Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

I never claimed to be omniscient, merely cleverer than most people.   

The reason you are not is precisely because you think you are. You never learn anything out of ego and everytime you stumble upon someone who actually knows their shit you try to deflect with logghorea, trying to control damage with ad nauseam.

That was a joke. 

[SixOfSpades]

No. It's just that he'll dismiss Wikipedia because it is "inaccurate" to him.

The fact that it can be maliciously edited hardly means that it is likely to be so--I highly doubt anyone has nefarious purposes regarding, say, the nature of a Tibetan sky burial. GoblinCookie's disdain for Wikipedia is humorous to me because it's A) pretentious (Of course the world's largest body of knowledge would be less prestigious and reliable than GoblinCookie's own brain), B) facile (It costs him nothing to malign the huge body of knowledge that can most easily be used to prove him wrong), and C) hypocritical (He quoted it himself back when we were fighting about the meaning of the word 'clan'. Amusingly, he cherry-picked out the parts of the article that supported his argument, while conveniently glossing over the parts that supported mine, a tidy little example of intellectual dishonesty).

I personally support the use of Wikipedia because, as meticulously detailed as Dwarf Fortress is (or at least plans to be), it should never be MORE detailed than Wikipedia. Sure, there are things in DF that I've never heard of--plants like kenaf and fonio, for example--but look those words up and BOOM, there it is. DF is already spot-on as far as things like geology are concerned, and for all unfinished aspects of the game, I feel that Wikipedia represents the standard of realism to which Dwarf Fortress should aspire. Want to learn whether a sailfin molly would make a reasonable meal by itself, or if it's only realistically useful as bait? What about the possible applications of bitter vetch for dye, or stibnite for cosmetics? Read all about it.

Plus, the use of Wikipedia seems to anger GoblinCookie, so that's another bonus. I notice that when he wasn't sure whether or not dietary Vitamin D still required sunlight, he found it more convenient to ask about it HERE than to actually do any damn research for himself. Now that's investigative rigor at its finest.

Wikpedia is something of the idiot's bible.  It is basically a place full of stuff so basic that even the world's plentiful supply of idiots cannot be persuaded that it isn't the case.

Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars? I just want to be sure DF's geology is correct. I know you have this sort of information on the tip of your tongue, so thanks in advance.

Not according to Wikipedia.

The question was not a rhetorical one SixOfSpades.

Which was why my answer was direct, GoblinCookie. In a word, "No."

I think ultraviolet light does not pass through light glass and hence Vitamin D is still a problem, since I think (again I don't claim to know) that UV light is specifically needed for Vitamin D synthesis.

It depends on the nature of the particulates suspended within the glass. In DF terms, UV light would pass through clear glass and probably crystal glass as well, I'm not sure about green glass. More important than Vitamin D synthesis is flower pollination: Bees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go. Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce.

The glass is fragile problem can also be solved by having a secondary level of drawbridges to seal off the greenhouses fragile glass walls.

That's good, but aren't lowered drawbridges vulnerable to building destroyers? I lack experience on this.

Since people love to derail threads when I am around, let's derail the thread into a discussion that is all about ME!

Funny how you noticed that too . . . Thread derails always seem to involve GoblinCookie . . . I wonder what could be the root cause. But curiously, this digression is actually ON topic, because we're talking about social lives, and mocking you certainly does seem to be an entertaining social activity.

I never claimed to be omniscient, merely cleverer than most people.   

The reason you are not is precisely because you think you are. You never learn anything out of ego and everytime you stumble upon someone who actually knows their shit you try to deflect with logghorea, trying to control damage with ad nauseam.

That was a joke.

Oh, I think it's far too late for that. Your recent displays of condescension and overweening arrogance are going to take you a HELL of a long time to live down--that is, if you were even inclined to do so, which you clearly are not.

[Splint]

Y'know, this is the kind of stuff that wouldn't be uncommon on Youtube. Of course I have a dislike of GC as well, for a couple past incidents.


