Print

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

[Toady One]

(removed a more recent derail)

[Miles_Umbrae]

Okay. So how about these discussions produce procedural society facets with rng names with points like slavery yes no, independence: 90, Judge Position for each site: yes no...

Could make for some fun and curious combinations .. and many that would be paradoxically contradictory.

[Detoxicated]

Would love to see a militarist kingdom with a pacifist majority whilst the rulers are supersoldiers.

Hmm maybe political entities could decide on what type of work they value and encourage this work. So a society with a love for hammering would get loads of hammerdwarves and produce more hammers than necessary

[Rowanas]

Would love to see a militarist kingdom with a pacifist majority whilst the rulers are supersoldiers.

Hmm maybe political entities could decide on what type of work they value and encourage this work. So a society with a love for hammering would get loads of hammerdwarves and produce more hammers than necessary

Determine society by caste, not entity, now there's a thought (a thought that would take an unacceptable amount of time out of Toady's schedule).  While it is still a step towards endemic legal inequality, it also opens up an array of interesting political system, like the one you've mentioned.

[Miles_Umbrae]

..(a thought that would take an unacceptable amount of time out of Toady's schedule)..

Only Toady One can say if the time the implementation of a specific system/mechanic is worth it or unacceptable.
Because ultimately this is his passion-project.

[ZM5]

I vaguely recall asking on FotF about the "values influence how a civ operates" and getting an answer that was more or less "sounds good and is planned, unknown when it'd be implemented".

Would certainly make for an interesting worldgen quirk, particularly with civs that value martial prowess - perhaps those could elect rulers based on combat skill rather than social ones (maybe a combination of both if they also value eloquence) - resulting in local lords being skilled warriors, and the king or queen being the strongest warrior in their civ, with both being clad in armor regularly rather than wearing peasant clothes and wielding those doinky knives.

Assassination missions would be quite fun to do in those civs. An assassin thinks he can get rich easily by killing some weathered, old monarch? Nope, turns out God-Emperor Urist Silverlocks is the strongest warrior of an entire civilization of skilled warriors, and despite being in his twilight years can still easily keep up with them young whippersnappers. Doesn't even hire bodyguards, because any assassin that tries to take him out gets an artifact steel longsword to the face before they can even process what's happening.

[Detoxicated]

indeed. you summed it up nicely.

[GoblinCookie]

Not really.
All knowledge does is pit a name to the concept a group promotes.

RL example: Even if we had not known of Anarcho-Capitalism there would still be groups promoting the foundational ideas that we connect to the name Anarcho-Capitalism.

Provided that the society is Capitalist to some significant extent or degree then yes.  Otherwise no.   

Would love to see a militarist kingdom with a pacifist majority whilst the rulers are supersoldiers.

Hmm maybe political entities could decide on what type of work they value and encourage this work. So a society with a love for hammering would get loads of hammerdwarves and produce more hammers than necessary

That situation would however be inherently unstable.  The supersoldiers would either convince the majority of the worthlessness of peace or the majority would pacify the supersoldiers, or the two would break apart to go their seperate ways. 

In effect though, this could come about by taking people's status interests into account in the sense of how they influenced to accept new values.  A caste of supersoldiers would be unable to be influenced by a pro-peace philosophy like everybody else in their society, so an originally warlike society which bred the supersoldiers becomes anti-war, but the supersoldiers remain faithful to the original values of the society. 

[Rowanas]

GC, your first point is clearly and obviously false for any intellectually curious society.  Close minded societies might not explore alternative and even radical philosophy, but in the midst of an archlibertarian society, extreme socialist thought still appears.  For instance, during the iron-tight reign of the church in western Europe, we came up with and first penned treatises on the virtues of atheism.

Second point, we have the entire concept of "caste" from the situation described.  In many societies, warmongers and pacifists toil side by side, fulfilling those duties to which their skills and predilections dispose them.  You can even take any eletion in which the popular vote and the eventual ruling class don't match up as an example of such (first past the post voting especially) - the majority of populace are no more convinced than they ever were, and yet we are ruled by people with entirely different ethics and priorities, despite them having all of the political and economic power. We are subjugated but not altered by our subjugation, and they are our masters, yet not altered by their mastery.

[GoblinCookie]

GC, your first point is clearly and obviously false for any intellectually curious society.  Close minded societies might not explore alternative and even radical philosophy, but in the midst of an archlibertarian society, extreme socialist thought still appears.  For instance, during the iron-tight reign of the church in western Europe, we came up with and first penned treatises on the virtues of atheism.

Socialist thought will appear in an arch-libertarian society because such a society is to an extreme degree a Capitalist society and more broadly a class society.  That is because the libertarianness of the society is ultimately a ruling-class doctrine, imposed on the masses by their propagandists and by the assimilation of the logic of the system by individual workers.  Unless they are 100% effective in their efforts, some people will always end up being Socialists because it is the natural tendency of the working class, which make up the majority of a Capitalist society to clash with the capitalist class. 

