Print

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

[GaGrin]

I have to ask after seeing the lastest update:

If sutures appear in the characters inventory much as a stuck-in item, will it be possible to rip them out and re-open a wound; and if not for this release, will similar effects like tearing and loosening of stiches be something you look at in future revisions?.

[Sunday]

The civil part being the whole failed-mandates punishment thing.  Though the punishments even on that scale seem more criminal than civil.

You're missing the whole feudal-nobility thing. They are/make the law. Those mandates are laws being broken. A noble was often called by the name of his territory- the ruler of a territory IS the territory, in a very literal sense. (See: Hobbes's Leviathan for a way of depicting.) This is the principle behind the 'royal we' thing- they are the land and the people and the law. So, by disobeying their mandate/law, you are not just disobeying a single person, you are disobeying the law, the land, and its people. this would, in that mindset, mean that it is a criminal offense, no?

I can see where you're coming from, but civil damages (especially torts) are kind of about people transgressing a kind of law - its just that it's more of a social law than a governmental one.  But you're still transgressing against the social well being of the people.  I'll be the first to admit that I don't totally understand where the separation is between certain civil and criminal actions.  Especially because some (battery, for example) can be both.  And technically, false imprisonment is an intentional civil tort, but it's closely related to things like kidnapping/abduction, where the crime is the taking away of the person, and the civil liability only comes from holding them without their consent.  But if someone tricks someone into a building and then locks the door, it doesn't count as kidnapping.  Just misrepresentation and false imprisonment.  Only talking about US rules here - it could be very different in other countries.

Of course, we haven't even started talking about theocracies and religious prohibitions.  I recently read a Terry Pratchett book (Monstrous Regiment) in which the god is constantly putting out ridiculous Abominations (from eating grains, to the color blue).  It would be interesting to have religious rules on their own (theocracy) and also in concert with secular/feudal rules.  In the latter case you would have at least some dwarfs trying to obey two sets of (possibly conflicting) rules.

[Osmosis Jones]

Of course, we haven't even started talking about theocracies and religious prohibitions.  I recently read a Terry Pratchett book (Monstrous Regiment) in which the god is constantly putting out ridiculous Abominations (from eating grains, to the color blue).  It would be interesting to have religious rules on their own (theocracy) and also in concert with secular/feudal rules.  In the latter case you would have at least some dwarfs trying to obey two sets of (possibly conflicting) rules.

Good book, and a good idea. Further, this could actually be used to give some meaning to the whole dubious/devout worshipper status we currently have. E.g. a skeptical 'worshipper' ignores any religious law, while a fanatic ignores any civil ones. Devout followers could obey both, but side with religious laws if there is a direct conflict.

Ooooh, and if Civ ethics get seperated from laws, you could have tradition-bound dwarves that follow old customs (such as all male dwarves wear hats, or braid their mustaches), and radical dwarves that buck the traditions, while both groups would nevertheless obey the actual laws (i.e. not murdering each other). Could also lead to grudges and stuff...

[LumenPlacidum]

Actually, can we get the 'no different body plans' quotes?  I'm about ready to call BS on that.

Well, I did an awful lot of searching around, focusing on the time when the raw preview was released and such, but I haven't found what gave me the impression that different castes could not have different body parts.  You're probably right that I just used the fact that in the previews the BODY definitions are in the generic part of the dwarf creature raw to mean that it was a part of the creature and not the castes.

So yeah, I might just be (and very happily) wrong about the issue.  However, why not explicitly ask?

Can BODY definitions for creatures be included in caste definitions or must all instances of a particular creature use the same body?

[Dakk]

The civil part being the whole failed-mandates punishment thing.  Though the punishments even on that scale seem more criminal than civil.

You're missing the whole feudal-nobility thing. They are/make the law. Those mandates are laws being broken. A noble was often called by the name of his territory- the ruler of a territory IS the territory, in a very literal sense. (See: Hobbes's Leviathan for a way of depicting.) This is the principle behind the 'royal we' thing- they are the land and the people and the law. So, by disobeying their mandate/law, you are not just disobeying a single person, you are disobeying the law, the land, and its people. this would, in that mindset, mean that it is a criminal offense, no?

I can see where you're coming from, but civil damages (especially torts) are kind of about people transgressing a kind of law - its just that it's more of a social law than a governmental one.  But you're still transgressing against the social well being of the people.  I'll be the first to admit that I don't totally understand where the separation is between certain civil and criminal actions.  Especially because some (battery, for example) can be both.  And technically, false imprisonment is an intentional civil tort, but it's closely related to things like kidnapping/abduction, where the crime is the taking away of the person, and the civil liability only comes from holding them without their consent.  But if someone tricks someone into a building and then locks the door, it doesn't count as kidnapping.  Just misrepresentation and false imprisonment.  Only talking about US rules here - it could be very different in other countries.

