Print

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

Often: The fortress isn't meant to protect them. It's meant to entertain me.

On Occassion: We all need a bit of dark laughter now and then.

When necessary: As a means to an end, I'll kill a dwarf to save a dozen.

Never: The world is dangerous enough.

[WanderingKid]

It's an Overlord who cares for its Dwarves and doesn't put them through unnecessary risks.

I know what the words mean but together they don't seem to make any sense...

Wow, folks... why so serious?  I got it Blazing Glory... 

-The Overfiend

Also, just to nitpick: Morals in western society are highly variable.  From death penalties to foster care to medical treatment, the opinions and logic/emotions behind them vary heavily.  I would recommend we leave that very vague (aka: Your RL morals vs. your overlord morals) otherwise this could become messy.

[WoobMonkey]

It's an Overlord who cares for its Dwarves and doesn't put them through unnecessary risks.

I know what the words mean but together they don't seem to make any sense...

Wow, folks... why so serious?  I got it Blazing Glory... 

-The Overfiend

Also, just to nitpick: Morals in western society are highly variable.  From death penalties to foster care to medical treatment, the opinions and logic/emotions behind them vary heavily.  I would recommend we leave that very vague (aka: Your RL morals vs. your overlord morals) otherwise this could become messy.

So, then, the moral of the story is that your morals and Morul's morals are, more or less, not the same?  XD (Couldn't help myself...)

[Jackboot]

I tend to be a rather moral overlord, though its a rather standardized generosity rather than looking after specific dwarfs preferences. Early on in a fort I try to give everyone a smoothed room with a stone chest and dresser. It has the dual benefits of making my dwarves happy, and improving the skills of my masons. Later on when my fort is a sprawling mass of dirty migrants the rooms tend to taper off because everyone is usually occupied in the more important tasks of building coffins and decorative items for the common areas... Usually for the nobles.

The hospital is always well stocked and I burrow the chief medical dwarf in there along with a surgeon and a nurse or two; allowing them only to work in the hospital and kitchen stockpile means when they aren't eating or sleeping they have no excuse to not fix up the dwarves with fractured livers.

My moral standing tends to erode when I complete the danger rooms and the surgeons end up with a lot of practice in their craft, though deaths are rare unless I leave it on repeat and get distracted by something else in the fort.

My current fort is the only surviving fort left in our civilization, so I felt it would make sense to have everyone be militarized to an extent. So drafting everyone in a squad lead by a legendary speardwarf until they're all at least competent or adequete, then they either get released from the training squad or bumped into the militia, legion of professionals, or put back into civilian life.

And every dwarf has something to do, even if its not their starting labor.

[GrimDark_Majyyks]

I initially was going to say no, but I think maybe that is inaccurate. Maybe I am, maybe I am not, but I don't think I am in the way that you are asking. Every comfort I provide them is done so because it is convenient and elevates their utility in some way, or prevents a loss in their capability to do work. Every dwarf (except nobles and children*) represents a finite value of work, and it is in my best interest to maximize the work they are capable of while minimizing their resource drain on the fort that every dwarf also represents. I care about the results, and I care about achieving whatever particular objectives I set for myself.

I don't care about the quality of life of the individual dwarves, and it isn't altogether uncommon for me to simply eradicate potential problems rather than try to spare them for the sake of sympathy because it is better to lose the one rather than lose the five/fifteen/fifty/fort.  However, I don't think this is a particularly immoral way to go about dealing with the comfort and quality of life of my dwarves as I achieve many of the same things others do (decent rooms, nice dining areas, needs met, kept occupied sometimes even according to their preferences, clothed {bonus: I keep a minimal military in favor of deploying alternative means of defense}).

It doesn't make a lot of sense to be actively malicious to your dwarves because you aren't going to be able to do anything. I think, more than anything, it isn't really a matter of morality that leads to the numerous horror stories one can read concerning what happens in our forts, but that it is actually really simply that people make mistakes. Sometimes the worst things that happen are the things that go on after a mistake is made and an Overlord does everything they can think to do in a desperate effort to save what dwarves they can. I think it might be better to ask "Has anyone tried to be an evil, amoral Overlord (and succeed)?"

