Print

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

[Silverionmox]

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? 

There could be True associations, that work in alchemy on one side, and on the other purely cultural preferences. Or they could be true, or just work better, because a culture believes in them.

[Areyar]

like the idea.

I'd say to link preferences for materials depending on the spheres of local deities.
designate each sphere a number of materials.
if a associated material is used in the construction (or enhancement) of an object, apply local price modifier.

On an individual basis:
Also add the associated materials of a revered deity to the list of "likes" of persons. Could be left out of the 'status'page as a hidden preference or added as "likes [material] for it's association with [sphere]."
person_entity will pick a *material* item over one of other material.

[Tormy]

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

Heh, this is weird. I always thought that alchemy is all about mixing/creating potions...
Now that I've checked the wiki, it's clear that I was wrong. I blame it on the RPG games...

[Fieari]

What if other tags were associated with symbols instead?  The [LAVA] material tag might grant the FIRE symbol, the [COLOR:?:?:?] tag would associate with symbols based on color, the [IGNEOUS_EXTRUSIVE] tag would provide other symbols... then, with all these symbols in a list, civilizations would pick one or two to associate with the material.

[Footkerchief]

^^^ Existing tags seem a little haphazard and clunky for this purpose.  You seem to be saying that LAVA should have a hardcoded link to FIRE, when obviously that should be something modifiable in the raws instead.  If you're going to have a FIRE symbol anyway, why not just associate it explicitly with materials?

[Footkerchief]

Bump because I've been looking through the sphere list, and I think spheres are indeed adequate to handle the symbolic links that have been discussed here, as Areyar and I suggested.  Darkness, light, violence, etc. are all covered.

So should "basic" materials -- e.g. bone in general -- be linked to spheres, or just specific materials?  To me it makes sense that all bones should be linked to BLIGHT, DEATH, FATE, MOON, REBIRTH, SACRIFICE, etc., and then specific bones such as dragon bone could have additional associations.  However, I'm not sure metals in general should have associations.

Also, "obvious" symbolic links, such as metal materials to the METALS sphere, or stones to MINERALS, should probably be avoided.  It's supposed to be symbolism, after all.

[Neonivek]

I guess to add to this... Certain aspects of a creature should general Matgloss automatically. (This is already done somewhat)

However since this is "Different Symbols for different people" here I go.

For example for the Sphere list we could for example see "Youth" as a sphere.

If lets say a Maerer (made up) creature lives 5 years as a child

A Kobold could associate it with youth because it retains much of its time as a child
A Human however wouldn't see this as exceptional and wouldn't accociate it as such

Going with animals that give milk, it should only get symbolism of food if that race will use that milk. If that milk is poisonous it should have a poisonous symbolism

So lets say Cow milk is poisonous to Goblins

Humans could associate cows with food
Goblins however would associate cows with poison, assasination, and possibly their version of evil

Colors, Habitats, attacks, and diet all also work.

If a creature shares the habitat with the civ in question and is liked, it should have a more home-like feel to it.
A creature who breathes fire shouldn't be associated with dangerous fire to a dragon civilisation
A Anteater would be seen as a harvenger of death to a Ant Civilisation

Woo

[Granite26]

Bump because I've been looking through the sphere list, and I think spheres are indeed adequate to handle the symbolic links that have been discussed here, as Areyar and I suggested.  Darkness, light, violence, etc. are all covered.

So should "basic" materials -- e.g. bone in general -- be linked to spheres, or just specific materials?  To me it makes sense that all bones should be linked to BLIGHT, DEATH, FATE, MOON, REBIRTH, SACRIFICE, etc., and then specific bones such as dragon bone could have additional associations.  However, I'm not sure metals in general should have associations.

Also, "obvious" symbolic links, such as metal materials to the METALS sphere, or stones to MINERALS, should probably be avoided.  It's supposed to be symbolism, after all.