As to the bridges Six, a quick glance at the DF Wiki indicates that it is invulnerable to destroyers while raised, and may not function if something sufficiently heavy is on it like an adult dragon, a rutherer, draltha or a giant deer. So I guess they can be smashed to bits (I know ones that aren't dragon-fire proof will get destroyed by a jet of dragon fire while lowered for example.)

[Ninjabread]

Yayy pollen count is down, I am vaguely human once more.

I'd say whether people have a physical need for sunlight or just a psychological one isn't too relevant, all it changes is whether they get debuffs to mood or toughness for failing to fulfil the need, either way they wanna go outside and presumably, and not doing so will be a health hazard. If they aren't the sociable nature loving sort that'll go have a picnic or walk their llama through the park, they'll be sunbathing or staring wistfully through the nonspecific precipitation towards the horizon, which'll probably end badly when the husking fog envelops them. Maybe that's why surface dwellers don't settle in evil biomes?

On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.

SixOfSpades, IIRC bridges break when you try to atom smash an object that's just too massive, can't quite remember the threshold though

Also can everyone chill a little?

Also also, since SixOfSpades mentioned mockery as a social interaction, do dwarves mock each other? I know about dismissal, flattery, and passive responses, but not mockery. Seems like something the Comedian skill could handle, and also a fine way to start a bar brawl.

[KittyTac]

I meant that some people disdain Wiki because they're paranoid about it being editable. Which is wrong for the reason you described.

[Bumber]

And if glass is made transparent (as it should be), then it will most likely be made breakable (as it should be) as well . . . meaning, any flying building destroyer (or just any flier strong & smart enough to drop a rock) can easily create a path into the fort, all because you have human residents.

I would think this would just be subject to invader digging mechanics. Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.

[Starver]

Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.

I sort of imagine that Constructions of glass are basically Glass Brick walls/floors. As "furniture", I have in mind that built 'windows' are pretty much more like a glass partition (strong enough to resist being fell against, here in Roundworld by being using tempered/toughened glass and/or lamination methods) crossed with a stained-glass-window (where made of jewels).

I'm quite sure this is off-topic, though.

[SixOfSpades]

. . . do dwarves mock each other?

I don't see why they shouldn't. If they can dislike each other enough to form grudges and get in fistfights, name-calling seems quite an expected behavior. I agree, it could largely depend on/increase one's Comedian skill, and could backfire if the insulted dwarf has a higher Comedian skill than the instigator. Successfully or repeatedly mocked dwarves should have appropriate emotional, and quite possibly physical, reactions to being ostracized. And that's just dwarf-dwarf interactions. If your fort managed to acquire, say, a goblin resident, I would think it's hardly likely that every single dwarf in your fort would welcome him with open arms, there's bound to be animosity, at least some of which would take the form of verbal taunts and harassment. Elves (the first few, at least) would likely also be made objects of fun, though I think humans would fare better.

Mockery and associated behaviors could also be considered a minor crime, slightly increasing the potential breadth of the Crime & Punishment arc.

I would think this [glass walls/floors being made breakable] would just be subject to invader digging mechanics. Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.

I sort of imagine that Constructions of glass are basically Glass Brick walls/floors.

Largely, I'm in agreement, although I must point out that the "equivalent thickness" of a glass floor is, arguably, zero--given that a natural ground tile, a floor tile built upon that ground tile, and the top of a wall built on the z-level below that ground tile, are all treated by the game as being exactly the same height. I would certainly not be opposed to some refinement in this regard, although such a fundamental change in the nature of what constitutes a 'tile' would doubtless be highly disruptive to the entire game's functionality.

I have in mind that built 'windows' are pretty much more like a glass partition (strong enough to resist being fell against) crossed with a stained-glass-window (where made of jewels).

Yes, but why should they be immune to even accidental breakage? If dwarves are strong enough to break stone (with their bare hands, in some cases), it stands to reason they could do the same to glass, even glass bricks.

