Print

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

[NRDL]

Hmm...okay.  My brain is not big enough to process this, but okay. 

My question here is, debate aside, would it improve DF to have (semi)megabeasts group together?  Would adventure mode be more challenging?  How about fort mode, would roving gangs of minotaurs come by your settlement and demand food in exchange for not killing all your dorfs?

My opinion, is yes.  More challenge, more fun ( of both types ). 

[Scoops Novel]

I wonder how forgotten beasts fit into this.

Forgotten beasts have names which are revealed as they slay you, at least I've so heard it described. I'd like to see the remnants of those who named them in the world. There would also be an interesting dynamic between them and demons. Forgotten beasts are the elders of the world we live in, and the more intelligent ones could have plots older then the younger races and competing with the gods. I doubt that they appreciate incursions from dimensional neighbors.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Not wanting to create too much of a quote pyramid, I'll just briefly anwer some of your questions wyrmgold ^^

"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.

Even with the "in a time before time" that still only serves to open up the possibility of evolution, many other explanations are still far likelier. Heck, the same sentence also "proves" that the flying spaghetti monster could have done it. To me evolutions seems a far too simple and boring alternative to all manners of magical creation origins, but I guess studying biology I get enough of that stuff irl to want it in my games too ^^

...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.

Endothermism and digits are also both features of birds, so not strictly defining mammalian characteristics. You have a point though in that if in the real world we found an ogre it'd be logical to assume it's a mammal. DF however is not, and thus none of this really matters.

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?

Again, I'm not saying real-world natural laws can't apply to DF at all, I'm saying they can't apply in full or its fantasy features would not exist. Sure, you can try to explain dragons, forgotten beasts, necromancers etc with nothing but real world science, but there'll be a large number of aspects which simply can't be explained with anything other than magic (either that or some odd sci-fi pseudoscience, but in that case I'd rather take the magic). As for your analogy, it's a bit flawed. I claimed that creatures should not act according to real-world principles if said principles don't apply, a proper analogy in your case would've been to say that trees and iron then shouldn't behave as they do in the real world if DF's world differs that much from ours. That would have been a decent analogy and one I could agree with, if not for Toady's expressed intent that the real world features of the game and its world are to be as close to the real world as possible. If you are actually claiming that a fantasy world can't contain both fantasy beasts and magic and real world elements following (relatively) real world physics etc then I think you must've misunderstood the concept of fantasy :>

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.

What do you really want me to say, because I feel that way? I can't really give more answer than that, hence why I said it's all personal preference and didn't delve into it any further.

Neonivek explained much of it better than I could ^^

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dang I lost a long post...

I know the feeling. My condolences.

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.

Semi/Megabeasts actually start above 0 years of age, FYI. I don't remember the exact number, sadly.

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.

I have seen no evidence in DF that anything was created by the gods. Maybe it will come up when the world's creation is fleshed out more...maybe not.

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.

Au contrare. Toady has done his best to implment real life physics in DF. Is it perfect? No. Is there any evidence that the basic laws of the universe are supposed to act any different from how they act IRL? No.

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.

Agreed. I fail to see how applying arguments of real-world biology do this, however.

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

Again, I fail to see how this applies to the topic at hand. Are you saying that applying biology to DF creatures is illogical?

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.

True, but intelligence doesn't work so well in a vacuum. Various children have been raised without any kind of parenting or contact with other people; their reintegration into society has ranged from "extremely tough" to "pretty much complete failure." Give me a reason for nonhuman intelligences to work differently that doesn't involve "The Gods just made it that way."

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.

I never said it was. Octopi and parrots don't live with others, yet they're the most intelligent invertebrates and smart for birds, respectively. Neither of those titles is much to boast about, anymore than being extremely tall for a kobold is. The smartest of mammals are pretty much all social to complex degrees, and even less smart ones tend to work together.

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

Basically, I'm using science, he's using the argument that gods' alleged role in creating the world (based presumably on the false assumption that the world sprang into existence in Year 1) to say that science can be thrown out the window without considering that the real-world geology and such suggests either a much older world where evolution probably took place or gods who are REALLY dedicated to maintaining the illusion that the world is old.

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. 

Agreed.

I wonder how forgotten beasts fit into this.

They're not much cleverer than animals for the most part, so...

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.

As biased as my explanation probably is.
I'm saying that semimegabeasts aren't necessarily solitary. Do they prefer solitude? Probably. So do I. That doesn't mean that I can't work with other people, though.
As I'm arguing that semi/megabeasts should be able to team up, not that they must in all circumstances, and you do not agree with me on this, you are either arguing that they should not be able to team up under any circumstances, or else we actually agree. As this latter case is doubtful, you are in the precarious position of proving that semimegabeasts cannot join forces with others, whereas I merely have to prove that they can--not that they will, want to, tend to, or whatever.
Their "Solo" status can be treated the same as goblins' heedless and constant attacks on dwarven fortresses, or the limitless revivals of zombies can be: "It's how it is now, but that doesn't mean it always will be."

