Print

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

[Ribs]

My biggest problem with the nobles (and by "noble" I mean any dwarf in a leadership position) isn't even the fact that they don't have any real use in your fortress, but the fact that they seemingly have no real power to them other than making stupid demands and harassing your workers.

The problem is that without representing politics or a complex economy in the game, it's hard to convey the meaning of a nobility/administration, or even explain why would the dwarves tolerate that kind of weak parasitic aristocracy without appealing to their own sadistic culture and nature as to the only reason why they would allow their "leadership" to operate the way it does.


The Expedition Leader, and perhaps all your initial dwarves should have a more important role in the game, depending of course of the initial motivations for the expedition in the first place. And since we currently lack extensive exposition on the subject and that makes this whole thing very difficult, I guess I'll have to assume some of the possibilities.

If the economy is activated at least in some capacity from the beginning (I know that a functional fortress economy is only a distant hope in the development cycle, but please bear with me), and we could say that the expedition was funded by some merchant company or another, it could make everything much more interesting. You'd start with your own little budget to buy aimals, food and tools necessary to build your initial settlement, and slowly pay back what you own (probably through the caravans). Not only that, but you'd eventually have to start paying wages to your dwarves. When the fortress is more or less organized, the dwarves should start demanding compensation for their labor sooner rather than later.

As soon as the first dwarves are acommodated, the whole dynamic of labor should change. The fortress becomes an entity, and leadership central. There should be three basic options:

• The dwarf works directly for you, and everything he produces belongs to the "fortress", represented at this time by the expedition leader (who got the position of course for being one of the orignal settlers and oganizer of the expedition).
• He works independently, and pays the fortress taxes instead.
• Or mabe you could even give him your blessings and allow him to settle nearby and make his own little farm/village. I guess this option would fall into the "hilldwarf" idea that Toady has been teasing us with, and would help to control the population and migration waves quite a bit.

Now, there's hundreds of threads that theorised and talked about the economy to death, or certainly way more in depth than what I just did. But the reason I'm talking about it is just to point out how important the idea of a early economy is to give dwarven leadership some meaning. Because the way it works right now is very confusing. Everyone seems to work for the fortress, and the "fortress" has complete control of their duties and jobs and don't have to pay them any wages other than food and clothing being free. And they get a little upset if you have not bothered to carve them a little room, regardless of the amount of work they actually did.

And before someone says it, I'm not just confused because dwarf fortress seems so alien to our modern capitalist society. I really don't think the game works like this intentionally, being that a fully functional economy seems to be what Toady and Threetoe have in mind for the completed version of the game. But what really bothers me is that this "fortress" has no representation.

I think one of the better changes in the game regarding the nobility was when the game started to allow you to promote your baron from within your own fortress, rather than having one sent in from the outside. That one change gave your fortress an air of accomplishment that wasn't there in earlier versions. It gave you the seal of approval from the king, who recognized your settlers as successful in their mission and decided to promote one into nobility. Of course that's not how it should always go... The king could decide to promote your settlement into a barony and then give your lands to some outsider noble to administrate them as his own personal fief, if you (The fortress, represented by the expedition leader) should accept. Of course, becoming a barony and therefore a integral part of the dwarven kingdom should have a much deeper meaning than it does now, but that's another discussion.

But the thing is, after a long time as a vassal of your king, and after finally being promoted to a duchy, I'm opposed to the idea of simply "becoming the capital" by having the king appear into your territory after you give him enough offerings. There's no way a duchy and a king should rule the same settlement simutaniously . It makes absolutely no sense. Again, just another game mechanic that makes the nobility seems even more pointless than it actually is.

tl;dr

I got a little wordy here and there but my main proposition is that instead of becoming a capital by having the king just slide over your fortress with his dumb face and a couple of elite speardwarves after you sent him a stinking barrel of *prepared cow intestins*, what should happen is an event that allowed your duke to declare the fortress an independent kindom, and enjoy whatever concequences he gets over his decision. What do you guys think?

[Xantalos]

That sounds...interesting. Are we going to have 'A Game Of Dorfs' now? 

[assasin]

what happens if you don't want capitalism in your fortress. I'd prefer a more gift-economy type system where a dwarf who wants something can ask a crafter to make it for him if the crafter isn't doing something important and theres resources available. Of course theres no reason you can't have both and just choose amonst several options.

More on topic. I'd definately agree with declarations of independence. But why should you have to wait for a duke. Just have it so any rebellion below duke would probably be suicide. But it should still be an option. Though maybe weaker indepenant fortressess could use tiles like prince or whatever and stronger ones could use emperor with king in the middle.

[Waparius]

If the fort turns into the capital it stands to reason you should have a whole bunch of nobles hanging out conferring with the king on behalf of all the other forts in the civilisation. Not necessarily the duke of this and the duchess of that, but their agents and relatives should definitely have a place.