Segueing back to the subject of social gatherings, surface-dwelling races should (generally) prefer to congregate in rooms lit by sunlight, as that's what feels most familiar to them. Conversely, subterraneans would tend to gravitate toward areas with the theoretical glowing mushrooms, gem lanterns, etc. Fire-based illumination like candles & torches would be viewed as 'neutral', not preferred or disliked by any race. So by controlling the illumination of various public areas, you could influence which of your citizens like to hang out there.

[Starver]

Spoiler: Glass (click to show/hide)

I have in mind that built 'windows' are pretty much more like a glass partition (strong enough to resist being fell against) crossed with a stained-glass-window (where made of jewels).

Yes, but why should they be immune to even accidental breakage? If dwarves are strong enough to break stone (with their bare hands, in some cases), it stands to reason they could do the same to glass, even glass bricks.

Stress-induced table toppling is well within the ability of one who can make a determined effort to departitionise an area. I suppose there's not much difference between swinging a table at a window and swinging a determined boot (save for a redistribution of impetus), at least before you start to get to modern levels of glass strength/redundancy.

Deconstructing structures of obsidian, talc, rock salt, soap, glass or ice is routine business for a fortress dwarf on 'official' business but currently impossible to offensively destroy (or melt, or erode or dissolve) in any direct manner other than assigned/domino-effect deconstruction. The mysteries behind this (as per floor thickness and all the other things) are not yet pinned down.

[GoblinCookie]

Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars? I just want to be sure DF's geology is correct. I know you have this sort of information on the tip of your tongue, so thanks in advance.

One of those feldspars is plagioclase and the other is not?  It is not my fault that a google search gives me the definition of plagioclase from wikipedia on the first page!    Because I allegedly hate wikipedia (I don't) I shall instead use the minerals.net definition.

The Plagioclase series is a group of related feldspar minerals that essentially have the same formula but vary in their percentage of sodium and calcium. Albite and Anorthite are the end members of the series, with the intermediary minerals Oligoclase, Andesine, Labradorite, and Bytownite.

I would continue, except that would not be on-topic would it?

It depends on the nature of the particulates suspended within the glass. In DF terms, UV light would pass through clear glass and probably crystal glass as well, I'm not sure about green glass. More important than Vitamin D synthesis is flower pollination: Bees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go. Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce.

Presumably the bees would be inside the greenhouse, so the inability of the bees to see flowers through the greenhouse is not so much of a problem. 

That's good, but aren't lowered drawbridges vulnerable to building destroyers? I lack experience on this.

They are immune to building destroyers.  Funny thing is that flying creatures can fly over the drawbridges even when closed, but could not destroy a wall on the other side because they cannot path. 

Funny how you noticed that too . . . Thread derails always seem to involve GoblinCookie . . . I wonder what could be the root cause. But curiously, this digression is actually ON topic, because we're talking about social lives, and mocking you certainly does seem to be an entertaining social activity.

The root cause is that if a thread does not go anywhere, it cannot really go off topic can it?  It is the natural tendency of 'moving' threads to get derailed, it is not my fault simply because I tend to put the threads into motion in the first place when otherwise they would be stagnant.  Since I don't tend to leave a thread once I have posted on it, a correlation appears between my presence and thread derailment. 

Correlation does not prove causation, as they say.

Oh, I think it's far too late for that. Your recent displays of condescension and overweening arrogance are going to take you a HELL of a long time to live down--that is, if you were even inclined to do so, which you clearly are not.

You really don't get it at all do you? The whole thing was *always* a farce, right from the beginning. 

I was just annoyed at how threads keep getting derailed into discussions about me personally.  I know full well that in reality I am not some all-wise intellectual demigod, really I am just another poster among thousands and there is no reason I should be cast into the lime-light at all.  I was just thoroughly crashing the whole debate about myself and now I seem to have done so.

We can now return to the actual topic(s) of discussions and I can now give up the act.

Yayy pollen count is down, I am vaguely human once more.

