Print

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

[Name Lips]

I like the generic animal-man names. It's not clear to people what a "thri-kreen" is if they haven't played D&D, but everybody gets some sort of visual when they see "Ant-Man." A lot of them don't have proper mythological or gaming names anyway. What would a slugman be?

Plus I like having maps with Batmen on them. I chortle every time I see the "Building interrupted by Batman" message.

Notice, though, that Toady uses "Merman" instead of "Fish-Man." Hmm.... a bit of inconsistency?

[Grek]

But how, as a generic townsperson, are you going to realize that inverted palms correlate to not having those powers? Is a pretty big leap.

It's not just that their palms are backwards; their entire hands are attached upside down, with the fingers curling upwards.

[Dakk]

It does add a certain element of realism to it though. I mean, if I was a peasant who had lived in a village for his whole life, walking around in the woods and spotting a raksha, I'd most likely call it a tigerman, a weird looking tigerman at best. A wizard, however, would look at the raksha and call it a raksha, and even tell the difference if said raksha was in the middle of a tigermen tribe.

[CobaltKobold]

Right. A wizard or sage should know.

Notice, though, that Toady uses "Merman" instead of "Fish-Man." Hmm.... a bit of inconsistency?

Merpeople are not fishmen, satyrs are not goatmen, and centaurs are not horsemen.

The only real exception to the naming I know that's in DF is "werewolf".

[Reese]

The only real exception to the naming I know that's in DF is "werewolf".

except, at some point, Toady will probably implement code for form changing and making them proper form shifting weres, and then we might have both werewolves (and maybe other weres) and wolf men

[KillerClowns]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."  All elves and other animalmen would refer to them as such, as would most educated humans and dwarves (especially diplomats), unless actively seeking to antagonize them.  Dwarvern and human peasants, save perhaps those used to living in close proximity to the Riget, would simply refer to them as tigermen.  (The response from a given tigerman would range from polite correction to mauling; given tigermen, the latter seems more likely.)  They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances.  (Do you have anyone who'd know the formal name?  Have you dwarves lived near them long enough to pick it up?  Has you civ in general shared a border with them long enough for it to be well known?)  Actually, I can see this being extended to all other entities; embarking in a very far away land might lead to encounters with an unidentified human culture, who might see it as odd (though perhaps not offensive) to be called "Human" instead of "Pesor Umpig-ese;" in time, the description would go from "Human" to "Human (Pesor Umpig)"

[Xether]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."  All elves and other animalmen would refer to them as such, as would most educated humans and dwarves (especially diplomats), unless actively seeking to antagonize them.  Dwarvern and human peasants, save perhaps those used to living in close proximity to the Riget, would simply refer to them as tigermen.  (The response from a given tigerman would range from polite correction to mauling; given tigermen, the latter seems more likely.)  They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances. 

i agree, i was just about to write this but you did it better . Wouldn't be hard to implement would it? 

[Akigagak]

It would, however, be time-consuming. And Toady has enough to do already.

Leave it to the modders for now.

[CobaltKobold]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."  All elves and other animalmen would refer to them as such, as would most educated humans and dwarves (especially diplomats), unless actively seeking to antagonize them.  Dwarvern and human peasants, save perhaps those used to living in close proximity to the Riget, would simply refer to them as tigermen.  (The response from a given tigerman would range from polite correction to mauling; given tigermen, the latter seems more likely.)  They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances.

i agree, i was just about to write this but you did it better . Wouldn't be hard to implement would it? 

*checks the language files*

   

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:abo]

Odd, there isn't a word in LANGUAGE_DWARF for dwarf.

[slMagnvox]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."<<snip awesome KillerKlowns post>>

It would, however, be time-consuming. And Toady has enough to do already.

Leave it to the modders for now.

Modders can add all the entities and species they want, but they won't be able to change how these creatures recognize one another or how their naming systems arise from world gen.

Which based on what I've read and from listening to the DF Talks, Toady is definitely focused on making so much of the civs and how they deal with, and even refer to one another, procedurally generated.  So time will be consumed on enabling it in the near future indeed.

[CobaltKobold]

Near future...er.

*doesn't want to quash such optimism*

[ChokingVictim]

I like the generic animal-man names. It's not clear to people what a "thri-kreen" is if they haven't played D&D, but everybody gets some sort of visual when they see "Ant-Man." A lot of them don't have proper mythological or gaming names anyway. What would a slugman be?

Plus I like having maps with Batmen on them. I chortle every time I see the "Building interrupted by Batman" message.

Notice, though, that Toady uses "Merman" instead of "Fish-Man." Hmm.... a bit of inconsistency?

I remeber when I discovered a goblin wearing a batman loincloth.  goblins wear batman undies.

[Moddan]

Searching didn't answer this question for me:
Will it be possible to dig in adventure mode in the next release?

[CobaltKobold]

No. That's 1-3 releases down.

[RedKing]

I'd say animalmen should eventually have names for themselves (raksha, thri-kreen, et cetera) but that these should be entity names, not species names.  We assume a group of tigermen call themselves the "Riget."  All elves and other animalmen would refer to them as such, as would most educated humans and dwarves (especially diplomats), unless actively seeking to antagonize them.  Dwarvern and human peasants, save perhaps those used to living in close proximity to the Riget, would simply refer to them as tigermen.  (The response from a given tigerman would range from polite correction to mauling; given tigermen, the latter seems more likely.)  They'd be displayed in Dwarf Mode as "Tigerman" or "Tigerman (Riget)" depending on circumstances.

i agree, i was just about to write this but you did it better . Wouldn't be hard to implement would it? 

*checks the language files*

   

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:abo]

Odd, there isn't a word in LANGUAGE_DWARF for dwarf.

Not odd at all. In almost every language on earth, the term for the native speakers of it is something along the lines of "the people". From the dwarf standpoint, they're normal. It's everyone else who is too tall. So from that standpoint, probably:

Code: [Select]

[T_WORD:MAN:udos]

Shukarudos (tall man) might be a collective term for humans and elves.