Print

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

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I pointed to the punishments to counter the claim of "We will all die gloriously! Let's leave no survivors!" (exaggerating to stress things). My point was, if all Germanic soldiers were suicidal, there would have been no need for the women standing there, so there must have been occasionally those who fled.

Granted, no torture and no slavery does not make them pacifist, but I was actually referring to your statement that they are brute. Compared to the dwarves, the humans are brute. The ethic that does show something about their war morals is, I think, the trophy thingie. If you have so brute and aggressive warriors, wouldn't you expect those chains with skulls on them? Yet, if I read the entry correctly, unlike the humans, they are opposed to such self-grandization.

Also note that Fortress is the name of their homesteads, and fortresses are first and foremost defensive structures. Given that the world of Dwarf Fortress is full of very nasty things, both intelligent and non-intelligent, it is only reasonable to put walls between you and the bad guys. And given that dwarves are good artisans and earth-bound (in a positive sense), it seems reasonable that their defenses deserve the name of fortress.

And I don't think that quoting Tolkien is really what we should be after. This here is Dwarf Fortress where the elves eat the flesh of the fallen enemies. So, I don't see how Tolkien and other fantasy authors could make any claim about what fantasy races(EDIT) in Dwarf Fortress should be like.

And as I said, in the status screen of the dwarves, the last line summarizes the dwarf as "A short, sturdy creature fond of drink and industry." Strange that it does not mention honorable, warlike, fond of battle. It stresses the need for drink (and possibly party, I guess) and industry - that is creativity and artisanship. There is no evidence for the claim that dwarves are a warrior culture.

Also note that we have a strong distinction between civilians and military, which is softened in the Germanic example, for instance, where everyone goes to war to either win or die there. Your civilians are really civilians in dwarf fortress and not civilian warriors, as far as I can tell.

With a society, that does not seem to put special focus on war, it seems somewhat unlikely that individuals should lack personal feelings and attitudes. This is why I am in favor of having the dwarven personalities get weighed in the evaluation of morale and cowardice - how exactly the balance should be in the end, that is a question of finding a good balance, but it should be possible that there are cowardly dwarves, as there should be the possibility for brave dwarves, as well as a possibility for a cowardly dwarf to rise in certain situations to the challenge or for a brave dwarf to falter. Again, how often these exceptions to the usual patterns occur is a matter of balancing, but the presence of these possibilities seems desirable to me.

Deathworks

EDIT: Clarified meaning of Tolkien argument slightly.

[Kogan Loloklam]

I agree. Dwarves seem much less warlike than others here are making them out to be.

In fact, in the world histories I read, it's often the ELVES who are the warlike race out of the supposed "good" group, although I no longer classify elves as good (or any other race, for that matter.)

Something to keep in mind though is all these cultures are generated. Dwarven pantheons can be vastly different between two Dwarf civs in the same world, let alone in other worlds. I've seen dwarven pantheons that read like a who's who for evil gods (Torture, death, nightmares, and other 'nasty' things with few, if any, not-nasty gods) just as I've seen pantheons that have a very peace-like setup, or business-like, or war-like. You cannot classify an entire race as "fighters to the death". You can give them stronger inclinations to it, but you can't really lock them in there, nor can you think it should be a "rare occurrence" when you start to compare civilizations in the timeframe Toady is looking to compare with. Romans weren't marching for hundreds of years in the timeframe he is looking at for tech and development.

[father_alexander]

Ok, first of all you are confusing evil or violent with brute, if someone likes to torture, that does not make him a brute, just evil or maybe sadistic, brute is a matter of... manner i think, brute implies the use of excess of force,  again talking about regular situations, you insult a dwarf and an elf by calling them, lets say stupid, the reaction i would expect, would be the elf insulting me and the dwarf starting a fight, same goes for tantrums for example, they have a tendency to use force, and in a rather excesive way, and come on, you can see that in EVERYWHERE, not just tolkien, even in df, they build gigantic constructions, mine to get the BEST they can get, and they dont care what they have to do in order to get that, its not evil, its just a brutal ammount of unneeded force, hell think of the nobles, they send someone to get killed by the hammerer just for not making i dont know, a bag or anything. I think the same applies to the idea of war.

Also you use the lack of war in the dwarves as a way to say that they are not fond of war yet you dont even mention that lack wen pointing out that other races are more warlike, you keep pointing out diferent subjects, yet you never admit that we have the upper hand in some others, as i said before, even the unthinkable should be possible, sometimes a soldier or two should escape, but its an extreme, just like the case of ANY civilization, every taboo in every civilization of history has happened sooner or later, those people where gigantic exceptions, but it happened , because sooner or later it will happen, we are not robots we are living beings, and sometimes we ignore even the most important rules of our culture.

