Print

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

[herrbdog]

This argument reminds me of a time when I played paper and dice RPGs. Some friends and I were playing Whitewolf (or something like that, it's been years...).

Anyway, the DM's story was that we were to escort a little girl who had some power to defeat a demon intent on taking over the Earth. The character I had rolled, however, was from a faction bent on controlling neutrality (kinda like the Hashishim with D&D a druidic alignment).

Anyway, the demon (the Evil) was destroyed. However, this left the world out of balance, as the girl (the Good) now gave it a greater power of good. So, according to my character's beliefs, I slew her. This, however, was seen as REALLY evil by the other players (who didn't know I was gonna do it, and the DM didn't until that day either), and they, in turn, slew me.

Um... dunno what that adds, but it's what I got. =p

[Faces of Mu]

I am now actually thinking about anxiety and coping and needs. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs says people go about trying to meet lower order needs such as food, shelter, and safety needs over higher needs such as love, self-esteem, self-actualisation. Maslow says these needs don't always happen in that order, but that's the general model.

However, in what ways could dwarves differ individually about how they meet all these needs? What sort of coping strategies could dwarves have that would make them unique? I think examples we see in the current version is that starving dwarves raid merchants and forage for insects (hunger needs), threatened civilians run away from foes and military attack (safety needs), dwarves have parties and friends (love needs), and dwarves create masterpieces and and go up in skills (self-esteem needs). I don't know if there's anything dwarves do that exemplifies self-actualisation (highest need), but I'm thinking that some greater ways dwarves achieve all these needs would demonstrate various drives and motives.

For example, I don't think I see dwarves really strive for shelter when it's raining or storming or when they know they don't like sunlight (shelter needs). They certainly don't strive to stay away from sieges, nor do they vary much within their caste as to how they achieve safety or security, or love from other dwarves. I guess self-esteem needs come from making some sort of evaluation of the self based on evaluations of and from others. It doesn't really seem clear as to why these dwarves work so hard and continue working so hard at their tasks and if there's some tasks they prefer and value over others. Generally, the worst consequences to dwarves not being satisfied is tantrumming (and the different ways this happens), falling prey to predators and starvation.

Perhaps some ways dwarves could also go about fulfilling themselves are:

Hunger/Thirst/Shelter/Sex:
- Attack each other for their food, also cannibalism.
- Slaughter animals (not by your choosing).
- Rape (??!)
- Construct their own walls/roofing if necessary
- Unlock doors obstructing these needs
- pull levers connected to obstructions to these needs
- Hold hostages (friend or foe)

Safety/Security:
- Be willing to wear armour if felt threatened recently; equips armour against your choice
- Not go outside or near dangerous areas for a long time.
- Be willing to not help/defend others for the sake of the self (including militia)
- Contruct their own walls
- Attack "idiots" or dwarves who have somehow caused a risk
- Encourage militia or hard working dwarves with compliments or gifts
- Attack nearby threats or run away (both civs and militia, not just one or the other)
- Lock doors or unlock doors
- Hold hostages (friend or foe)
- develop dependencies and compulsions (over-eating, over-working, exercising, etc)
- Psychoanalytic defense mechanisms (e.g., work on other tasks or rest when there is a siege going on or when high priority tasks have been assigned (denial), react to traumatic experiences later (repression), regress to earlier behaviours/skill levels (regression), attack friends after fights or training (displacement), dwarves being harsh with others after themselves stuffing something up (projection), admin officers not practicing what they preach by selling items they've mandated (reaction formation), or acting selflessly or working harder (sublimation)).
- ignore or ostracise certain unlikable or hurtful dwarves

Love
- Spend time and breaks with others (the sick and the healthy), have various levels of conversation (shallow > deep talks)
- give gifts to others (including stolen gifts)
- commit to others (not just marriage)
- defend others at the cost to self (as in go grab that injured dwarve being set upon by the wolves)
- help others in their work
- bring food and water to others (not just the sick)
- depend on others
- harass others
- never want to be alone
- hold other dwarves hostage
- stalk other dwarves
- make other dwarves dependent on them (abuse cycle)
- ignore or ostracise certain unlikable or hurtful dwarves
- puts other dwarves down, devalues others' achievements/products
- challenges other dwarves in dangerous/risky behaviours
- attacks other dwarves seen as competition

