Print

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

[Carp McDwarfEater]

So now you've said that Rocs, one of the types of megabeasts, are unintelligent. One of the weak points of your argument was that dragons and the like are nothing more than beasts and would see anything but their own kind as prey, not potential allies. The only real way to counter that is to say that all the megabeasts are as smart as people, but if a Roc is just a big, stupid bird, why is a dragon or hydra any smarter?

I remember you yourself once claiming that DF is based on/inspired by folk legends. Well, in pretty much all legends, minotaurs act in the way I've described. Besides, if a minotaur is scared for its life, why would it build a huge labyrinth that declares their location and isn't at all subtle, rather than move around the countryside or just live in a discreet little hole like night creatures do?

And as in for you saying you'd work with the bird man, half the megabeasts would probably just kill him on sight and be glad that they didn't have to leave their lair to find dinner that night. The other half, who are "attacked by people with sharp metal implements on a regular basis" would probably not trust this strange creature they've never seen before, and send it away or kill it. Since all the semis and megas are so different in so many ways, it makes no sense for them to pair up with any besides their own kind.

[Wolfy]

I'd argue it makes no sense to team up with another, lets assume for no reason they feel the same as humans and don't feel like a lot of the other creatures in the world, that have "instincts" to stay away form their own kind, lets assume smart = acting like humans.

That makes no sense to me, nothing says "oh if they are smart they would team up" plenty of "smart" creatures in the real world are loners, any as smart as us? debatable, but the point was rather that if more creatures reached our level no0thing says they all would team up even if it "benefited them"

[Neonivek]

You're making up assumptions again. These are creatures that could well be as intelligent as humans, who have no inherent problems working in groups anywhere from one to 1,000,000,000. (Problems do often arise in larger societies, but these are more due to organization or the individuals at the top than any inherent flaw in human psychology.) Why couldn't these, equally-intelligent creatures also work in small bands when necessity arose?
Yes, they're solitary now, but it's still Alpha--the features haven't even been finished yet

It is because even though we are intelligent creatures the reason "WE" as humans team up is because we are pack animals who form tight groups limited by food supply. It is why living completely on our own, even for the most insular intrapersonal members of our species, is inherantly stressful and maddening.

There are many types of animal formations and Semimegabeasts are populated almost entirely by intelligent creatures who are solitary creatures, or ones who tend to wish to be entirely alone and who could be happy never meeting another of their kind.

Thus a Ogre for example "could" team up but it would be a stressful situation as their kind are always drawn to solitude. It would be a temporary arrangement and not a pernament one.

There would never be a Ogre civilisation because ogres don't form groups and they could never fight off the stress from being around eachother in large groups long enough to actually form them. As well because they are solitary they are just as likely to harass and fight with one another as they are with lesser beings like humans.

The community aspect of humans is very important and it isn't an intellectual aspect that we came to be an animal who forms into groups. It isn't something that a Aligator, for example, who became intelligent would be able to replicate.

---

In fact in my oppinion the feature that needs to be implimented more then (Semi)megabeasts working together is the exact opposite, them working or fighting against eachother. Even within the same species.

Dragons fighting for cave roosts for example.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So now you've said that Rocs, one of the types of megabeasts, are unintelligent. One of the weak points of your argument was that dragons and the like are nothing more than beasts and would see anything but their own kind as prey, not potential allies. The only real way to counter that is to say that all the megabeasts are as smart as people, but if a Roc is just a big, stupid bird, why is a dragon or hydra any smarter?

Not hydras, but dragons A. have a long history in fiction as being intelligent and B. have appeared in a ThreeToe story on equal footing with its rider. I'm guessing that the only reason Toady didn't give dragons the INTELLIGENT tag has to do with butchering sentients.

I remember you yourself once claiming that DF is based on/inspired by folk legends. Well, in pretty much all legends, minotaurs act in the way I've described. Besides, if a minotaur is scared for its life, why would it build a huge labyrinth that declares their location and isn't at all subtle, rather than move around the countryside or just live in a discreet little hole like night creatures do?

