Print

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

[Muz]

As I've written about a month or two ago, I'm doing my ethics assignment on DF. But looking at it from ethical frameworks, there are some things I'm not so sure about.

Duty - this is what a dwarf is ethically inclined by duty to do. It's also what the player has the duty to do for the dwarves. Couldn't find this one.

Virtues - The purpose of a knife is to cut, thus the virtue of it is sharpness. The virtues of people are honesty, compassion, hardworking, etc. What are the virtues of the dwarves in DF?

Rights - This is what every dwarf (player, animal, goblin, etc) has the right to. I put it as every dwarf having the right to live, and the right to happiness, regardless of how they are becoming happy.

[Okenido]

This was done before...

[Muz]

Lol, what? By who? I doubt anyone else is looking at it through the formal ethical frameworks. (If they did, link to the post, please

Serious question, though. 10% of my course marks depend on my DF assignment, making it worth more than the test next week and I really can't figure out the virtues of dwarves other than them being hardworking :p

[Mephansteras]

I would say dwarves are compassionate, although not as much as we are right now. For example, they take care of their pets, and become deeply unhappy when they die.

As for rights...I don't think the dwarves look at it that way. After all, a Noble can cause a dwarf to be very unhappy simply for failing to fulfill an impossible mandate. You should work that into your paper. (Or perhaps, the issue is that the nobles don't care about the rights of other dwarves)

[Pilsu]

They're a tad manic depressive. There's little between total bliss and rage that makes you rip off your baby's legs and beat him with them

[McDoomhammer]

Well, let's see.  The aim of the game, inasmuch as one exists, is to build.  You seem to have taken up the position for the purposes of this paper that the player is another, invisible dwarf tasked with co-ordinating the fortress construction, so I would say that the 'duties' of the player are set out in the starting text- provide for your dwarfs by any means at your disposal, with the implied aim of building the outpost into a thriving metropolis and ultimately attracting the king.  However, the player does not have to embrace the only consequence, should they choose not to, as that those things won't happen.  Get your dwarves killed and you 'lose', or get no immigrants, or simply don't see the king, and higher nobility, etc etc... all game consequences, not dwarf society punishing the player.

Dwarves, on the other hand, have laws to keep them in line.  The crimes we know about tend to involve destuction, either of people or property, and also for being insuffficiently industrious, as judged by the Nobles.  You might look at the duties of the nobles... I understand some of them used to provide the player with benefits, but now they're mostly an encumbrance to the player so perhaps you could explore player attitudes to them as a result.

Dwarf virtues... if you agree that their overall purpose is to build, the average dwarf's virtues are things like diligence, obedience, and skill.  It's worth noting that individual dwarf personalities do not always include these things.  Perhaps also look at the privileges which are afforded to legendary dwarves as evidence that skill is seen as a virtue?

Rights... that's a tough one.  As I mentioned, the player can do anything they want while the dwarves are subject to laws, which raises interesting questions about whether the player and their dwarves have anything in common and whether player actions can violate dwarves' rights- if every dwarf has a right to life and limb, what about the player who doesn't mind killing a miner to set off that cave-in?  You could argue that the player has a hand in determining what rights and privileges their dwarves have.  It's possible to play as though every dwarf has a right to a bedroom of a certain siize, for example, and reward dwarves for importance, bravery or anything else you choose with large rooms, art, furniture, etc.  It's also possible to deny your dwarves a place to sleep at all.

Hope that gives you something to think about and isn't all futile rambling- I haven't studied ethics or philosophy, but those are the points that seem relevant to me.

[Qmarx]

You should probably look at the attitudes players have towards nobles, particularly in relation to how they vary by type.  For example, most players tend to like the Dungeon Master, Philosopher, and Mayor, (with the possible addition the player-appointed nobles).  Is this just because they contribute to the fortress (with the exception of the Philosopher), or is it because they've been more characterized than the others (for example, the Dungeon master has a cloak fixation, and most players doing community games tend to put themselves as the mayor).

Giving the philosopher nice things doesn't materially help the player in any way - the philosopher only occasionally adjusts prices, but a lot of players do it anyway (even making the philosopher more wealthy than the king).  Why this happens would be interesting to explore as well.

[McDoomhammer]

Further thought on virtues... compassion, also, as wounded dwarves are completely dependant on their fellows at the moment.  Is that out of an innate value for dwarven lives or because it prevents loss of productivity, though?

[DR]

Urgh, don't write an essay on Dwarf Fortress.

[McDoomhammer]

Whyever not?

[Muz]

Crap, double post because of the stupid Internet lagging. How do I delete this?

[Muz]

Urgh, don't write an essay on Dwarf Fortress.

I already started and 10 weeks in realized what a difficult task it was. Anyway, DF is still the best game out of any other to write and essay on. Particularly when comparing it to the theory that engineering is social experimentation Anyway, I'm supposed to get points on discussing ethics with others too, and I've been lagging behind on that bit.

I wouldn't really say that the purpose of dwarves are as building blocks. Ethical theories show that they not to be treated as means to an end.. though compassion, discipline, and obedience do count, I guess. It's maybe mostly due to the medieval structure of the game that it seems that way. But some societies could be much crueler than some DF players and they had the same theories of virtue. Just that maybe in one society, they value bravery more over say, compassion. DF doesn't have morale, so bravery isn't a virtue at all, but I suppose hardworkingness is valued above all others.

Duty still looks a bit ambiguous. Building a capital seems to be the aim of the game, but I wouldn't really say that most people treat it that way.

[Skyrage]

From a philosophical point of view I think that you could dig out a crapload from DF depending on which perspective you look at. Player aspect, Dwarf AI aspect, the game as a whole, player-dwarf relations and so on and so forth. It's my opinion that DF is complex enough to actually allow for all these different choices.

And I wouldn't say that the dwarfs aren't brave just cause there isn't any kind of morality system in place. Sure, they're still restricted to their AI, but from our point of view, wouldn't you say that having a legendary axe dwarf rushing head on all by himself against a bunch of invaders, killing them all before dying a heroic death, whilst saving the fortress in the progress as brave? We do know that he is all governed by the AI and if he had a better AI (maybe) or at least something in it that let it consider the situation etc etc that he might have not done so, but in the end we still think that it was cool as heck. The stories that people post about miscellaneous dwarfish acts is more than proof enough that we do think that they have bravery. As a forced virtue of sorts.

[Cthulhu]

I'd put them in the Imperial Japan/Fatalistic sense of duty bracket, they do what they have to do, even when it's obvious it will kill them, and only stop working to eat and sleep.  If you cancel their rare breaks, they don't complain.

[MagicJuggler]

They do gain unhappy thoughts from it unless they are trained for military duty, in which case they are capable of working as both civilians and soldiers, like the Athenians of old. The dangerous extreme lies in the soldiers whom become so proficient at killing that they forget they are citizens first (the Elite soldiers whom become unhappy after being undrafted).