I disagree with the obvious ones, to the extent that I think if an item has the [ore] tag it should automatically be ore alligned.  Room to disagree though...

I would think that dragon bones would inherit the dragon creatures symbols...  (along with the general bone symbols)

[Footkerchief]

I disagree with the obvious ones, to the extent that I think if an item has the [ore] tag it should automatically be ore alligned.  Room to disagree though...

No, I think you're right, if cultural preferences are governed by spheres then it would make sense to associate all metals with METALS, all ores with MINERALS, etc.  It was just thinking that, if personal preferences (Geshud likes orthoclase) were (partially) governed by spheres as well, as Areyar suggested, it would be fine to say "Geshud likes obsidian for its volcanic nature," but it's a little strange to say "Geshud likes copper for its metallicness."  Actually, I guess personal preferences for a specific material (obsidian) should only operate on sphere links for that specific material, rather than the "inherited" sphere links from stone in general.  The inherited links would still be used to determine trade value, etc.

[Neonivek]

It depends Granite, lets say the civilisation never seen a dragon but was instead given the bones as a peace treaty from another civilisation.

They could develop different symbols for the dragon bones then the original civilisation.

I am personally still waiting for Gods to have Quasi-spheres over specific creatures, ores, and objects... Where is the god of Lutes and Mini-forges?

[Warlord255]

In general, the idea sounds pretty awesome; dynamic symbolic redefinition is asking a bit much, though.

I'd be happy with each race having the potential to interpret a material differently. The implications, however, are massive and would require a LOT of work from Toady.

[Footkerchief]

The implications, however, are massive and would require a LOT of work from Toady.

You really think so?  You could be right, but when you break the idea into its main elements, none of them look difficult:

• Sphere links for generic materials -- the game already has lots of generic properties like melting points for wood, bone, etc., so adding more should be easy, as long as the current material revisions are future-proof
• Sphere links for specific materials -- basically the same thing
• Sphere links for creatures -- already implemented!
• Sphere alignments for entities -- already implemented!
• Subjective valuation -- already implemented and takes entity preferences into account (elves don't like menacing spikes)

The implications ARE massive, but most of them will arise naturally from a few structural elements (the sphere links).  Once you have these elements, you can have goblins and dwarves both paying top dollar for obsidian, but for different reasons -- dwarves like it for its association with volcanoes, goblins like it for its mysterious darkness or whatever.

[Neonivek]

Elves don't like Menecing spikes? I guess that makes sense since Spiked Bushes would hurt their feet

[Footkerchief]

Elves don't like Menecing spikes? I guess that makes sense since Spiked Bushes would hurt their feet

Nope.  They're also huge narcissists.

Code: [Select]

[SPHERE_ALIGNMENT:PLANTS:384]
[SPHERE_ALIGNMENT:ANIMALS:384]
[SPHERE_ALIGNMENT:TREES:512]
[ART_FACET_MODIFIER:EVIL:0]
[ART_FACET_MODIFIER:GOOD:384]
[ART_FACET_MODIFIER:OWN_RACE:512]
[ART_IMAGE_ELEMENT_MODIFIER:ITEM:32]
[ART_IMAGE_ELEMENT_MODIFIER:PLANT:384]
[ART_IMAGE_ELEMENT_MODIFIER:TREE:512]
[ITEM_IMPROVEMENT_MODIFIER:SPIKES:0]


[Osmosis Jones]

I would think that dragon bones would inherit the dragon creatures symbols...  (along with the general bone symbols)

One problem with this sort of thing is what happens when you have two opposing spheres combined. Say, you have kittens (let's pretend they have the life sphere), and bone (death sphere). Therefore, kitten bone would have both life and death sphere tags.

Given that for deities, opposing spheres are precluded, I would think a similar thing would hold in this situation, which then leaves us with the question of which tag we should delete; the original, the added template, or both?

My personal preference is to remove both, but in either case it should be discussed before implementing it.