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).

I agree with the first bit. However:
1. Intelligent creatures (by DF standards, or by some real-world definition of sentience, or even by saying "These are the smartest species on the planet") are pretty much universally social to varying extents.
2. Intelligent creatures who are loners don't really have much of a benefit from being so brilliant. Language? Pointless. Tools? Not a mark of intelligence (even a wasp uses tools!). Buildings? No better than a cave or a tree, and too much work for a solitary creature--assuming it even stays at one location at all. Therefore, they would be the arbitrary creation of a deity who gives his creations far more intellect than they could need.
3. Any species which can tolerate other members of its species long enough to mate, raise children*, and be raised as a child can tolerate other members of its species under duress.

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.

Agreed...except that there are other ways to work together. Yes, goblin society works differently. It relies more on fear and such than any desire of helping each other, but it works. Also, low altruism means that you're willing to help others if you also help yourself. It's not required, but it's not ignored.

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.

Simple. Ever hear of intelligent self-interest? It means you help others in exchange for help. Imagine a scenario where a goblin asks his brother for a bag so he can snatch. B might give A the bag for a number of reasons: Payment, repayment, owing a favor, or even just increasing the number of snatchers (leading to deflated prices for slaves). Regardless, it's probably worth a bag.

Hmm...okay.  My brain is not big enough to process this, but okay. 
My question here is, debate aside, would it improve DF to have (semi)megabeasts group together?  Would adventure mode be more challenging?  How about fort mode, would roving gangs of minotaurs come by your settlement and demand food in exchange for not killing all your dorfs?
My opinion, is yes.  More challenge, more fun ( of both types ).

You've left out many possibilities.
Cyclopes could ally themselves with some dwarves against angry elves, gaining protection and perhaps food in exchange for fine metalwork and perhaps an agreement to help out in military engagements.
Giants could hold towns ransom.
Minotaurs could work with adventuring groups in echange for their lives.
Ettins could lead bandit gangs.
Dragons could take over empires.
All sorts of creatures could form alliances amongst themselves, formal or informal ("Hey, Heg, those elves heckling you, too? Maybe if we worked together, we could get rid of 'em?")

Not wanting to create too much of a quote pyramid, I'll just briefly anwer some of your questions wyrmgold ^^

Sure thing.

"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.

Even with the "in a time before time" that still only serves to open up the possibility of evolution, many other explanations are still far likelier. Heck, the same sentence also "proves" that the flying spaghetti monster could have done it. To me evolutions seems a far too simple and boring alternative to all manners of magical creation origins, but I guess studying biology I get enough of that stuff irl to want it in my games too ^^

It doesn't prove evolution, but it proves that the idea that the gods didn't make everything.

...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.

Endothermism and digits are also both features of birds, so not strictly defining mammalian characteristics. You have a point though in that if in the real world we found an ogre it'd be logical to assume it's a mammal.

Why, because ogres are hairy and completely lack any avian characteristics as well as possessing characteristics which point to a specific order?

DF however is not, and thus none of this really matters.

Au contrare deux. Dwarf Fortress does its best to be logical. Is it perfect? No. Is it alpha? Yes.

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?

Again, I'm not saying real-world natural laws can't apply to DF at all, I'm saying they can't apply in full or its fantasy features would not exist. Sure, you can try to explain dragons, forgotten beasts, necromancers etc with nothing but real world science, but there'll be a large number of aspects which simply can't be explained with anything other than magic (either that or some odd sci-fi pseudoscience, but in that case I'd rather take the magic). As for your analogy, it's a bit flawed. I claimed that creatures should not act according to real-world principles if said principles don't apply, a proper analogy in your case would've been to say that trees and iron then shouldn't behave as they do in the real world if DF's world differs that much from ours. That would have been a decent analogy and one I could agree with, if not for Toady's expressed intent that the real world features of the game and its world are to be as close to the real world as possible. If you are actually claiming that a fantasy world can't contain both fantasy beasts and magic and real world elements following (relatively) real world physics etc then I think you must've misunderstood the concept of fantasy :>

I think you must think that evolution can't apply to fantasy. I'm pretty sure it can, if you think some. (Which is probably a big problem about science in fantasy in general, but not for Toady.)

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.

What do you really want me to say, because I feel that way? I can't really give more answer than that, hence why I said it's all personal preference and didn't delve into it any further.