I'd say whether people have a physical need for sunlight or just a psychological one isn't too relevant, all it changes is whether they get debuffs to mood or toughness for failing to fulfil the need, either way they wanna go outside and presumably, and not doing so will be a health hazard. If they aren't the sociable nature loving sort that'll go have a picnic or walk their llama through the park, they'll be sunbathing or staring wistfully through the nonspecific precipitation towards the horizon, which'll probably end badly when the husking fog envelops them. Maybe that's why surface dwellers don't settle in evil biomes?

On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.

SixOfSpades, IIRC bridges break when you try to atom smash an object that's just too massive, can't quite remember the threshold though

Also can everyone chill a little?

Also also, since SixOfSpades mentioned mockery as a social interaction, do dwarves mock each other? I know about dismissal, flattery, and passive responses, but not mockery. Seems like something the Comedian skill could handle, and also a fine way to start a bar brawl.

I don't think goblins would work as a civilization if goblins required to inflict actual cruelty to actual living creatures that were sentient like themselves. 

Mockery should really be related to cruelty and humour.  Basically beings that are both funny and cruel should mock other beings and then those beings should potentially get angry.  Beings that have less humour should get angrier that more humorous creatures would.

[FantasticDorf]

What happened to this thread? It went from dwarves having double dates to insults.

Eitherway i agree with the notion of dwarves acting on seeking friends via a mutual activity to invite them to a friendship circle ("hey Urist, want to hang out with me and a buddy by the Statue of dancing frogs?") but dwarves are kind of selfish, so breaking off to go to the tavern, temple or to eat and sleep might pull them away from the situation and not fix it.

Some more typical things dwarves already do that might be interred as friendship initiating things like simulating dancing in the tavern could be a little bit more of a seamless way to initiate this. Not that talking is 100% required to find someone likable but it can very quickly dump a prospect of a relationship if you're the exact opposite of the dwarf who's really good at dancing and is a great storyteller and gave you buckets of water in hospital a few times.

[Ninjabread]

SixOfSpades, Emotional reactions to mockery could be based on personality, namely the humour facets; if the target "finds something humorous in everything, no matter how serious or inappropriate" then there's not many situations in which mockery would have an overly negative effect, I imagine them shrugging it off as banter, and someone that "is utterly humorless" would likely immediately take offence, and react appropriately based on anger, depression, and anxiety propensities.

Illegal mockery sounds very dystopian, though it's possible that those sorts of societies start popping up post-villains stuff.

GoblinCookie, I never specified that goblins should need to be cruel to sentients, that sounds way too restricting. I did say living though, but that being said, it'd be kinda annoying if cruelty towards the undead didn't count, perhaps I should have said animate. Still, this sorta goblin wouldn't be the kinda thing you want as a resident unless there were labours that were considered cruel, like the ones SixOfSpades mentioned a while ago.

Mockery being considered cruel would certainly make life for these goblins easier, though I don't think it should have as big of an effect as the aforementioned puppy mutilation/"cruel" labours. Linking it to the cruelty personality facet also makes sense, more merciful creatures could prefer flattery/passive responses, and more cruel ones could prefer mockery/dismissal. Are those kind of preferences a thing already? Obviously not including mockery (yet).

FantasticDorf, yeah the conversation topic does jump about a bit, but that's all part of the way conversations work, and at least we're back on the topic of social lives.

I do like the idea of people forming positive relations with those who've helped them out somehow, and if they only helped because it's their job to help, we could get a few one-sided admiration relationships that could make for some interesting stories. Nurses would become the DF equivalent of celebrities, complete with fans and stalkers.

[SixOfSpades]

Deconstructing structures of obsidian, talc, rock salt, soap, glass or ice is routine business for a fortress dwarf on 'official' business but currently impossible to offensively destroy (or melt, or erode or dissolve) in any direct manner other than assigned/domino-effect deconstruction.

Tantruming dwarves are known for destroying workshops, furniture, farm plots, and even bridges that they're standing on. If I'm supremely pissed off, I'm holding something made of glass, and nearly everything else around me is made of hard rock, chances are that glass isn't going to last for much longer.

Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars?

The Plagioclase series is a group of related feldspar minerals that essentially have the same formula but vary in their percentage of sodium and calcium.

