Print

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

[UHaulDwarf]

Again with the ethics tags? As I said before, it's a meaningless line of text in the raws that is probably only there to make dwarves not die during world gen.

It at lest as meaningful as any other tag. Like the tags that say how sharp something is or at what temperature it melts at.

As of the latest version, I have yet to see a noble position called 'Counselor'. Besides, when the personality rewrites come, it will probably be much harder to keep your dwarfs happy.

Alright, not Counselor, Mayor. The Mayor uses the consoler skill and pacifier skill to calm dwarfs down.

In my opinion Toady shouldn't have even given dwarves ethics, or if he did, they should've been random. Too many good ideas have been rejected because they supposedly go against the ethics, which are only in the raws. And in any case, why should the dwarves be angels? This is taking place in medieval times, and back then they had quite different morals from what we have today.

The raws are what they are. If you don't like them, change them. I believe that a dwarf would never use someone else to do his job, and a apparently Toady thinks the same way.

First off, in a medieval setting, the king and nobles have absolute power. They could have your house burned down because they didn't feel that your grass was long enough, and they still wouldn't get punished.

Despite what you may believe, Dwarf Fortress is not a medieval Europe simulator. The 1400 cap for tecnolagy is there to keep things from getting out of hand.
Kings and queens never had absolute power. Sure some had a lot of power, but they were still human. There is only so far you can push someone before they start pushing back.

Second off, the dwarves, being uneducated since they don't go to school, probably aren't lectured on how cruel slavery is. For the most part, they probably haven't even been exposed to it. If the high priest or some other revered noble says slavery is okay, and then the dwarves are genuinely fooled by the propaganda, they'd probably have no objections to enslaving dwarves.

Of course, there's always a chance that some over-educated dwarf will see through your lies and get angry, or potentially even go around and tell all his friends that your propaganda is all lies. There could be new crimes called "Attempting to Start an Uprising" or "Disloyalty" that could get those troublemakers put in jail, or given beatings.

I am not sure how you would imagine this to work. Even if the dwarfs did not know, that does not mean that they would not figure it out.
Just because someone is uneducated does not mean that they are stupid.

In any case, the ethics shouldn't even be brought up. They are never even mentioned in the game. They're meaningless. I'm pretty sure that the current ethic system is only a placeholder, and that dwarves only have the ethics the way they do because if they didn't everybody would kill them, like Jeoshua said.

The ethics dictate how each civ acts towards each other in the world generator. It might be a placeholder, and in that case you might want to hold off with ideas that relate to ethics until they changes are announced.(Though I would not think of telling you not to post your ideas.)

And let's not even talk about slavery anymore. Everyone who commented on it said pretty much the exact same thing; we're getting nowhere. Besides, that wasn't the main idea of my suggestion, just a side thought.

Well it was only about half of your op, and since food is ease enough to keep on hand that leaves the other half of your post to discuses.

[Carp McDwarfEater]

Like I said before, I'm not talking about slavery. Over and over someone mentions the ethic raws and I say the same thing.

And this suggestion isn't about food or slavery, it's about propaganda. The food and slavery were just some ideas I had for what it could do.

And on the topic of mayor, I see more bad thoughts about dwarfs not bring able to see him than good ones for being consoled. And once again, personality rewrites might make it pretty hard to keep dwarves happy.

[Jeoshua]

Well thing is, you did mention it.  It's one of those sticky topics that people always get up at arms about.  Also, Toady doesn't like to work backwards, so it the gam'es raw files or gameplay already tells us something about the game in any way, no matter how functional it is in game, people latch on to it because unless that token has it's function replaced by something else, it's not going away.

Your example should have been about something other than Slavery, if you did not wish people to talk about slavery.  I'm not bringing up the ethics tags here to tell you you're wrong.  I'm bringing up Toady's hesitance to undo things he's already done for whatever reason he's done them.
In your suggestion, you're positing that the best reaction to having elven prisoners is to put them to work by getting people mad at them.  However, it's more likely they would become scapegoats and be killed by a mod.  Meanwhile the Dwarves would be presuring you into declaring war on those damned babystealing elves you've convinced them about, and all the time your propaganda could have been ineffective at generating the effect you desired.

Propaganda isn't always effective at getting people riled up, and even when it is does not always generate the response a would-be-despot would want.

[Niyazov]

Before we get propaganda we would need a proper opinion system. To convince a dwarf to change their opinion about elves, they first have to have a gameplay-significant manner of having an opinion. There also would need to be a news and gossip system through which quanta of information can spread; it's not like you're going to be putting up broadsheets given that most dwarves cannot read.

It would be interesting if art could shape opinions and vice versa. In any given older fortress you are likely to see craftsmen creating images of both of worldgen elf historical figures committing acts of slaughter, and images of elves performing peaceful actions. Opinion could shift these one way or another, so that a craftsman with a grudge against elves would create more images of elves committing atrocities or being slaughtered (I think they do something similar with both hated vermin and people they have grudges against); and over time exposure to such images could shape other dwarves' opinions.

The limit to this system is that it might end up requiring that each sentient have opinion counters tracking opinions of all worldgen entities, which would be hideously resource intensive.