Want me to draw parallels?
Seriously, I gave perfectly good examples as to analogous examples. If you say that an ogre and a minotaur can't team up, but a dwarf, an elf, a halfling, and a human can, do you see the issue?

Neonivek explained much of it better than I could ^^

IYHO, maybe.

[Neonivek]

Agreed...except that there are other ways to work together. Yes, goblin society works differently. It relies more on fear and such than any desire of helping each other, but it works. Also, low altruism means that you're willing to help others if you also help yourself. It's not required, but it's not ignored.

No it is absolutely required and there are no ways around it. It isn't "Low Altruism" goblins uttarly lack this trait. They have no drive, need, or instinct to do good outside of themselves.

A society will never form under these circumstances naturally. It can only be done artificially.

Semi/Megabeasts actually start above 0 years of age, FYI. I don't remember the exact number, sadly

Any that are born after the start are older then that. This is done so the world doesn't start full of babies (mechanically).

I have seen no evidence in DF that anything was created by the gods.

There are strong hints, including that several locations are dirrectly linked to a god. Thus creating the Earthly and Celestial Pantheon.

Also yeah Toady is going to flesh it out with a mythology generator.

Au contrare. Toady has done his best to implment real life physics in DF. Is it perfect? No. Is there any evidence that the basic laws of the universe are supposed to act any different from how they act IRL? No.

There are several instances with big differences between the laws of physics in real life and Dwarf Fortress. For example the Dragons who use firebreath via magic and not chemical or the existance of "Tiny" intelligent animals.

Are you saying that applying biology to DF creatures is illogical?

Yes, applying laws of nature that do not exist in DF is illogical.

Give me a reason for nonhuman intelligences to work differently that doesn't involve "The Gods just made it that way."

Food supply ran short causing the pack animal to become a solitary creature with intelligence being a hold over. Done.

Actually the sheer size of all the Semimegabeasts suggests that they "must" be solitary or at most pair creatures. A tribe of Giants could never gather enough food to feed themselves.

If they do form a society then they form a long distance society where each member may not see another for years at a time. A "Solitary" society.

1. Intelligent creatures (by DF standards, or by some real-world definition of sentience, or even by saying "These are the smartest species on the planet") are pretty much universally social to varying extents.
2. Intelligent creatures who are loners don't really have much of a benefit from being so brilliant. Language? Pointless. Tools? Not a mark of intelligence (even a wasp uses tools!). Buildings? No better than a cave or a tree, and too much work for a solitary creature--assuming it even stays at one location at all. Therefore, they would be the arbitrary creation of a deity who gives his creations far more intellect than they could need.
3. Any species which can tolerate other members of its species long enough to mate, raise children*, and be raised as a child can tolerate other members of its species under duress.

1) Yes but that is real life.
2) Intelligence gives them the ability to vary their tactics and learn new skills as nessisary as well as communicate, if the language is learned, with lesser species if need be. As a tributary is a big boon.
3) In terms of mating a lot of the time it is done in a "High tide" so to speak where hormones override their other senses. As well they don't nessisarily raise their children for long periods of time or with any sort of care. Besides you said the key word "Tollerate".

Actually it is very odd that you used the word Tollerate... As that implies that they won't form societies.

I'm saying that semimegabeasts aren't necessarily solitary.

Solitary only means that there is a constant need to be alone, not that teaming up and communication are impossible.

Their "Solo" status can be treated the same as goblins' heedless and constant attacks on dwarven fortresses, or the limitless revivals of zombies can be: "It's how it is now, but that doesn't mean it always will be."

Goblins constant and heedless attacks are because Goblins are part of a chaotic society that only functions because Goblins have a natural propensity to follow the strongest, they also do not share any love for one another (once again TOTAL lack of Altruism). It is their technology and level of organisation that makes less sense then when they show any sort of chaotic attacks.

Simple. Ever hear of intelligent self-interest? It means you help others in exchange for help. Imagine a scenario where a goblin asks his brother for a bag so he can snatch. B might give A the bag for a number of reasons: Payment, repayment, owing a favor, or even just increasing the number of snatchers (leading to deflated prices for slaves). Regardless, it's probably worth a bag.

Wouldn't work because the goblins could never form social contracts and would ever be in the state of nature because they are too backstabbing (even his brother is just as likely to kill him for an extra meal), The brother would be just as likely to kill the brother after he returns tired from the trip so he can get all the reward. The only reasons goblins work together is they have an odd quirk where they will bow to the most powerful, no matter who that is. Suggesting they are a slave race created by someone.

I think you must think that evolution can't apply to fantasy. I'm pretty sure it can, if you think some. (Which is probably a big problem about science in fantasy in general, but not for Toady.

