Print

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

[ed boy]

I did some searching, and although there had been quite a few suggestions like this, I didn’t find anything that had been fleshed out properly.

The first part of the suggestion is a reworking of the ethics system. Instead of saying all dwarves believe X, one can select that dwarves’ opinions of X range between A and B. One can also say how important dwarves think such an issue is – once again, between A and B. As well as the current ones, there would be others, including the following:

-Allegiance to local government
-Allegiance to global government
-How much dwarves want intervention in leadership
-How tolerant dwarves are of others
-How willing dwarves are to conform to others
-How important wealth is
-How important skills are
-How quick to anger the dwarf is


Whenever the game creates a dwarf, its individual ethics are also created. These ethics are the dwarves’ beliefs and values. As a dwarf interacts with other dwarves, they influence each other’s ethics – If a dwarf who doesn’t mind torture lives in a society of people who are against it, then he/she starts to dislike torture.

During worldgen, if there are a significant number of people in a place whose ethics are much different to the ethics of the population as a whole, they will have an increased propensity to leave and start a site of their own.

Each dwarf has two kinds of relationship with each other – regular and political. The political one is determined instantly, whereas the regular develops over time. The two develop mostly independent of each other, but someone who has a bad tolerance ethic will have relationships with political opposite turn bad.

This also gives rise to new relationships. Currently, the only negative relationship a dwarf can have with another is a grudge. This should develop further, going from annoyance to dislike to grudge to hatred. If a dwarf is in a bad mood, and has a low tolerance ethic, then if they run into a dwarf they do not like, they may get into a fight. Fights are not very different from tantrums. The dwarves attack each other with whatever is to hand (if they are civilians, usually nothing). It can escalate, though.

Imagine you are dwarf A. Imagine that you walk around the corner and see dwarves B and C fighting. Depending your ethics and relationships with the different dwarves, you would do one of the following:
-leave them alone
-break them up
-start attacking B
-start attacking C

A dwarf’s decision to attack B or C would be dependent on their relationship to B and C. If A hates B, or if A has a very good relationship with C, a would attack B. This could start a fighting spiral that could even spread to the whole fort if it takes place in a public place.

Each dwarf also has a new statistic: political popularity. A dwarf’s popularity points are determined by both their social skills and the ethics of others. Each dwarf contributes popularity points towards other dwarfs – more if the ethics are in accordance with each other, and more if the dwarf being judged has good social skills. Some ethics also have effects – if the dwarf is rich, then their points from dwarves with a high “wealth is important” ethic will be increased. During each election period, the chance of any given dwarf winning the election is their proportion of the total popularity points.

When a dwarf gets into power, the official ethics of the fort will become the ethics of the fort. This is used for relationships with other sites. If the ethics vary greatly with another fort and/or the dwarf in power has a low tolerance ethic, the two forts may go to war.

The dwarf can also impose his ethics on the citizens of the fort he’s in, especially if he has a low tolerance/conformity ethic. This can lead to lots of fun in your fort – If the mayor is strongly against A, and a dwarf is strongly in favour of A, then that dwarf may be thrown in jail or hammered.

The frequency of elections depends on the dwarf’s “intervention in leadership” ethic. If a dwarf has a high value in this ethic, he may arrange for an election after a couple of years. If a dwarf has a particularly low value, he may hold on to the position for decades or even the rest of his life. How long that is depends on how popular he is – If the dwarf’s ethics clash greatly with the fort’s in general, then some less tolerant dwarves will start to hate him, and they may get into a fight (which would be in effect a coup) and kill him, requiring the election of a new leader.

[Arrkhal]

That sounds really complex and hard to manage.  I'd be happy with the game just seperating opinion from punishment, for ethics.  Thieves may be utterly detested but only mildly punished, or an "evil" culture may respect murderers (who get away with it) while executing the ones who are dumb enough to be caught.  And also make ethics have more of an in-game effect, like KILL_PLANT:UNTHINKABLE would make farming and tree cutting impossible.

