Print

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

[Ninjabread]

SixOfSpades, yeah I said to include undead cause, IRL, IIRC, ants don't feel pain, but it's still cruel to pluck their legs off to watch them squirm.

I didn't really think about anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws, but yeah they fit the bill for illegal mockery, though you'd have to track a few more things for those, specifically, the frequency for harassment, and the subject for discrimination.

GoblinCookie, I reckon the cruel personality approach is the way to go, cause not only would that make some goblins capable of functioning outside of their own society, but also it makes it so it's not only goblins who act seemingly needlessly cruel, which might work pretty well with villains stuff, add a little variety to things.

As a side note, the more merciful goblins that left goblin society sound like the kinda people who would need protecting from discrimination by the more cruel and xenophobic members of the races they moved in with.

[SixOfSpades]

. . . 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...

Seriously? That's all tantruming dwarves do now, break tables? It's clearly been quite a while since I witnessed a tantrum.

. . . 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?

Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. 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.

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.

I don't think that the player should be able to really influence the cruelty levels of goblins. Assuming that goblins have a species-wide range of values into which the Cruelty levels of individual goblins must fall, then any goblins that can peaceably cohabit in a dwarf fort are very likely already near the minimum Cruelty possible, and further attempts to lower it would prove fruitless. All the player could do is provide/encourage outlets for their cruelty that are more acceptable to the player, or (threaten to) expel them from the fort entirely.
And I think ethical dilemmas arising from the personal needs of little lowercase 'g's running around are pretty cool, actually.

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.

To say nothing of what happens when you replace the word "wikipedia" in that with "the Bible", or any other set of religious teachings. As for myself, I freely acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of human information-gathering, there are other sources that can be far more insightful, far-reaching, and comprehensive in their various respective subjects. I simply recognize that Wikipedia fills 99% of all needs, is unlikely to be wrong, acknowledges controversy & opposing viewpoints when such exist, and also lists its own sources for further verification. So far as any individual point on Wikipedia stands unchallenged by any person or publication of authority, it is by far the best use of my time to assume that Wikipedia is both thorough and correct. And yes, I too hope this is the end of the Wikipedia diversion.

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.

Hm. I was picturing a "greenhouse" large enough for the farm plot(s), beehive(s), and space for surface-dwellers to congregate & socialize, because presumably you'd want to protect all from them from Evil weather, or at least flyers. But regardless, yes, bees most likely could still find the flowers, just not as well, which is why I initially said "Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce", I didn't say pollination or crop production would drop off completely.

A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones.

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

Well, this is still under the supposition that goblins have some biochemical hormone/neurotransmitter/whatever that is only released while they're in the emotional state produced when they are actively inflicting suffering or death upon another being. Since its release is dependent on the goblin's emotions, a "dummy" creature to attack can work in only two ways: Either it is realistic enough to actually fool the goblin into thinking that he's harming another creature (unlikely to work, as goblins are quite intelligent), or the goblin mentally projects another (possibly specific) creature onto the dummy, in much the same way as one might fantasize about punching one's boss or mother-in-law while working a speed bag.

SixOfSpades, yeah I said to include undead cause, IRL, IIRC, ants don't feel pain, but it's still cruel to pluck their legs off to watch them squirm.

True, and a lot of that very likely depends on the projecting that I just mentioned; It's horrible to do to an ant because it'd be horrible if someone did it to you. So maybe goblins could also get their kicks by "torturing" and mocking the "suffering" of the undead, and outright destroying them need not be a necessity.

I didn't really think about anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws, but yeah they fit the bill for illegal mockery, though you'd have to track a few more things for those, specifically, the frequency for harassment, and the subject for discrimination.

Yeah, I figure it would depend on the society's values, and the player's choices. If an elf or goblin gets harassed, maybe they'll petition the mayor to make it stop, and maybe the mayor will agree, if some citizens ignore the edict maybe they'll get punished. Etc.

I reckon the cruel personality approach is the way to go, cause not only would that make some goblins capable of functioning outside of their own society, but also it makes it so it's not only goblins who act seemingly needlessly cruel, which might work pretty well with villains stuff, add a little variety to things.

Agreed.

[Starver]

. . . 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...

Seriously? That's all tantruming dwarves do now, break tables? It's clearly been quite a while since I witnessed a tantrum.

They target furniture/furnishings, workshops and buildings (much apart from causing personal arm on others, and pets), I think, as an 'honorary' Building Destroyer. But nothing deconstructs constructions like walls, unless a task is so designated by you. (Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/out of date/never was right about this.)

I'm not sure if you misread my message (or I miswrote it), but I was trying to say that with a table by a wall, only the table was vulnerable. Even if it was a slade table with lead decorations or a featherwood wall. Materially, glass walls just aren't breakable because no wall is breakable. Which is not to say that the table will definitely succumb (a nearby workshop could be interfered with, a statue toppled, and I think an open floodgate delinked from its lever) just that only the table (of this small subset of candidates) could.

(Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'm wrong. And I await correction. It's a socially accaptable thing to do.)

[GoblinCookie]

Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. 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.  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.  There we are pretty much in a predator/prey situation in which the goblins need other beings to suffer in order so they can maintain their internal order and prevent societal collapse.  Harmless isolation really isn't a viable option for that kind of goblin. 

I don't think that the player should be able to really influence the cruelty levels of goblins. Assuming that goblins have a species-wide range of values into which the Cruelty levels of individual goblins must fall, then any goblins that can peaceably cohabit in a dwarf fort are very likely already near the minimum Cruelty possible, and further attempts to lower it would prove fruitless. All the player could do is provide/encourage outlets for their cruelty that are more acceptable to the player, or (threaten to) expel them from the fort entirely.
And I think ethical dilemmas arising from the personal needs of little lowercase 'g's running around are pretty cool, actually.

I though the apostrophe around 'make goblins nicer' would get the point across.  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; one that puts the world very much towards the dark side of the planned badness slider and which the inhabitants of the world will have to take into account. 

To say nothing of what happens when you replace the word "wikipedia" in that with "the Bible", or any other set of religious teachings. As for myself, I freely acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of human information-gathering, there are other sources that can be far more insightful, far-reaching, and comprehensive in their various respective subjects. I simply recognize that Wikipedia fills 99% of all needs, is unlikely to be wrong, acknowledges controversy & opposing viewpoints when such exist, and also lists its own sources for further verification. So far as any individual point on Wikipedia stands unchallenged by any person or publication of authority, it is by far the best use of my time to assume that Wikipedia is both thorough and correct. And yes, I too hope this is the end of the Wikipedia diversion.

We are broadly in agreement and as I said I am not against wikipedia, having sourced it and even edited it before.  So yes let's end this diversion and return to topic. 

Hm. I was picturing a "greenhouse" large enough for the farm plot(s), beehive(s), and space for surface-dwellers to congregate & socialize, because presumably you'd want to protect all from them from Evil weather, or at least flyers. But regardless, yes, bees most likely could still find the flowers, just not as well, which is why I initially said "Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce", I didn't say pollination or crop production would drop off completely.

We don't really need aboveground crops for anything much however.  The tricky part is getting nutrients from the surface to our underground farms (once that exists, hopefully alongside poop), but there is no need for the plants be edible in order for them to rot and provide those nutrients. 

Well, this is still under the supposition that goblins have some biochemical hormone/neurotransmitter/whatever that is only released while they're in the emotional state produced when they are actively inflicting suffering or death upon another being. Since its release is dependent on the goblin's emotions, a "dummy" creature to attack can work in only two ways: Either it is realistic enough to actually fool the goblin into thinking that he's harming another creature (unlikely to work, as goblins are quite intelligent), or the goblin mentally projects another (possibly specific) creature onto the dummy, in much the same way as one might fantasize about punching one's boss or mother-in-law while working a speed bag.

Then it 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.  Imaginary needs tend in real-life not to exist inherently but instead to be acquired addictions, so really the situation is most analogous to the smoker's need to smoke or the alcoholic's need to drink.  So we are basically talking about an addiction which is inherent to the creature, nothing factually bad will happen to the goblin if it does not hurt other beings but yet it's brain is thoroughly convinced that it will. 