Later on, nobles should travel to the mountainhome and require their own apartments, barracks for their honour guard and the like.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Just to note, IRL many cultures had nobility that did nothing except make laws and such, and consume a disproportionate amount of resources. This was because the leader provided a nice central governing...whatever word I'm looking for. Heck, arguably modern-day America falls into this.

Urist McPolitician has mandated a subsidy for certain industries.

[Gaybarowner]

I LOVE ITT! Got my approval if it matters here ;_;

[Ribs]

what happens if you don't want capitalism in your fortress. I'd prefer a more gift-economy type system where a dwarf who wants something can ask a crafter to make it for him if the crafter isn't doing something important and theres resources available. Of course theres no reason you can't have both and just choose amonst several options.

I think that a gift-economy type system would be a little weird to implement, but I guess it wouldn't completely ridiculous for a small fortress comunity to organize themselves that way.

But you would need to have an understanding of the organization and leadership of the fortress to understand it's economy. From what Toady says, the idea is that you'd eventually get control of your entire civilization when you become the capital. That has heavy implications on what the fortress is and who's running it.

It is my interpretation that the fortress is, or at least becomes, a government entity owned by nobles. It has the ability to employ and direct dwarves around by whatever means of authority the nobility has. Of course, before it becomes a barony this identity is a little more complicated, especially considering that you have an option to reject the promotion and "remain independent", though this option currently has little consequence.

I guess that if you choose to remain away from the mountainhome nobility, the fortress would still be ruled by a mayor and other administrators, but it would still be a "goverment" site. Of course, while the fortress itself(or at least part of it) is owned by the goverment (you), there could be a part of it that could remain "independent" from your direct management. There could be a designated fortress village/town where your dwarves could work for themselves, and you'd have an option to tax them or not. And if they so wanted, they could organize themselves in a gift-economy type system where they would share production more freely with themselves.

More on topic. I'd definately agree with declarations of independence. But why should you have to wait for a duke. Just have it so any rebellion below duke would probably be suicide. But it should still be an option. Though maybe weaker indepenant fortressess could use tiles like prince or whatever and stronger ones could use emperor with king in the middle.

That's reasonable. I was just following the linear logic the game currently presents you:

  Independent fortress - noble promotion - Capital.

I imagined an event popping up as you finally become a duchy. Something like a dwarven diplomat coming to your fortress and expressing the king's concern as to the fact that your fortress became more powerful than his own capital. And from there the options should be to continue a royal vassal or declaring your fortress an independent kingdom.

But I guess there could be an option to declare "independence" at any time. If you delcare it too soon, of course, you could expect some problems. Although if you're still very small and you're too far away from your civilization's mountainhome, it's likely the king wouldn't even bother to send in forces to try and overthrow you. But the lack of protection from the kingdom is what should be your main concern. Caravans would probably not come as often, and other civilizations(I guess especially human ones) would start considering raiding your little settlements.

[Ribs]

If the fort turns into the capital it stands to reason you should have a whole bunch of nobles hanging out conferring with the king on behalf of all the other forts in the civilisation. Not necessarily the duke of this and the duchess of that, but their agents and relatives should definitely have a place.

Later on, nobles should travel to the mountainhome and require their own apartments, barracks for their honour guard and the like.

Sure. There should definitely be a court system. What really bothers me is that both king and duke are titles of central authority. It makes no sense having both of them ruling the same fortress.

Well, I guess there's some exemples of societies being ruled by two kings, just as the roman republic had two consuls. But still I find that a king and a duke ruling at the same time is a silly state of affairs, and diminishes even more our perception of dwarven nobility and leadership.

Just to note, IRL many cultures had nobility that did nothing except make laws and such, and consume a disproportionate amount of resources. This was because the leader provided a nice central governing...whatever word I'm looking for. Heck, arguably modern-day America falls into this.

Urist McPolitician has mandated a subsidy for certain industries.

Of course. But while a small minority can keep themselves on top by tradition alone, they would crumble at the first sign of revolt.

If the nobility has no place in the military or priesthood, I guess the only means they have to retain their power would be to gain the support of other influential figures in the society. Having the lowalty of military officers and guildmasters and the like, by giving them privileges, would assure their support for the status quo and for the central goverment. The closest thing your nobility can do that relates to this currently in the game is to promote one of your warriors into a champion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

They would need a pretty sizeable reason to revolt. Humans are creatures of habit, and if anything dwarves are more so. They won't want a new government unless they can't live with the old one, unless maybe the new one is a whole lot better.