1. The original Minotaur was trapped in a labyrinth and fed people rather than raised like a normal kid. I'd also have major issues...
2. Not all minotaurs are savage monsters. (For instance, most D&D, to various extents, notably Krynn; and don't you dare say D&D isn't an influence on Dwarf Fortress.)
3. If I had to face a bunch of highly-trained adventurers, I'd rather do so in a place I made, controlled, and had the advantage in than wherever they found and ambushed me.
4. Everyone likes having a home.

And as in for you saying you'd work with the bird man, half the megabeasts would probably just kill him on sight and be glad that they didn't have to leave their lair to find dinner that night. The other half, who are "attacked by people with sharp metal implements on a regular basis" would probably not trust this strange creature they've never seen before, and send it away or kill it. Since all the semis and megas are so different in so many ways, it makes no sense for them to pair up with any besides their own kind.

The unintelligent creatures wouldn't be approached with offers and the others would be glad to be able to talk to someone who doesn't want to kill them. Besides, anyone can be pragmatic.

I'd argue it makes no sense to team up with another, lets assume for no reason they feel the same as humans and don't feel like a lot of the other creatures in the world, that have "instincts" to stay away form their own kind, lets assume smart = acting like humans.

That makes no sense to me, nothing says "oh if they are smart they would team up" plenty of "smart" creatures in the real world are loners, any as smart as us? debatable, but the point was rather that if more creatures reached our level no0thing says they all would team up even if it "benefited them"

Hold on. I'm going to dissect the bits that make sense to me.
1. Humans are the only sentient lifeforms we know of. It could well be that we're unusually solitary for sentients.
2. Most of the other highly intelligent species--apes, dolphins, corvids--are also gregarious.
3. Name one civilized creature in DF right now that never gets along with other races. Goblins are routinely adopted by nations who conquer them and integrate captured children into their own society, and kobolds aren't really civilized so much as in possession of knives and probably basic organization. (Plus, they can't talk.) Elves, humans, and dwarves get along perfectly well outside of infrequent wars, until the player starts playing.
4. Intelligence implies a certain reliance on reason. Any reasoning being can determine that 2>1.

You're making up assumptions again. These are creatures that could well be as intelligent as humans, who have no inherent problems working in groups anywhere from one to 1,000,000,000. (Problems do often arise in larger societies, but these are more due to organization or the individuals at the top than any inherent flaw in human psychology.) Why couldn't these, equally-intelligent creatures also work in small bands when necessity arose?
Yes, they're solitary now, but it's still Alpha--the features haven't even been finished yet

It is because even though we are intelligent creatures the reason "WE" as humans team up is because we are pack animals who form tight groups limited by food supply. It is why living completely on our own, even for the most insular intrapersonal members of our species, is inherantly stressful and maddening.

I doubt this somewhat. Besides, the mere fact that we get along shows that intelligent creatures of undefined psychology can't be assumed to be loners just because they live alone when there's no one else around.

There are many types of animal formations and Semimegabeasts are populated almost entirely by intelligent creatures who are solitary creatures, or ones who tend to wish to be entirely alone and who could be happy never meeting another of their kind.

B. S. Every creature has to meet with others of its kind eventually (at least to mate and be given birth to and raised), and most of the really intelligent animals are, in fact, gregarious.

Thus a Ogre for example "could" team up but it would be a stressful situation as their kind are always drawn to solitude. It would be a temporary arrangement and not a pernament one.

Ogres are shown IN THE RAWS to be perfectly fine in groups. This is without much of any real authority, past perhaps familial ties like wolves or strength. In the latter case, semi/megabeasts have a huge advantage in gaining ogre minions; in the former, a clever minotaur could either find (or perhaps make) some orphaned ogres, find some way to be a parental substitute, or just bully the ogres.

There would never be a Ogre civilisation because ogres don't form groups and they could never fight off the stress from being around eachother in large groups long enough to actually form them. As well because they are solitary they are just as likely to harass and fight with one another as they are with lesser beings like humans.