Of course, we haven't even started talking about theocracies and religious prohibitions.  I recently read a Terry Pratchett book (Monstrous Regiment) in which the god is constantly putting out ridiculous Abominations (from eating grains, to the color blue).  It would be interesting to have religious rules on their own (theocracy) and also in concert with secular/feudal rules.  In the latter case you would have at least some dwarfs trying to obey two sets of (possibly conflicting) rules.

Civil laws regulate the individual rights and laws of a society, such as marriage, when you're considered old enough to vote and whatnot, so they rarely involve any punishment, they're mostly there to regulate some rights as in "you can do this, but you gotta do it this way", there are some very few exceptions though. Criminal laws list a series of conducts and actions that are not acceptable in society at all, and each carry a specific punishment, so they're all like "you really CAN'T do this, or you'll be punished this way".

Also, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan really fits DF indeed, though DF's system seems sorta like a hybrid of monarchy and republic, but far more monarchic then republican. Mostly because there's no reference to Montesquieu's tripartite system, almost everything is under the noble's rule, though right now the king got less power then the mayor   

[Sean Mirrsen]

Actually, can we get the 'no different body plans' quotes?  I'm about ready to call BS on that.

Well, I did an awful lot of searching around, focusing on the time when the raw preview was released and such, but I haven't found what gave me the impression that different castes could not have different body parts.  You're probably right that I just used the fact that in the previews the BODY definitions are in the generic part of the dwarf creature raw to mean that it was a part of the creature and not the castes.

So yeah, I might just be (and very happily) wrong about the issue.  However, why not explicitly ask?

Can BODY definitions for creatures be included in caste definitions or must all instances of a particular creature use the same body?

I distinctly recall Toady mentioning that the different body plans aren't technically unfeasible, but they require some nondescript stuff to be sorted, so it's not going in this release.

I'd like to ask though, will it be possible to use different bodyglosses? The bodyparts will remain the same, just the parts will have different names.

[LumenPlacidum]

Heh, that's what I recall, too... I just cannot find the appropriate reference 

[RandomNumberGenerator]

There could be a new "Lawyer" noble that defends your dwarves to stop them frombeing punished for not fulfilling a mandate, but if his demands are not met he sues dwarves to get them(resulting them going into the red if the economy is on)

[Willfor]

Why does it always have to be a noble? 

[Granite26]

Why does it always have to be a noble? 

Noble is DF code for 'Unique Individual' or 'Entity(Civ) role' rather than 'job you can just turn on for anybody

[Neonivek]

Lawyer isn't really needed in the current justice system present in Dwarf Fortress if I am guessing correctly. The Magistrate (Fortress Guards) have a job of finding the evidence and acting upon it. Even then Lawyers only increased in importance as the laws become complicated (Common theme where Lawyers would share in punishments)

A Lawyer wouldn't be a Noble, just a job that seems to only apply to other dwarves.

Though seeing as the law system will go through the world generator I guess Lawyer jobs could form according to how the justice system forms.

[Willfor]

Why does it always have to be a noble? 

Noble is DF code for 'Unique Individual' or 'Entity(Civ) role' rather than 'job you can just turn on for anybody

I knew that, but my question is more directed to the fact that it seems every time I see a new role brought up it is inevitably instantaneously called a job that should go to a noble. "We need a lawyer, make him a noble!" "We need a barber, make him a noble!" "We need a guy to sit on his ass, and make invariably impossible demands of us, make him a... wait..."

I like nobles, I really do, but I much prefer giving anything that requires a skill to the average population base, and anything that requires an orchestration to the nobility. That's all I'm saying.

This has been my two cents.

[Footkerchief]

The next version will blur the distinction a good deal, since everything from nobles on down to ordinary guards will be an entity position.

[smjjames]

From the latest devnotes

Once the wound is completely healed, the suture item will dissolve (I thought about having them taken out instead, but there will be time to worry about that sort of thing later, maybe).

That would actually make sense since there are sutures that are biodegradeable and meant to be able to be absorbed or whatever by the body, or otherwise simply break down harmlessly.

[JoRo]

I wonder if adventure mode towns will have proper healthcare, for their own citizens or the player once Fast Travel stops curing everything.