In DF terms, andesite is plagioclase, while orthoclase and microcline are non-plagioclase. Minerals.com and other specialist sites have that kind of detailed info too, of course, but Wikipedia has it all in one place, which is invaluable if you have to bounce around all the different subjects that DF touches on (and in the Suggestions forum, that spectrum is even wider). Wikipedia also covers its subjects in more than enough detail than I've ever really needed, so I for one feel that the minute risk of hostile editing is well worth the convenience.

Bees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go.

Presumably the bees would be inside the greenhouse, so the inability of the bees to see flowers through the greenhouse is not so much of a problem.

I never implied that ultraviolet-blocking glass would be between the flower and the bee, merely between the flower and the sun. UV light can't bounce off the flower & hit the bee if the UV light can't reach the flower at all.

I don't think goblins would work as a civilization if goblins required to inflict actual cruelty to actual living creatures that were sentient like themselves.

I just picture an entire population of alcoholic stepfathers.

On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones. Now, if some goblin civ (or subset thereof) was randomly predisposed to be noticeably less cruel than the goblin mean, then they might consciously seek out less traumatic outlets for their emotions, so theoretically some torture dummies and participating in high-impact but non-lethal bloodsports like boxing (padded gloves) might just be enough for them.

. . . it'd be kinda annoying if cruelty towards the undead didn't count, perhaps I should have said animate.

As Undead creatures are [NOPAIN], any goblin intending to inflict cruelty on one would have to kill it outright. Killing fragments of an undead should probably be only a fraction as satisfying as destroying the entire creature . . . unless perhaps the goblin stretched it out by slowly dismembering the creature, and killing it piece by piece.

Eitherway i agree with the notion of dwarves acting on seeking friends via a mutual activity to invite them to a friendship circle ("hey Urist, want to hang out with me and a buddy by the Statue of dancing frogs?") but dwarves are kind of selfish, so breaking off to go to the tavern, temple or to eat and sleep might pull them away from the situation and not fix it.

Well, at least there was an attempt at social interaction that the dwarf got pulled away from. The important thing is that dwarves should actively try to be with friends, and make new ones. Right now, the interaction is purely random, and only reactionary: IF you happen to bump into an acquaintance, THEN chat with them. It should be IF you feel bored or lonely, THEN seek out a friend, ELSE IF you can't find a friend, THEN settle on an acquaintance or even a stranger.

Illegal mockery sounds very dystopian,

It could be dystopian (so such thing as freedom of speech, etc.), or it could simply take the form of anti-harassment / anti-discrimination laws.

I do like the idea of people forming positive relations with those who've helped them out somehow, and if they only helped because it's their job to help, we could get a few one-sided admiration relationships that could make for some interesting stories.

I fully agree with one-sided feelings like hero worship, unrequited love and the like. Keep stirring that pot of emotions!

[Starver]

Deconstructing structures of obsidian, talc, rock salt, soap, glass or ice is routine business for a fortress dwarf on 'official' business but currently impossible to offensively destroy (or melt, or erode or dissolve) in any direct manner other than assigned/domino-effect deconstruction.

Tantruming dwarves are known for destroying workshops, furniture, farm plots, and even bridges that they're standing on.

Yes, as I said, but not constructed walls, floors, stairs, etc.

If I'm supremely pissed off, I'm holding something made of glass, and nearly everything else around me is made of hard rock, chances are that glass isn't going to last for much longer.

No argument, IRL, but a table by a wall is going to be the only victim of any attack, whatever the table is made of and whatever the wall is made of. That's DF...

[GoblinCookie]

GoblinCookie, I never specified that goblins should need to be cruel to sentients, that sounds way too restricting. I did say living though, but that being said, it'd be kinda annoying if cruelty towards the undead didn't count, perhaps I should have said animate. Still, this sorta goblin wouldn't be the kinda thing you want as a resident unless there were labours that were considered cruel, like the ones SixOfSpades mentioned a while ago.