Evolution tends not to apply strongly to fantasy because it requires HUGE sweeping swaths of hand waving to explain everything. To the extent that most fantasy settings (and not low fantasy) where evolution happens they explain the weirder creatures by saying "magic".

Which you are also opposed to.

Think about the Dragon and its size and try to imagine how something like that could survive. The logistics suggests that a dragon could only live by constantly being on the move as it will diminish its food supply in a short period of time.

Yet the mythology around Dragons suggests they live in a single cave with a large hoard of treasure, they are also often highly intelligent. Dragons simply could never exist.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Agreed...except that there are other ways to work together. Yes, goblin society works differently. It relies more on fear and such than any desire of helping each other, but it works. Also, low altruism means that you're willing to help others if you also help yourself. It's not required, but it's not ignored.

No it is absolutely required and there are no ways around it. It isn't "Low Altruism" goblins uttarly lack this trait. They have no drive, need, or instinct to do good outside of themselves.

A society will never form under these circumstances naturally. It can only be done artificially.

...I explained how a society with no altruism could function.
Want more ways? Look at US society now, subtract charities and most subsidies, and add a demon in the White House who wants to keep everyone alive and functioning. Now make everyone 15% shorter and have green skin, and reduce us to the Iron Age. You have goblin society.

Semi/Megabeasts actually start above 0 years of age, FYI. I don't remember the exact number, sadly

Any that are born after the start are older then that. This is done so the world doesn't start full of babies (mechanically).

...And?

I have seen no evidence in DF that anything was created by the gods.

There are strong hints, including that several locations are dirrectly linked to a god. Thus creating the Earthly and Celestial Pantheon.

Interesting...any of these not temples?

Au contrare. Toady has done his best to implment real life physics in DF. Is it perfect? No. Is there any evidence that the basic laws of the universe are supposed to act any different from how they act IRL? No.

There are several instances with big differences between the laws of physics in real life and Dwarf Fortress. For example the Dragons who use firebreath via magic and not chemical or the existance of "Tiny" intelligent animals.

Those are, in fact, magic.
Magic is fine in some circumstances, but when possible science should be used.
And how "tiny" do intelligent creatures get? About the smallest creature of human-level intellect is the dwarf.

Are you saying that applying biology to DF creatures is illogical?

Yes, applying laws of nature that do not exist in DF is illogical.

Um. What makes you think they don't exist?

Give me a reason for nonhuman intelligences to work differently that doesn't involve "The Gods just made it that way."

Food supply ran short causing the pack animal to become a solitary creature with intelligence being a hold over. Done.

...That doesn't make any sense. If there was a food shortage that was long enough for basic psychology to be affected, the size of the brain and amount of resources it used would also be reduced, because without a complex social structure, you don't need as complex a brain (certainly not as complex as a human's), and a brain like ours is a huge drain on resources.

Actually the sheer size of all the Semimegabeasts suggests that they "must" be solitary or at most pair creatures. A tribe of Giants could never gather enough food to feed themselves.

Unless their food sources were also larger.
And that's a problem even without tribes. A single giant would have to scour miles for food each day, probably eating about a horse a day. Where does all that food come from?

If they do form a society then they form a long distance society where each member may not see another for years at a time. A "Solitary" society.

Or, alternatively, one which uses nonstandard or efficient food production methods, combined with the grater amount of land their longer legs and stronger arms and such lets them plant, to produce more food.

1. Intelligent creatures (by DF standards, or by some real-world definition of sentience, or even by saying "These are the smartest species on the planet") are pretty much universally social to varying extents.
2. Intelligent creatures who are loners don't really have much of a benefit from being so brilliant. Language? Pointless. Tools? Not a mark of intelligence (even a wasp uses tools!). Buildings? No better than a cave or a tree, and too much work for a solitary creature--assuming it even stays at one location at all. Therefore, they would be the arbitrary creation of a deity who gives his creations far more intellect than they could need.
3. Any species which can tolerate other members of its species long enough to mate, raise children*, and be raised as a child can tolerate other members of its species under duress.

1) Yes but that is real life.
2) Intelligence gives them the ability to vary their tactics and learn new skills as nessisary as well as communicate, if the language is learned, with lesser species if need be. As a tributary is a big boon.
3) In terms of mating a lot of the time it is done in a "High tide" so to speak where hormones override their other senses. As well they don't nessisarily raise their children for long periods of time or with any sort of care. Besides you said the key word "Tollerate".

1. Well excuse me for applying realism to the most realistic fantasy in history.
2. You don't need sentience for that. Any mammal can be smart or clever, but only humans (and maybe some of the [social] cetaceans or primates) are sentient.
3. If I can tolerate someone, I can work with them if I have to.