They don't form civilizations because they don't form civilizations. Your evidence is equal in strength to an argument that Australian Abigorigenes (sp?) can't get along in large groups. The only difference is that ogres are different species, but my point is that your evidence is inadequate.

The community aspect of humans is very important and it isn't an intellectual aspect that we came to be an animal who forms into groups. It isn't something that a Aligator, for example, who became intelligent would be able to replicate.

Well, intelligence doesn't spontaneously develop leaving all other psychological trait untouched. One sensible theory suggests that a major cause of humanity's intellect is that we were talking to each other and needed to out-wit each other, suggesting that our intelligence and complexity of our society increased each other in an autocatalytic reaction. Assuming similar forces in act with other species, and intelligent species do, in fact, have a much higher chance of becoming gregarious, and vice versa. And that's assuming that ogres, minotaurs, etc, didn't come from the exact same (gregarious) roots as humans. That would drastically increase how gregarious ogres, minotaurs, etc are.

In fact in my oppinion the feature that needs to be implimented more then (Semi)megabeasts working together is the exact opposite, them working or fighting against eachother. Even within the same species.
Dragons fighting for cave roosts for example.

I'm not against this. Both should be present. So should semi/megabeasts should also be able to ignore each other despite being within two miles of each other. It just didn't come up before.

[Neonivek]

B. S. Every creature has to meet with others of its kind eventually (at least to mate and be given birth to and raised), and most of the really intelligent animals are, in fact, gregarious

You cannot apply real life animals to fantasy ones entirely. Yes indeed in real life intelligence is so strongly linked to social ability that ONLY social animals have ever developed as much as subhuman or outright human intelligence.

In fantasy however this isn't the case and many highly intelligent or super intelligent creatures life almost entirely solitary lives.

Also yes solitary creatures do meet to mate but it is hardly a "social" experience so to speak.

Ogres are shown IN THE RAWS to be perfectly fine in groups. This is without much of any real authority, past perhaps familial ties like wolves or strength. In the latter case, semi/megabeasts have a huge advantage in gaining ogre minions; in the former, a clever minotaur could either find (or perhaps make) some orphaned ogres, find some way to be a parental substitute, or just bully the ogres.

I hope that Ogre is a type of semimegabeast as I cannot look at the raws right now. If they arn't just switch that word for another. Also the "RAWS" don't show their difficulty with groups because that aspect is not defined for semimegabeasts. Who knows how well they are with groups.

Anyhow raising Ogre babies from birth, if they are solitary animals they will still wander or walk off. As well bullying will only work so long. You are not going to get long term familial bonds.

Nothing here is long term, it only works so long as there is a force keeping them together.

They don't form civilizations because they don't form civilizations. Your evidence is equal in strength to an argument that Australian Abigorigenes (sp?) can't get along in large groups. The only difference is that ogres are different species, but my point is that your evidence is inadequate

A civilisation is any group in this case. If they formed a single tribe they are a civilisation as far as this conversation is concerned. Also no this isn't the same thing because I am not speaking of the game as it currently is but rather of what I am refering to in terms of semimegabeasts and how Toady made them rather solitary to the extent that they only work together for the short term, and intellectual survival tool but not a civilisation or a real group.

Also the Australian Aboriginies didn't form large groups because they couldn't because they were limited by food supply.

Well, intelligence doesn't spontaneously develop leaving all other psychological trait untouched.

It does in fantasy. It helps that the source of a creature doesn't have to come from evolution but rather outright creation. A created creature certainly could have intelligence but lack the social aspect that most intelligent creatures have.

Assuming similar forces in act with other species, and intelligent species do, in fact, have a much higher chance of becoming gregarious, and vice versa. And that's assuming that ogres, minotaurs, etc, didn't come from the exact same (gregarious) roots as humans. That would drastically increase how gregarious ogres, minotaurs, etc are.

Which they very well may not, or they could have evolved out of it, or magic, or creation, or just an entirely different form of evolution.

I do think that creatures should be as logical as possible, but you have to at least accept their fundementals.

