It always annoys me when people try to use the coding for a part of the game that is temporary or at best unfinished as a reason why a suggestion should be invalid. You used this same logic on the first page with your assertion that dwarves are communist, but as somebody else pointed out, that's a temporary thing and they are actually supposed to be feudal. Toady is going to redo the economy eventually, so while they may be basically communist in game as of this version, according to the lore they aren't. Similarly, the way sites work is probably going to change and you shouldn't treat the way that they are coded as some sort of holy word that means this suggestion would contradict the lore and therefor cannot be used.
The suggestion is invalid because the basis for it does not exist anywhere in the game, which is the only thing that matters. If Toady One decides to completely redo the political and economic system so that is genuinely feudal THEN comparisons to how things worked in actual feudal system would be applicable.
What always annoys is when people assert some kind of dualism between 'gameplay mechanics' and 'lore' in order to assert how they think things ought to work. The ways things are presently coded *is* holy word as to how things actually work and if we are to make assertions about how DF society works then we must work entirely based upon what is presently coded into the game.
Toady has said that when he implements hill dwarves we will eventually be able to interact with and control the people living right outside our fort. The way that sites currently work is irrelevant because that could (and probably will) be changed.
We will be able to trade with the nearby settlements. Based upon conversations in Adventure Mode this is already the case for the AI, all Toady One will be doing is bringing what is the case outside of Fortress Mode in Fortress Mode.
How sites presently work is not irrelevent simply because it may change in the future because you are not the one dictating how it will change.
Uh, yes we are. The tech level is supposed to be at around what 1450 was for humans. Dwarf Fortress takes place in your standard high fantasy, medieval setting.
Large amounts of technology, for instance metal-working is somewhat more advanced than it was in medieval times in many respects. At the same time a lot of technology is more primitive, for instance steel is rare and valuable while copper is commonly used for weaponry and armour, something that places us before the Bronze Age.
Yet none of that actually matters, because technology and society are not the same thing. Just because a society's technology is pre-modern does not mean the society is inevitably ordered along the exact same lines as a specific pre-modern society.
The broker is like the lowly merchant who physically peddles wares to visitors. The mayor is like the rich plutocrat in league with all the other rich business owners in the city. And yes, I know that currently the baron doesn't have much of a military role. However, none of the nobles are really fleshed out at this point. Aside from annoying mandates and demands they currently do nothing, so they very well could end up as military leaders like I imagine them to be. That was how it actually worked historically.
Now you are actually flat out lying about how the game works.
The broker is explicitly the man ultimately in charge of all trade with outside settlements. The mayor has no more private property than everyone else and is elected by popular vote. There are no rich buisness owners in your settlement and humans have cities not dwarves.
I agree with you that the baron is not fleshed out, but as a military leader he is still redundant since that role is present held by the Militia Commander or the General. Two things lead me to conclude that his proper role is as the settlements representative at the central government, the first of these is that he is considered a Civ-Level noble rather than a Site noble and the second is the text the Outpost Liason gives you when you recieve a baron.
As I recall your being given a baron means you have been made 'part of the realm'. Additionally your settlement appoints a 'candidate' and this is always accepted by the king, suggesting that the king's appointing of the baron is essentially a formality. If you do not want a baron what you say is.
"We would rather keep our distance".
If you say this there are no repercussions, meaning that your having a baron or not is entirely voluntary. That you are keeping your distance by not having a baron reveals something about what a baron is supposed to represent. The baron is the central government's man, in both senses. He is your man at the central government and he is also the central government's man in your fortress. By not having him you are choosing to have greater automony in return for loosing influence in the center.
Contrast this to how things work in the actual feudalism that you are so keen on. In actual feudalism the baron would arrive with the caravan and the conversation would go like this.
"Hi, the King has made me baron of your fortress,"
Actually it is more likely that your expedition leader would already be a knight who would then be promoted up the feudal ladder as his fortress grows. The reason is that historically feudal systems were not generally that expansionist in regard to existing non-feudal arrangements like towns, which is a major reason that Capitalism replaced Feudalism historically.
Ah. here I can agree with you. Mostly. While the fort that sends off lots of wealth to the mountainhome should be looked upon more favorably and receive more aid, I think forts with more wealth/military power should still hold a lot of political clout regardless of whether or not they actually contribute much to the central government. Those forts are more of a threat to the monarch, so he would naturally want to keep them happy.
Read it again, you will find that is already in there. A sufficiantly higher ranking noble will often get more votes even if his influence is lower than that of a lower-ranking noble.
It is not a question of militery threat, which is non-issue since civilizations never have civil wars. It is more a question of the total absolute amount their contributions are worth as opposed to the reliability of those contributions.
Author
Topic: Dwarven Politics (Read 3854 times)