Print

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

[Ribs]

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.

On the contrary. Sure, a monarch travels around, but he never truly owns the lands of his own vassals without conquering them, or at least claiming them as rightfully his and demanding them back. If he made the surrounding lands a duchy, and gave them to a noble, the lands are by rights his, even if said noble is still a vassal to the greater lord and is expected to serve his king in some capacity.

It is the game that implies that your fortress becomes the "capital" ater the king arrives. It would be like if the king of france in the fourteen hundreds decided to move his court to orleans, go to the duke's castle and made himself permanently at home. That's not how the vassalage system in the middle ages worked.

So it isn't that kind of centralization that I'm talking about, it's the other way around. Realistically, the king should never have the authority to claim those lands to himself, for him to rule directly. Only in an extremely centralized monarchy this should be even possible.

[Ribs]

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!"

Again, not necessarily. You could just "own" them money for a while if it comes to that. As long as they are being fed, it should be good enough for a long time. Or if your administration REALLY becomes too inefficient they would start working for themselves. Meaning, they would start claiming your farms and workshops and selling/producing the goods by themselves. It would kind of go along with the "independent" part of the fortress I was talking about, where your peasants own their own farms and workshops and produce stuff by themselves, and then sell their products on their local market for themselves or maybe even try and bargain with the caravans if you allow them to. It would be like a fortress village, working more or less independently, and you could choose to tax it. Right? I don't think an early economy would be gamey at all.

[GreatWyrmGold]

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!"

Again, not necessarily. You could just "own" them money for a while if it comes to that. As long as they are being fed, it should be good enough for a long time. Or if your administration REALLY becomes too inefficient they would start working for themselves. Meaning, they would start claiming your farms and workshops and selling/producing the goods by themselves. It would kind of go along with the "independent" part of the fortress I was talking about, where your peasants own their own farms and workshops and produce stuff by themselves, and then sell their products on their local market for themselves or maybe even try and bargain with the caravans if you allow them to. It would be like a fortress village, working more or less independently, and you could choose to tax it. Right? I don't think an early economy would be gamey at all.

The very concept of paying settlers so they will do vital work irks me.

[Waparius]

How about dwarves start getting irritated at dwarves who don't do enough work, rather than having to pay money? If enough dwarves get annoyed they start fistfights and try to force the moocher to leave, assuming migration comes in.

Dwarves who aren't particularly lazy should get more annoyed at being unable to work, as well.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That would make sense,

[Ribs]

Oh, wow. Didn't know it was that much of an issue. Is it the economy you don't like, or just the fact that it's too early on to have one?

But the way I see it, money shouldn't be much of a problem early on. Even if you don't have a lot of money, the game could just keep track of how much you own the dwarves for their labor. When the game begins, and the first wave of immigrants comes, they shouldn't be too worried about getting paid. As long as they are getting fed, it shouldn't be a problem.

I just think that someone, possibly the bookkeeper, should keep track of how much actual work is being done so when the necessity of a more complex economy starts to press in and you even have to start minting coins of your own you'd know how much money should each dwarf more or less take for all those years of labor. I mean, really, especially if the fortress becomes particularly prosperous, after a decade of hard work the very least your x6 legendary miner should expect is a chest full of gold.

In fact, I don't envision the dwarves to be any more greedy than they are right now... Giving them rooms and furniture should actually appease most of their need for monetary compensation. After all, rooms and furniture have values of their own, so giving a dwarf a "great bedroom" should count as years worth of wages. If you're particularly cruel you could also discount the food and drink they consume and the clothing they pick up out of your stockpiles as part of their salary, although I guess your bookkeeper would have to work really hard to keep track of all that. Realistically, there could be an expantion in the number of administrators.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That frontier settlements would start with economies essentially the same as towns'. At the start, dwarves should work because they were told to and because it'll help them survive. Later on, an economy would come into play, but not until everyone has their needs met, or close to it.

[Ribs]

That frontier settlements would start with economies essentially the same as towns'. At the start, dwarves should work because they were told to and because it'll help them survive. Later on, an economy would come into play, but not until everyone has their needs met, or close to it.

My biggest problem with that would be that if the economy came to play only later on in the game, someone should at least keep track of how much labor has been done and by whom. You can't just mint coins and divide them equaly to everybody. I mean, you could, but you'd expect the settlers who have been there from the begginning and have been working almost constantly since the fundation of the fort would get upset if everything they've done was ignored and only now they would start getting paid.

My point is, they should at least be a little aware that they are the ones who build the fortress and transformed it into something habitable, safe and profitable.In fact, the original seven dwarves would likely become almost mythical figures in the eyes of the general dwarven population by that point.

[Owlbread]

I'd been pondering some ideas recently that I wanted to make into a thread. Maybe here is a good place to bounce them off people because it's apparently relevant and it could help the discussion.

I was thinking about revolutions and rebellions. Perhaps settlements, big or small, could experience a peasant revolt in which they overthrow the local aristocracy who govern them. Their leaders, nominated by the people or perhaps themselves (think of demons and vampires taking over civs), then become rulers of their own peasant society. Depending on the personality of the rebellion leader(s), they could appoint themselves as "king" or "ruler" or some such title, perhaps as inoccuous as "leader".

A more selfish or conservative rebel leader may go for the traditional royalty, whereas a more compassionate jughead would maybe give himself a title like "Father of the People" or something and rule a kind of proto-anarchist/communist territory of his own. Those who rebelled for religious reasons could nominate a religious leader as their civ leader, "Great Poobah" or some such, again depending on the personality of the main rebel leader - whether or not he is particularly evangelical etc. Theocratic settlements/civs like that could impose strange and bizarre laws according to their religion - insisting that all Dwarves have moustaches not beards, children stay indoors and everyone must pay homage to the earthy monkey god, for instance. Think Taliban. Republics and primitive Greek-style democracies would be possible to an extent.

Rebellions would take place among the peasantry generally when the peasants become dissatisfied with a particularly weak or cruel ruler who has made their life hell, or when the religion/race of the populace differs hugely from the race/religion of the rulers. An example would be a human civ following one god conquering an elf territory whose populace generally supports a force. They rebel on the grounds of racial and religious oppression/assimilation/discrimination. Another would be a demon wandering into a village and converting most of the populace to his cult. The cultists lead a rebellion against the local leaders and let the demon rule the town, leading to all sorts of craziness (think of whole villages filled with zombies, black magic and horrible stuff that you have to cleanse. I mean, walk into a local tavern and see the drunkard being crucified upside down and everyone has red eyes).

If a civilisation loses a province and it rebels, depending on how the civilisation treated that province (and depending on the loyalty of the leaders and the province's wealth), then it may rejoin your civilisation. If the province was particularly rich, they may try to preserve their independence, meaning you will have to strike them down. If a civilisation is conquered completely and one of the provinces of that civ disagrees, there is a chance (again, personality of the leaders) that the rebellion that takes place may actually nominate itself to represent the old civ - their leader could, as an example, appoint himself Protector of the lost Dwarven Kingdom of Purplecloak and rebel against their goblin oppressors. When they regain territory and unite with other rebels, they would eventually reform their lost kingdom.

However, the legitimacy of these "civilisations" would be very questionable, and would probably get laughed at by local kingdoms and conquered completely (fair game). The legitimacy would increase depending on the status and rank of the rebel leaders, the highest being a particularly famous and popular Duke, or perhaps a widely respected King who has lost his old kingdom and decided to found a brand new one. If the leader was a count, he would be less likely to be accepted by other kingdoms and would be more likely to experience the agony of being "fair game". Same goes for baron, mayor, expedition leader etc. Other kingdoms who are enemies with the home civ of a rebelling province/settlement may be more likely to recognise you and support you to cause problems for the home civ. This would only be likely if you had the right credentials though i.e. you should be the affluent, newly-declared Kingdom of Regalhams, not the dirt-poor People's Free Territory of Tumblescrubs.

Here's the point - your fortress would work in the same way, right down to the peasant revolts and gaining recognition. You could declare independence from your fortress and rebel against your rulers with just 7 Dwarves. It would be suicide, but you could do it. You could declare independence with a Duke and 300 merry men, fight a war (possibly whilst gaining support from enemy civs), secure your independence then rise up again and conquer your home civ. Anything would be possible, and you would be able to choose what shape your civilisation would develop into. It may be that you will end up with a Dwarven Republic or even a Free Territory that rules an entire continent with local democracy and all sorts. Who knows, it's up to you. Ultimately central to all of these things are well developed and complex leadership and the nobility mechanics - without them, none of this is possible.

Perhaps the general makeup of civs could change over time. At first (age of myth etc), basically everything is a Kingdom. However, as time goes on and rebellions are successful, you may see by year 500 some large Empires and Republics appearing. This could affect the recognition of rebellions - a Republic may be more likely to recognise the legitimacy of a Republican rebellion and so on. It's not so out of place considering the time period - Republics and the like have existed for a very, very long time, at least during the period DF is concerned with. Remember, it would all be very primitive though - so voting in a democratic settlement may involve the local men (or women, depending on the society) getting together in a town hall and saying "I agree" or "I disagree".

[Ribs]

I'd been pondering some ideas recently that I wanted to make into a thread. Maybe here is a good place to bounce them off people because it's apparently relevant and it could help the discussion.

