Print

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

[Ladygolem]

Sorry to necro/double post, but this mod has been updated! The changes are listed in the OP; I'm eager to hear what you guys think!

[pisskop]

[EXCLUSIVE_START_BIOME:MOUNTAIN]
   [SETTLEMENT_BIOME:ANY_LAND]
   [BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_LAND:1]

Ohh?  oh you know if they clash with dwarves much? They start in mountains but can spread anywhere and have no special affinity to mountains aside form their start.

they also dont spread as fast as other's according to the weight of 1 (being slower than 2 or 3)?

also, they dont support evil biomes?


---

I have merlocks who already occupy this general niche (mountains competitors), I wonder how they would clash for the spots?  Do you gen a decent number of playable civs?  Ive noticed they don't have a fortress tier (666 )

I would add them for a kick, but Im worried about their impact on my 'balanced' civilized ecosytem.  How would they fare as a subterranean civ?

---

[ETHIC:KILL_ENTITY_MEMBER:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
   [ETHIC:KILL_NEUTRAL:ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED]
   [ETHIC:KILL_ENEMY:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:KILL_ANIMAL:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:KILL_PLANT:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:TORTURE_AS_EXAMPLE:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:TORTURE_FOR_INFORMATION:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:TORTURE_FOR_FUN:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:TORTURE_ANIMALS:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:TREASON:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
   [ETHIC:OATH_BREAKING:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
   [ETHIC:LYING:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:VANDALISM:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
   [ETHIC:TRESPASSING:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
   [ETHIC:THEFT:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
   [ETHIC:ASSAULT:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
   [ETHIC:SLAVERY:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_KILL:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAME_RACE:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT:ACCEPTABLE]
   [ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_ANIMAL:ACCEPTABLE]

Their ethics over neutrals leads them to pacifisml; (only_if_sanctioned) means 'never by the ai', and with a god of war or victory do they fight enough to be considered 'antagonists' as a worldgen civ or a fort-mod civ?

Forgive me, but what are their dispositions and habits as dictated by you?  What about physiology and culture?

---
Would you consider a playthrough to show them off?

[Ladygolem]

I admit, the entity raw is mostly an edited version of the dwarf one. In terms of ethics, I believe [BABYSNATCHER] should be enough to make them 'antagonists'. I didn't give them EVIL animals/wood as they're purely subterranean, not over world like goblins. Think of them as a dark inversion of the dwarves you know and love!

I haven't had a chance to test the raws yet, just wanted to get this thing out there and see what people think! They are a subterranean civ - they're hidden by default, like kobolds, and should invade very wealthy forts from the caverns, if my assumptions are correct.

 What do you mean by 'fortress tier'? If you mean adventure tier, than as you've correctly spotted it is there, set to 666.

[pisskop]

[CIV_CONTROLLABLE]
[INDIV_CONTROLLABLE]

They dont have these tags.  These control their availability as a fortress-mode critter and a adventurer.

Id like to see if they do invade from the caverns, but what I see from the raws is a civ that starts in the mountains and occasionally picks a random biome to settle into.m  Like goblins.

[Ladygolem]

They're not intended as a playable fort race. [INDIV_CONTROLLABLE] simply lets you play as an outsider, I believe. Anyway, they're mostly an antagonist civ - you're supposed to fight them, not play as them.

They're also [LAYER_LINKED] which if I understand correctly makes them spawn with the behaviour of cave animalfolk. Except these will be hostile, and fully armored...