[GreatWyrmGold]

B. S. Every creature has to meet with others of its kind eventually (at least to mate and be given birth to and raised), and most of the really intelligent animals are, in fact, gregarious

You cannot apply real life animals to fantasy ones entirely.

And why not? You are, and Toady makes sure that DF follows real-world natural laws when possible.

Yes indeed in real life intelligence is so strongly linked to social ability that ONLY social animals have ever developed as much as subhuman or outright human intelligence.
In fantasy however this isn't the case and many highly intelligent or super intelligent creatures life almost entirely solitary lives.

Almost.

Also yes solitary creatures do meet to mate but it is hardly a "social" experience so to speak.

You claimed that "[t]here are many types of animal formations and Semimegabeasts are populated almost entirely by intelligent creatures who are solitary creatures, or ones who tend to wish to be entirely alone and who could be happy never meeting another of their kind." Emphasis on the never.

Ogres are shown IN THE RAWS to be perfectly fine in groups. This is without much of any real authority, past perhaps familial ties like wolves or strength. In the latter case, semi/megabeasts have a huge advantage in gaining ogre minions; in the former, a clever minotaur could either find (or perhaps make) some orphaned ogres, find some way to be a parental substitute, or just bully the ogres.

I hope that Ogre is a type of semimegabeast as I cannot look at the raws right now. If they arn't just switch that word for another. Also the "RAWS" don't show their difficulty with groups because that aspect is not defined for semimegabeasts. Who knows how well they are with groups.

It isn't. And yes, that is a bit of a problem with semimegabeasts, but is it fair to assume that semimegabeasts shun all contact on principle? If so, it's equally fair to assume that goblins are mindless idiots who siege dwarven fortresses in increasing numbers no matter what happens.

Anyhow raising Ogre babies from birth, if they are solitary animals they will still wander or walk off. As well bullying will only work so long. You are not going to get long term familial bonds.

Obviously you won't get long-term familial bonds from bullying, but making the assumption that the humanoid ogres are descended from apes or other primates, they probably rear their children for a significant amount of time. Heck, all mammals do. They're not going to "wander or walk off." Wolf pups don't. Bear cubs don't. Monkey babies don't. Why would ogre children?

They don't form civilizations because they don't form civilizations. Your evidence is equal in strength to an argument that Australian Abigorigenes (sp?) can't get along in large groups. The only difference is that ogres are different species, but my point is that your evidence is inadequate

A civilisation is any group in this case. If they formed a single tribe they are a civilisation as far as this conversation is concerned.

In the game right now, civilizations are ALWAYS sedentary. Give wandering animalmen dogs and spears, and they're right at the level of Australian Abigorigenes.

Also no this isn't the same thing because I am not speaking of the game as it currently is but rather of what I am refering to in terms of semimegabeasts and how Toady made them rather solitary to the extent that they only work together for the short term, and intellectual survival tool but not a civilisation or a real group.

Again, semimegabeasts aren't fully implemented yet. Nothing is. The game is still freaking Alpha.

Also the Australian Aboriginies didn't form large groups because they couldn't because they were limited by food supply.

Irrelevant. They didn't form large groups. That was reason enough for you to assume that ogres could not form large groups. If your logic is valid, Aborigines cannot form large groups.
Ogres probably have as bad or worse a food supply problem. Sure, they live in plain, but evil plains (where the vegetation is often dead, animals aren't always edible, and it can't be assumed to rain water), and they're freaking huge.

Well, intelligence doesn't spontaneously develop leaving all other psychological trait untouched.

It does in fantasy.

Depends on the fantasy.

It helps that the source of a creature doesn't have to come from evolution but rather outright creation. A created creature certainly could have intelligence but lack the social aspect that most intelligent creatures have.

And what Creator would create a race that can't ever get along with itself?

Assuming similar forces in act with other species, and intelligent species do, in fact, have a much higher chance of becoming gregarious, and vice versa. And that's assuming that ogres, minotaurs, etc, didn't come from the exact same (gregarious) roots as humans. That would drastically increase how gregarious ogres, minotaurs, etc are.

Which they very well may not, or they could have evolved out of it, or magic, or creation, or just an entirely different form of evolution.