I was thinking about revolutions and rebellions. Perhaps settlements, big or small, could experience a peasant revolt in which they overthrow the local aristocracy who govern them. Their leaders, nominated by the people or perhaps themselves (think of demons and vampires taking over civs), then become rulers of their own peasant society. Depending on the personality of the rebellion leader(s), they could appoint themselves as "king" or "ruler" or some such title, perhaps as inoccuous as "leader".

A more selfish or conservative rebel leader may go for the traditional royalty, whereas a more compassionate jughead would maybe give himself a title like "Father of the People" or something and rule a kind of proto-anarchist/communist territory of his own. Those who rebelled for religious reasons could nominate a religious leader as their civ leader, "Great Poobah" or some such, again depending on the personality of the main rebel leader - whether or not he is particularly evangelical etc. Theocratic settlements/civs like that could impose strange and bizarre laws according to their religion - insisting that all Dwarves have moustaches not beards, children stay indoors and everyone must pay homage to the earthy monkey god, for instance. Think Taliban. Republics and primitive Greek-style democracies would be possible to an extent.

Rebellions would take place among the peasantry generally when the peasants become dissatisfied with a particularly weak or cruel ruler who has made their life hell, or when the religion/race of the populace differs hugely from the race/religion of the rulers. An example would be a human civ following one god conquering an elf territory whose populace generally supports a force. They rebel on the grounds of racial and religious oppression/assimilation/discrimination. Another would be a demon wandering into a village and converting most of the populace to his cult. The cultists lead a rebellion against the local leaders and let the demon rule the town, leading to all sorts of craziness (think of whole villages filled with zombies, black magic and horrible stuff that you have to cleanse. I mean, walk into a local tavern and see the drunkard being crucified upside down and everyone has red eyes).

Here's a good exemple of this, in one of threetoe's stories
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_half_dwarf.html

So yeah, I guess those kinds of revolts are more or less planned. But I really don't know what to think about the whole "communist" thing. I mean, communism is a really loaded term and the idea developed by marx and engels was a really based on a modern analysis of economic and political history, and therefore a little far from the vague fourteen hundreds line that Toady mentioned he wouldn't pass. And that line doesn't only applies to technology, as I remember him specifically stating that he was against the idea of including modern-day ideas of imperialism and nationalism. ^{[citation needed...sorry]}

But general revolts and peasant rebelions certainly are completely reasonable and probably are going in the game.

Here's the point - your fortress would work in the same way, right down to the peasant revolts and gaining recognition. You could declare independence from your fortress and rebel against your rulers with just 7 Dwarves. It would be suicide, but you could do it. You could declare independence with a Duke and 300 merry men, fight a war (possibly whilst gaining support from enemy civs), secure your independence then rise up again and conquer your home civ. Anything would be possible, and you would be able to choose what shape your civilisation would develop into. It may be that you will end up with a Dwarven Republic or even a Free Territory that rules an entire continent with local democracy and all sorts. Who knows, it's up to you. Ultimately central to all of these things are well developed and complex leadership and the nobility mechanics - without them, none of this is possible.

Sure, but generally you'd actually need a lot more peaople than 300. Unless of course your starting civ is particularly unpopulated in the first place; I think more realistic numbers are going to come when Toady finally implements his "hilldwarves" idea, and you would start getting large rural populations with dwarves their villages and market towns on the outskirts of your fortress. To me, this will be the best improvement the game ever had, because you'd be able to mange your fortress population much better by sending every dwarf you don't need outside of the fortress to do something else while actually having a multitude of dwarves availiable to you as untapped manpower, so when you'd have a big project or wanted to go out with an army you could draft them back into your direct service.

[Owlbread]

Here's a good exemple of this, in one of threetoe's stories
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/story/tt_half_dwarf.html

So yeah, I guess those kinds of revolts are more or less planned. But I really don't know what to think about the whole "communist" thing. I mean, communism is a really loaded term and the idea developed by marx and engels was a really based on a modern analysis of economic and political history, and therefore a little far from the vague fourteen hundreds line that Toady mentioned he wouldn't pass. And that line doesn't only applies to technology, as I remember him specifically stating that he was against the idea of including modern-day ideas of imperialism and nationalism. ^{[citation needed...sorry]}

But general revolts and peasant rebelions certainly are completely reasonable and probably are going in the game.

I understand, and communist was the wrong way to describe it. I just thought of communism in the literal sense - a society that is broadly "communal". Not necessarily in the Marxist "worker" tradition and all that. The societies would just be like very ancient, basic examples of something similar to Communism. It's not as if Marx and Engels were the very first to imagine that kind of a society, and people have lived communally like that in the past even in the middle ages. If you take away the labels like "communist" and just imagine "for the people", that's the kind of society I'm imagining some of these peasants making. Almost Maoist.