*children grow up, nobles don't

Edit: I don't think it really makes a lot of sense to think of being practical as somehow being evil. If the results are the same but the motivations are not is it somehow less good for the dwarves? I mean, sure it's a happy accident that my preferences happen to mostly align with the preferences of the dwarves, but the ultimately selfish motivations aren't bad for anybody (excluding elves and nobles)

[CreamyDoughnut]

I initially was going to say no, but I think maybe that is inaccurate. Maybe I am, maybe I am not, but I don't think I am in the way that you are asking. Every comfort I provide them is done so because it is convenient and elevates their utility in some way, or prevents a loss in their capability to do work. Every dwarf (except nobles and children*) represents a finite value of work, and it is in my best interest to maximize the work they are capable of while minimizing their resource drain on the fort that every dwarf also represents. I care about the results, and I care about achieving whatever particular objectives I set for myself.

I don't care about the quality of life of the individual dwarves, and it isn't altogether uncommon for me to simply eradicate potential problems rather than try to spare them for the sake of sympathy because it is better to lose the one rather than lose the five/fifteen/fifty/fort.  However, I don't think this is a particularly immoral way to go about dealing with the comfort and quality of life of my dwarves as I achieve many of the same things others do (decent rooms, nice dining areas, needs met, kept occupied sometimes even according to their preferences, clothed {bonus: I keep a minimal military in favor of deploying alternative means of defense}).

It doesn't make a lot of sense to be actively malicious to your dwarves because you aren't going to be able to do anything. I think, more than anything, it isn't really a matter of morality that leads to the numerous horror stories one can read concerning what happens in our forts, but that it is actually really simply that people make mistakes. Sometimes the worst things that happen are the things that go on after a mistake is made and an Overlord does everything they can think to do in a desperate effort to save what dwarves they can. I think it might be better to ask "Has anyone tried to be an evil, amoral Overlord (and succeed)?"

*children grow up, nobles don't

Edit: I don't think it really makes a lot of sense to think of being practical as somehow being evil. If the results are the same but the motivations are not is it somehow less good for the dwarves? I mean, sure it's a happy accident that my preferences happen to mostly align with the preferences of the dwarves, but the ultimately selfish motivations aren't bad for anybody (excluding elves and nobles)

I'd say you're pragmatic then. A pragmatic overlord that can justify his actions for the greater good. Which I believe a good portion of the players are.

In answer to your suggestion, you found someone.

I'm seriously an evil, amoral Overlord and I find success, and I prefer the challenge it gives. A few dozen dwarves die every two years but the fort lives on. I rarely lose anyone to actual invaders or forgotten beasts so I could say the about 75% of the deaths that do happen are perfectly avoidable if I had done anything. And 90% of them are because I decided to do it for FUN. One occasion I let a famine happen just to test how fast I could restart and regrow the food industry after destroying every essential building (about 50 died out of 200 during the ensuring chaos). I'd imagine the Overlord's motive in this case to be weeding out the weak and weakening the strong just for shits and giggles. I've killed elves without them provoking me. In fact, I used traps to cage them and 'feed' my hydra in a pit right in the middle of my grand dinning hall (some civilian dwarves fall in too, who cares?). I've used human caravans to bait a siege directly into my ballistae-line. The ensuring casualties really pissed them off.  I didn't care that any of these events would lead to the possible destruction of the fortress, only that more blood was spilled and my army got better at spilling it. I think I'm just a hair width away from opening the circus too. Only thing stopping me is devising a way to ensure maximum casualties on both sides without losing the fort (in a non-cheesy way).

Truly, I'd say I do it to test just how far I can go before starting a tantrum spiral (which I believe is the one game mechanic made to condemn my form of play). I also like it for the challenge it gives in trying to stop an ongoing tantrum spiral. I play Fortress, and it's only in my 'sunshine' fort that I remember the 'Dwarf' part of the title. The rocks and treasure must survive. The dwarves? I always have reserves.

If I was really like the person I play as, I'm sure you could define me as a monster without argument. I think the only justification I ever used in trying out something new is how 'metal' it sounds on paper.

So, I'd say I'm the complete opposite of what the title says. I'd believe that a good, moral Overlord would be someone who preaches and practices altruism in his governing style and will only fight back if threatened by the many enemies that can besiege a fortress. He treats the caravans as his own citizens, and cautiously approaches the act of buildin' and diggin' as he cares for the well-being and happiness of each individual dwarf. He's willing to sacrifice the future effectiveness of the fortress to keep that spirit of benevolence alive.