1. "Very well may not?" In theory. Social systems stimulate and are stimulated by intelligence, though, so it seems improbable for several intelligent species to develop without any possibility of a social structure in them.
2. I hate it when people use the "Magic!" argument. That can solve anything. Don't use magic as Spackle to fill your plot holes, kids. Creation is about the same.
3. Evolution is evolution. If something is copied imperfectly, and the imperfections affect survival/reproduction/etc, and they are inheritable, evolution works exactly the same.

I do think that creatures should be as logical as possible, but you have to at least accept their fundementals.

If you can show that they are fundamental.
You haven't, any more than goblins making Leeroy Jenkins look reasonable is "fundamental" to their character.

[Manveru Taurënér]

The argument that in real life intelligence and social behaviour is strongly linked thus the it should in the game too is a pretty bad argument tbh and would if anything only make the game far far worse. The whole point with fantasy is to allow concepts that would be impossible/improbable in the real world and through that create a much more interesting setting.

For that matter, do we even know if evolution works withing the DF setting? Any confirmation from Toady on the matter, or is that just as much speculation and making things up as saying "a wizard did it"?

And regarding the ogres, what evidence suggests they are mammals? To apply real world rules like that to something that in my opinion should definitely not follow real world rules only serves to simplify the game and make the setting less interesting. Fantasy elements should follow logical rules, but their own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from.

I for one find the notion of various semi-megabeasts or megabeasts grouping up with other types off-putting, as it doesn't conform to how I want to see them implemented, but I realize that's mostly a matter of taste. Smaller groups of beasts on occasion sounds like a great idea for some of them, but if so it should be because it fits the setting and the game, not because of trying to project real world rulesets where they don't belong (ie the fantasy elements) ^^

[GreatWyrmGold]

The argument that in real life intelligence and social behaviour is strongly linked thus the it should in the game too is a pretty bad argument tbh and would if anything only make the game far far worse. The whole point with fantasy is to allow concepts that would be impossible/improbable in the real world and through that create a much more interesting setting.

I'd argue that occasional bands of various creatures are far more interesting than solitary monsters who happen to be allegedly sentient.

For that matter, do we even know if evolution works withing the DF setting? Any confirmation from Toady on the matter, or is that just as much speculation and making things up as saying "a wizard did it"?

There's equal speculation on both sides, but one side is based on real-world science (supported by the timescales implied by the real-world geology) and the other is random guesses based on how creation myths usually are.

And regarding the ogres, what evidence suggests they are mammals?

They have hair and are shaped like primates.
Most ogres in fantasy also share mammalian, and often specifically primate, characteristics such as hair and dextrous hands.

To apply real world rules like that to something that in my opinion should definitely not follow real world rules only serves to simplify the game and make the setting less interesting. Fantasy elements should follow logical rules, but their own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from.

I disagree with your argument, because it is based on faulty principles. I could use an analogous argument to argue against including trees or iron in DF. They're real-world stuff, we should replace them with fantasy BS that follows its "own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from."

I for one find the notion of various semi-megabeasts or megabeasts grouping up with other types off-putting, as it doesn't conform to how I want to see them implemented, but I realize that's mostly a matter of taste. Smaller groups of beasts on occasion sounds like a great idea for some of them, but if so it should be because it fits the setting and the game, not because of trying to project real world rulesets where they don't belong (ie the fantasy elements) ^^

Why should groupings of different kinds of beasts be different than:
1. Groupings of the same kind of beast?
2. Civilizations of mixed race?
3. Adventuring parties of mixed race?
4. Real-world groups which, despite their outward and cultural differences, managed to work together?
5. Real-world symbiosis and/or domestication?

[Manveru Taurënér]

The argument that in real life intelligence and social behaviour is strongly linked thus the it should in the game too is a pretty bad argument tbh and would if anything only make the game far far worse. The whole point with fantasy is to allow concepts that would be impossible/improbable in the real world and through that create a much more interesting setting.

I'd argue that occasional bands of various creatures are far more interesting than solitary monsters who happen to be allegedly sentient.

