Print

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

[SirHoneyBadger]

I'm with Kinseti on this: I disagree that we have any "evil" species in the game, even now.

We don't know enough about demons to judge them morally (We just like to invade their homes, rape their environment, and murder them when they get pissed about it.), so take goblins for example: It's true they kidnap children, but it's also true that they later employ those children into their armies, once they've reached adulthood.

And even if they're "brainwashed", they still fight. Severely traumatized people don't really tend to make great soldiers. Suicide bombers, possibly, fanatic cultists, or psychopathic killers, but not really soldiers you want to trust to go out and fight their own families.

If they're planning to use them for soldiers, they must be feeding them, educating them (you have to understand the orders, to follow them), and giving them atleast some level of quality care.

Your military personnel will *always* eventually achieve some level of political power (History has proven this, from the barbarians in Roman armies, to the Mamluk "slaves" who came to rule Egypt, to the black soldiers who fought in the American civil war.), and the implication would be for a very high degree of social fluidity, and a strong historical tolerance of those who are different.

Certainly, we've got a prejudiced cultural predisposition to view goblins as "evil", but considering that humans are as likely to be slavers in DF as they were on Earth (if not much more so, considering there's plenty of non-humans to enslave), I'd suspect a moral comparison would probably balance itself out.

Kobolds ofcourse are thieves, but I'm of the opinion that they steal to feed themselves, and that thievery-against outsiders, atleast (I've yet to see a kobold steal from another kobold)-is not condemned in their culture, as it has not been condemned in human culture (The ancient Celts, for example, who had a tradition of raiding cattle, not to mention stealing their brides--a practice which would imply all manner of disagreeable moral quandaries.).

Any ideas of "good" or "evil" imposed on ASCII pixels, I assure you, is entirely within the eye of the beholder. As the varied peoples present in the game continue to be fleshed out, I can only hope that this will become a more and more complex and tangled issue.

[Janizary]

I'm with Kinseti on this: I disagree that we have any "evil" species in the game, even now.
...
Any ideas of "good" or "evil" imposed on ASCII pixels, I assure you, is entirely within the eye of the beholder. As the varied peoples present in the game continue to be fleshed out, I can only hope that this will become a more and more complex and tangled issue.

True, and while I agree that it would be best to drop the flagging of evil and good, then simply impose political and social interaction and reflect that in the behaviour of each civilization, at the moment it's really not implemented as such, so it would probably do for the moment to allow such a hypathetical race of dwarves to be, "evil."

[SirHoneyBadger]

Ehhh...I just think that would be, at the very best, a stopgap.

Ideas-if you'll forgive the similie-are a bit like vegetables:

Why not spend the time and energy to develope social and cultural ideas now, so that when it eventually becomes possible for those mechanics to be implemented, those ideas have had plenty of time to grow, to mature, to be reviewed and further refined?

There's a lot of opportunity right now, for anyone to take any species in the game--or just make your own--and really work to develope them in all aspects.

Play God while you have the chance!

And a big part of that would be the elimination of anything as passé as the "good/evil" nametag.

[Janizary]

Ehhh...I just think that would be, at the very best, a stopgap.

I entirely agree, but since I am not aware of just how deep Toady plans to delve into the generation of socio-political history for worlds, I didn't really plan to think it all out until I got some solid feedback that other people thought this would be an idea worth considering for a later date inclusion.

[Craftling]

The game could just develop some dwarves differently depending on their history and were they have been located in world gen.

[Fossaman]

It seems to me that you could handle the idea of different moral values for each culture (ethnic subgroups would inevitably have their own specific culture, barring being conquered by another group, right?) by having a set of ethics for each species. The game could then pick and choose a random set of these at the beginning of each worldgen, and they would adapt and change as cultures and ethnicities split off. This would allow each species to have certain ironclad ideas and values that never change, while at the same time allowing a realistic range of moral choices within a culture.

At the same time, though, I think you have to look at the fact that the species in DF (or in almost any fantasy setting) represent, to at least some extent, the range of human philosophies and moral values. Sometimes magnified and distorted, but very rarely is any fantasy species inhuman on a cultural level. So how necessary is it to separate these further? How set in its ways should each race be, how limited to a specific set of ethics?

[SirHoneyBadger]

I think it's necessary to separate them as far as you're willing and able to go. It's important I think, when creating, to be able to find your way out of your own head and into somewhere else.

That "somewhere else" place, ofcourse is an illusion, but it's an illusion that allows us to look back at ourselves, through more objective eyes.

Adding that iota of existentialism to the game also gives it the ability to occasionally sneak up on you, and just maybe teach you something about who you are, while you're being entertained (and no, I'm not sure that's always a good thing-especially since nothing's really more terrifying, to me anyway, than the deepest, darkest bits of my psyche--but like any other element of real risk, it tends to make things more interesting.).


As far as the species themselves; the individuals among them, and their respective world views:
If each one is secretly a sliver of our own souls, as you're suggesting, Fossaman, then I personally think each one deserves to be honored with as much depth as we have the ability to give to it. The worlds we build in our imaginations are important. I feel very strongly about that.

[chucks]

I'm with Kinseti on this: I disagree that we have any "evil" species in the game, even now.

We don't know enough about demons to judge them morally...