Self-esteem:
- have goals and strive to achieve them (this happens currently with strange moods)
- have hobbies
- works in a job the dwarf enjoys/sees meaning in
- seeks realistic challenges
- compete with others (either in competitions or informally)
- socialise within own area of expertise (Miner's Guild, etc)
- value quality over quantity, or quantity over quality
- achieve and maintain own values/standards for living
- sabotages other dwarves' work
- puts other dwarves down, devalues others' achievements/products
- challenges other dwarves in dangerous/risky behaviours
- attacks other dwarves seen as competition
- enjoys a unique status (e.g., only miner, etc), resents sharing roles
- holds others hostage
- complains to leaders about others
- goes against orders

Self-actualisation:
- Must have all other four needs met
- Has more energy, gains more energy from activities
- is more effective in tasks
- perhaps has achieved a very high skill competency
- is generally likable
- perhaps shows or given some sort of leadership

Is this a bit over the top, or too specific, perhaps?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Discussing dwarf needs, I don't think it's really necessary for dwarves to do a lot of things against your will for those. On the lowest level, they already eat, drink, have babies, prefer shelter and a good bed, are willing to hunt vermin if starving, and get very upset if their basic needs aren't met. They seem to be pretty reasonable on the food, water, shelter and sex counts to me, I don't see much oddness there.

For safety and things like wearing armor, I would rather see them attempt to *buy* a set of armor after the economy is on, and wear it during their work, or carry a weapon casually. Without some way of them possessing a weapon or armor as private property, I don't imagine normal dwarves would steal communal weapons and armor to equip them, unless it's at the development stage where proper thievery was in place. It would certainly make sense for them to avoid dangerous areas if they can help it. Dwarves who do not have military training certainly already receive a big negative thought from being conscripted into the military -- I would think it's best to leave it at that, as stripping too much power from the player may make it frustrating. Things like messing with locks and construction may be better handled by having them plead with the mayor to take up the issue of security in the fortress if there seem to be gaping holes and easy access to enemies. The psychoanalytic defense measures you listed are almost all things that would probably just look like bad AI to a casual glance, and are likely best avoided in a computer game for that reason (they'll make the player feel reminded that it's a computer, not a real person).

On the love area, dwarves are currently pretty shallow social creatures who only seem to make babies and throw parties at the moment, but the Relationships Arc (medium-term goal) should improve on that, and help out here a lot.

Nobles seem best at the self-esteem area, and dwarves who please nobles also get happy thoughts, which is related. This is the structure of society area where the egalitarian society breaks down and social status matters.  :p

I don't agree with your categorization of dwarf moods, actually. I think they fit in self-actualization. Moods (with the exception of possession) seem to be all about achieving the dwarf's highest potential. Going from nothing to legend in one action, they create an artifact the quality of which most masters of the craft can only envy. From then on in their lives they move faster, live longer, carry more, and become masters in their craft. Or, they realize that their life's work will never be completed, and their tremendous drive to be all that a dwarf can be is derailed, and they go insane and eventually die. The less positive moods are the strike of this passion and drive for self-actualization when their needs *aren't* met and they *aren't* very happy at the time, and it results in a mauling of the ideal expression of this, including things like making artifacts out of dwarf bits. If successful, they can still reach their heights of potential -- but they may have just murdered their friend in the process.

[Leerok the Lacerta]

quote: Also, way to make me seem like an ethnocentric, self-centered bastard. Way to go.

The only point that I was trying to make was that the action you have chosen can be construed as genocide, regardless of the justification.

But I suppose the example I chose carried too many other possible meanings. Are there any race-neutral examples that can also illustrate this point?

[Asehujiko]

The link about WoW is total bullshit. Once the gamehater crowd realizes that they can't condemm the entire blizzard fanbase they just aim for the half with the "scary" characters.

About the alliance being the "inherently good" faction. GG idiots, L2Backstory. Queen Azshara(night elf, aliance race)
Singlehandedly unleashed the first demon invasion on azeroth, massacring 80% of the population and destroying the vast majority of the landmass.
Prince Arthas Menthil(human, alliance race)
Butchered pretty much all of lordearon and northrend  and created the forsaken(undead is a very broad term which also includes the scourge, highborne and alot of other very old things)
Mekgineer Thermaplugg(gnome, alliance race)
Nuclear attack on his own city.
Sorcerer-Thane Thaurissan(dwarf, alliance race)
Summoned an elemental lord, destroying a pretty large portion of the continent and started a war against pretty much everything.
Archimonde the Defiler(eredar, alliance race)
One of the main antagonists of the entre genre. Nuff said.