As i said before, i dont imagine them being fond of war, liking it, or even enjoying it, what i mean is this, dwarves like wealth and shiney things, dwarves are proud and like to show what they have, its part of their honour, they are like, the extreme of manlyness, sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight, because every race has to defend themselves, once they are there in the battlefield, im not debating about wether they would enjoy war or not, i dont think the are warlike in that sense, i think they are... fierce or temperamental if you will, once they are there, acting like cowards and running away would really hurt their honor and their, well, dwarfiness.

They will not enjoy it, they wont like killing, but as far as i know, they are a band of short bearded drunken rather muscular dudes with axes, they will fight, and as best as they can, to give proof of what they are capable of, in the same way a dwarf will have the best gem and stuff he can find, to give proof of how good he is.

Its a hard to explain attitude, something like this, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoisterousBruiser  they are rather physical, that dosnt make them bad, its like wen you have a couple of friends that may fight but at the same time play, only these guys are a bit more... well, brutal

My point in the end is, elves, humans and dwarves dont enjoy war, only goblins do, but, wen it comes to be in battle, i think the best ones, or the ones that are better fit to be there are dwarves, and they are also the ones who in my opinion have the most personal reason to be there, elves are supposed to be proud, but battle is not really something i see as part of their nature, dwarves, well, i think they would enjoy the general concept of battle (again not exactly killing, its not the violence in the meaning of killing each other, its the whole lack of control and excess of strength).

As i said before, i think the things you proposed before, should be placed like that for civilians, but, wen it comes to the military, desertion should not be comon, again not comon, not usual, it can happen, it will probably happen at some point, but again, like the tantrums, in my opinon desertion should be an extreme.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Ok, first of all you are confusing evil or violent with brute, if someone likes to torture, that does not make him a brute, just evil or maybe sadistic, brute is a matter of... manner i think, brute implies the use of excess of force,  again talking about regular situations, you insult a dwarf and an elf by calling them, lets say stupid, the reaction i would expect, would be the elf insulting me and the dwarf starting a fight,

Okay, then what would be indicators of being brute in the raws or in the game? I picked those, because those were the ones I felt to give us at least some impression of dwarven culture from which we may derive whether they are brutes or not.

same goes for tantrums for example, they have a tendency to use force, and in a rather excesive way,

Well, you also see tantrums in civilized societies as they are basically the lack of control of an individual. Or do you consider Europe, the US, and Japan to be brute? In all these areas, you have people who break and hand out excessive violence (just think of the school shootings).

and come on, you can see that in EVERYWHERE, not just tolkien, even in df, they build gigantic constructions, mine to get the BEST they can get, and they dont care what they have to do in order to get that,

I admit that I have not studied legend mode that much, but I don't think I heard about the NPC dwarves building gigantic constructions or otherwise getting out of hand. You are describing player behavior, but that does not say anything about the tendencies in dwarven culture.

hell think of the nobles, they send someone to get killed by the hammerer just for not making i dont know, a bag or anything.

Well, they are basically an old-fashioned monarchy/dictatorship, so the nobility enjoys complete power. And with power comes corruption. But the question is really, if that by itself already makes their culture fundamentally "brute". I am not so sure about that, but at least, that is the only aspect you mentioned that is really in the game.

Also you use the lack of war in the dwarves as a way to say that they are not fond of war yet you dont even mention that lack wen pointing out that other races are more warlike, you keep pointing out diferent subjects, yet you never admit that we have the upper hand in some others,

I don't see where you have the upper hand. I am pointing to circumstantial evidence like the torture culture of humans because that is basically all we can base our assumptions on. The absence of "warlike" as an attribute in itself does make it impossible for us to simply look at the raws and say "Ah, look, the dwarves are warlike!". So, I am looking for other ways to find out whether they are warlike or not.

as i said before, even the unthinkable should be possible, sometimes a soldier or two should escape, but its an extreme, just like the case of ANY civilization, every taboo in every civilization of history has happened sooner or later, those people where gigantic exceptions, but it happened , because sooner or later it will happen, we are not robots we are living beings, and sometimes we ignore even the most important rules of our culture.

These are things we agree on. The main question is, how fanatic are dwarves? Are they really very close to robots, thus rarely failing, or are they more moderate, meaning that there are those who subscribe to extreme ethics and those who don't.