And even if they're "brainwashed", they still fight. Severely traumatized people don't really tend to make great soldiers. Suicide bombers, possibly, fanatic cultists, or psychopathic killers, but not really soldiers you want to trust to go out and fight their own families.

...

I just tend to think of them all as worshippers of Tiamat, the 5 headed draconian temptress of evil.  The demons and such are her direct officers, and the goblin chain of command down from leadership and soldiers to workers and priests.  It's an entire culture steeped of evil directly descended from whatever deity they happen to worship.

No matter the answer to 'where does magic and supernatural forces come from in DF', I think there should be some world specific systemic root of all evil.  Image the evil soul eating god of beauracracy, that could be the source of any dwarven society somewhere.

I also agree that all races should have some opportunity for redemption and temptation to evil.  Humans, elves, dwarfs, kobolds, whatever creature civilization should have an opportunity in the histories and in gameplay of sliding along the scale of good vs. evil.  Maybe some probability in the raws of saying to which propensity a civilization would be geared towards.

For example:

• elves - high propensity to good alignment
• dwarfs - moderate propensity to good alignment
• humans - no propensity to good or bad alignment
• beastmen of some sort - depending on what sort of beast, extremely variable alignment, but each variety has it's own variable.
• kobolds - moderate propensity to bad alignment
• goblins - high propensity to bad alignment
• orcs, various goblin beasts - very high propensity to bad alignment
• demons, megabeasts, etc - almost certainly bad alignment
• dragons - dragons are just...badass nasty creatures.  There could be good ones and there could be bad ones, but they are all dangerous and extremely powerful.  The evils ones definitely worship Tiamat and command her armies with rank and file being kept by the demons, Tiamat's priests and clergy, dark magicians, necromancers, the undead, and other megabeasts and googly nasties out there in the harsh landscape.
  

As with all things in the game, there could be a dice toss on historical events, but other deeper details of a civilization in action would be much more difficult to determine in play in whatever mode you are playing in.

A lot of that will take a while to implement in whatever way it will be implemented, so it's nice to sit back and eventually get pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Again, I have to agree with Kinseti: Truly evil societies are barely able to hold themselves together. Few if any last a hundred years. Expecting an entire species-one that operates on a civilization level comparable to humans-to conform to the qualities we can objectively call *evil* is just unrealistic.

I think, to have a truly evil sophisticated society, you'd have to develope a truly alien viewpoint. Not that that's impossible, but the possibilities you're listing for evil species just aren't nearly alien enough.

Especially egregious is your suggestion about the beast-men. The implication that some animals are more naturally "good" or "evil" is just welcoming the worst steriotypes with open arms. It goes beyond even D&D, and into Disney territory.

[Craftling]

I agree with kinseti as well.
A country that is make up of all the things that make someone "evil" just wont hold itself together.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Even if it does manage to hold itself together for a while, somehow, it's neighbors aren't going to allow it to exist in such a state, forever.

[chucks]

Even if it does manage to hold itself together for a while, somehow, it's neighbors aren't going to allow it to exist in such a state, forever.

If they can do something about it...

Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Who said their neighbors were "good"? We're talking about political states here, not Sesame Street. Absolutely "good" political entities (whatever that even means) are probably as unlikely as absolutely evil ones.

Aside from that, if they're tough enough to have survived as neighbors in the first place, there's a lot they can do.

The statement that "evil triumphs because good is dumb" is a patent fallacy. Political entities that we have come to label as "evil" have been notorious for suppressing education, ignoring facts in favor of fanaticism, and imprisoning or executing their most educated citizenry. Obviously, they haven't "triumphed" because-as already stated-they've pretty much universally fallen apart from the inside, and/or been paved over by outside forces, in a very short time.

[chucks]

Well, I don't necessarily believe that any particular civilization or unit of political might can truly be completely good or completely evil at all.  There is such an alignment as lawful evil, which I tend to view in aspects such as evil IRS auditors, corporate beaucrats, bankers, lawyers, and meter maids.  No civilization is completely without some structure of ability to maintain order and organization.

Even so called "good" civilizations would only be good according to focus and interest of the player.  Your civilization is only "good" because it's the one you are, much like how that fact mirrors real life.

Still, even supposed "evil" civilizations and species and cultures would still be able to have some modicum of diplomatic and trade capacity.  No human or elf or dwarf or whatever civilization would admit to dealings with the goblins or kobolds, but there are capacities for any bodies of creatures to interact with any other.  Perhaps even a strong Mountainhome of sturdy and honorable dwarven warriors would turn a blind eye to a mad dwarven wizard or priest commanding a dark power, as long as they stand to benefit from its power and utility.

I do however believe the certain gods should carry their own alignment and doctrine.  Whatever god or diety an intelligent being worships so most likely be the cause of his temperament, alignment, and demeanor in many situations.  Perhaps a creature can become an outcast or heretic of his religion if he takes on too many qualities seen as undesirable of his particular cult of worship.

[Mel_Vixen]

We shouldnt forget smugglers etc.. Even if the Dwarves ignore the goblins someone would trade with them under the hand. Resources, Art, Gems, Cigars are all good stuff for smuggling.

Said this at a schism one or more groups pending between the two fractions would be interesting. This could be smugglers, Mercenarys but also educated people like sholars, priests as well as the uninterested uneducated Farmers.

What also would be neat would be Propaganda. Both factions spread misinformation and blatant lies over the other etc.