[Ribs]

The term "communism" actually does not come from the idea of "communal society." The term was used do distinguish a specific type of socialist movement, based more on the events of the french revolution and the "comune of paris", as they led to the first attempt of building a socialist government. And Maoism is a twentieth century idea, based on marxism!

I guess you could find pre-modern societies that you could describe as having some "socialist" attributes, but that's really an anacronic comparison if you think about it.

But I know what you mean, and there's plenty of exemples of people living in more "socialist" style societies before the french revolution and away from western civilization. I just think that a pre-capitalist mercantile-style economy is more interesting, and it certainly seems to be what the game is going for, but I could be wrong.

[Owlbread]

The term "communism" actually does not come from the idea of "communal society." The term was used do distinguish a specific type of socialist movement, based more on the events of the french revolution and the "comune of paris", as they led to the first attempt of building a socialist government. And Maoism is a twentieth century idea, based on marxism!

I guess you could find pre-modern societies that you could describe as having some "socialist" attributes, but that's really an anacronic comparison if you think about it.

But I know what you mean, and there's plenty of exemples of people living in more "socialist" style societies before the french revolution and away from western civilization. I just think that a pre-capitalist mercantile-style economy is more interesting, and it certainly seems to be what the game is going for, but I could be wrong.

I am aware that Maoism is a form of Communism, but it diverges greatly from Marxist-Leninist tradition in that its followers believe that the agrarian peasantry are the instrument of change and the people who will bring the country to wealth, not the workers. That is why I referred to it - it's not like the peasants are working in a steel mill, after all. I am also aware that the term communism generally does not come from the idea of a "communal society", but what else can I call it? I could just call it communal I suppose. Or... communalist.

I don't doubt that a mercantile-style economy could be implemented, and one doesn't have to abolish money or trade in order to create a society "for the people", even though some Communists would disagree. The examples of the proto-socialist societies that I am imagining in DF would be so primitive and malleable that you could basically make them into whatever you want, as long as they put the needs of the poor peasantry first. Keep remembering the phrase "for the people". It's not about worker's liberation, it's not about economic success, it's about fair society "for the people".

Remember, this would only be one possible result from a peasant rebellion among many. The ideology of the peasants could be partially procedurally generated, referring to a grouping of variables. Some peasants who want to create a society "for the people" may just want to create a settlement where they don't have to pay taxes anymore, own their own land and can farm what they want when they want, and sell what they want to whoever they want without having to bow to a haughty aristocrat in robes.

[Ribs]

Sure, but what's complicated is that I don't think that's where the game development is going. At least based on the economy system in 40d. Albeit completely broken, it seemed to give a lot of space for people to be poor/wealthy, as well as the idea that legendary dwarves/nobles would get a lot of benefits in ralation to the general population. I think Toady is likely to expand on that system, rather than going back and striving for a more equalitarian economic system. I guess he could change his mind... You could make another thread and make a pool about this.

I also understand that while the original dwarven society has a weird aristocracy/meritocracy(with legendary dwarves being semi-nobles) slash mercantile system that promote class privilege and all that, there could be a "revolution" mechanic that changed that very societal structure. It would be a really complex mechanic to add and again, at least in our understanding of history, this kind of grand  idealistic revolt escapes the western-1400's line that Toady seems to have drawn.

I'm starting to regret mentioning the economy so much...my main point really was about leadership and having your main noble declaring himself a king rather than having the real king come to your fortress.

[Owlbread]

Sure, but what's complicated is that I don't think that's where the game development is going. At least based on the economy system in 40d. Albeit completely broken, it seemed to give a lot of space for people to be poor/wealthy, as well as the idea that legendary dwarves/nobles would get a lot of benefits in ralation to the general population. I think Toady is likely to expand on that system, rather than going back and striving for a more equalitarian economic system. I guess he could change his mind... You could make another thread and make a pool about this.

I also understand that while the original dwarven society has a weird aristocracy/meritocracy(with legendary dwarves being semi-nobles) slash mercantile system that promote class privilege and all that, there could be a "revolution" mechanic that changed that very societal structure. It would be a really complex mechanic to add and again, at least in our understanding of history, this kind of grand  idealistic revolt escapes the western-1400's line that Toady seems to have drawn.

I'm starting to regret mentioning the economy so much...my main point really was about leadership and having your main noble declaring himself a king rather than having the real king come to your fortress.

But there were dozens of grand idealistic revolts prior to the end of the western 1400s. Think about the great peasant rebellions - those who fought to better their lives and improve their living conditions. Think about the rebellions in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall against the English - the one in Cornwall began, legend has it, to the beating of an anvil by the blacksmith who led the rebellion himself to liberate his country.