As i said before, i dont imagine them being fond of war, liking it, or even enjoying it, what i mean is this, dwarves like wealth and shiney things,

That is in the raws and thus in the game, yes.

dwarves are proud and like to show what they have, its part of their honour, they are like, the extreme of manlyness,

That is neither in the game nor in the raws. The dwarves do not show what they have. Instead, they hide it in their rooms, safely locked away in their cabinets and chests.

sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight, because every race has to defend themselves, once they are there in the battlefield, im not debating about wether they would enjoy war or not, i dont think the are warlike in that sense, i think they are... fierce or temperamental if you will, once they are there, acting like cowards and running away would really hurt their honor and their, well, dwarfiness.

Strange, isn't it, that each individual dwarf in the game has various personality traits, including whether they are quick to anger, whether they break under pressure, whether they are compassionate. Why bother with those information if they are actually not there? You are saying they are all fierce or temperamental, and thus you are directly contradicting what the game quite clearly states.

And again, honor and dwarfiness are not mentioned in the raws or in the game, but are concepts people here on the forums came up with. So, "it is not in the text!"

They will not enjoy it, they wont like killing, but as far as i know, they are a band of short bearded drunken rather muscular dudes with axes, they will fight, and as best as they can, to give proof of what they are capable of, in the same way a dwarf will have the best gem and stuff he can find, to give proof of how good he is.

While the drunken part is in the game, the showing off is not in the game. The only thing that is in the game about general characteristics is, as I have mentioned before, that they are hard-working people ("fond of industry").

Its a hard to explain attitude, something like this, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoisterousBruiser  they are rather physical, that dosnt make them bad, its like wen you have a couple of friends that may fight but at the same time play, only these guys are a bit more... well, brutal :P

Where does it say that they are rather physical? Of course, the game engine is limited in what it portrays, but even with what we have, we see a wide range of social and psychological behaviors, like crying on the shoulder of a person who is in charge.

My point in the end is, elves, humans and dwarves dont enjoy war, only goblins do, but, wen it comes to be in battle, i think the best ones, or the ones that are better fit to be there are dwarves, and they are also the ones who in my opinion have the most personal reason to be there, elves are supposed to be proud, but battle is not really something i see as part of their nature, dwarves, well, i think they would enjoy the general concept of battle (again not exactly killing, its not the violence in the meaning of killing each other, its the whole lack of control and excess of strength).

None of that is really in the game (except maybe that goblins do place a higher value on war in their default settings), so this is just how you personally like to view dwarves and the other races. Of course, you are free to do so, but I personally see them differently, seeing them as a creative, constructive culture. Sure, their society has its flaws (for instance, democracy not really going to the upper levels), but I don't see them the way you see them.

As i said before, i think the things you proposed before, should be placed like that for civilians, but, wen it comes to the military, desertion should not be comon, again not comon, not usual, it can happen, it will probably happen at some point, but again, like the tantrums, in my opinon desertion should be an extreme.

The problem I have with this proposal is that you suggest that they turn into robots once they get drafted. Of course, their training should diminish the chance of desertion, but it should not make them different creatures altogether. While you admit that civilian dwarves are individuals, you in a way claim that they cease being individuals when they join the military. That does not make sense to me.

Personally, I think the best way is to have a strong focus on personality, so that you can easily find out which dwarf is a coward and which is brave. Maybe even have an announcement about the desertion, so that you can reduce the dwarf to hauler.

Deathworks

[father_alexander]

"Well, you also see tantrums in civilized societies as they are basically the lack of control of an individual. Or do you consider Europe, the US, and Japan to be brute? In all these areas, you have people who break and hand out excessive violence (just think of the school shootings)."

Really? you are going to compare those two? lets take the US, how many school shootings? 10? 20? the current estimate of population is 309,273,000, a fortress has 200 and you can have pretty much the whole fortress on a tantrum, you just cant compare 10 cases that happened after millions of people to what can happen between 200.

" admit that I have not studied legend mode that much, but I don't think I heard about the NPC dwarves building gigantic constructions or otherwise getting out of hand."

First of all remember the game is in alpha, second, the mountainhomes or fortresses are megaconstructions in my book, and the mining may not be in the raws but its quite a bit of the game.

"Well, they are basically an old-fashioned monarchy/dictatorship, so the nobility enjoys complete power. And with power comes corruption. But the question is really, if that by itself already makes their culture fundamentally "brute". I am not so sure about that, but at least, that is the only aspect you mentioned that is really in the game."

