Materially, glass walls just aren't breakable because no wall is breakable.
Or meltable, or burnable, etc., gotcha. So, another reference to the "enhanced realism" of the future digging mechanics.
An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.
Yes, but if the only victims that are available are other goblins, the goblin civilization will presumably end up wiping itself out.
Well, if the only way they know how to be cruel is to
kill each other, then yeah, that's obviously counterproductive. But there's no shortage of
nonlethal forms of suffering: Slavery, gratuitous corporal punishment, torture, rape, starvation, psychological trauma, etc. Goblin societies could make one, more, or even
all of these mainstays of their culture, and still technically thrive. Hence why I compared them to an abusive parent--yeah, you
can live in that kind of environment, but no sane person would
want to.
Then it [goblin cruelty] is a psychological need then? I think what you are trying to say is the difference between the need being controlled by the general personality facet and a specific demand-slider like thirst or hunger; though in this case this is an imaginary need rather than a real one.
I should clarify some terms. Rather than the blanket "physical vs. psychological need", I'd like to discuss it in terms of physical vs. psychological
causes, and physical vs. psychological
effects. To move from goblins to dwarves for a moment, we can see that the effects from their suffering alcohol withdrawal are both physical (slower movement rate & worse coordination)
and mental (unhappy thoughts from having no liquor). But whether these effects are have a root cause that is physical (some chemical present in the booze, possibly the ethanol itself) or psychological (the mental state of drunkenness) is rather unclear.
As inflicting cruelty introduces no material element into one's system, it's clear that the cause of this need-fulfillment is purely psychological rather than physical. (But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an
acquired addiction, indeed I was thinking of all of these as unavoidable, biological needs, just like dwarves & their alcohol.) As to what the
effects of cruelty withdrawal might be, I've deliberately left that up in the air. It might be something as simple as repeated, strong, unhappy thoughts, which could theoretically be counterbalanced by giving your goblin residents good meals & nice furniture. Or it might be something more insidious, like making goblins
unable to have happy thoughts while in withdrawal: No amount of pretty statues are going to assuage
that, and you
are going to see some goblin torture tantrums.
Goblins that *need* to be cruel in order to function as opposed to ones that simply tend to be cruel but no ill effects will occur if they are prevented from being so are a quite different game. . . .
I was not talking about changing the actual personality of the goblins, I was talking about us simply changing their external behavior so that they behave nicer, at least when it matters. . . .
If we actually have to provide actual sentient creatures to torment in order to meet their cruelty quota so that they can function and further cruelty can be controlled, this creates a very disturbing ethical dilemma indeed;
Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone suggested that the victims had to be
sentient--the only specific targets mentioned were puppies and the undead. But according to the game, goblins gotta goblin, yo:
"driven to cruelty by its evil nature," and [BABYSNATCHER] and all that. As far as ethics are concerned, I'm not advocating for things like torture,
or for popular goblin inclusion in dwarf fortresses. I'm just suggesting a flavor element that (apparently) is very interesting & thought-provoking, as well as being in accordance with game canon. Besides, any player who chooses to allow something as potentially volatile as goblin citizens should fully
expect that action to have fitting consequences. Could this lead to such things as individual dwarf forts being deliberately made into foul hives of decidedly UNdwarfy behavior, like slavery and torture? Yes, but only though much deliberate effort on the part of the player. Would such activities be
worse than what's already in the game, such as children being kidnapped into a lifetime of servitude, or night trolls mind-wiping people to be their spouses, or being digested from the inside out by a giant cave spider? Arguably not.
I also find it interesting to point out that, depending on what the effects of cruelty withdrawal might be, it could turn out that the very cruelest thing you could do to a goblin is . . . to
prevent them from being cruel. How's THAT for an ethical dilemma?