Perhaps, but as I stated that's more am matter of taste than anything, the argument is still a bad one imo.

For that matter, do we even know if evolution works withing the DF setting? Any confirmation from Toady on the matter, or is that just as much speculation and making things up as saying "a wizard did it"?

There's equal speculation on both sides, but one side is based on real-world science (supported by the timescales implied by the real-world geology) and the other is random guesses based on how creation myths usually are.

Seeing as currently most beings seem to be created at the start of world gen I'd say the random guesses based on creation myth would be more logical then evolution then

And regarding the ogres, what evidence suggests they are mammals?

They have hair and are shaped like primates.
Most ogres in fantasy also share mammalian, and often specifically primate, characteristics such as hair and dextrous hands.

Neither are much solid evidence of having a common evolutionary background though. The real world is full of examples of convergent evolution (dolphins resembling sharks for example) with completely different evolutionary background of the resembling features.

To apply real world rules like that to something that in my opinion should definitely not follow real world rules only serves to simplify the game and make the setting less interesting. Fantasy elements should follow logical rules, but their own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from.

I disagree with your argument, because it is based on faulty principles. I could use an analogous argument to argue against including trees or iron in DF. They're real-world stuff, we should replace them with fantasy BS that follows its "own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from."

What faulty principles? I also think you misunderstand me, I'm not saying there should be no "real-world stuff", or that they should not follow real world rules. I'm just saying that trying to impose real-world rules on clear fantasy features will only limit and lessen them into something that is no longer fantasy. If you want all the fantasy beings in the game to be shoe-horned into fitting real world scientific principles then I'm fairly certain a whole lot of the current game would have to be scrapped completely. The ratio of real world to fantasy elements on the other hand is a whole seperate can of worms which is also mostly a matter of taste.

I for one find the notion of various semi-megabeasts or megabeasts grouping up with other types off-putting, as it doesn't conform to how I want to see them implemented, but I realize that's mostly a matter of taste. Smaller groups of beasts on occasion sounds like a great idea for some of them, but if so it should be because it fits the setting and the game, not because of trying to project real world rulesets where they don't belong (ie the fantasy elements) ^^

Why should groupings of different kinds of beasts be different than:
1. Groupings of the same kind of beast?
2. Civilizations of mixed race?
3. Adventuring parties of mixed race?
4. Real-world groups which, despite their outward and cultural differences, managed to work together?
5. Real-world symbiosis and/or domestication?

In my mind a giant and minotaur for example are simply not the kind of beings that would group up. Trying to argue against opinions on flavour though is rather pointless imo ;P

[GreatWyrmGold]

The argument that in real life intelligence and social behaviour is strongly linked thus the it should in the game too is a pretty bad argument tbh and would if anything only make the game far far worse. The whole point with fantasy is to allow concepts that would be impossible/improbable in the real world and through that create a much more interesting setting.

I'd argue that occasional bands of various creatures are far more interesting than solitary monsters who happen to be allegedly sentient.

Perhaps, but as I stated that's more am matter of taste than anything, the argument is still a bad one imo.

It's a bad argument to use either way, and for the exact same reasons.

For that matter, do we even know if evolution works withing the DF setting? Any confirmation from Toady on the matter, or is that just as much speculation and making things up as saying "a wizard did it"?

There's equal speculation on both sides, but one side is based on real-world science (supported by the timescales implied by the real-world geology) and the other is random guesses based on how creation myths usually are.

Seeing as currently most beings seem to be created at the start of world gen I'd say the random guesses based on creation myth would be more logical then evolution then

"In a time before time..." precedes the explanation of every megabeast, semimegabeast, demon, and forgotten beast's first event in Legends Mode. Look it up; you can't miss it.
This proves that there was time before Year 1, which proves that evolution could have occurred.

And regarding the ogres, what evidence suggests they are mammals?

They have hair and are shaped like primates.
Most ogres in fantasy also share mammalian, and often specifically primate, characteristics such as hair and dextrous hands.

