Print

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

[Putnam]

Heh, dwarves will probably never be Proper Communists™, given their apparently rigid feudal system.

I can totally see the eleves as communists, though. Goblins love their tyranny too much. Some human governments could be run that way, too, should that ever get as randomly generated as it ought to be (and should communism of any sort end up in the game)

[Reelya]

Modded dwarves could make decent Soviets though, just rename some titles to Commisar, President (leader), Party Secretary (record keeper) etc.

[falcc]

Well this kind of went off the rails. Let me clarify: my suggestion is for the economy should be designed with multiple possible systems that could be implemented in some way for modded civs (like setting their value systems in the raws). And I am suggesting it now rather than once the economy is reimplemented because it's easier to build something triangular from the start than build a circle and cut it into a triangle. Toady has announced that the economy is finally coming back, I'd like him to have this to consider while writing the foundational code for it.

No pedantry necessary.

[MDFification]

Heh, dwarves will probably never be Proper Communists™, given their apparently rigid feudal system.

Just like the Inca were really good communists. All property was owned by the state, resources were redistributed equally (with the exception of the nobility), the state directed all large-scale economic endeavors for the good of the people (read: the state). Hell, they even went full Stalinist and forcibly resettled populations to change the ethnic makeup of regions to make it more favorable to the continued existence of the empire!

They're really good communists until you realize that they were a theocracy based on worship of aristocratic figures (they kept the corpses of old emperors because gods can't die, they just 'retired' and let the descendants of their wives and households 'speak for the emperor'). Heck, they even had civil wars to place dead emperors back on the throne!

This is why I'm cautious when people suggest broad societal archetypes for DF. We should more have a list of traits that can be assigned to a culture - it not only creates more interesting and diverse societies, it displays the vast potential societies have exhibited across history better than the eurocentric 'isms' model.

[GoblinCookie]

Heh, dwarves will probably never be Proper Communists™, given their apparently rigid feudal system.

I can totally see the eleves as communists, though. Goblins love their tyranny too much. Some human governments could be run that way, too, should that ever get as randomly generated as it ought to be (and should communism of any sort end up in the game)

They are all Communists as far as we know as they behave like it in Adventure Mode, allowing the use of all fortress goods and the carrying away of plenty.  The dwarves do not actually have a rigid feudal system, what they *do* have is a few isolated elements of a feudal superstructure (3 positions) assimilated into an entirely communist economic and political system.  The situation actually does not make much sense, unless perhaps the dwarves were feudal at some in the past before Yr 0 and those things are a relic. 

Feudalism is a economic/social system, it is not a political regime except in the sene that all economic/social systems perhaps are.  What this means is that merely having Kings/Dukes/Counts does not make you feudal, instead those things were part of the political superstruture of a particular form of feudalism that existed in a particular place.

A feudal version of dwarf fortress would involve having multiple 'governments' in the same site, with a single top government.  You would control only the top government and an AI would govern all the lesser governments production.  Those governments would own their own seperate property and hand over part of their produced wealth.  Your goverment would be expected to carry out particular monopoly functions in retrun, particularly military and legal stuff in return. 

[GavJ]

I agree, I think the Inca sound like communists (economic model) just with theocratic governance.
And dwarves seem like communists with a monarchic governance.

As long as the government doesn't go around micromanaging or controlling the means of production, then these combinations are possible. Communism doesn't really require that everybody cooperate regarding every type of rule. Only cooperate in terms of ownership of things, most especially things that make other things. Other rules like social mores or who you go to war with can be potentially determined in other ways.

[Reelya]

A feudal version of dwarf fortress would involve having multiple 'governments' in the same site, with a single top government.  You would control only the top government and an AI would govern all the lesser governments production.  Those governments would own their own seperate property and hand over part of their produced wealth.  Your goverment would be expected to carry out particular monopoly functions in retrun, particularly military and legal stuff in return.

Real feudalism didn't quite work like that, any more than other government types. In any geographical location, you normally get exactly one lord (baron or higher) or knight (appointed by a baron) as the local ruler, rather than a heirarchy of rulers and governments in the same location. The purpose of having vassals was to get them to manage the lands that you couldn't personally oversee. So you'd expect 1 noble or knight controlling a location, and a separate mayor if there's a town nearby. This is what we already see in DF, so it's already pretty realistic. We just need tribute caravans and liege lords in different fortresses now.

[MDFification]

A feudal version of dwarf fortress would involve having multiple 'governments' in the same site, with a single top government.  You would control only the top government and an AI would govern all the lesser governments production.  Those governments would own their own seperate property and hand over part of their produced wealth.  Your goverment would be expected to carry out particular monopoly functions in retrun, particularly military and legal stuff in return.

Real feudalism didn't quite work like that, any more than other government types. In any geographical location, you normally get exactly one lord (baron or higher) or knight (appointed by a baron) as the local ruler, rather than a heirarchy of rulers and governments in the same location. The purpose of having vassals was to get them to manage the lands that you couldn't personally oversee. So you'd expect 1 noble or knight controlling a location, and a separate mayor if there's a town nearby. This is what we already see in DF, so it's already pretty realistic. We just need tribute caravans and liege lords in different fortresses now.

Agreed that we have a feudal power structure in place - there just isn't an economic system reminiscent of medieval Europe in place. This is largely because the economy hasn't been implemented, but I think its important to point out that a landowner aristocracy entails serfdom. The merchant nobility of humans seems to entail an economic situation similar to the Merchant Republics of Italy; not feudal, but definately not a modern capitalist democracy, more of a mercantilist oligarchy.

[locustgate]

Because just like true capitalism and resonance structures they only exist on paper.

[GavJ]

It's definitely not fuedalism until/if we have to send food and stuff to the mountainhomes as taxes. And until/if the mountainhomes sends us soldiers to help us in the event of war.