Actually it is very odd that you used the word Tollerate... As that implies that they won't form societies.

"Tolerate" means "can deal with" at its worst.
That's all I need. "Can."

I'm saying that semimegabeasts aren't necessarily solitary.

Solitary only means that there is a constant need to be alone, not that teaming up and communication are impossible.

...I never said that this would be typical. It seems we're arguing about the same thing. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Their "Solo" status can be treated the same as goblins' heedless and constant attacks on dwarven fortresses, or the limitless revivals of zombies can be: "It's how it is now, but that doesn't mean it always will be."

Goblins constant and heedless attacks are because Goblins are part of a chaotic society that only functions because Goblins have a natural propensity to follow the strongest, they also do not share any love for one another (once again TOTAL lack of Altruism). It is their technology and level of organisation that makes less sense then when they show any sort of chaotic attacks.

If true, why would the goblins attack a settlement which is no threat to them instead of the other goblins, who are?
And there's also the zombies. And good regions (which we have actual Word of Toady that they'll change). And bad AI. And bugs. Basically, you can't expect something to be How It's Always Going to Be just because it is now.

Simple. Ever hear of intelligent self-interest? It means you help others in exchange for help. Imagine a scenario where a goblin asks his brother for a bag so he can snatch. B might give A the bag for a number of reasons: Payment, repayment, owing a favor, or even just increasing the number of snatchers (leading to deflated prices for slaves). Regardless, it's probably worth a bag.

Wouldn't work because the goblins could never form social contracts and would ever be in the state of nature because they are too backstabbing (even his brother is just as likely to kill him for an extra meal), The brother would be just as likely to kill the brother after he returns tired from the trip so he can get all the reward. The only reasons goblins work together is they have an odd quirk where they will bow to the most powerful, no matter who that is. Suggesting they are a slave race created by someone.

You're making assumptions. What part of zero altruism implies maximum sadism? An intelligent person (and most dumb ones) realizes that working together is usually in your best interest.

I think you must think that evolution can't apply to fantasy. I'm pretty sure it can, if you think some. (Which is probably a big problem about science in fantasy in general, but not for Toady.

Evolution tends not to apply strongly to fantasy because it requires HUGE sweeping swaths of hand waving to explain everything. To the extent that most fantasy settings (and not low fantasy) where evolution happens they explain the weirder creatures by saying "magic".
Which you are also opposed to.

I'm fine with magic where needed. When science is more applicable, use it.

Think about the Dragon and its size and try to imagine how something like that could survive. The logistics suggests that a dragon could only live by constantly being on the move as it will diminish its food supply in a short period of time.

Yet the mythology around Dragons suggests they live in a single cave with a large hoard of treasure, they are also often highly intelligent. Dragons simply could never exist.

Indeed. Which is why pretty much any dragon I write either has some unusual food source, or is paid tributes of food (as many dragons in legend are in various forms), or else are just smaller than elephants.

[Neonivek]

I explained how a society with no altruism could function.
Want more ways? Look at US society now, subtract charities and most subsidies, and add a demon in the White House who wants to keep everyone alive and functioning. Now make everyone 15% shorter and have green skin, and reduce us to the Iron Age. You have goblin society

Altruism does more then apply to Charity. It affects even how societies function and how they treat others. The lack of ability to work for a "Greater goal" is what not having Altruism ultimately means.

Goblins will never work with other goblins because they cannot establish relationships because they lack altruism and thus they lack diplomatic ability because they lack "gifting".

The US society without charities and with a goblin in the whitehouse does not make goblin society.

Interesting...any of these not temples?

Yes

And how "tiny" do intelligent creatures get?

Insectile.

What makes you think they don't exist?

It cannot, it is an entirely different set of biology.

That doesn't make any sense. If there was a food shortage that was long enough for basic psychology to be affected, the size of the brain and amount of resources it used would also be reduced, because without a complex social structure, you don't need as complex a brain (certainly not as complex as a human's), and a brain like ours is a huge drain on resources.

Not nessisarily remember even right now Humans have several superfluous organs and redundencies. If the brain proved useful after the famine as well.

Unless their food sources were also larger.

They are not, Dwarf Fortress has nothing like that.

Nor do their migration patterns show this.

1. Well excuse me for applying realism to the most realistic fantasy in history.
2. You don't need sentience for that. Any mammal can be smart or clever, but only humans (and maybe some of the [social] cetaceans or primates) are sentient.
3. If I can tolerate someone, I can work with them if I have to

1. Yes, you do need to be excused. You are applying things that do not exist in Dwarf Fortress.
2. It is the degree and the ability to abstract that is required. Something that just being "smart and clever" doesn't fulfill.
3. You also do not want to work with them. You want to stay away from them. It suggest aversion.

