Print

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

[Skorpion]

This would add yet another reason to slaughter the nobility.

Or just lock them up where they can't do any harm.

[zarmazarma]

I can do this already, though... I just put them in the nice royal bedroom near the strange bauxite flood gate with the odd warmth radiating off it .

[Wooty]

One of the best things about DF is that you make up your own reasons and explanations for everything. The game never says exactly how the economy works, or what exactly a philospher does, or who the player is, or why the goblins are invading. Half the fun is making up the story and the objectives yourself - killing dwarves shouldn't be limited to assassination or weird mechanics with the ruling class and whether or not dwarves like each other, it should just be as simple and vauge as possible so that you can make up your own story.
 Personally if this gets implemented I would set up a facist police state and sentence all criminals, tantrumers, and invalids to death. But someone else might want to have a fort where the top nobles are killing each other to try and gain power, or a fort where the peasants overthrow and execute the rich. IMO killing dwarves should be as simple and vauge as possible - ordering a death sentence on any non noble dwarf or giving a kill order to the military or hammerer.

The biggest problem seems to be how to involve the dwarves in this so that the player doesn't have too much direct control, but I don't think the dwarves need too much involvement. You can order a dwarf to go to their death or (in the next release) kill the liason from their home fortress without any question at all already =/

[Antsan]

I don't know what's the problem. Seems pretty easy to me to model a system where everything mentioned at least is possible. On the oher side I don't know how easy it would be to implement in whatever language Toady is writing DF in (i guess it's C++?).

Grudges, friendships, long- and short-term relationships are already in the game. Those build a good basis for the effects of any death (this is already done and could be extended to handle murder/execution as a special case) and for the cause of murder and maybe execution. Ethics and personality are already there too.
The rest is a question of some fuzzy logic. This might sound more complicatet than it really is.

First we need to make the distinction between murder and execution. This could be just defined by ethics and would make it possible to create different reactions to both - again based on relationships, ethics and personality of involved parties.

Then we need to calculate, whether a dwarf ism urdered by someone or not. This involves the relationship of the two dwarfes, ethics, personalities... You get the idea.

The player could order dwarfes to be killed, nobles could make mandates for this to be done. Dwarfes with the "executioner"-labor (or something like that) would then do the job - again not just by default but based on how loyal they are, their relationship to that other dwarf and maybe their relationship to the noble making the mandate (if there is one), their personality...

This wouldn't give the player too much control and would add some spice. With dynamic ethics for civilizations this would be perfectly fitting for fascist regimes.

I say leave it as it is.

What?

[ChairmanPoo]

Leave it as it is. Dont add extra mechanics to the phenomenom. Killing another dwarf gives a bad thought. Losing a loved one gives a bad thought, etc..

Why add complicated adittional mechanics which depend in heavily IC matters and the maker of the suggestion's opinions to begin with?

As for nobles mandating executions: They already do. That's why they drag the hammerer along.

[Soadreqm]

Antsan: Yeah, it's certainly possible. Toady has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to do pretty much anything he wants, so the question is not whether it CAN be done but whether it SHOULD be done.

ChairmanPoo: Well, I don't think the current system of a nobledwarf ordering a macedwarf killed because he didn't complete his order of 3 clear glass weapon racks on a map with no sand is exactly ideal. I also don't think the happiness system is perfectly balanced just yet. And messing with the justice system is in the dev notes anyway.

[Antsan]

Leave it as it is. Dont add extra mechanics to the phenomenom. Killing another dwarf gives a bad thought. Losing a loved one gives a bad thought, etc..

Why add complicated adittional mechanics which depend in heavily IC matters and the maker of the suggestion's opinions to begin with?

Someone else said this elsewhere and I can only agree: Exactly which game are you playing? For me the most awesome part of this game is it's sheer complexity and if there is any where to add some more without making it unplayable I will happily ask for it to be implemented.

[father_alexander]

[Running a fascist nightmare state] shouldn't be [easy], but it really is. Easier than running a democratic/senate/republic state is.

Really? Because I was under the impression that the countries that don't treat their citizens like shit are winning at the moment. Happy people are more productive and easier to keep from breaking stuff than unhappy people.

Actually he said its easy to run it , that dosnt mean you want to make a better country, and the perfect example for that is my own country Argentina, we lived in a dictatorship for many years people geting kidnapped and tortured for no reason at all, and it was not till they made the horrible mystake of the malvinas war that everything went to hell, sure they where not looking for the good of the country but they did manage to maintain the dictatorship even wen people where suffering.

My point is that it should be fairly easy to maintain an opressive state, sure you might not be the better kingdom, but it is possible in the end, not to mention the whole history fact, as someone said before in those times it was normal to kill people in front of the public.

I do think there is a problem with the idea suggested by the creator of this thread, way to many dwarves would get angry if you did that, i mean you have 100 dwarves and everyone is friends with everyone, everything would go to hell, plus if you make an execution there should be a reason (either invented or not), so wouldnt most people believe that the executed person was a criminal? even his friends? after all the government can lie.