Neither are much solid evidence of having a common evolutionary background though. The real world is full of examples of convergent evolution (dolphins resembling sharks for example) with completely different evolutionary background of the resembling features.

...Except that hair is a defining mammalian characteristic (as is endothermism, implied by the ogre's HOMEOTHERM tag), as digits are a primate one. Convergent evolution is for things like shape. It applies to amphibian men (who, even apart from the name, are pretty clearly non-mammalian), but not to more "minor" characteristics like fur and digits, which are identifying and idiosynchraic of assorted clades.

To apply real world rules like that to something that in my opinion should definitely not follow real world rules only serves to simplify the game and make the setting less interesting. Fantasy elements should follow logical rules, but their own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from.

I disagree with your argument, because it is based on faulty principles. I could use an analogous argument to argue against including trees or iron in DF. They're real-world stuff, we should replace them with fantasy BS that follows its "own rules, not those of the real world which once again the whole point of fantasy is to differ from."

What faulty principles? I also think you misunderstand me, I'm not saying there should be no "real-world stuff", or that they should not follow real world rules. I'm just saying that trying to impose real-world rules on clear fantasy features will only limit and lessen them into something that is no longer fantasy. If you want all the fantasy beings in the game to be shoe-horned into fitting real world scientific principles then I'm fairly certain a whole lot of the current game would have to be scrapped completely. The ratio of real world to fantasy elements on the other hand is a whole seperate can of worms which is also mostly a matter of taste.

On the other hand, saying real-world natural laws don't apply to DF is essentially what you're doing. You're saying that my arguments based on real-world biology are invalid because of their inapplicability to a fantasy world; I'm saying that arguments [for iron being present in DF, say] based on real-world geology, metallurgy, chemistry, etc, are invalid for exactly the same reason. How is this not an apt analogy?

I for one find the notion of various semi-megabeasts or megabeasts grouping up with other types off-putting, as it doesn't conform to how I want to see them implemented, but I realize that's mostly a matter of taste. Smaller groups of beasts on occasion sounds like a great idea for some of them, but if so it should be because it fits the setting and the game, not because of trying to project real world rulesets where they don't belong (ie the fantasy elements) ^^

Why should groupings of different kinds of beasts be different than:
1. Groupings of the same kind of beast?
2. Civilizations of mixed race?
3. Adventuring parties of mixed race?
4. Real-world groups which, despite their outward and cultural differences, managed to work together?
5. Real-world symbiosis and/or domestication?

In my mind a giant and minotaur for example are simply not the kind of beings that would group up. Trying to argue against opinions on flavour though is rather pointless imo ;P

You...kinda didn't answer my question.
At all.
What makes a group of, say, minotaurs and ogres different from any of the 5 analogous examples provided? They cover mostly fantasy bases--the only ones you accept as germane--as well as real-world ones--which can be concretely proven.

[Neonivek]

Dang I lost a long post... however there was one part that I thought had to be addressed more then others.

Since most of the post was clarification such as me refering to adults and that Children can act as adults because some creatures actually have survivability before they reach full maturity and for fantasy creatures this applies double.

2. I hate it when people use the "Magic!" argument. That can solve anything. Don't use magic as Spackle to fill your plot holes, kids. Creation is about the same

No this isn't a case of "Magic" this is a case where there is an understanding that in this universe the creatures that exist were created by some diety or other being and may not reflect real life in that respect.

It isn't a plot hole because there is no hole in the plot. It is often mythologically accurate.

For example in Greek mythology Horses were created by the God of the Oceans Psideon. Is there a plot hole because evolution didn't happen? No of course not, because a world that is self contained inside greek mythology doesn't have that plothole.

It ONLY creates a plothole nonsense aspect when you apply real life to it. Yet when we are in a fictional world where myths are real and where the gods really DID create these beings, then it is actually quite well understood.

You are applying aspects of real life and the world you live in, in a world that does not function by the same fundementals. Even the laws of physics and chemistry function drastically different in Dwarf Fortress as they do in real life.