I'd think the above is simply too challenging for me to play because even in the sunshine fort I'm slaughtering kittens and trying to figure out how to get Child Care working with an above 50% death rate. All because I want a more badass military (parents have booze to forget lil' jimmy's crying), and slaughtering kittens instead of raising livestock just seemed more practical.

[Sutremaine]

Why would a tantrum spiral condone your style of play? It seems to be the one major consequence of being an evil overlord.

[WillowLuman]

Considering cultural norms, slaughtering dogs or kittens isn't necessarily immoral. And considering that, dogs make a much better food source, since they're much larger. Though often I find anything other than what my farms produce to be superfluous. Farms are very broken.

I tried a minimal-farming approach recently. Still had little trouble feeding my dwarves off of turkeys and alpacas, though it took a while to construct the super-secure pasture.

[CreamyDoughnut]

Why would a tantrum spiral condone your style of play? It seems to be the one major consequence of being an evil overlord.

lol I meant to say condemn. Let me fix that.

[CreamyDoughnut]

Considering cultural norms, slaughtering dogs or kittens isn't necessarily immoral.

Yea, but I still think my attempt at trying to create super-soldiers out of children by subjecting them to a world of bloody hell is seriously questionable- if we were to judge the program as if it were real. Especially since my results so far can be easily recreated in adult troopers in under a few years. So I can't say any of it has been justified.

[TalonisWolf]

I've always given them 4x4 rooms with a chest a chair. Nobles have larger rooms with their offices and such in floors below their room (read:more than a single story.).

On the other hand, however, it is not uncommon to for me to sacrifice soap makers as expendable miners, or light them on fire in a corridor full of goblins (Magma Mist is just as weaponisable as the Magma itself, and turns living creatures into uncontrolled napalm cruise missiles).

And if a noble wants adamantine, I will make them stand by the seam as it's dug out...Hehehe...

[Larix]

I usually just make a single huge super-fancy dining room and call it a day. I'm rather sparing with handing out personal bedrooms, mainly because it just leads to x(troll fur sock)x hoarding.

I take pains to keep my bearded minions safe, e.g. by setting orders to forbid _everything_ upon death and painting over whole z-levels with d-b-f just in case loose items in dangerous places are unforbidden for some stupid reason. In one fort, i carefully disabled cleaning on absolutely everybody, because that was the only way i could make out to prevent them from running into the active atomsmasher to clean it.

And if disaster strikes, i pride myself of being reasonably able to stem the tide of unhappiness with relatively few further fallout, all by making the dwarfs' lives happier, treating the wounded and pacifying the distressed, _not_ by pre-emptive cruelty. I find the thought of wilfully harming my own dwarfs disgusting. Consequently, there are quite a few threads on the fora that i don't closely read, because i know full well they're just gonna make me sick.

This attitude is helped a lot by setting moderate-to-low population caps and uncapping children. When you get no new migrants once you have 100 beards, 40+ of which are children, you have much less of a cavalier attitude towards cheesemakers getting turned into a jigsaw puzzle by a goblin axesquad - you _won't_ be getting a new migration wave next season to replace your losses.

[brokegamer]

I'm definitely nice to my dwarves, always let them specialise so they have the best quality meals and furniture etc. I think the worst I do is find dwarves that don't have any "marketable skills" and draft them into the military, which usually spells their doom. I am prone to silly accidents though, like leaving my miners to starve to death in holes they can't get out of.

[CaptainLambcake]

i consider every dwarf to be of utter importance, and that all can accomplish great things if given the opportunity, i don't go out of my way to provide great food, clothing, and golden furniture, but i carve them nice rooms and give them beds, cabinets, and a fair variety of food, in great quantity.  people injured in the line of duty are especially respected.

[wierd]

I admit it.

I. I...  have difficulty doing horrible things to my dwarves.

I do experiments on some fortresses, so I can better protect and prepare others.
I really do try my best to avoid having them injure themselves or get murdered by goblins.

I prefer to play as a good guy. (But that just means I know how to be a wickedly morbid villian when the need arises.)

[sirdave79]

I consider myself a moral overlord.