[Carp McDwarfEater]

Well thing is, you did mention it.  It's one of those sticky topics that people always get up at arms about.  Also, Toady doesn't like to work backwards, so it the gam'es raw files or gameplay already tells us something about the game in any way, no matter how functional it is in game, people latch on to it because unless that token has it's function replaced by something else, it's not going away.

Your example should have been about something other than Slavery, if you did not wish people to talk about slavery.  I'm not bringing up the ethics tags here to tell you you're wrong.  I'm bringing up Toady's hesitance to undo things he's already done for whatever reason he's done them.
In your suggestion, you're positing that the best reaction to having elven prisoners is to put them to work by getting people mad at them.  However, it's more likely they would become scapegoats and be killed by a mod.  Meanwhile the Dwarves would be presuring you into declaring war on those damned babystealing elves you've convinced them about, and all the time your propaganda could have been ineffective at generating the effect you desired.

Propaganda isn't always effective at getting people riled up, and even when it is does not always generate the response a would-be-despot would want.

Yes, I now see that I probably should have thought of a different example. And I agree that propaganda could have various effects on dwarfs, some of which might not be exactly what you wanted.

The limit to this system is that it might end up requiring that each sentient have opinion counters tracking opinions of all worldgen entities, which would be hideously resource intensive.

Not necessarily. If you go to the description of a dwarf there's already a huge list of what they love, fear, look like, etc. Adding one or two sentences about their opinions doesn't seem like it would make too much of a difference. And during worldgen, it could just track the opinions of leaders and such, or track the opinions of an entire area, as a sort of general consensus.

[rtg593]

Setting aside the thought that toady probably will never allow it, seeing he doesn't like removing things he put in, and he couldn't stomach mer-farms...

Really, people? You're playing a game where you readily admit to child and fluffy animal slaughter, locking kids in rooms with rabid dogs to make them not care about anything, elaborate traps to shred invaders in the bloodiest way possible, using captured invaders as training dummies... And you can't stomach slavery? That said, I don't know if I would use it, either, but the entire game is a massive suspension of belief to lower ourselves to the psychotic depths necessary to envision and use half the stuff we do...

Back on topic, I think a propaganda idea is cool. If, as you say, dwarves will be more difficult to make happy, then this could very well be useful.

I'm more interested in the civil uprisings that could happen. See the same group of dwarves going "on break" at the same time, all heading to the same area, away from other dwarves, occasionally and steadily increasing in number by pulling in the dwarves around them. Work quality dropping lower and lower, as well as production rates, then suddenly you get the alert, "Urist McCharasmatic has led an uprising! Quell them, quick!" or something like that, with most or all of those dorfs changing to a temporary enemy civ. Subtle use of propoganda can reduce the chance of it happening, great use can increase it. And the leader of the uprising would be using it, as well, to draw in rebels. You could have some highly loyal dwarves report the meetings, allowing you to punish those involved in "civil unrest," which may or may not make things better or worse... They could even kill the dwarf before he could report them, leaving you with a mysterious death with no witnesses.

This, of course, would all be controlled from a init file tag, or series of tags, allowing you to turn this off if you do desire...

[Niyazov]

Setting aside the thought that toady probably will never allow it, seeing he doesn't like removing things he put in, and he couldn't stomach mer-farms...

Really, people? You're playing a game where you readily admit to child and fluffy animal slaughter, locking kids in rooms with rabid dogs to make them not care about anything, elaborate traps to shred invaders in the bloodiest way possible, using captured invaders as training dummies... And you can't stomach slavery? That said, I don't know if I would use it, either, but the entire game is a massive suspension of belief to lower ourselves to the psychotic depths necessary to envision and use half the stuff we do...

Back on topic, I think a propaganda idea is cool. If, as you say, dwarves will be more difficult to make happy, then this could very well be useful.

I'm more interested in the civil uprisings that could happen. See the same group of dwarves going "on break" at the same time, all heading to the same area, away from other dwarves, occasionally and steadily increasing in number by pulling in the dwarves around them. Work quality dropping lower and lower, as well as production rates, then suddenly you get the alert, "Urist McCharasmatic has led an uprising! Quell them, quick!" or something like that, with most or all of those dorfs changing to a temporary enemy civ. Subtle use of propoganda can reduce the chance of it happening, great use can increase it. And the leader of the uprising would be using it, as well, to draw in rebels. You could have some highly loyal dwarves report the meetings, allowing you to punish those involved in "civil unrest," which may or may not make things better or worse... They could even kill the dwarf before he could report them, leaving you with a mysterious death with no witnesses.

This, of course, would all be controlled from a init file tag, or series of tags, allowing you to turn this off if you do desire...

I could see all sorts of tragic hilarious situations arising from having civ members temporarily turn hostile to your civ. "He talked with a child lately. He has participated in an uprising. He took joy in slaughter. He has witnessed death. He lost a son to tragedy recently."

