Print

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

[Hague]

It would be nice if matgloss indices could be given symbol descriptors that determine how that material is regarded in general with regard to the culture. Certain minerals could be given symbolic meaning in their matgloss files that would indicate how a civ regards them. For example, alabaster could be regarded as a LIGHT mineral while jet and other dark rocks could be DARKNESS symbols. This would indicate that civ's willingness to make items out of that particular material because it is symbolic of their civilization. Currently symbols are used in determining how items, people, and places are named by a culture but it doesn't determine how they regard particular materials.

Specific materials could be given significance also in how they are traded. Cultures that cull UNHOLY and VIOLENT symbolic materials would pay less or refuse to trade goods of that material. Conversely, they would pay more for materials of a type that is favored by their culture's symbolism. A culture that worshipped fire would pay more for goods made with materials that symbolized fire.

I suggest a simple token added to materials that would signify their symbolic qualities. This token could be added to all materials including animals and plants. [SYMBOLIC:<symbol] would assign symbolism to a particular mineral, wood, metal, animal, or plant.

[Granite26]

wow... just wow.

[Demonic Gophers]

Nice idea!  But it seems like it would vary between entities - one nation might see obsidian as symbolizing darkness, while another sees it as representing fire, and thus associates it with light.  How might that sort of variation be addressed?

[Granite26]

Long term, I'd see it as something defined randomly at worldgen, but for now, this is good enough for now...

[Duke 2.0]

Nice idea!  But it seems like it would vary between entities - one nation might see obsidian as symbolizing darkness, while another sees it as representing fire, and thus associates it with light.  How might that sort of variation be addressed?

 The caravans from those civs would pay for things with that material differently. Although if things are too extreme, one could buy and sell things for ridiculous prices.

 "1500000☼ for a MUG?"
 "Look at what it's made of."
 "Ah, Obsidian. Very well then."

[Mike Mayday]

Beautiful.
Expanding on Gophers' suggestion: a material could have multiple tokens and each civilization could choose which one is more important to them when it's being formed.

Or how about a cultural revolution in which a prophet arises and deems a certain popular material unholy, leading to destruction of many structures made of it?
And then- counter revolution!

Duke- I don't think it should affect prices directly- just the demand for it.

[Duke 2.0]

 Either way: Prices rise.

 And then one could see decorations on armors from that civ include that material.

 "Why the hell is your armor covered entirely in fishbone?"
 "It is the holiest material in all the lands!"
 "Eh, better than the guys who decorate their shields in glass. And have breaking of glass an unthinkable act."

 We could have ethics attached to 'holy' materials or objects. Like the object should never tough bare ground, the material should not be broken/burned/covered in a specific material/next to an unholy item/material, etc...

[irmo]

Long term, I'd see it as something defined randomly at worldgen, but for now, this is good enough for now...

The effect of defining things like this randomly at worldgen is to create a world that's very hard to relate to. We've seen this with occasional glitches in what the dwarves consider "interesting"--You have discovered Microcline! So? What do I care?

It makes sense that obsidian would be associated with darkness, or fire. A culture that associates it with plump helmets is just baffling.

Now if you have a predefined set of possible material associations (maybe object associations as well--the bow with conquest, the plump helmet with fertility...) and each culture picks from that set at random, that's might work.

[Footkerchief]

This is a fantastic idea.  Civs should place varying intrinsic value in materials (somewhat randomly, but with certain racial predispositions), independent of economic considerations, and there need to be ways of grouping materials so that the entity definition doesn't have to specify each individual material -- that'd be ridiculous.

One thing though: I'm not certain Toady would want to use symbols for this.  Right now they're only used for words.  They seem like they could be used for grouping materials too, but the way the entity definitions are set up, with [SELECT_SYMBOL:(thing to be named):(symbol type)], seems to expect that only words get associated with symbols.  The use of symbols could be expanded, or another type of conceptual linkage could be created.

It's worth noting that we also have SPHEREs already, which are used to link creatures with entity religions, so having a third for linking entities with materials is plausible.

[Granite26]

Long term, I'd see it as something defined randomly at worldgen, but for now, this is good enough for now...

The effect of defining things like this randomly at worldgen is to create a world that's very hard to relate to. We've seen this with occasional glitches in what the dwarves consider "interesting"--You have discovered Microcline! So? What do I care?

It makes sense that obsidian would be associated with darkness, or fire. A culture that associates it with plump helmets is just baffling.

Now if you have a predefined set of possible material associations (maybe object associations as well--the bow with conquest, the plump helmet with fertility...) and each culture picks from that set at random, that's might work.

Tomatoes were considered poisonous for a long time.  In some cultures, the ok sign or peace sign is considered extremely offensive.  It's only been in recent years (like the last 60 or so) that the swastika was considered a symbol of evil.

This is just a list of color symbolisms by culture

The point is to create a random fantasy world.  That means random fantasy cultures, and that means random fantasy symbolisms.

[Footkerchief]

^^^ I agree with you, but I'd like to add that randomness doesn't preclude SOME degree of racial predisposition, and the current raws have quite a lot of predisposition.  Ideally there would be support for modding completely random preferences as well.

[Silverionmox]

Great idea. There could be a link with alchemy too, its chokefull of symbolism.

[Granite26]

Great idea. There could be a link with alchemy too, its chokefull of symbolism.

I think one of the differences there is that alchemy exhibiting true power would necessarily be based on a true symbolism set.

Sure there's a little bit of the god chooses the symbol which is then embued with his powers (so Barry, lord of war whose symbol is the apple would let you use apples in a strength potion).

Anyway, before I digress too much:  Symbolism and Alchemy are too slightly different things, kinda like a metaphor and a simile.  (Or the way the staff of hermes and a stethoscope both symbolize the same thing, but only one of them is useful in medicine.)

erm... so there'd be one 'true' symbol set for alchemy and them one for each civ for other stuff? 

[MagicJuggler]

I like the idea of baffling symbolism. We need more kooky cults like the Order of the Silk Pants on Head

[Luke_Prowler]

maybe there should be a sort of chance of an object depending on particular factors, such as a civ that are evil has a better chance of viewing GCS as being symbolic that good ones, or the rarity of a ore. or maybe world event have some effect on it, such as during a siege of demons in year ****, a group of swordsmen fought off the demons with iron swords/armor, so that civs view iron as good.

just throwing this in, Adamantine should be considered holy for all dwarfs