I never said that this would be typical. It seems we're arguing about the same thing. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

We are still having an arguement because there is still one fundemental difference.

A solitary creature would NOT form societies themselves, they would not form long term groups, and if they joined a society they would isolate themselves in someway. That is my arguement.

You are suggesting that the social aspect of sentience overwrites this and that a Giant for example, if they were solitary, would have little issues with this and could, if he wanted, form large scrawling societies with other giants if they were able to unite enough giants because in order to be sentient they must have internal motivators that prevent them from killing their babies and mates (ignoring that... they may kill their mates)

Which is where our oppinions differ.

Where I argue that Solitary nature overwrites sentience/sapience and you argue that Sentience overwrites solitary nature. In otherwords which takes precidence.

If true, why would the goblins attack a settlement which is no threat to them instead of the other goblins, who are?

Not only do they do fight other goblins constantly on an individual basis and that currently no race fights itself. Likely were the game expanded there would be succession wars to prove who "Owns" that goblin settlement.

You're making assumptions. What part of zero altruism implies maximum sadism? An intelligent person (and most dumb ones) realizes that working together is usually in your best interest

No Altruism means that you live in perfect self-interest. It is only your self-interest you are interested in any you know that it is the same for everyone else. Working together in a state where no one actually had a need to work together, like humans do, means that logically betraying everyone is the best course of action. Yet it is also the best course of action for them as well. In otherwords ALL goblins are Psychopaths (No really).

The sort of "logic of working together" needs to be established first, so goblins COULD function in a human society where social rules keep them in line. Yet in a society entirely populated by beings who think alike, there is an issue.

Early human societies relied on our altruistic instincts to function and we couldn't have gotten along without it because it served a very logical nessisity.

An group of psychopaths would find survival difficult.

[Manveru Taurënér]

It all pretty much boils down to this as I see it.

Well excuse me for applying realism to the most realistic fantasy in history.

Nothing wrong with assuming and applying realism to those aspects based on reality. Applying realism to fantasy creatures and themes however is pretty oxymoronic. Sure, some part of fantasy creatures can be realistic, but to assume and suggest that they should follow realism as much as possible would make them not be fantasy creatures anymore. Lets take the ogre for example. I think most people would agree that letting the ogre behave in whatever way makes it the most fun/interesting is the way to go, rather than limiting it to just being a slightly dumb, large, mammalian humanoid behaving the general way a slightly dumb, large, mammalian humanoid would if ogres were real. If the two just so happens to be relatively the same then yay, win win, if not no harm done, because they're fantasy creatures. Limiting fantasy for the sake of realism is frankly a pretty stupid thing to do ^^

[GreatWyrmGold]

I explained how a society with no altruism could function.
Want more ways? Look at US society now, subtract charities and most subsidies, and add a demon in the White House who wants to keep everyone alive and functioning. Now make everyone 15% shorter and have green skin, and reduce us to the Iron Age. You have goblin society

Altruism does more then apply to Charity. It affects even how societies function and how they treat others. The lack of ability to work for a "Greater goal" is what not having Altruism ultimately means.

Altruism means the will to help others at your expense.
Working for a generic "greater goal" is called "planning."

Goblins will never work with other goblins because they cannot establish relationships because they lack altruism and thus they lack diplomatic ability because they lack "gifting".

What part of altruism is required for trade?

The US society without charities and with a goblin in the whitehouse does not make goblin society.

Demon.
There's tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of people who work to benefit themselves (whether because of greed, callousness, or simple inability to provide for both themselves and others). The remainder either contribute only inconsequentially or fall under charities.

Interesting...any of these not temples?

Yes

Funny, I've never heard of them.
Hint: This and the last post were requests to provide examples.

And how "tiny" do intelligent creatures get?

Insectile.

Which ones?
Hint: This and the last post were requests to provide examples.

What makes you think they don't exist?

It cannot, it is an entirely different set of biology.

Would it kill you to quote context? Just a little context?
It's the same species, with essentially the same social structures (where applicable), biomes, lifestyles, organs, etc. How does the addition of some rare species, most of which are either able to be fit into Terran taxonomy or else clearly inorganic (and thereby obviously exempt) "an entirely different set of biology?"

That doesn't make any sense. If there was a food shortage that was long enough for basic psychology to be affected, the size of the brain and amount of resources it used would also be reduced, because without a complex social structure, you don't need as complex a brain (certainly not as complex as a human's), and a brain like ours is a huge drain on resources.

Not nessisarily remember even right now Humans have several superfluous organs and redundencies. If the brain proved useful after the famine as well.

