punished or simply unthinkable as anything a dwarf might do. The only exceptions are killing animals, plants, enemies, and neutrals, and that last one only if they were ordered to. Oh, and lying, but how the hell is any race going to track down every liar in the land and punish them? These aren't mere conjectures, made to make us feel better about playing a short, alcoholic race; they're actual data, gathered from the raws (our only source of information on dwarves). So what if we can currently violate these ethics? The dwarves shouldn't be modified, using Toady's limited time, to violate them egregriously when the player tells them to.

[Splint]

Who cares what dwarves think! We're always there anyway..... Watching them when they sleep, eat, make babi- I didn't need that last image I made for myself....

[GreatWyrmGold]

*cracks figurative knuckles*

Who cares what dwarves think? We do. That's half of the point of this thread (the other half being what other races think of dwarves). How would the dwarves of DF, knowing what we do from the information given in the raws and in gameplay, with Toady's word and the raws taking precedent over the (unfinished, mind you) gameplay, react to being placed in a situation where they must mingle with other races? Some of us think that they'd be xenophobic, others think apathetic. There is one small detail that none of us can overlook if we want our argument to be treated seriously by other people here, namely:

Code: [Select]

[ETHIC:SLAVERY:PUNISH_CAPITAL]And while I was slightly wrong on the severity (I appologise to everyone to whom I insisted that it was unthinkable), this clearly shows something about how dwarven society works, or is intended to work: Anyone participating in slave trade (except the slaves, of course) is risking capital punishment. Can you tell the attitude dwarves have towards those who keep slaves from this? Hint: There's about as much chance of a dwarven society taking slaves as there is of one deciding to chow down on the corpses of the elves they just killed. And how do we know that dwarves don't condone consumption of sentient beings? From the ethics of the dwarven civilization. By this same logic, if the idea that dwarves are fine with chopping down trees is important, then how dwarves react to slavery is important as well.

[Detoxicated]

Point taken,
Now let's get back on topic.
If you enabled an envoy system you could easily contact those tribes with worthy fighters. This way you could send envoys with gifts and tributes, while getting some contracted mercenaries, with demands but prone fighting skills.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You mean, send nobles to other sites and have them diplomat over there? Sounds like a good idea in general, epsecially in conjunction with the ability to send out one's own trade caravans. Which could also be useful in dealing with those tribes of animalmen...

You know, we've mostly been discussing based on the assumption that friendly contact is attempted and succeeds. But what could happen if one or both of those fail? For instance, judging by the fact that the Norse Greenlander's first record of the Inuit included notes on how much they bled, it seems that the former decided to experimentally stab the latter. What if a dwarf decided to do the same with, say, a plump helmet man or something he found roaming the underground depths? This could be Fun. Or maybe the tigerman delegate sneers at the metal weapons his tribe is being offered, not considering them worth sending his tribesmen to abandon their way of life. And that's assuming that they can find a common language to speak. Hm, what if we added language barriers in other ways?

Just some ideas to get us started.

[Splint]

Clearly my attempt at humor fell on deaf ears. The above stament I made was in no way meant to be taken seriously.

[NW_Kohaku]

You mean, send nobles to other sites and have them diplomat over there? Sounds like a good idea in general, epsecially in conjunction with the ability to send out one's own trade caravans. Which could also be useful in dealing with those tribes of animalmen...

You know, we've mostly been discussing based on the assumption that friendly contact is attempted and succeeds. But what could happen if one or both of those fail? For instance, judging by the fact that the Norse Greenlander's first record of the Inuit included notes on how much they bled, it seems that the former decided to experimentally stab the latter. What if a dwarf decided to do the same with, say, a plump helmet man or something he found roaming the underground depths? This could be Fun. Or maybe the tigerman delegate sneers at the metal weapons his tribe is being offered, not considering them worth sending his tribesmen to abandon their way of life. And that's assuming that they can find a common language to speak. Hm, what if we added language barriers in other ways?

Just some ideas to get us started.