Just having some king somewhere who does nothing but call himself king is calling playing make believe, not a government.

[Reelya]

It's definitely not fuedalism until/if we have to send food and stuff to the mountainhomes as taxes. And until/if the mountainhomes sends us soldiers to help us in the event of war.

Just having some king somewhere who does nothing but call himself king is calling playing make believe, not a government.

War happens all the time though. A feudal king gets his troops from those sent to him by fortresses. If he sent troops back to deal with goblin seiges, then he'd just be shuffling the same troops back and forth to literally every fortress, no fortress would get a net benefit from that. Since every fortress is dealing with the same thing every year, seiges would be in the realm of "you guys just deal with that locally and make sure you keep paying your tithes and sending me troops".

The first step to improving that model would be for a "grand army" mechanic, where no matter what government system there is, there are top generals (who could also be a king or duke or whatever in feudalism), the settlements of the nation provide men and resources for building the grand army, and these mega-armies can face off in battle. But they wouldn't necessarily be having this battle in or near a player fortress.

[GavJ]

That's not how feudalism works. It is a social contract that has to go both ways, or it falls apart. Usually, in real life, it goes "send us food and troops and things yearly to the central government, and in exchange, the whole army will come defend your lands in the case of foreign invasions or local aggressive neighboring lords"

Why would you ever send food and troops but not get anything in return? That's dumb. A cursory glance at actual, historical feudalism shows that local lords were CONSTANTLY rebelling and being disgruntled even when they WERE getting things in return for their fealty. A monarchy that only takes, by comparison, stands absolutely no chance of continuing to exist.

You make a decent point about goblin sieges being so pervasive that centralized control isn't helpful. But the logical conclusions from that is... not to have a centralized government at all. Not to just keep sending them things blindly and supporting one for no reason.

All you've explained is why feudalism might not make sense in the first place due to the characteristics of the DF world.

[Metalax]

Yes, it wouldn't be so much soldiers being shuffled around as assembling forces into an army to launch an assault on the goblin towers that are launching those sieges. The idea being that taking a few soldiers from each settlement would allow for a far larger single force than any one settlement could assemble.

Of course hostile civs should be able to do this as well,potentially leading to another level of assault on your fortress.

Isolated thieves/babysnatchers
Single squad - raids/scouting forces
Assaults - essentially the current sieges that can be launched every few years by a good sized city, especially if a fairly large proportion of the numbers are able to retreat as would be common for most armies at this tech level.
Grand siege - a civilization level army including sappers/siege breakers, potentially settle in to try and starve out your fort, etc.

Tying this back in to the original suggestion, the political leanings of a civ would influence how easily it could form such armies, how it reacts to their victory or loss and indeed if such armies prove necessary over a period of time, may result in shifts in the civ's political leanings, leading to a potential feedback cycle.

[Foxite]

The funny thing about this is that fortresses are a mix of all three major types of government - you, the overseeer, controls everything alone(dictatorship), but (usually) keeps everyone happy and makes sure that everything goes right(communism), and still try to make money(capitalism).

[GoblinCookie]

Real feudalism didn't quite work like that, any more than other government types. In any geographical location, you normally get exactly one lord (baron or higher) or knight (appointed by a baron) as the local ruler, rather than a heirarchy of rulers and governments in the same location. The purpose of having vassals was to get them to manage the lands that you couldn't personally oversee. So you'd expect 1 noble or knight controlling a location, and a separate mayor if there's a town nearby. This is what we already see in DF, so it's already pretty realistic. We just need tribute caravans and liege lords in different fortresses now.

In feudalism the local lord did not control the economy.  Society was stratified between different levels of economic governance, between the peasant household and the royal household, each managing it's own economic affairs and production.  Higher levels had more rights and greater access to wealth than lower one's.

In Dwarf Fortress we have a single level of economic governance where everyone is (mostly) equal in their rights with only the actual officials possibly enjoying a few extra perks like a nicer room.  This does not extend to their friends and family which do not constitute a privilaged group at all.

We have a classless society in dwarf fortress where there is very little private property and the government actually owns all capital.  Everyone in the site is equal, everyone makes use of the common capital and consumes the common stockpiles; sounds like Communism in the ideal sense.  We even have arbitrary production targets and punishments being doled out to random people for not meeting them, sounds a bit like Stalin, meaning we also kinda have Communism in the not so idea sense. 

War happens all the time though. A feudal king gets his troops from those sent to him by fortresses. If he sent troops back to deal with goblin seiges, then he'd just be shuffling the same troops back and forth to literally every fortress, no fortress would get a net benefit from that. Since every fortress is dealing with the same thing every year, seiges would be in the realm of "you guys just deal with that locally and make sure you keep paying your tithes and sending me troops".

The first step to improving that model would be for a "grand army" mechanic, where no matter what government system there is, there are top generals (who could also be a king or duke or whatever in feudalism), the settlements of the nation provide men and resources for building the grand army, and these mega-armies can face off in battle. But they wouldn't necessarily be having this battle in or near a player fortress.

That already exists in World-Gen.  It does however cease to exist the moment that the world is created, once the world is created and things are modelled directly rather than being simulated we get a situation where all armies are actually coming from a particular settlement and going to another and only the underlying diplomacy is at civilization level.   

Thing is though that having an actually functioning central government above settlement level does not equal feudalism unless that central government actually is a seperate entity and is actually living off the resources provided by the lower entities.  At present the central government members are simply members of the capital city government and it provides all their needs just as with it's own local government and everyone else. 

If all we do provide is armies and supplies for military reasons we are still Communist rather than Feudal because there is a lack of a ruling class sustained by our supplies.  Actually the model starts to rather resemble the way the Swiss Republic used to work.