Thus what we do is to accomidate certain fantastical elements we give them the benefit of doubt. So when we see a Giant Cave Spider we don't break emmersion we just accept that in this world that creatures, that break the laws of physics, exist. We stop when the worlds own internal logic starts to break down.

What I liked about Dwarf Fortress was that it understood fantasy while at the same time handling it logically.

Thus there is no single excuse why solitary intelligent creatures can exist. Just because there is no species of solitary Ape or Dolphin in real life it doesn't mean that in a world where beings were created by the gods themselves, by the chaotic energies that started the world, by dark beings that existed long before, or any other explanation couldn't have made them come to be or to form in that sort of way from some sort of starting point.

In fact there are a few solitary animals who are intelligent in real life. Not to the same extent but it shows that intelligence isn't completely alien to solitary animals.

[NRDL]

Wow.  Hardcore debate.  I'm not even gonna try and read it all.

Personally, I'd like (semi)megabeasts to be more complex.  Individuals determining what they want, with some wanting total and utter solitude, while a couple would want partnership or domination over other life forms. 

I wonder how forgotten beasts fit into this. 

[Neonivek]

Forgotten beasts never seem to stray from underground. I'd actually would rather them become more abstract then defined.

Them representing the unbridled roaming chaos when the world was still new. Creatures that existed once but never shall again.

Forever underground for the sun wards them away.

Right now NRDL we are discussing if the group formation patterns of them in their natural state should have any affect on them. If a solitary but intelligent beast would never form long term groups for example.

Mind you I am arguing that.

Great Wyrm is arguing that the achievement of intelligence can only be made by being a social creature prone to pack behavior and thus all (Semi)megabeasts by nature of being intelligent are thus social pack animals.

Which I am attempting to tear down by reminding him that real life can only temper fantasy, it cannot rewrite it.

Which he is saying that their "Solo" status is completely unimportant to their character and thus can be ignored OR that the fact that they can meet to mate and take care of children means that they MUST have some sort of instinct for working together.

It is basically a back and forth. A lot was lost in that stuff that was lost.

All that is important in understanding my possition is that my arguement is that personalities of intelligent creatures should reflect their wild nature. So humans being pack animals for example means that they not only team up as a natural course of thinking but that being alone in the long term is inherantly stressful. Thus a creature who is intelligent but is solitary would not think about working together naturally and would likely find working in the long term stressful or impossible to maintain (Due to lack of interest, in fighting, or trechery).

---

Think of it this way Great Wyrm. Goblins lack Altruism which is a fundemental aspect that any society REQUIRES! Goblins right there uttarly destroy real life logic.

Now I know there are aspects of Goblins I even disagree with Toady about (namely their lack of need to eat... which I know why Toady did it, but I wish he found a compromise somewhere), but if you wish to say that Intelligence = Team work on the basis of real life evolution. Then you need to explain Goblins being entirely self-interested in terms of societies. As Goblins clearly benefit from what human societies needed their altruistic tendencies to pull off.

[NRDL]

Once again, to me, at least, the individual is more important than the species, especially considering that there are so few (semi)megabeasts.  You guys are arguing "the entire species does THIS, or THAT".  Personal choice.  Misanthrope or Party animal, these are two extremes. 

But since the game isn't that developed yet...I don't really have any opinion that hasn't been already covered by you guys. 

[Neonivek]

Think of it this way NRDL

Human beings even when they are nearly complete loners suffer stress if they are alone for too long. To the extent where it can be severely damaging to their psyche. This is because as pack animals we have an instinct to form groups and be together.

A human's personality is informed by their biology

So Misanthrope or Party Animal this fundemental aspect of their biology dominates them.

An individual is a member of that species first. It is the template that the personality is written ontop of.

An Intelligent Solitary creature would not create an individual who seeks companionship because they do not have that need, if they wish companionship it would not be from any sort of drive outside whatever limited set provided to them for basic survival which would be temporary and fleeting. The most you could hope for is that they simply do not care or that they treat friendship as a ceasefire. It is a entirely different animal then a human being.

That isn't even getting into creatures that form "Pair" groups or that form "Groups of individuals" (For example Cat colonies are not single units.)