Print

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

[Shizmoo]

Since there is no objective standard for morality to be based off of in Dwarf Fortress universe, your question is a non-sequitur. Morality and concepts like good and evil have no objective meaning or existence in said universe.

No, they're subjective based on who is asking.  I.E. your superiors.  Or competitors, if not a subject.  Or those other irritants who possess power, if you are of the antisocial persuasion.


Much as communication was before electricity. Its subjective and its guidelines are tied to the interest of those asking.

You pretty much support my argument saying its subjective making what I said still hold so I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

[pisskop]

Im saying that if players are 'good', they're doing it wrong.  And if theyre evil, theyre likely missing out on a lot of fun times.


You cant quite call it irrelevant, because how you sit relative to the system you tether yourself to is information, and a good one at that.  What's more, its capable of broad standardization, and is thus on some level objective.

i.e. a 'good' goblin vs an evil 'knight'.  Even D&D did a better job than this monopolar system.

[Quartz_Mace]

What I meant was when playing adventure mode, do you actually try to justify things you do or do you do as you wish.

For example: a "moral" player may kill very few enemies and only incapacitate them to survive. When they do kill, it is for their "perception of good".

An "immoral" player will do whatever s/he pleases, wether it's slaughtering babies or killing a Titan

A player who does bad things but draws a line or justifies it would be "moral" to a degree.

For example: He's a thief but he only knocks out people who catch him in the act instead of killing them, or he slaughters Goblins mercilessly because he believes their ethics are wrong (as opposed to hunting them for sport).

In reality, it doesn't matter because it's only a game and nobody is actually hurt, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion.

It's not if you're good or evil. A person with good morals may do bad things to achieve them and a person with bad morals may do good things to achieve them. And a person with no morals does whatever they want.

[pisskop]

Aye.  I see a clear difference between morality and good/evil.  I meant that its hard to define a character on one axis.

Ethics as we think of them tend to be along human lines, or at least guided by the cultural ethics of the raws


---

Take goblins and their acceptance of murder.  while the thought and pain of being murdered is unpleasant as an individual, culturally gobbos accept it as a positive event.  Or a sign of a healthy civ, at least.  Murder is commonplace, and a lack of it would be an issue.  Even amoungst rulers.

[Quartz_Mace]

Aye.  I see a clear difference between morality and good/evil.  I meant that its hard to define a character on one axis.

Ethics as we think of them tend to be along human lines, or at least guided by the cultural ethics of the raws


---

Take goblins and their acceptance of murder.  while the thought and pain of being murdered is unpleasant as an individual, culturally gobbos accept it as a positive event.  Or a sign of a healthy civ, at least.  Murder is commonplace, and a lack of it would be an issue.  Even amoungst rulers.

True, ethics are also closely related to morals and you cannot define any true character on any flat plane. The world is very complex, which is why we discuss the moralities, rather than saying "my adventurer is a villian or immoral," or "my adventurer is a hero, moral, ethical, etc."

I decided to say "morals" as opposed to "ethics" because in-game ethics are coding-related and defined.

[icer667]

I attempt to be moral, but I do show my crazy game side a bit.

I do genuinely care for my companions and other people if I go the "Good Guy" route. Usually, if one of them dies, it becomes this big thing where I find a lair and bury them properly. Sometimes, I act like one of my companions was a loved one, then go on a raging bloodlust against a hamlet, disemboweling people on the street, then leaving them to bleed out, gouging eyes, the really screwed up stuff.

The "Villain" route is usually the revenge bit of "Good Guy".

Just that.

All the time.

[Corinthian]

It varies. My current adventurer is an elf set out on a genocide crusade after one too many trees felled by the booze-gremlins. He prefers to avoid damaging nature (fires, killing animals) but will do either if absolutely necessary to survival, viewing his ultimate goal as the greater good. Even then, animals are only ever killed in the swiftest of ways, rendered unconscious by a single strike then decapitated by another. One-two, done. Only the meat is taken (prepared, taken here to mean "unnaturally treated", organs are left behind). Dwarves are killed indiscriminately, otherwise pacifism is adhered to, matters of self-defense and avoiding starvation notwithstanding (and in both cases, the swiftest death is sought to diminish suffering).

[quekwoambojish]

Utilitarianism, no morals...
Cruelty to elves is of high utility.

[King Kravoka]

Mostly moral, I avoid killing innocents(and goblin peasants) and try to use any passing out of an enemy as an opportunity for a killing blow. Bandits, undead, megabeasts and delicious wild animals are fair game.

[Moska1167]

Depends who I base my character on. One time I based him on Batman. Because Batman doesn't kill I only killed quest objectives and left everyone else alive but maimed. It was fun looking up these now-cripples on Legends after a few years to see if they survived with broken limbs. Most of the time they ended up getting killed by something after I messed them up and left them to fend for themselves.

[Naryar]

Not exactly. I play adventure mode to spill blood for Armok and become a legendary warrior, after all.

However, I do not attack friendly sentients. Neutral sentients I generally do not attack without good reason.

Animals, goblins and kobolds are target practice however, no matter how they are hostile or not to me. Elves... it depends of the elf.

[Pyrefly]

Moral unless I'm playing a monster. Like a hydra.

[Corinthian]

Because Batman doesn't kill...

Except when he does, of course! 

[Shadow_Hornet]

I think I'm not very moral. When I recovered a full set of Adamantine armor, sword and shield from my old fort I went and tested them out on the 1st few things I found. One crying female elf, and two dwarfs who happened to be in the area.

[Broseph Stalin]

I like to think up characters before I play them and the morality of my playstyle depends on that. My latest adventurer Arkur Ancientmark the Black Demon desires more and more power. First he hunted the blood of a vampire, then searched for the power of the werelizard, then he sought the knowledge of the necromancer, and now with an undead army and the forces of darkness under his control he searches for the true name of a powerful demon to enslave. The world trembles for what happens when that isn't enough. That guy does whatever the hell he wants, the idea that something can even be wrong is alien to him and his actions reflect that philosophy.

 My peasant Shinram Torchtrades who just wants to make the world safe and serve his city honorably never draws a weapon first, never attacks preemptively, and never passes up a chance to offer an opponent surrender. That guy is pretty moral.