Mockery being considered cruel would certainly make life for these goblins easier, though I don't think it should have as big of an effect as the aforementioned puppy mutilation/"cruel" labours. Linking it to the cruelty personality facet also makes sense, more merciful creatures could prefer flattery/passive responses, and more cruel ones could prefer mockery/dismissal. Are those kind of preferences a thing already? Obviously not including mockery (yet).

There is a big difference between goblins simply being more cruel on average than dwarves and them having an inherent need to hurt actual people as part of their biological makeup, like how dwarves need to drink alcohol and humans should need sunlight.  It creates a whole moral dilemma that would not otherwise exist, is genocide against goblins acceptable because if goblins are allowed to survive they will necessarily have to hurt other beings in order to survive and stay sane?  If it is just a question of personality then having goblins about is really just the same as having a large number of cruel dwarves in one place, it is then a question of 'management' than a matter of is it right to keep anyone alive at all?

Or to put it another way, if goblins are cruel simply as an fact initial average personality it is simply a question of setting up a social system to 'make goblins nicer'.  If goblins need actual cruelty to survive however then we are in big ethical trouble, we are forced to indulge the goblins characteristics by virtue of the fact they exist. 

In DF terms, andesite is plagioclase, while orthoclase and microcline are non-plagioclase. Minerals.com and other specialist sites have that kind of detailed info too, of course, but Wikipedia has it all in one place, which is invaluable if you have to bounce around all the different subjects that DF touches on (and in the Suggestions forum, that spectrum is even wider). Wikipedia also covers its subjects in more than enough detail than I've ever really needed, so I for one feel that the minute risk of hostile editing is well worth the convenience.

I was not aware the topic of this thread was either minerals or wikipedia.  To clarify certain things, I am not against wikipedia and not overly bothered by it's ability of most articles to be edited by most people, if anything the problem is not that too many people get to edit wikipedia but that only a rather narrow sliver of people actually do so.  The only problem is when certain things or ideas are so unpopular with the people that edit Wikipedia and indeed often with the wider society that we end up with core pages edited into basically highly detailed statements demonizing and ridiculing something, but that is the exception not the norm.  In those case I would rather it worked that people added a link to another page for "Criticism of X" and keep the actual description of the things they don't like simple rather than edit the page into a highly detailed explanation as to why this is stupid/wrong/evil.  I won't be provided a list of links for examples of said pages, because a lot of those things are indeed wrong/stupid/evil and people might conclude I approve of them if I chose to link to any particular ones. 

What I am against is not wikipedia but simply the way certain people use wikipedia.  Those are people whose minds remain trapped inside a box created by their belief that wikipedia has all knowledge and insights that they have any right to have and automatically dismissing anything that is not written in wikipedia; but this problem is one of encyclopedias in general.  This is however a mere subset and indeed possibly not as bad as the general intellectual authoritarianism of the people that believe in 'experts'.  The kind of people that refuse to think about anything you say unless you waste time hunting down some professor that agrees with you and link to them.  It gets worse when those people are themselves very stupid/wrong/evil and yet come bearing a long list of distinguished professors/intellectuals that are as stupid/wrong/evil as themselves about the given subject (not necessarily in general).

I never implied that ultraviolet-blocking glass would be between the flower and the bee, merely between the flower and the sun. UV light can't bounce off the flower & hit the bee if the UV light can't reach the flower at all.

But in a small area can they not find the flowers by scent?  Outside of the greenhouse it does not matter, the problem I understood was them realizing the flowers were *in* the greenhouse in the first from outside, I would guess that along as the greenhouse itself is too small for them to have any problem finding flowers by scent or by their non-UV sight there would not be a problem. 

On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones. Now, if some goblin civ (or subset thereof) was randomly predisposed to be noticeably less cruel than the goblin mean, then they might consciously seek out less traumatic outlets for their emotions, so theoretically some torture dummies and participating in high-impact but non-lethal bloodsports like boxing (padded gloves) might just be enough for them.

What do you mean by physical need?  How exactly could hurting other being be a physical need?