It wouldn't, not at that size.
The upper limit on usefulness on tools which one person can create can be reached far below human brain size, especially when the law of diminishing returns is applied. Without any social interaction, there's no need to retain the parts of brain associated with speech and language. Even the idea that a lack of food leads to smaller rather than fewer groups is flawed.

Unless their food sources were also larger.

They are not, Dwarf Fortress has nothing like that.

Um...It has no giant animals? Silly me, those giant badgers that attacked my dwarves and the giant moose that trampled my adventurer must have been elaborate hallucinations. Even if giants (somehow) couldn't eat those, what do they eat?

Nor do their migration patterns show this.

Where do migration patterns come in, in DF or in being germane?

1. Well excuse me for applying realism to the most realistic fantasy in history.
2. You don't need sentience for that. Any mammal can be smart or clever, but only humans (and maybe some of the [social] cetaceans or primates) are sentient.
3. If I can tolerate someone, I can work with them if I have to

1. Yes, you do need to be excused. You are applying things that do not exist in Dwarf Fortress.
2. It is the degree and the ability to abstract that is required. Something that just being "smart and clever" doesn't fulfill.
3. You also do not want to work with them. You want to stay away from them. It suggest aversion.

1. Sorry, I assumed that Toady was trying to create as realistic a simulation of fantasy as possible. I guess you've convinced me that I can just throw biology out the window while keeping DF's realistic geology. Hint: Sarcasm.
2. Even "normal" mammals learn. It's why baby wolves play. You don't need sentience to learn and innovate. It might make it easier but isn't needed.
3. I'm not trying to prove that semimegabeasts commonly work with each other (or would, in DF 1.0), only that they could.

I never said that this would be typical. It seems we're arguing about the same thing. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

We are still having an arguement because there is still one fundemental difference.
A solitary creature would NOT form societies themselves, they would not form long term groups, and if they joined a society they would isolate themselves in someway. That is my arguement.

Interesting. Seeing as there is no evidence that semi/megabeasts are solitary by anything but necessity, how does it apply here?

You are suggesting that the social aspect of sentience overwrites this and that a Giant for example, if they were solitary, would have little issues with this and could, if he wanted, form large scrawling societies with other giants if they were able to unite enough giants because in order to be sentient they must have internal motivators that prevent them from killing their babies and mates (ignoring that... they may kill their mates)

Um. This is a fair bit past what I said...
But I actually don't see any big issue, if enough of an external pressure was applied. The US was an isolationist nation in the 1930's and early 40's, yet it joined with the Soviet Union (which was incredibly different from the US, to the point that the two of them had a cold war after WWII) by the pressure of an outside threat.

Which is where our oppinions differ.

Indeed.

Where I argue that Solitary nature overwrites sentience/sapience and you argue that Sentience overwrites solitary nature. In otherwords which takes precidence.

Can. Can overwrite.

If true, why would the goblins attack a settlement which is no threat to them instead of the other goblins, who are?

Not only do they do fight other goblins constantly on an individual basis and that currently no race fights itself. Likely were the game expanded there would be succession wars to prove who "Owns" that goblin settlement.

Interesting...but why waste goblins on fighting a random dwarven settlement when they could be channeled towards local conflicts, ie ones that matter?

You're making assumptions. What part of zero altruism implies maximum sadism? An intelligent person (and most dumb ones) realizes that working together is usually in your best interest

No Altruism means that you live in perfect self-interest. It is only your self-interest you are interested in any you know that it is the same for everyone else. Working together in a state where no one actually had a need to work together, like humans do, means that logically betraying everyone is the best course of action. Yet it is also the best course of action for them as well. In otherwords ALL goblins are Psychopaths (No really).

Exactly. They want to promote their well-being. They don't mind hurting others, but they don't mind helping each other either.

The sort of "logic of working together" needs to be established first, so goblins COULD function in a human society where social rules keep them in line. Yet in a society entirely populated by beings who think alike, there is an issue.

Why? They can all predict each other's actions. "I promised that I'd give Grok a free kid in exchange for the bag. If I don't, he'll likely call some of his criminal warbands to get my head. Therefore it's worth giving Grok a kid to stay alive." Stuff like that.

Early human societies relied on our altruistic instincts to function and we couldn't have gotten along without it because it served a very logical nessisity.

Where does that mean they're necessary?

An group of psychopaths would find survival difficult.

But not impossible, especially if it occurred to them that working together garnered more benefits than not doing so. Or if a demon threatened to kill them all if they couldn't work together.

It all pretty much boils down to this as I see it.

Well excuse me for applying realism to the most realistic fantasy in history.