Reading a bit down: "the horde started all the wars" ORLY?
First Invasion - Started by Azshara(alliance)
War of the Shifting Sands - Started by Archdruid Fandral Staghelm(alliance)
War of the Spider - Orchestrated by Kil'Jaeden(aliance)
War of the Three Hammers - Only involved alliance races.
First war - Initiated by Guardian Medivh,(alliance)
Second war - Followup to what Medivh caused.
Third war - Started by Arthas(alliance)
Second Invasion - Archimonde(alliance) got summoned by Kel'Thuzad(Alliance)
Twilight of the Gods - (Not realy a war on it's own but significant enough to be mentioned)started by Archimonde(alliance)
Forest war - Started by the nightelves(alliance)
War of the Throne - Arthas Menethil(alliance) vs Illidan Stormrage(alliance)
Second war of the sifting sands - Fandral Staghel again(alliance)
Lordearon war - fight started by Grand Marshal Garithos(alliance)

For something they call "proffesional and academic" they fail at even the basics of moral: CONTEXT

[WillNZ]

What most game developers don't get is that good or evil isn't a style, I don't want horns or a halo on my head (which would be a great option, btw). I don't really think you need any good/evil axis at all. All you really need to do is have real consequences for what you do. Far reaching consequences. If you butcher one caravan, it won't make much of a difference, but if you butcher several, you should see the effects in nearby towns... the economy slows down, there are people starving, mercenaries are hanging about, etc etc. The same goes for being good. In the long run, the effect of the game world is where alignment should be really rewarded.

It would be interesting though to have your alignment affect people in the opposite way. If you're a benevolent king and everyone thrives from your rule, after you die your people may kill each other like rabid dogs. On the other hand, your evil makes you a hated figure for all, inspiring others to do acts of courage.

[ricemastah]

Asehujiko I'd like to respond to your statement.... several of them. Arthas was initially from the Alliance that is true, and he did start the Scourge, but wouldn't that make him part of the Horde which is  sort of allied with them? And Archimonde is in no way part of the Alliance. Neither is Kel'Thuzad. Play a little of the Warcraft 3 game or learn about it. I would consider it more cannon then WoW.

[Sub-Actuality]

I think WillNZ is definitely right here. ^^

If your actions have real (and ideally, realistic) consequences in the game world,  and if the code is robust enough, there really shouldn't be a need for a good/evil alignment or statistic at all.  Your actions will be rewarded or punished based on  the moral values of the inhabitants, rather than your own, and in a natural way.  

Also, this is a great thread, let's not turn it into a WoW lore argument, I implore you.

[Werdnari]

Asehujiko, unless they changed some major lore bits in the warcraft universe, Archimonde the Defiler was neither Horde or Alliance. Some of your other points are also questionable, but I don't feel like getting too far off topic.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by ricemastah:
<STRONG>Asehujiko I'd like to respond to your statement.... several of them. Arthas was initially from the Alliance that is true, and he did start the Scourge, but wouldn't that make him part of the Horde which is  sort of allied with them?</STRONG>

Arthas is an enemy of the Horde, including the undead members of it, actually. There is a great deal of conflict between the free undead of the Horde and those still mindlessly enslaved by evil. One of the major problems facing the undead of the Horde are those among the living who do not understand or care about this difference.

quote:Originally posted by Sub-Actuality:
<STRONG>Also, this is a great thread, let's not turn it into a WoW lore argument, I implore you.</STRONG>

I will commit to no further discussion of Warcraft lore. Starting now.   :p

[Fishersalwaysdie]

quote:Originally posted by Sub-Actuality:
<STRONG>I think WillNZ is definitely right here. ^^

If your actions have real (and ideally, realistic) consequences in the game world,  and if the code is robust enough, there really shouldn't be a need for a good/evil alignment or statistic at all.  Your actions will be rewarded or punished based on  the moral values of the inhabitants, rather than your own, and in a natural way.  

Also, this is a great thread, let's not turn it into a WoW lore argument, I implore you.</STRONG>

How about not having any alignment points as far as you know?
Like bad stuff happening when you do bad stuff and good stuff happens when you do good stuff.

That would be the only way to see if the player is "good".
That or soul reading scanner, but I don't think there is one in this century.

