Print

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

[Detoxicated]

So we need more government types. I can see that kingdoms were the norm in the middle ages, but there were quite many powerful republics too. Think venice, Frankfurt, Genua... Having different types of government adds a new layer for conflict. A republic of hill dwarves will want to destroy the duke of a closeby fortress of humans...
The differences between governments should be that in democratic governments the laws are created through vote and election whilst a monarchy will create laws on the whims of individuals.

[SixOfSpades]

Those city-states you mention were run largely by coalitions of wealthy families, usually merchants. And you can't have wealth or merchants until the Economy arc.
Nations could also be organized around religion, with priests in charge of all matters secular as well as sacred. Again, the Religion arc isn't here yet.
You could also have a stratocracy, a government in which the state and the military are largely indistinguishable. (Think a military junta, but long-lasting and accepted by the people.) The current game may be able to support this.

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't consider these types of government: By all means, postulate. I'm just saying that once these parts of the game are added, we'll have a better idea of what sort of framework we'll be building on. (Then again, discussing them now may help tell Toady what sorts of framework we'd like.)

The game as-is is something like a dictatorial autocracy (almost nothing is outside the overseer's control) interacting with a very weak constitutional monarchy (There is a king, but the very worst thing he can do is send an army, precisely what your fort is designed to defeat), with slight elements of a meritocracy (the game will automatically suggest the most qualified replacements for Broker or whatever, but of course those officers have no real power).

[GoblinCookie]

So we need more government types. I can see that kingdoms were the norm in the middle ages, but there were quite many powerful republics too. Think venice, Frankfurt, Genua... Having different types of government adds a new layer for conflict. A republic of hill dwarves will want to destroy the duke of a closeby fortress of humans...
The differences between governments should be that in democratic governments the laws are created through vote and election whilst a monarchy will create laws on the whims of individuals.

Really at a basic level things are as SixOfSpades mentioned, there are quite a limited array of possible government forms unless we fundamentally change the way the society works, which may be never, since it is a can of worms that may not be worth it. 

Though using the middle ages as the base of idea is not a good idea in DF, there are a number of possible government arrangements that can feasibly exist.  At the present things work as a de-centralised constitutional monarchy, the king and nobility clearly have limited powers and things are done mostly by elected mayors. 

The main issue government wise is how much power do the king/nobility have against that of the elected mayors.  How much power do the elected mayors have to decree laws themselves against how much to they have to hold referendums to pass laws.  Centralising power in present DF means increasing the power of king/nobility, which leads to the question of having elected prime ministers like we have in Britain. 

All of these issues exist without us having to have wealthy merchants in the game.

[Miles_Umbrae]

Suggesting Theocracy as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Religion arc" is a good suggestion.
Suggesting City States as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Economy arc" is also a good suggestion.
Military Junta(or whatever a militaristic governance is called) is a good suggestion as well.
There are ways to implement many governance types by name and basic concept at least without having everything already available .. that's the basic idea of Dwarf Fortress, that things gets fleshed out as development of the game progresses.

[Azerty]

We should also consider the differences inside the same kind of government: for exemple, republics could differ over which classes get to vote and/or get elected (in some, merchants and craftsmen get to vote, in others, only landowners get to power) and their internal working (is the leadership done by an individual (consul, mayor) or a body (directoire, ), and how is the nomination? Does a senate exists and, if so, who elect it?). Monarchy would be whether they are elective (who elect the king?) or whether they are hereditary (what is the laws of succession?).

[GoblinCookie]

Suggesting Theocracy as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Religion arc" is a good suggestion.
Suggesting City States as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Economy arc" is also a good suggestion.
Military Junta(or whatever a militaristic governance is called) is a good suggestion as well.
There are ways to implement many governance types by name and basic concept at least without having everything already available .. that's the basic idea of Dwarf Fortress, that things gets fleshed out as development of the game progresses.

Most of those are basically what is implied under starting scenarios.  Aside from city state, which is basically what we already are. 

We should also consider the differences inside the same kind of government: for exemple, republics could differ over which classes get to vote and/or get elected (in some, merchants and craftsmen get to vote, in others, only landowners get to power) and their internal working (is the leadership done by an individual (consul, mayor) or a body (directoire, ), and how is the nomination? Does a senate exists and, if so, who elect it?). Monarchy would be whether they are elective (who elect the king?) or whether they are hereditary (what is the laws of succession?).

Arguments over who gets to vote among the actual citizenry really only make sense if we adding in privilaged/oppressed economic classes into the game.  While this may seem historically realistic, we have gay marriage even when homophobia might seem 'historically realistic' instead.  If we don't intend to add in homophobia, or sexism, or racism why would we add in a disenfranchised class of poor people, where is the consistency in that?

The actual nature of the government structure itself is very much a hot issue however.  As is the actual mechanics by which the democratic system itself, as in elections is going to work in general.  I propose we use the loyality idea from Corporate Personality/Values and apply it to elections.  We would divide the population into two 'parties' and divide the election into two elections. 

We the player *are* the government party, if we lose the election we lose the game.  However the first election is the 'primaries', it is when our party internally selects a candidate to stand for mayor. The opposition party will then select their own candidate at the same time.  Then we have the actual real election for mayor which pits our candidate against the opposition's candidate.  How dwarves vote depends upon their loyalty, loyal dwarves always vote for the government candidate, disloyal dwarves always vote for the opposition candidate and those in the middle will vote depending upon the personal characteristics of the two candidates and how in the middle they are. 

Democracy runs the risk of the player being voted out of office.  However democracy has an advantage in that it increases the loyalty of all dwarves THAT CAN VOTE, which reduces the chance of an uprising being launched against you, since the disloyal are fewer in number. 

[Detoxicated]

If you have a king you already have created a class of people with no rights....

Also the player is a force that cannot be voted because it is above the entire universe of DF...

When the economy is added it would make sense to have economic classes, but again we already have classes and oppression as the nobles are exempt from work And get to make mandates...

I don't know if toady said that he was not going to include things like racism, but even if not, the system intends to have slavery which in itself is an economical class that has no rights and freedom whatsoever, at least in the sense of american slavery. I dont really get your entire point there. so maybe you could explain it to me in a different way

[Miles_Umbrae]

Couldn't put it better myself there Detoxicated.

[PlatinumSun]

"Comrades the proletariat shall rule! Down with the bourgeoisie!"
-Urist McLenin   

[Detoxicated]

"Comrades, the world and its opressed Proletariats shall be freed once they unified!
Trotsky McUrist

[GoblinCookie]

If you have a king you already have created a class of people with no rights....

Further explanation needed. 

Also the player is a force that cannot be voted because it is above the entire universe of DF...

It is the player's government that is being voted out.  This just happens to mean defeat for the player as well, it is not that the dwarves are aware of the player; they have just rejected the player's government and voted it out.  The point of this is that if you wish to try to rule with naught but an iron fist you have to implement an actual dictatorship in your fortress, you cannot run a shadow-dictatorship behind a democratic facade because you as an immortal spirit cannot be voted out.

When the economy is added it would make sense to have economic classes, but again we already have classes and oppression as the nobles are exempt from work And get to make mandates...

I don't know if toady said that he was not going to include things like racism, but even if not, the system intends to have slavery which in itself is an economical class that has no rights and freedom whatsoever, at least in the sense of american slavery. I dont really get your entire point there. so maybe you could explain it to me in a different way

Individuals are not classes and neither is the division of labour inherently a class division.  The economy does not imply the existence of economic classes, since the economy in itself being implemented merely means that sites and adventurers will continue to produce/exchange stuff after the end of world-gen, which is presently not the case.  Yes this is intended to be preceded by the law/customs/status/property release and the starting scenarios, but the former remains very much a black box. 

My point was simply that we cannot discuss things like voting rights until we know how the economy/law/customs/status/property are all going to work.  We cannot simply rifle through the history books and copy-paste the workings of medieval Europe and simply assume that is how dwarf fortress is going to end up, because the devs have already shown short shift to two key elements of those societies, that is sexism and homophobia.  They also tend to be uneasy with those topics when they are raised in discussions, which implies their absence is by intent rather than simply because they have not got around to adding them in yet.

"Comrades the proletariat shall rule! Down with the bourgeoisie!"
-Urist McLenin   

What was the point of that post?

[Miles_Umbrae]

"Comrades the proletariat shall rule! Down with the bourgeoisie!"
-Urist McLenin   

What was the point of that post?

Fun?

[Detoxicated]

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I can see what you mean, and it is true that we cannot tell how the game ends up being but we can start discussions based on assumptions to inspire toady.

Now, when I said that by having a king you already have a class system, I meant to point out that a king ultimately has the last word in all matters therefore rendering the rest of the people second class citizens. They might be allowed to shape society however they want, but if king does not agree then he can stop them how he seems fit.
Therefore the existance of an all powerful king implies that the rest are powerless naturally.

[VislarRn]

Arguments over who gets to vote among the actual citizenry really only make sense if we adding in privilaged/oppressed economic classes into the game

What's the deal of you constantly being worried about portrayal of class oppression in game?
I know you are probably into some PC stuff, but seriously - what the hell? Not portraying/portraying it in game does not put it into higher moral standard. Also, subjugating art to ideology is always something I consider a bad thing.

[Detoxicated]

Maybe you should not post if it annoys you so much when people talk about such issues. Class oppression is a common trope in human history and its art, so it does make sense to include it in one way or another as it a) creates interesting stories of heroes overcoming such struggles and b) it can make a deep simulation like dwarf fortress rounder and more realistic.
In my opinion there should be worlds where this is a part of the history while still having worlds where there is no class struggles, though I find that quite silly as about every civilization has had these struggles one way or another. These struggles continue to this day in some countries so I wonder why it poses such a problem to you when people discuss these possibilities for the game.

Furthermore I would like to point out that your first sentence as well as your pc assumption read as passive aggressive, but as I believe that your ibtention was not to infuriate, I wonder if you could use a less aggressive language to get your point across.