My current fort is 38 years old. I started it at year 5 and am currently starting year 43.

My goals for the fort were to marry off as many of my dwarves as I could because I wanted to limit the migration to 0 after the hardcoded waves and supply all my dwarves "internally" as it were. My population after the hardcoded waves was 19, I married everyone off that I could and then later doubled the population to 40 (via babies).

My current population is 80, everyone has had a strange mood and I am about to set the child cap to 80 to allow for a doubling of the population to 160. I have 34 married couples. I married my dwarves off by stuffing them into a burrow/love shack with food and drink beds and tables and chairs and a tiny meeting area then locking them in until they married (which has been reliably successful).

Everyones wearing full steel armour and has been danger roomed a bit to prevent them from moving like slugs.

No ones died, no ones badly wounded.

I turtled for a long while. 4 of my starting 7 were teachers and sparred together from day 1. I have just split those 4 up into 4 squads with 5 new recruits each (all the new recruits are about 20) and I was very happy to see the teachers seemed to impart many combat skills very quickly via demos and now everyone sparring and legendary in plenty of combat skills after just a year or two. Switching the teachers into new squads was a ballache with regards to equipment.

I have 2 sparring areas with 4/7 water below so that sparring participants who dodge get some swimming practice.

All the moods have been very tightly controlled, Ive forbidded all metal bar steel when a mood strikes, and so consequently have about 60 artifact weapons and peices of armour.

A lot of the time I feel like Im fighting elements of the game/UI to acheive my utopian goals and have micromanager and save scummed. What I dieally want to do is relax this control at some point, once my fort is capable of replacing its own losses. In lots of ways I feel like this fort and the many hours ive put into it are very sterile and boring as some posters have suggested and yet I have found and still continue (to a slightly lesser degree) to find myself quite compelled to forward the story of this fort.

I guess given its current healthy state the future objectives of the fort are to conquer all the z levels below me (never even ventured into the caverns before).

All my dwarves tend to have a happiness greater than 120. New military recruits seem to hover around 100. All my married couples have 5x5 bedrooms with 3 beds and several containers. Ive tried to limit the friendships but in the beginning I was just letting everyone mingle in hopes of marrying off my dwarves before I built my love shacks and targetted my marriages, so the older dwarves often have quite a few friends. Im curious how much a moderate number of deaths will affect my fortress, I hope I can sustain losses without a spiral but we shall have to see. No ones died of old age yet.

Im using dfhack and I made 1 change to the raws, editing the life time of dwarves to be 250 (ideally I wouldnt have done this and I wouldnt have if my starting 7 "first of their kind" could have all been 50 or something). I shortened the age of puberty to 6 (this is mainly to avoid lots of children mooding for bone rings and whatnot (I want steel weapons and armour) and I did use splinterz therapist to force labours onto those children to train their moodable skills. I think the next fort I make I will disable moods (i think ive read that can be done).

I also want to experiment with DF hacks ability to move between game modes, choosing a citizen of my fort to become an adventurer and use my fort as a hospital if necessary.

Ive been waiting for military to affect the outside world and history/worldgen to continue after starting in fort mode for years so the new release is very exciting indeed. I find the dwarven childcare thread hilarious and has provided me with many unexplainable bouts of laughter at work whilst reading even if I do consider it not realistically practical.

I trade with the elves and humans as much as possible and I prefer the idea of maintaining good relations with other "good" races whilst killing goblins and kobolds. I am often a bit dissatisfied with my ability to protect incoming caravans short of flooding the field with large numbers of high quality soldiers (which im just about getting up to). Ive tried various gates and walls containing marksdwarves, also multiple trade depots. Ive never successfully built an underground exit for caravans.

My current mayor has no item preferences, so I get no mandates. I have put off choosing a baron as I hope to be able to pick a relatively young baron with no item preferences and an heir that also as no item preferences. My "3rd generation" is not yet quite a reality however. I will be happy for it to "go more random" in this regard after the 3rd generation.

So those are my credentials, I consider myself a dwarven supremacist benevolent dictator who wants the absolute best for my dwarves. And I look forward to the day when I can use a fort in this model to conquer the world and possibly have fun adventuring and seizing other races sites along the way.

Ive got loads of saves for this fort in my backup archive.

cheers