I don't think however that the effectiveness of the dummy creature (or maybe a zombie, although zombies inability to suffer is not a certain fact) would have anything to do with it's intelligence.  After-all in real-life beings are quite easily fooled into emotionally responding to mere images, while all the time knowing rationally they they are not real.  That is after-all what the majority of computer games, all films and not to mention pornography depend upon.  If goblins need to feeling of being cruel to other beings, it should work to simply have them be cruel to the appearance of a being, because emotionally they will feel the same way as if they harmed an actual being. 

Emotion is pre-rational. 

[SixOfSpades]

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? 

[GoblinCookie]

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.

Here is the problem, people who you are cruel to, however you are cruel to them tend to hate you.  People who hate you will either try to kill you or they will avoid you, either outcome is ruinous to society.  It get's worse in that hatred undermines cruelty directed against you by those you hate, so goblins constantly need to get fresh victims and make new enemies, additionally the effectiveness of cruelty is undermined by the very knowledge of the existence of the cruelty-quota.  Once folks know that you have to engage in a certain fixed amount of cruelty, nobody is going to take goblin cruelty seriously anyhow, which means the effect is much reduced. 

Slavery does not really work as cruelty however.  Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible.  Cruelty undermines slavery also, if the slaves think their masters are just being cruel then they have no reason to take their punishments seriously.  It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves' than it is for them to simply think that they are the random designated victim because somebody has to suffer today. 

The bottom line is that a society cannot function if all it's member hate each-other.  If the society is made up solely of goblins and all goblins must be cruel to other beings to survive then this is what we are going to end up with.  At this point the odds are the whole society will simply dissolve as all it's individual members scatter to the four winds to escape from eachother.  The only way for this to work is if there are incarcerated non-goblins around in sufficient quantity that all the goblins can be nice to each-other and direct their cruelty against the non-goblins.

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.

The effect in dwarf cases is quite physical, their metabolism slows down and they basically need alcohol in order to avoid slowing down to a crawl. 

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? 

It is a lot, lot worse than anything that presently exists in the game.  The closest thing to goblins with cruelty-quotas is actually vampires, but vampires are a predator within an existing civilization and it is a basically simply thing to eliminate them once they are found, they do not carry any ethical status.  Goblins on the other hand are supposed to be a whole civilization that can exist independently, except the only way from them now do so is if they have other enslaved beings to torture, or else they will turn on each-other and their society will dissipate. 

So there we have it, a potential moral requirement to commit genocide, similar to that which exists against vampires, except vampires are individuals and not a people.  That is why I reckon that cruelty-quota goblins, as opposed to merely goblins that *are* cruel puts you pretty much on the darkest end of the world badness slider.  It works as an idea, provided they start with a suitable population of non-goblins to torture, however it is a very bad thing.  "You must murder thousands of sapient beings because their very continued existence require other beings to be made to suffer and even they have no choice about this," is a pretty horrid situation.

[SixOfSpades]

People who hate you will either try to kill you or they will avoid you, either outcome is ruinous to society.  It get's worse in that hatred undermines cruelty directed against you by those you hate, so goblins constantly need to get fresh victims and make new enemies

Or, they can keep their existing victims and enemies, and let them retaliate & get revenge as they wish. Some vendettas will succeed, some will fail, some will backfire. As long as fatal attacks are uncommon, society continues to function, in fact it reinforces a social order with the strongest on top & the weakest at the bottom. It works for most savage forms of wildlife. It works for bullies, it works for assholes. It works for fascist & totalitarian governments. Fictionally, it works for Orcs, Klingons & Dothraki. Why shouldn't it work for goblins?
In addition, there could very easily be a vast range of animals that goblins (even the weakest ones) could safely abuse. Livestock, "pets", mounts, game, vermin.

. . . the effectiveness of cruelty is undermined by the very knowledge of the existence of the cruelty-quota.  Once folks know that you have to engage in a certain fixed amount of cruelty, nobody is going to take goblin cruelty seriously anyhow, which means the effect is much reduced.

As you yourself just said, emotion is pre-rational. If some guy is literally searing your flesh with a branding iron, you're not going to consider his point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt, you're going to HATE the motherfucker. Reactional empathy could occur in far more minor altercations, like when somebody rudely bumps you out of their way or is verbally abusive, but even then it'd be unlikely and difficult if the entire fabric of one's society (not to mention biology) is against it.

Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible.  Cruelty undermines slavery also, if the slaves think their masters are just being cruel then they have no reason to take their punishments seriously.  It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves' than it is for them to simply think that they are the random designated victim because somebody has to suffer today.

I understand that black people in England do not have quite the same gut reaction to the word "slavery" that American blacks do. Even so, I am pleased to imagine you going up to one or more of them, and reading out what I just quoted. I am sure their response would be far more eloquent than mine.

. . . 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).

The effect in dwarf cases is quite physical, their metabolism slows down and they basically need alcohol in order to avoid slowing down to a crawl.

As I said, it's physical and psychological, although granted that the physical side is arguably more serious. The bad thoughts from alcohol withdrawal alone are not enough to send a dwarf into melancholy or whatever, but in combination with other factors they could certainly tip the balance.

So there we have it, a potential moral requirement to commit genocide, similar to that which exists against vampires, except vampires are individuals and not a people.  That is why I reckon that cruelty-quota goblins, as opposed to merely goblins that *are* cruel puts you pretty much on the darkest end of the world badness slider.  It works as an idea, provided they start with a suitable population of non-goblins to torture, however it is a very bad thing.  "You must murder thousands of sapient beings because their very continued existence require other beings to be made to suffer and even they have no choice about this," is a pretty horrid situation.

I see your point, though I doubt it's so extreme. I could just as easily argue that it's certainly justified to take appropriate punitive measures against a goblin civ that has attacked either your own nation or a weaker neighbor, but it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture, especially when they're simply acting in accordance with their own biological imperatives. After all, we don't declare war on Muslim countries because they're extremely repressive of women's rights and practice child marriage. (Americans do it because our military-industrial complex profits from endless war, but that's beside the point.)
Yes, a player could use this hypothetical goblin hard-wiring to justify a crusade, but that's a) the player's choice, and b) an enhancement of overall game flavor. Even more relevant, my suggestion would make no overt change to actual goblin behavior, but merely provide a reason behind it. (Edit: I've never had a goblin resident, I'm just assuming that their basic underlying nature wouldn't really change that much than from when they are openly hostile invaders.)

What I find a little chilling is how you're painting the idea of a biologically-cruel goblin society as basically the Worst Thing Ever, and I'm mollifying you largely by demonstrating that it's not that different from how humans behave in real life.

On another note, what the heck does everyone ELSE think of this? I get the impression that other users are seeing that the conversation is just between GoblinCookie & SixOfSpades again, and assuming that we must be bitching at each other. HELLO! We're actually having an interesting discussion over here! Come share your opinions! Admittedly, the conversation is no longer about Dwarven Social Lives, but that line of discourse appears to have petered out anyway, at least for now.

[scourge728]

I've been reading, I just don't have much to add, other than that I feel like the goblins ARE cruel rather than NEED to be cruel is more interesting to me since you can add things like, "This goblin tribe is trying to escape their nature and be kind" while if it's goblins NEED to be cruel they would suffer horribly from trying to do that and possibly die, or at least probably get murdered way more easily by the goblins who aren't suffering from cruelness related penalties, and having them try to be kind also gives a reason for them to be allowed into forts and for them NOT to be genocided (since a creature who needs to be cruel to others seems like the kind of creature you try to get rid of as soon as it stops targeting your enemies) it also makes it so more races would be likely to attempt to ally with them against other, crueler goblins)

[GoblinCookie]

Or, they can keep their existing victims and enemies, and let them retaliate & get revenge as they wish. Some vendettas will succeed, some will fail, some will backfire. As long as fatal attacks are uncommon, society continues to function, in fact it reinforces a social order with the strongest on top & the weakest at the bottom. It works for most savage forms of wildlife. It works for bullies, it works for assholes. It works for fascist & totalitarian governments. Fictionally, it works for Orcs, Klingons & Dothraki. Why shouldn't it work for goblins?
In addition, there could very easily be a vast range of animals that goblins (even the weakest ones) could safely abuse. Livestock, "pets", mounts, game, vermin.

Well firstly the won't be uncommon and secondly it does not matter.  The issue you are not understanding is that is everybody wants to avoid each-other as much as possible, then society will collapse just as readily as it would collapse if everybody killed eachother.  The strongest rule might sometimes work, but it works because the people who are not the strongest actually cooperate and get on with whatever needs doing while the strongest strut about being the strongest.  In your goblin setup however, all the subordinate goblins ALSO need to be cruel to each-other and they cannot get away with being cruel to the boss goblins; if everyone can torture animals then there is no reason for all the boss goblins not to do so as well, so it really a step up from torturing dummies as a 'solution', though it does not really help.  The result is going to be a society where everybody hates everybody else and hence nothing gets done efficiently. 

Fictionally working is pretty much a joke concept.  Authors (and propagandists demonizing 'totalitarian regimes') frequently tend to be ignorant or indifferent to the actual workings of that which they reference.  They pick institutions or traits because of their emotional charge and aesthetic qualities, not because they have any inkling as to how that combination of traits or institutions would actually work.  This creates a whole amusing 'accidental authorship' situation in which we pit the obviously evil enslaving tyranny against the good guys and the latter wins, but that was inevitable because obviously evil enslaving tyrannies punch majorly below their weight anyway since the majority of their resources would actually be expended repressing themselves and nobody would effectively cooperate to use the remaining resources efficiently. 

In fiction orcs might be cruel and whatever, but that is not how orc society can plausibly function.  It will function because the orcs can successfully cooperate in order to raise, hunt or harvest whatever it is that orcs actually eat (a common thing not detailed by authors) and to make weapons/armour for the all-conquering horde.  Since the traits they are given are antisocial, it is pretty much the case that orc society functions despite it's members traits rather than because of them.  If orcs were nicer, that would actually make them far more of a threat since it would make their society more functional (I suppose that could be what baby-snatching is about). 

As you yourself just said, emotion is pre-rational. If some guy is literally searing your flesh with a branding iron, you're not going to consider his point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt, you're going to HATE the motherfucker. Reactional empathy could occur in far more minor altercations, like when somebody rudely bumps you out of their way or is verbally abusive, but even then it'd be unlikely and difficult if the entire fabric of one's society (not to mention biology) is against it.

Exactly, you now have to up the ante, which increases the costs of the cruelty, since you are now having to inflict physical injuries that could get infected and kill your victims, as opposed to simply insulting them.  In time even that stops working, folks get used to a certain level of pain and we end up constantly needing even more pain to cause them to actually suffer. 

I understand that black people in England do not have quite the same gut reaction to the word "slavery" that American blacks do. Even so, I am pleased to imagine you going up to one or more of them, and reading out what I just quoted. I am sure their response would be far more eloquent than mine.

The connection between slavery and blackness is an entirely accidental one Six of Spades. 

I don't actually see a response relevant to anything I said about slavery.

As I said, it's physical and psychological, although granted that the physical side is arguably more serious. The bad thoughts from alcohol withdrawal alone are not enough to send a dwarf into melancholy or whatever, but in combination with other factors they could certainly tip the balance.

The bad thoughts from alcohol withdrawal are the result of [IMMODERATION], they have nothing specifically to do with dwarves. 

I see your point, though I doubt it's so extreme. I could just as easily argue that it's certainly justified to take appropriate punitive measures against a goblin civ that has attacked either your own nation or a weaker neighbor, but it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture, especially when they're simply acting in accordance with their own biological imperatives. After all, we don't declare war on Muslim countries because they're extremely repressive of women's rights and practice child marriage. (Americans do it because our military-industrial complex profits from endless war, but that's beside the point.)
Yes, a player could use this hypothetical goblin hard-wiring to justify a crusade, but that's a) the player's choice, and b) an enhancement of overall game flavor. Even more relevant, my suggestion would make no overt change to actual goblin behavior, but merely provide a reason behind it. (Edit: I've never had a goblin resident, I'm just assuming that their basic underlying nature wouldn't really change that much than from when they are openly hostile invaders.)