There is a large diference between corruption and stupidity, you really think a count could have 25% of the population beaten up for not making him a table? come on, a noble sending someone to get beaten up because you have no access to the material he wants is silly and extreme and brute, there is no way around it, ESPECIALLY wen the whole royal guard is 1/20 of the whole population.

"how fanatic are dwarves? Are they really very close to robots, thus rarely failing, or are they more moderate, meaning that there are those who subscribe to extreme ethics and those who don't."

You really think being fanatic is being a robot? i already pointed out, you have the viking at the bridge, masada, i know of at least a pair of japanese examples, hell the whole samurai code and japanese military culture is based around it, and i doubt they where robots, they believed in honour, its not an order, its what the culture tells them its ok or not. I think you are underestimating the complexity of taking the decition to sacrifice yourself or puting yourself at risk for a larger good.

"strange, isn't it, that each individual dwarf in the game has various personality traits, including whether they are quick to anger, whether they break under pressure, whether they are compassionate. Why bother with those information if they are actually not there? You are saying they are all fierce or temperamental, and thus you are directly contradicting what the game quite clearly states."

And yet all elves get angry wen you cut too many trees, again, im talking about cultural standards, it is known that greeks and italians are loud and friendly, japanese are diciplined, german have little sense of humour, and i could go on, sure, you always have the extremes, but culture has certain characteristics lets take for example the raws

[PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100]
[PERSONALITY:VULNERABILITY:0:45:100]
[PERSONALITY:STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS:0:55:100]

This means, that, they are less moderate than normal, they are less vulnerable than normal, and they are more straightforward than normal, wich can easily be translated as brute, and sure, you will always have someone that will be vulnerable, or shy, but they have the tendency to be what i call brutes.
 
"Where does it say that they are rather physical? Of course, the game engine is limited in what it portrays, but even with what we have, we see a wide range of social and psychological behaviors, like crying on the shoulder of a person who is in charge."

I have seen more dwarves start fighting with eachother than actually talking things out.

"The problem I have with this proposal is that you suggest that they turn into robots once they get drafted. Of course, their training should diminish the chance of desertion, but it should not make them different creatures altogether. While you admit that civilian dwarves are individuals, you in a way claim that they cease being individuals when they join the military. That does not make sense to me."

Indeed, because they should, because once they are drafted their duty is to be there and protect the others, if they run away as a civilian, is normal, they never had a reason to be there in the first place they have no role to play in a battle, however a military guard, is there for that exact reason.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Really? you are going to compare those two? lets take the US, how many school shootings? 10? 20? the current estimate of population is 309,273,000, a fortress has 200 and you can have pretty much the whole fortress on a tantrum, you just cant compare 10 cases that happened after millions of people to what can happen between 200.

Okay, if you want to quantity, then I want to point out that you also have to take all the "good husbands" into account who regularly beat up their wives (and children). And I am pretty sure that is more than 10 in the US, for instance. Also see other violence of that kind. It is there. I just mentioned the shootings as an example of quality, pointing out that tantrums in real life "civilized" societies can also turn really ugly.

First of all remember the game is in alpha, second, the mountainhomes or fortresses are megaconstructions in my book, and the mining may not be in the raws but its quite a bit of the game.

You are speculating about what will be there when it will be finished. As for megaconstructions, by that token, any fortified settlement, any major road would be a megaconstruction. Just look at how many roads the human empires build and how long those roads get. That takes a lot of (slave) labor.

In addition, the fortresses have a simple, practical purpose and there is no indication that they have any vanity to them. As I said, there are a lot of unfriendly things out there, and wanting to put a wall between you and those nasties does not really say a lot about your personality.

There is a large diference between corruption and stupidity, you really think a count could have 25% of the population beaten up for not making him a table? come on, a noble sending someone to get beaten up because you have no access to the material he wants is silly and extreme and brute, there is no way around it, ESPECIALLY wen the whole royal guard is 1/20 of the whole population.

Cough. Cough. Have you ever bothered reading the newspapers as of late. I assure you, that without searching, you will find ample evidence of stupidity and corruption merrily combined. If you want to spice this with incompetence, you may wish to have a look at the liberal party currently in the German government. You get a prime example of absurdity, contradiction, falsehood, stupidity, and polemics there.

You really think being fanatic is being a robot? i already pointed out, you have the viking at the bridge, masada, i know of at least a pair of japanese examples,

And those examples are famous because they are exceptions.

hell the whole samurai code and japanese military culture is based around it, and i doubt they where robots, they believed in honour, its not an order, its what the culture tells them its ok or not.