OK, just as a hint, you probably shouldn't offer the frogmen your dead elephant off the bat.  That didn't seem to go so well.  Also, be careful with elephants in general, especially once one of them has a taste for blood.

Turtle diplomacy seems to go well, however.


Anyway, that depends on them not just meandering into your own fort, but post-Army Arc or during some time when you have control over barony hill dwarves and can send out expeditions, that would be a fun thing to have.

We could try to set the stance of the diplomats we send out - militant/show-of-force to get respect if they happen to be militant tribes, or a softer diplomatic touch for the more peaceful tribes, having to guess what they will respond best to, or just giving them a little show of what it is that's in store for the rest of your diplomatic missions.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Clearly my attempt at humor fell on deaf ears. The above stament I made was in no way meant to be taken seriously.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Suggestion: Next time add something to indicate that you're not serious, like [/humor] or something. Sadly, internet technology has not evolved to the point where you can hear one's tone of voice.

You mean, send nobles to other sites and have them diplomat over there? Sounds like a good idea in general, epsecially in conjunction with the ability to send out one's own trade caravans. Which could also be useful in dealing with those tribes of animalmen...

You know, we've mostly been discussing based on the assumption that friendly contact is attempted and succeeds. But what could happen if one or both of those fail? For instance, judging by the fact that the Norse Greenlander's first record of the Inuit included notes on how much they bled, it seems that the former decided to experimentally stab the latter. What if a dwarf decided to do the same with, say, a plump helmet man or something he found roaming the underground depths? This could be Fun. Or maybe the tigerman delegate sneers at the metal weapons his tribe is being offered, not considering them worth sending his tribesmen to abandon their way of life. And that's assuming that they can find a common language to speak. Hm, what if we added language barriers in other ways?

Just some ideas to get us started.

OK, just as a hint, you probably shouldn't offer the frogmen your dead elephant off the bat.  That didn't seem to go so well.  Also, be careful with elephants in general, especially once one of them has a taste for blood.

Turtle diplomacy seems to go well, however.

I'm sure that that would be an amazingly clever joke if I knew why it was funny.

Anyway, that depends on them not just meandering into your own fort, but post-Army Arc or during some time when you have control over barony hill dwarves and can send out expeditions, that would be a fun thing to have.

We could try to set the stance of the diplomats we send out - militant/show-of-force to get respect if they happen to be militant tribes, or a softer diplomatic touch for the more peaceful tribes, having to guess what they will respond best to, or just giving them a little show of what it is that's in store for the rest of your diplomatic missions.

That does sound like a couple of pretty good ideas. I can imagine how well a show-of-force would go if you assumed that the whalepeople were militant...well, two ways, and neither of them much fun for the dwarf (although plenty of Fun). Other misunderstandings could be nice, but I like the idea of angering a tribe which you hadn't realised was so powerful...

[Splint]

Look to the skies! A marauding force of -bird-men have come!

Tigermen! Drive them back to the jungle!

The sea beasts walk! Drive away these strange invaders!

[NW_Kohaku]

I'm sure that that would be an amazingly clever joke if I knew why it was funny.

It's from Elves of Amanareli.  The elves tried to capture an elephant to trade with the dwarves, and pissed off an elephant that killed off multiple elves and made a return appearance to kill off more.  When negotiating with frogmen to make safe passage through their land, the frogmen demanded something of value from the elves, and the players tried to pawn off the rotting carcass of the elephant on them, and sparked a war for insulting them by offering what was essentially their trash.

I wouldn't call it rip-roaringly hilarious reference, but it was a pretty funny set of events at the time.

That does sound like a couple of pretty good ideas. I can imagine how well a show-of-force would go if you assumed that the whalepeople were militant...well, two ways, and neither of them much fun for the dwarf (although plenty of Fun). Other misunderstandings could be nice, but I like the idea of angering a tribe which you hadn't realised was so powerful...

Alternately, if you go to a militant powerful tribe with baskets of flowers and singing the praises of peace, they may just think you're a bunch of pansies and kill your envoy and steal their stuff. 

Just so long as it isn't assumed that one position will always be superior to others.

[Niyazov]

That being said, some cultures should probably see the dwarves as possessing a culture superior in, if not every way, then in by far enough ways that they'd gladly shuck their old ways of life to join them. I remember stories about a variety of native cultures destroying their cultural artifacts because anti-pagan Christian religious leaders or what-have-you told them to, and one instance where some Polynesians changed their drainage ditches from vertical to horizontal at the Europeans' suggestion (the gardens got washed away the next time a big rainfall came along). That's assuming that their religion isn't unfortunately geared towards misinterpreting your dwarves as gods, as famously occurred to the Aztecs.

Also bear in mind that, if we're talking about technologically/socially "inferior" races like the animalmen, there is historical precedent for treating them as a resource (enslaving them, that is), as well as for treating them like people (sometimes even inter-marriage) and genocide. Dwarves are against slavery, so they'd probably tend towards integration or extermination rather than subjugation, but that should be more a matter of ethics/unhappy thoughts/whatever than a game mechanic.

It's doubtful that many Aztecs actually believed Cortez to be a god- we only have his word for it. Rather, contemporary sources suggest that leaders within the different areas of the Aztec "empire" recognized his unexpected appearance was a destabilizing element and attempted to use him as a combination of military ally, favorable omen and political pawn but were unable to make him stop once he had conquered the opposing rulers that they disliked.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm sure that that would be an amazingly clever joke if I knew why it was funny.

It's from Elves of Amanareli.  The elves tried to capture an elephant to trade with the dwarves, and pissed off an elephant that killed off multiple elves and made a return appearance to kill off more.  When negotiating with frogmen to make safe passage through their land, the frogmen demanded something of value from the elves, and the players tried to pawn off the rotting carcass of the elephant on them, and sparked a war for insulting them by offering what was essentially their trash.

I wouldn't call it rip-roaringly hilarious reference, but it was a pretty funny set of events at the time.

Yeah, I bet that if I had read that it would have been funny. Heck, I might read it now.

That does sound like a couple of pretty good ideas. I can imagine how well a show-of-force would go if you assumed that the whalepeople were militant...well, two ways, and neither of them much fun for the dwarf (although plenty of Fun). Other misunderstandings could be nice, but I like the idea of angering a tribe which you hadn't realised was so powerful...

Alternately, if you go to a militant powerful tribe with baskets of flowers and singing the praises of peace, they may just think you're a bunch of pansies and kill your envoy and steal their stuff. 

Just so long as it isn't assumed that one position will always be superior to others.

I thought that it was obvious. Clearly not, on further reflection.

-Snip-

It's doubtful that many Aztecs actually believed Cortez to be a god- we only have his word for it. Rather, contemporary sources suggest that leaders within the different areas of the Aztec "empire" recognized his unexpected appearance was a destabilizing element and attempted to use him as a combination of military ally, favorable omen and political pawn but were unable to make him stop once he had conquered the opposing rulers that they disliked.

Huh, you learn something new every day.
Still, even if the Aztecs didn't mistake Cortez to be a god, it's still an idea that's heavily ingrained (...that doesn't sound right) in both popular conception of history and in pop culture that it has as much a right to be in Dwarf Fortress as birds the size of whales. Smallish whales, I guess, but still. And, anyways, other cultures have gladly (or at least willingly) destroyed their own cultural artifacts at the request of Europeans, who were more knowledgeable. Dwarves, being more knowledgeable than animalpeople, etc, would naturally sometimes end up being revered by animalpeople.

[Splint]

I also recall there being pacific islanders who mistook american, australian, and british military personel as thier dead ancestors during WWII and built cults around the machines they arrived in: Thier planes.

I would imagine a giant carved skull with a massive ropereed impersonation of beard in place of a bamboo and vine/palm leaf plane.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Or maybe they'd see the steel axes the dwarves carried, and the steel armor they wore, which respectively cut through their armor like it almost wasn't there and rendered them nigh invulnerable to their attacks, and start a cult around those.
Or an artifact-based cult...