[Blargh]

Personally, I'd like to see the whole Good Vs Evil thing implemented in DF as "realistically" as possible. DF has a level of detail and a "simulation" kind of quality to it that's impossible to find in any other game, and the whole Good Vs Evil aspect should be done in much the same manner.

There are many kinds of "Evil". When debating something, one must first define WHAT that is. I have a sweet little tome called "The Book of Vile Darkness", which is a D&D sourcebook for DM's wanting to pursue an evil campaign, or fleshing out their villains. It describes a lot of different approaches to "Evil", but also makes it abundantly clear that "Game Evil" and "Real world Evil" are two very different concepts.

"Game Evil" is your run-of-the-mill dark villains burning an orphanage ("You all saw it! That orphanage attacked me!"). Evil is clearly defined, the good guys are blonde paladins, and Johnny Evilguy is a necromancer that eats testicles. This would, in my humble opinion, not work in DF. It would cheapen an otherwise brilliant game with the same stereotypical smushy, clammy, one-dimensional viewpoint typical of such classics as LoTR, Star Wars and the Smurfs.

"Real world Evil", however, is wholly dependant on perspective. If something is condemned as being evil, then that is usually the consensus of a large and powerful majority of a population (Of course, this is because humans are uniquely fitted with an inherent sense of morals, I'll get back to that). Evil is subjective. There is no good and evil, there are winners, losers and propaganda, on a large scale. On a small scale, there is the genetically based behaviour we all are programmed with at birth, which helps us integrate and form social bonds, thus aiding our survival, and the morals our society/upbringing imprints upon us. A defect in either produces a "criminal" or a severe deviation from the "normal", accepted and approved behavior.

We naturally percieve harmful, deviant and egotistical behavior as being "evil", because it is counterproductive for a society, a group, to have members that threaten the groups survival in any way. Therefore, the "criminal" is shunned, removed or killed. Of course, social interaction and morals are a lot more complicated than this, but this is the essence of why we function as a society.

DF should be no different. Dwarves should percieve themselves as "good", and other races as "evil until proven otherwise/useful". The other races should do likewise. On an individual level, it can be boiled down to "following the law of the land" or not.

Of course, in real life, things are massively more complicated than this, but I would hate to see "Game Evil" be implemented in DF just because of its simplicity. So far, I haven't noticed that Toady cuts corners whenever things get complicated. Evil is relative.

I like the usage of "Chaos Versus Order" instead. Especially considering the natural entropy of the universe. Just feels like it has more meaning, you know?

As for mankinds innate morals, I noticed someone mentioning "the train problem" earlier. You forgot the second part. Let me dwarf it up for you:

You're standing at a  lever that controls magma flow. Magma is flooding the channel in front of you, but up ahead there are 5 Engravers busily working on the wall of the channel. They are all going to die, unless you pull the lever, and send the magma down another channel, where only 1 engraver stands.

Being a dwarf of sound moral fibers, you pull the switch, killing 1, but saving 5. This is the morally right thing to do, don't you agree?

But how about this: Same situation, but instead of a lever, there's a big fat axedwarf with full plate in front of you instead. You can plug the channel with said dwarf, giving the engravers enough time to get away. All you have to do is give him a little nudge. Do you do it?

Most people have a hard time explaining why they wouldn't do anything in example number two. It's basically the same thing, you kill one, to save five. Five will inevitably die, unless you kill one. So why is example two "wrong" to you? And if it's too far from home, just imagine a runaway train, a subway tunnel, and a random person instead. Same principle.

Interestingly, I find it easier to push the guy if I imagine myself as a dwarf in DF, but I find it impossible to do the same in RL. Huh... What does that tell you?

[Sowelu]

People tend to favor family and friends over strangers.  Barring that, they tend to favor people they can -see- and talk to directly over people that they can't.  People in two different tunnels are just numbers, they're too far away from you.  That one guy you could push into the tunnel on the other hand, he's a real person, you can't sacrifice him for people that aren't really -here- (even if you know intellectually that they are people too).  If you imagine it in DF terms, though, NONE of them are real, they're ALL in the game.  Your natural moral sense doesn't register any of them as real.

Just felt like responding to Blargh, there.

[JT]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

In spite of the domain name, that is a very good article by the excellent independent author David Wong and explains a lot of societal interaction, rather parallel to what Sowelu just said.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

And here is an interactive "game" in which you respond to different scenarios and have the computer analyze your personal instinct with regard to this particular gray area of morality:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm