If you talk in a lot of topics Breadman there is this strong sense that magic should be completely optional. That it has such strong disadvantages that "Not having magic" is perfectly viable.
My oppinion is as such: There is no reason why you wouldn't want magic in the same way there is no reason why you wouldn't want armor or you wouldn't want weapons or you wouldn't want food. It is a layer of the games strategy when introduced and if introduced.
Many cultures didn't opt out of magic because you couldn't. Doing so was death.
I'm confused. How does this relate to what I wrote? Are you arguing a)
against or
for religious rituals because b) they're
too optional or
not optional enough?
As written, I proposed a system that would benefit a fort to the extent of producing a little more food, or fighting a little harder, or working a little faster, or being a little happier, but not by more than perhaps ten percent. It wouldn't be deadly to neglect such rituals, any more than it is deadly to not have them in the current game. On the other hand, I see where you may be coming from about opting out of magic being death; to ancient Egyptians, the priests who had mastered the calendar of the Nile may well have seemed like magicians. In other times and places, metalwork felt like magic.
I don't think magic or religions should be fully procedurally generated, at least not to the degree that say, FB's are. This is for the same reason that, say, metals usable by a given civ are not procedurally generated. Certain civs should have their own defined magic system, or all civs should one system. Otherwise we are going to roll systems that require raw adamantine earrings to be worn in the daytime, or the sacrifice of a dwarf every month.
Indeed. It should be possible to procedurally generate a wearable item that can be produced by the civilization, at least. Granted, not every fort will have the kaolinite required for my porcelain earring example, even if it did come from a real item in Razorpacked.
As far as "realistic" religion goes, the fact of the matter is that specific religions are real parts of many people's lives, and people would be insulted if they were mishandled. Religions should stay procedural, though it would be great to see more detail.
Absolutely. For this reason, I'm opposed to importing specific aspects of specific real-life religions, particularly watered-down Hollywood versions. Even "occult" systems.
Fortunately, starting with the tools already available in fortress mode may well produce systems that feel natural, but not derivative.
For instance, specific rituals that, if made possible in ones fort, would result in a happy thought. I do not think dwarves from other religions should have an unhappy thought from this, nor should there be any penalty for differing religions in a fort, as religious bigotry simply does not need its own simulator.
The bit about too high a concentration of a single religion causing unhappiness may well be better left off the table. It's hard to simulate properly, and might come too close to bad experiences from players' lives.
Turning that on its head, it could be that dwarves find it easier to make friends when they perform the rituals together. A bigger group could also make the happy thought even happier.
That said, it would be amusing to see a procedurally generated ritual. I'd laugh to see Urist have a happy thought because he Dissected a Trout on a Black Bronze Chair covered in Whale Fat in December. All hail Sarek, Deity of Trout and Caves! It would also be fun to see Urist turned into a Weretrout for sacrificing a carp.
Very amusing. I hadn't been thinking nearly that detailed. Single-step rituals like eating a rock nut, taking a bath, going to an altar, or looking at the sun would be easily done for fortress-mode dwarves. On the other hand, the more complicated rituals would be appropriate for invoking more potent blessings, or for annual duties of a high priest.
Monthly or seasonal: These rituals should be noticable in fortress mode; in the example above, several dwarves would line up at the local river or well three times a season. Devout worshippers should get a negative thought if they cannot participate due to combat, burrows, or interruptions.
If they do get a negative thought, it should be minor. What about a ritual that requires water, but the dwarves have embarked in a desert (or other similar situation etc)? It wouldn't do to have a fort fail due to lack of sacrificial trout
Good point. Only the first failure (and only after a success) should be a significant hit, perhaps double the positive hit of performing a ritual, and only if the failure is from circumstances outside of the dwarf's control. (Less devout dwarves may choose not to participate.) After that, subsequent failures might be lumped into "hasn't been able to perform their religious obligations for a while" until it too fades. At that point, the dwarf's devoutness might well decrease.
Under no circumstances should negative thoughts from religion be something that can't be cured by great living conditions.
To sum it up: I think that magic / religion certainly have a prospective place in DF, so long as it doesn't run wild, and does not become a forced gameplay element.
Well said. This is a fantasy world generator, and there have been plenty of fantasy worlds with little to no magic. A world gen setting for high, medium, low, and none for magic and/or religion would not be out of place.