There's three general ways leaders can stay on top--four, counting apathy. The other three are "sticks," "carrots," and...what's something you use to convince a mule to move without any tangible benefit? Religion? Well, that's how most humans do it. Ever hear if divine right? Basically, it says that King Whoever I was chosen by God to be king, and therefore he and his heirs are the best rulers. Similar ideas were present in most feudal societies. The benefit of a stick to governing minorities should be obvious, but if a government gives tangible benefits--say, if King Urist orders the hill dwarves to sell at least 100 bushels of dwarven wheat every month to Fortressnamed, Fortressnamed will have a good reason to listen to the king. This sort of leadership, as well as the stick and religion methods, can be passed down--"Listen to Cog, King Urist will stop sending supplies/lending military aid/whatever if we don't!"

...I think there was a point in there originally, but I forget what it is.

[Pokon]

That sounds...interesting. Are we going to have 'A Game Of Dorfs' now? 

Give Toady time.



Actualy related to the main idea of the thread, I would find it interesting if the higher nobility (counts and dukes and all dat jazz) could/would promote members of the fort to certient positions of power, or even into lower nobility. If your Duke lives long enough and your fort is big enough, he might start passing out noble titles (a little gift of major happiness bonus mixed with demand requirements), with...stranger nobles giving them to anything from there courter (reasonable), random children (unreasonable) or there pets (....depends. I would love to see a warmule get some recognition).

Eventualy, we could get noblitiy demanding that such-and-such must get a *White Marble Elephant Toy* because of there shear usefulness. Of course, this would only realy happen with nice-ish rulers, with more petty ones demanding other's goods to be seized and such.

[Silverionmox]

But the thing is, after a long time as a vassal of your king, and after finally being promoted to a duchy, I'm opposed to the idea of simply "becoming the capital" by having the king appear into your territory after you give him enough offerings. There's no way a duchy and a king should rule the same settlement simutaniously . It makes absolutely no sense. Again, just another game mechanic that makes the nobility seems even more pointless than it actually is.

Just some context for this specifically: in the early Middle Ages this was exactly what a king did in for example the Holy Roman Empire or France: travelling around from nobleman to nobleman, staying there for a while to settly disputes/get in disputes, and moving on. A centralized capital on the other hand is a much more modern proposition.

[Ribs]

They would need a pretty sizeable reason to revolt. Humans are creatures of habit, and if anything dwarves are more so. They won't want a new government unless they can't live with the old one, unless maybe the new one is a whole lot better.

Not necessarily. There could be no reason, other than your duke wanted to put a crown on his head. Of course, maybe the general population wouldn't like it but that's beyond the point.

The point is, what exactly do we represent in the fortress? It can't be the hopes and wishes of every single dwarf, because the game gives them a severe degree of autonomy. In my opinion, what you really represent is the administration of the fortress. The administration and expedition efforts in the begginning, and later on the hagh nobility. It's my whole point in this thread, really. I think Toady talked about this in one of the dwarf talks, but I can't tell you which one.

[helmacon]

I don't think we should start with any degree of economy active. once your fortress has started the economy comes into play gradually, and you should have to mint coins to pay your dwarfs. you would make money by selling "fortress" goods to the caravan and minting more coins.

So you mint gold coins, pay urist 50 coins to make a stone craft, then sell that for 150 coins, then you can make another craft and two tables, or whatever you want to make. A fortress running out of money would be almost as bad as it running out of food, cause your dwarves would grow unhappy for being unsatisfied at work and begin rioting. *Note  rioting is different from tantraming! Think, burning workshops.

[Ribs]

I don't think we should start with any degree of economy active. once your fortress has started the economy comes into play gradually, and you should have to mint coins to pay your dwarfs. you would make money by selling "fortress" goods to the caravan and minting more coins.

So you mint gold coins, pay urist 50 coins to make a stone craft, then sell that for 150 coins, then you can make another craft and two tables, or whatever you want to make. A fortress running out of money would be almost as bad as it running out of food, cause your dwarves would grow unhappy for being unsatisfied at work and begin rioting. *Note  rioting is different from tantraming! Think, burning workshops.

What's this? A dwarf fortress player running away from more complex/challenging gameplay? I never thought I'd see the day!

But seriously, an initial economy wouldn't be so bad if you spent your resources carefully. Say you start the fortress with 10.000 dwarfbucks. After a year you spent 2.000 on wages, but when the first caravan arives you you'll make 100.000 in profit. If anything, the "economy" right now is way too simple... you can make a bone carver craft 60 bone crafts and buy the entire caravan with them, with all the much more useful goods it contains. When it becomes more complex, though, with supply and demand, then the game will truly be fun.

[GreatWyrmGold]

They would need a pretty sizeable reason to revolt. Humans are creatures of habit, and if anything dwarves are more so. They won't want a new government unless they can't live with the old one, unless maybe the new one is a whole lot better.

Not necessarily. There could be no reason, other than your duke wanted to put a crown on his head. Of course, maybe the general population wouldn't like it but that's beyond the point.

I was referring to peasant revolts, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Starting with a certain amount of money and needing to pay for everything from the start seems real...game and dumb and stuff. "You spent all of your money? Sorry, no farms!"