[Jeoshua]

Really, people? You're playing a game where you readily admit to child and fluffy animal slaughter, locking kids in rooms with rabid dogs to make them not care about anything, elaborate traps to shred invaders in the bloodiest way possible, using captured invaders as training dummies... And you can't stomach slavery? That said, I don't know if I would use it, either, but the entire game is a massive suspension of belief to lower ourselves to the psychotic depths necessary to envision and use half the stuff we do...

... maybe you're playing a game like that.  Maybe even half the forum is playing a game like that.  But I'm not.  And neither are a lot of people you aren't hearing the opinions of.  Are you more likely to remember the horrible kinds of activities that you're describing there, in all their gruesome detail?

Or the guy who says "I just built a nice trading post.  Elves came.  I gave them craft goods."

And yes, I know someone will quote that, scratch out "craft goods" and say "magma"... but it only proves my point.

[UHaulDwarf]

Really, people? You're playing a game where you readily admit to child and fluffy animal slaughter, locking kids in rooms with rabid dogs to make them not care about anything, elaborate traps to shred invaders in the bloodiest way possible, using captured invaders as training dummies... And you can't stomach slavery? That said, I don't know if I would use it, either, but the entire game is a massive suspension of belief to lower ourselves to the psychotic depths necessary to envision and use half the stuff we do...

My answer to this is: What would be the point to having slaves?
You already have dwarfs that do what you tell them to do, without having to have another dwarf there whipping them to make them do it.

[Carp McDwarfEater]

You'd just need two or three armed guards outside the door to a big farm, with looms and clothing workshops. What would be the point of slaves when you already have plenty of dwarfs? Superior productivity. Lock them in a huge room with farms and a few beds in the corner, and they'll work hard all day, sleep, wake up, then repeat. No breaks or drinking alcohol.

[GreatWyrmGold]

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.


Back on topic: Propaganda could be a "background" thing. Like I mentioned before (I think I did), past civilizations have from time to time used religion to justify massive expedentures of resources and work, or more commonly to justify the larger amount of resources used by these elite.. A group of priests and nobles could claim that the massive monuments for the glory of their fortress are the mandate of the gods, or that they deserve larger living quarters, finer food, etc, than normal dwarves because of this most-favored status. This would create a (probably) unspoken contract between the elite and the masses--the peasants grow food and make crafts and monumants for he elite, while the elite make sure that the gods bless the fort. In the DF world, they might, which is reason enough to spread the propaganda; however, dwarves would probably get good thoughts fortress-wide from doing the work of the gods. If tragedy struck the fort, though, or if you angered the gods somehow (say, by destroying or overshadowing the previous monument), the peasants would see this as a violation of their social contract--e.g. "We're feeding you, but you're not keeping a good word for us with the gods!" This would lead to Fun.

[rtg593]

<snip>

My answer to this is: What would be the point to having slaves?
You already have dwarfs that do what you tell them to do, without having to have another dwarf there whipping them to make them do it.

I don't really know what the point would be, it was more a bemused comment on how quickly people were speaking out in a game rather... Questionable moral activities are already possible :p I wasn't saying we should add it, I wasn't saying we shouldn't. Was just making a small point.

<snip>

... maybe you're playing a game like that.  Maybe even half the forum is playing a game like that.  But I'm not.  And neither are a lot of people you aren't hearing the opinions of.  Are you more likely to remember the horrible kinds of activities that you're describing there, in all their gruesome detail?

Or the guy who says "I just built a nice trading post.  Elves came.  I gave them craft goods."

And yes, I know someone will quote that, scratch out "craft goods" and say "magma"... but it only proves my point.

I don't slaughter children, or lock them in rooms with rabid dogs. I do use elaborate traps to shred invaders. As I usually have my 10 month old on my lap while playing this, some things I couldn't stomach :p

Anywho, you make a good point. Just because those are the loudest and most frequently spoken of, doesn't mean even a majority play that way. But the game does have the reputation for it, so that's the first thing i think of.

Now, as slavery has nothing to do with the actual discussion and suggestions, I apologize for my comment, and

/derail

Edit: Ninja'd by greatwyrmgold.

Ya, no need to reply to it. I already addressed the points in your reply in the ones above :-)

[GreatWyrmGold]

If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that my points--the main one being that dwarves' ethics are what we are talking about here--were raised earlier. They did not seem to have been. I suppose it is possible that I am mistaken as to your meaning, and if so I appologise for both this statement and for derailing this thread from its original topic. What was it again?
*glances up*
Ah, right. Propaganda. I've already said all I can currently think of once or twice, so I can't really add anything unless someone comments on my ideas.

[ObeseHelmet]

Wait, why are we all discussing ethics? Why do we care about in-game ethics.

THIS IS BAY12FORUMS. WE ARE IMMORAL. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ugh. Why? Why do people like you clog up the suggestion forum? You argue that, because of actions that we are known for, dwarves should act directly against what we know is in their moral code. It's not even like "We do X, so a system for X should be included;" it's "X isn't much worse than Y, by the reckoning of some, so since we do Y we shoud be able to do X."

And for the record, I consider the unwilling servitude of another sentient creature far more heinous than killing a creature whose only virtue is cuteness, in order to feed and keep sane a number of sentients. And I don't even slaughter kittens to begin with.