I also find pretty interesting the idea of banishment, seems pretty good, the dwarves should be able to choose to either leave or stay and suffer death, and if they suffer death you would have to suffer the consequences of his friends and family

[Corona688]

Someone else said this elsewhere and I can only agree: Exactly which game are you playing? For me the most awesome part of this game is it's sheer complexity and if there is any where to add some more without making it unplayable I will happily ask for it to be implemented.

Complexity -- and simplicity.  When a noble demands crossbows, I just put crossbows in the manager and they do it.  Just tell them where to dig and whoever feels like it, will.  The depth of this game would be impossible to play if dwarves didn't do most of the work for you.

And you could just have random scattered beds, one door to outside, a 6x3 plot of plump helmets, and one ginormous holds-everything-stockpile ringed with shops, and queue up all manufacturing in the manager.  We just obsess on workflow efficiency because we like the feeling of building something nice.

[Antsan]

That's just Interface. The system I described would look to the player like this:

[v]->scroll to Urist McAnnoying->[w]->[k]"Order "<Urist McAnnoying>" to be killed"
[j]->[m]->[q]->[Order ]<Urist McAnnoying>[ to be killed]
[n]->scroll to some Urist McNoble->[Enter]-><Urist Mc Noble>" wants "<Urist McAnnoying>" to die."
[v]->scroll to Urist McAngry->[p]->[z]->[Enter]->*<Urist McAngry>" has been furious about "<Urist McAnnoying>" for a long time."
[v]->scroll to Urist McExecutioner->[p]->[l]->scroll to "Executioner"->[Enter]

* for any abstract action by the player

• for the key named *

<*> for any variable named *
"*" for any text as found in the game

That's not anymore complicated than the current system for the user in terms of interface. There is exactly two new options to the player himself and 2 new sources of information, while one of the new options is available at two (or three) places - at the "item" which has to be processed, in the job-manager and maybe even at a third place, namely a "workshop", where dwarfes are executed.
The other option is available at the jobscreen, as usual.

The complexity of the interface wouldn't grow that much and you could just ignore the option to kill your dwarfes until the first nobles arrive.

[ArkDelgato]

I think this really depends on who the player is in the world.

I think toady said the game would at some far flung point in the future start the player as an adventurer, who could find work, ect. at caravans and the like, or by adventuring, and then start up a fortress with his collected funds, where the game will switch over perspective to fortress mode. (Or a user said this in a articulate manner that made me think of toady)

If this is the case, I could see the game playing out like

1. You and 6 pals start a fort
2. It gains renown, more dudes start living their. You are still leader.
3. The baron arrives to fuck with you. You are well loved, but not absolute leader any more.
4. The baron can designate stuff too. you want 30 plump helmet roasts - cancelled, the baron hates plump helmets. You want to build some new bedrooms here? fuck no, the baron wants a baccarat Court there.
5.From the sleaziest corner of the old mountain home, Fikod Manyfaces, assassin has arrived!
6. You grease the "noble" assassins hands with some of your economy friendly gold coins, and he kills the Baron.
6.You are leader again, but now the Assassin has you in a corner, you have to meet HIS needs (mandate - 10 concubines) or he might kill your spouse!

[ChairmanPoo]

Leave it as it is. Dont add extra mechanics to the phenomenom. Killing another dwarf gives a bad thought. Losing a loved one gives a bad thought, etc..

Why add complicated adittional mechanics which depend in heavily IC matters and the maker of the suggestion's opinions to begin with?

Someone else said this elsewhere and I can only agree: Exactly which game are you playing? For me the most awesome part of this game is it's sheer complexity and if there is any where to add some more without making it unplayable I will happily ask for it to be implemented.

Highlighted for emphasis. You are trying to impose on my gameplay your opinions on how dwarves should react, which in no small measure depend on your way of playing the game, and your thoughts while playing it. Hence I say that the system should be open to interpretation, not closed to a particular POV.

I am not saying that the system shouldnt be improved. I just think that limiting the social system to fit a single POV is not the way to go.

[BigFatDwarf]

... some random ass assassin noble taking over ...

Then you pay him some more to kill the king in Mountainhomes where he then takes the crown.

[Sutremaine]

6.You are leader again, but now the Assassin has you in a corner, you have to meet HIS needs (mandate - 10 concubines) or he might kill your spouse!

7a. You pay him more money to go away.
7b. You arrange for a dwarf loyal to you to kill the assassin -- but how to get her close enough to kill him and make it look like an accident?
7c. Let him try. Your spouse could mine his skull bare-handed, and s/he knows he's after him/her and that there will be someone to provide an alibi should a perfectly ordinary dwarf be found dead in unusual circumstances.
7d. The fortress loves you and hates the Baron so much that they don't care too much about you offing him and you can come clean. However, the duplicity of your actions makes you just a little less loved, meaning you must find another way to deal with the next noble. You could try the same thing again, but the fortress is watching you...

[ChairmanPoo]

This stuff about the player hiring assasins to kill nobles has emerged several times and I still dont get it. Why would I want to hire an assasin when I can simply build an indoor waterfall?

It would make more sense if other civilizations sent assasins/terrorists in to kill your people. Or if, totally independent of your commands, dwarves with grudges hired assasins to kill the object of their hatred.