Second point, we have the entire concept of "caste" from the situation described.  In many societies, warmongers and pacifists toil side by side, fulfilling those duties to which their skills and predilections dispose them.  You can even take any election in which the popular vote and the eventual ruling class don't match up as an example of such (first past the post voting especially) - the majority of populace are no more convinced than they ever were, and yet we are ruled by people with entirely different ethics and priorities, despite them having all of the political and economic power. We are subjugated but not altered by our subjugation, and they are our masters, yet not altered by their mastery.

Caste currently means 'gender' or even 'biological sex', not social status.

I never said that it could not be sustained for a time, only that it is not sustainable in the long-term.  The resolution of this contradiction is not a question of if, it is a question of when.  It can come to pass that the government, as you describe end up being of a different perspective to that of the majority, but that is unstable because the government will use it's power to indoctrinate the people and the people will try to undermine the government and if they fail to achieve the latter then enough will end up being indoctrinated into conformity to the government's views that they are no longer the majority.

The reason why this particular situation is not viable in the long-term, is that the pacifist majority sustain the warmongering supersoldiers with their labour.  Without the majority working to keep the supersoldiers supplied, the supersoldiers are unable to function, since they are a specialised group that does not have the skills or inclination to survive independently.  The pacifist majority however believes that working to support the death-cult of the supersoldiers is ideologically wrong, which means they are inclined to cut their material support for said supersoldiers. 

[Dorsidwarf]

Technically caste is simply a  system for creating subvariants of creatures which Toady only really uses for biological gender but which is a powerful tool for modders creating less standard species and creatures. Not that that’s particularly relevant here, but it’s a distinction.

I do feel that GC is right here and that the proposed state in which a tiny minority relying on the obedience of a huge population that is diametrically opposed to everything they do without any support or similarity in goals is fundamentally doomed. That caste of supermen might be able to take over the system from the top and rule it for a short while, but no government can stand when literally every aspect of the system including their own enforcers hate them and their ideals

[Rowanas]

Technically caste is simply a  system for creating subvariants of creatures which Toady only really uses for biological gender but which is a powerful tool for modders creating less standard species and creatures. Not that that’s particularly relevant here, but it’s a distinction.

I do feel that GC is right here and that the proposed state in which a tiny minority relying on the obedience of a huge population that is diametrically opposed to everything they do without any support or similarity in goals is fundamentally doomed. That caste of supermen might be able to take over the system from the top and rule it for a short while, but no government can stand when literally every aspect of the system including their own enforcers hate them and their ideals

I think you're being much too black-and-white here.  The majority of us hate our leaders and their ideals, but we don't rise up and overthrow the centuries old system we have in place (European countries, obviously - America hasn't been wiping its own arse for that long).  A nation of pacifists aren't pacifists to their very core, which is why you and GC are, in my opinion, arguing unfairly.  It's dishonest to argue about a perfect planet-of-hats people on your side, and then throw out valid observations from the significantly more complex real world.

[KittyTac]

The majority of us hate our leaders and their ideals

I don't. I merely have mixed feelings towards a certain Russian president.

So do most people in Russia. The Communist Party usually gets curbstomped with less than 30% votes (last election it was 14.6%).

[Cathar]

Alright, so a couple things maybe worth noting :

• In the medieval period, the population had absolutely no loyalty toward anyone. Things like nationalism appeared extremely tardively into the history of mankind. People go farm their field, and every once in a while the bailiff comes and take a part of it. The population doesn't hate their lords in general, from what I read apathy and indifference is the most common feeling. However should the lord show weakness, it is not uncommon for the people to take arms and loot/torch his place. I don't think "fairness" or our modern standard of social justice is a good reading grid for medieval times. They probably felt toward their lords like we feel toward our celebrities - a city like Paris during the 100 years war would sing and dance to an english conquestthe same way they would for its reconquest by Charles V.
We tend to have strong feelings about our elected representatives because they are...well, supposed to represent us. A medieval lord is not "one of us" like elected representatives are supposed to be. Medieval population do not share that feeling.
• Someone pointed out that in its current state, DF would be an anarchist society, and is absolutely correct from the litterature standpoint. Everyone produces to the extent of their ability and everyone is provided for according to their needs. To make it a by-the-book anarchist society, the population should make mendates to the ruler and squad members should elect their lieutenants...and that's pretty much it. People often have misconceptions about anarchist societies, especially since the word have a lot of pathos attached to it. Just because you elect your officers in the Macknovtchina doesn't mean he cannot (or wont) riflesquad you if you start running antisemitic propaganda, Makhno boasted a lot about that. When they absorbed what they called "chauvinistic militias" (basically tradcon townguards), they would make extra sure they would work with the rest of the army and never hesitated to decimate them if they didn't.
Anarchist societies are extremely well organized, but are organized from the ground up. Rulers have imperative mendates, decisions are voted by comitees, but you can rest well assured that once the population made a decision, it will mercilessly break individuals trying to undermine it. Historically, Anarchist societies never had problems responding to threats. They absolutely curbstomped ukrainian imperialists, but they usually fail by their inability to organize in a large scale.

Some information
In theory
In practice

[Detoxicated]

I don't know I suspect a fair lot of peasants of being proud of their lord... Besides that I would agree with you.