Nothing wrong with assuming and applying realism to those aspects based on reality. Applying realism to fantasy creatures and themes however is pretty oxymoronic. Sure, some part of fantasy creatures can be realistic, but to assume and suggest that they should follow realism as much as possible would make them not be fantasy creatures anymore. Lets take the ogre for example. I think most people would agree that letting the ogre behave in whatever way makes it the most fun/interesting is the way to go, rather than limiting it to just being a slightly dumb, large, mammalian humanoid behaving the general way a slightly dumb, large, mammalian humanoid would if ogres were real. If the two just so happens to be relatively the same then yay, win win, if not no harm done, because they're fantasy creatures. Limiting fantasy for the sake of realism is frankly a pretty stupid thing to do ^^

In what way does having ogres work together intelligently make the game less fun than if they acted like idiots and never got into any kind of group without killing each other?

[Manveru Taurënér]

In what way does having ogres work together intelligently make the game less fun than if they acted like idiots and never got into any kind of group without killing each other?

In what way does what I said exclude having ogres work together intelligently and in groups etc? Once again (and feel free to re-read what I just wrote), ogres and other fantasy stuff should behave in the way that's most interesting/fun, not the way that makes the most sense out of misplaced realism. Pretty much all of your arguments so far have been based on and arguing for the sake of realism, not fun, but I guess to you that may be the same? It's certainly not obvious in that case.

[Neonivek]

Can. Can overwrite

Which is where we differ. Where I actually outright argue that you cannot overwrite it, that it is no different then saying personality overwrites the need to eat.

The most that a solitary creature, that had a drive to remain solitary as dictated by nature, could do is compensate and fight against their nature. Yet like us we can only stop eating for so long.

In what way does having ogres work together intelligently make the game less fun than if they acted like idiots and never got into any kind of group without killing each other?

Diversity of roles is what is lost when you apply the cookie cutter playing game.

[GreatWyrmGold]

In what way does having ogres work together intelligently make the game less fun than if they acted like idiots and never got into any kind of group without killing each other?

In what way does what I said exclude having ogres work together intelligently and in groups etc? Once again (and feel free to re-read what I just wrote), ogres and other fantasy stuff should behave in the way that's most interesting/fun, not the way that makes the most sense out of misplaced realism. Pretty much all of your arguments so far have been based on and arguing for the sake of realism, not fun, but I guess to you that may be the same? It's certainly not obvious in that case.

Well, I've been arguing for realism because fun is a lot more subjective. It's hard to argue that Option X is a lot more fun. So I didn't. I've learned not to argue the unarguable.

Can. Can overwrite

Which is where we differ. Where I actually outright argue that you cannot overwrite it, that it is no different then saying personality overwrites the need to eat.

More like the opposite. I'm saying that a reasoning being can set aside its natural tendencies when it needs to, such as a solitary person teaming up with other solitary people when they're both persecuted by a bunch of people wanting to kill them. You're arguing that they're so solitary that they'd die before actually going to another person for mutual aid; that would imply that personality trumps the survival instinct.

The most that a solitary creature, that had a drive to remain solitary as dictated by nature, could do is compensate and fight against their nature. Yet like us we can only stop eating for so long.

And a creature that doesn't want to die will do what it can to survive.
I'm not talking about a natural recluse teaming up with random creatures every Saturday to drink ale and play cards, I'm talking about intelligent creatures of indeterminate but presumably not absolute preference for a solitary existence coming together to repulse common threats and otherwise make life easier/possible for both of them. Why is this so hard to grasp?

In what way does having ogres work together intelligently make the game less fun than if they acted like idiots and never got into any kind of group without killing each other?

Diversity of roles is what is lost when you apply the cookie cutter playing game.

How is diversity lost when you allow more options?

[Bloax]

Am I reading people argumenting that a single ogre that wrecks some shit in your fortress is much more !!FUN!! than having an entire band of ogres storm your fortress?

[Manveru Taurënér]

Am I reading people argumenting that a single ogre that wrecks some shit in your fortress is much more !!FUN!! than having an entire band of ogres storm your fortress?

Nha, it's more people arguing over whether ogre behaviour should be dictated by fun or realism (think everyone agreed bands of ogres/etc sounded great unless too common).

Well, I've been arguing for realism because fun is a lot more subjective. It's hard to argue that Option X is a lot more fun. So I didn't. I've learned not to argue the unarguable.

Fun is subjective so lets make everything realistic even if it's super boring doesn't sound like very good design philosophy to me :>

[Scoops Novel]

Fun is more important here, and smarter ogres are funner. Secondly, realism does not need to be lost for fun. So long as we take that there are magical laws working in conjunction with the real ones, which Toady can shape however he sees fit, it neither breaks the spirit of fantasy or realism, and the aim is to blend both.