What I find a little chilling is how you're painting the idea of a biologically-cruel goblin society as basically the Worst Thing Ever, and I'm mollifying you largely by demonstrating that it's not that different from how humans behave in real life.

You are not seriously comparing muslims to goblins?  Well then, the key difference here is that it is possible for muslims to change, they are capable of becoming less repressive over time, which means that peaceful means of persuasion are capable of rectifying the evils of muslim countries and indeed it is quite possible for this to come entirely from within the muslim countries without us having to expend any money or effort ourselves at all.  Your goblins on the other hand, they don't have a choice, they can never improve, they can never get less bad and the very functioning of their society depends upon finding an external outlet for their members cruelty-quotas, or else the hatreds engendered by it will inevitably bring about the societies demise.

Such a thing has no real-world parallel, it is a situation that does not exist.  The actual personality of these goblins is irrelevant, they *must* be cruel to other beings regardless of what they think or feel or want to do.  That being the case, to allow such beings to survive is in effect to be complicit in everything they do, genocide is arguably the only moral outcome for them as their very continued existence requires them to harm others.  Nobody, including themselves can ever do anything to rectify this.  How can you not realize just how uniquely horrific this situation is? 

On another note, what the heck does everyone ELSE think of this? I get the impression that other users are seeing that the conversation is just between GoblinCookie & SixOfSpades again, and assuming that we must be bitching at each other. HELLO! We're actually having an interesting discussion over here! Come share your opinions! Admittedly, the conversation is no longer about Dwarven Social Lives, but that line of discourse appears to have petered out anyway, at least for now.

It's still about social lives in general. Plus we could discuss how cruel dwarves (and resident goblins) would specifically behave.

[Dorsidwarf]

I thought the bad thoughts were because of Alcohol_dependent?

[GoblinCookie]

I thought the bad thoughts were because of Alcohol_dependent?

Nope, alcohol dependent simply means bad things happen if you don't drink alcohol.  If you play a dwarf with less than 50 immoderation you will find that he does not have a need to drink alcohol, which is an advantage since alcohol is scarce in present adventure mode, as only human and dwarf taverns have it in stock. 

[Ninjabread]

Internet's been down for a while, just came back up today.

I'd say I agree with GoblinCookie on one subject; I'd prefer goblins to be prone to a cruel personality, perhaps with a focus-based "need" for that, rather than the entire race being biologically dependent on it. I don't think their society would collapse if they were biologically dependent, because animal cruelty is still cruelty, especially since in goblin society, trolls are considered animals despite being slow-learning sentients. There are 2 reasons I'd prefer the focus-based "need" due to cruel personality as opposed to a biological need:

1) Part of the threat that comes from goblins is the fact that they have no physical needs, add in a physical needs to be cruel and they're actually less threatening, since locking them outside when they siege will lead to fights with wildlife and/or each other, weakening them overall. Focus-based needs still have this issue, but it won't apply to all goblins, just most of them, and it'd likely be overall less severe since some would likely be content hurling insults at the cowardly dwarves that won't face them.

2) As previously mentioned, personality-specific rather than race-specific cruelty needs means some goblins can play nice and function in non-goblin society, and some dwarves/elves/humans can be seemingly unnecessarily cruel, meaning more villain variety.

We are getting a little off topic, but at least personalities, biologically forced or not, are pretty directly related to social lives.

[KittyTac]

At least it's not GC and SOS bitching at each other.

[scourge728]

That does seem to happen fairly often

[Bumber]

I think it's important to remember here that goblins are ruled by actual demons from hell. Goblins suffer not hunger, nor thirst, nor old age. The only way a goblin dies is violently. There's nothing else to keep their population in check.

Anything their society needs, they take from others. They are at a constant state of war. If their infighting causes failure, the overlord will make a brutal example of them. Thus they prefer to turn their cruelty towards their opponents and slaves. The slaves will put up with beatings if the alternative is being flayed alive.

Goblins are not supposed to be misguided creatures you can simply re-educate to become regular members of society. They need an outlet for their cruelty, even if personality shift causes them to hate themselves for it. That means kicking puppies, pulling limbs off vermin, reciting morbid poetry, and finding employment as a soldier, hunter, or butcher.