[ed boy]

It wouldn't be too hard to manage - the player would not need to interact for any of it. In terms of computer  requirements, it would not require much more than keeping track of the ethics (which would be very similar to how material preferences are currently kept track of). The ethics would have an effect - If the mayor has KILL_PLANT:UNTHINKABLE and someone chops down a tree, then, depending on the mayor, their punishment could range from a warning to death.

[Silverionmox]

Ethical preferences will be an interesting addition. There's no need to track political power an sich, though. The game can calculate it from the dwarf's stats (character traits, economic position, entity and group allegiances, religion,...) whenever needed, which should not be too often.

A fortress' leader should not single-handedly define its relations with the outside world... unless he has dictatorial power. His bias will still show through, but important decisions are typically taken with at least an advisory council or similar. That depends on the specific political system, i.e. which groups exert how much power where and when.

[Iden]

I believe there may be some interesting material in this that may be relevant to this thread:    
Various philosopher suggestions

[ed boy]

Political power is not used until it comes to election time, so it would not need to be kept track of, but only calculated during election time, which would prevent too much strain on the computer.

I spent a lot of time thinking how it would be possible to model both dictatorial and democratic leaders, and this is the best I could come up with.

I would, however, like to expand the suggestion.

The following ethics would also be required:

How power-hungry the dwarf is
How much the dwarf tries to impose their values
How given the dwarf is to intellectual activities

How power-hungry the dwarf is determines how much the dwarf wants a position of responsibility. A given dwarf may not want to be in a position of power, and this value determines the highest level of responsibility that a dwarf will accept – One dwarf may not want any responsibility higher than bookkeeper, whereas another dwarf will by happy with mayor. A dwarf will not be eligible for any position of responsibility unless his power-hungry attribute is high enough.

How much the dwarf tries to impose their values is pretty self-explanatory. If the dwarf in charge imposes their own values, then the outside appearance of the fort will be very similar to his own – if it is low, then the outside policies of the fort will be closer to the average of the population, but still with some bias from the bloke in charge.

How given the dwarf is to intellectual activities ties in with the expanded political disagreements. If two dwarves disagree on a political issue, then they can debate on the matter. Debate is similar to fighting between dwarves – two dwarves will go to a debate chamber if one is assigned. If a dwarf feels strongly about the issue, he or she may take part in the debate. Each party will either win or lose the debate – the outcome is decided by total social skills on each side and chance. The winners gain a good thought and the losers gain a bad thought. The loser’s ethics will change to be closer to the winner’s but only a little and depending on the conformity ethic of the dwarf(s).

The dwarfs enjoyment of intellectual activities influences the magnitude of the happy/bad thought – If the dwarf dislikes intellectual debate, then they will end up unhappier. If a dwarf loses a debate, and they are particularly unhappy, they may start a fight, and the whole thing may end in a brawl.

[Tasogare Reiken]

How power-hungry the dwarf is determines how much the dwarf wants a position of responsibility. A given dwarf may not want to be in a position of power, and this value determines the highest level of responsibility that a dwarf will accept – One dwarf may not want any responsibility higher than bookkeeper, whereas another dwarf will by happy with mayor. A dwarf will not be eligible for any position of responsibility unless his power-hungry attribute is high enough.

The best type of person to have in power is one that does not want it.

[Felblood]

How power-hungry the dwarf is determines how much the dwarf wants a position of responsibility. A given dwarf may not want to be in a position of power, and this value determines the highest level of responsibility that a dwarf will accept – One dwarf may not want any responsibility higher than bookkeeper, whereas another dwarf will by happy with mayor. A dwarf will not be eligible for any position of responsibility unless his power-hungry attribute is high enough.

The best type of person to have in power is one that does not want it.

A tidy sophistry for those who lack ambition.

Nevertheless, it would be nice to have dwarves be able to accept positions that are above their own level of natural ambition. Think how many legendary figures were made heroes, generals or even kings against their own will. The struggle between freedom and duty that comes from having a responsibility that you didn't ask for is a serious internal conflict, which is something Toady seems to be interested in adding to the game.

Hereditary or appointed positions are where this would crop up the most, but some democracies might not allow candidates to decline a nomination.