The samurai code people are usually referring to was for the most part invented in the 19th century by a bureaucrat who belonged to the samurai class and who romanticized about "the good old times" he never knew. It combined very well with an extremely nationalist agenda that was the breeding ground of the involvement in the Second World War.

In real life, there were many samurai who abandoned their duties, who fled and turned into robbers and thieves.

Of course, even nowadays, Japan will not take pride in having their aristocracy involved in such endeavors. But if you want to have a feeling for what to expect, read things like the Heike Monogatari which was composed around the 13th century, thus by people who actually were in the know. There you will read about warriors fleeing in panic as they expected the enemy army while in reality only some birds were roused and quite a few other things.

I think you are underestimating the complexity of taking the decition to sacrifice yourself or puting yourself at risk for a larger good.

I think you are underestimating that. Being prepared to put your life at risk for others is a really horrible decision and requires a lot of dedication. I asked that question myself as, after having done my compulsory military time, I had the opportunity to try to make a (small) career with the military, which would have provided me with all the schooling and support I could ask for giving me a brilliant position. I chose not to stay there, because I am not ready to get myself killed.

And yet all elves get angry wen you cut too many trees, again, im talking about cultural standards, it is known that greeks and italians are loud and friendly, japanese are diciplined, german have little sense of humour, and i could go on, sure, you always have the extremes, but culture has certain characteristics

And you know, of course, that those are stereotypes, just as how people claimed that all Jews were inherently evil, thieves and child murderers. I know, this is an extreme and perverse example, but people made such claims in the past, and people believed such claims, and I think it illustrates quite nicely that your theory of cultural standard is not really up to par. For instance, Germans have little sense of humour, according to you. Yet, tv programming and entertainment is dominated by comedy. Comedians are probably recognized more often than the members of the German government if you asked the average person.

lets take for example the raws

[PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100]
[PERSONALITY:VULNERABILITY:0:45:100]
[PERSONALITY:STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS:0:55:100]

This means, that, they are less moderate than normal, they are less vulnerable than normal, and they are more straightforward than normal, wich can easily be translated as brute, and sure, you will always have someone that will be vulnerable, or shy, but they have the tendency to be what i call brutes.

Interesting how you turn straightforwardness into being brutes. EDIT: Didn't you say that brutes are characterized by excessive use of force? I don't see any indication of that in the word straightforwardness. I guess, from the point of view of a very subtle culture, straightforwardness might be seen as crude, but I don't think it is a necessary conclusion. You can also say that a lot of straightforwardness means less ritual and less deceit. For stating your thoughts and opinions openly and honestly prevents those two aspects as well.

Also, am I right to assume that if it was [0:50:100], they would be average? In that case, look at the variation you are pointing at: 45 instead of 50 or 55 instead of 50. Yes, it is a noticable difference, but it is not really an extreme that would indicate a strongly colored culture. The vulnerability you describe sounds more like [0:10:100] (or can you actually reduce the third value?)

You are turning a slight but noticable variation as the foundation of a claim of a fundamental difference in nature as far as I can tell.
 

I have seen more dwarves start fighting with eachother than actually talking things out.

Strange. I rarely see my dwarves fighting/beating others, and it usually happens after having cried on the expedition leader. Might there be a difference in how we play the game involved?

Indeed, because they should, because once they are drafted their duty is to be there and protect the others, if they run away as a civilian, is normal, they never had a reason to be there in the first place they have no role to play in a battle, however a military guard, is there for that exact reason.

Well, you are absolutely correct with the function. And remember that I propose that their military status gives them a morale boost, so to speak. But ideals do not necessarily mean that they are fulfilled. EDIT: And is it so rare for people to neglect their duties and responsibilities?

You may allow me to use a literary example for this, namely Homer's Illiad. There we have Paris, who ran off with the wife of the Spartan king, which resulted in the offending party laying siege to Troy. As would be expected, he strode forward to make a bold challenge expressing his willingness to fight those who would challenge him. Of course, the Spartan king hears that and comes to accept that offer - resulting in Paris running away and hiding under the bed in the women's chambers if I recall correctly. He later does fight the Spartan king, but only at the point of his brother's sword who told him "either you go and fight or I will kill you here".

Surely, Paris being a leader of his people in the Greek society was expected to at least put some dedication behind his words. Yet, his portrayal says that he utterly fails to do so.

Deathworks

[Acanthus117]

Hey, Deathworks, don't you think that weapon quality (Idk if this has been mentioned already) should be a big boost to one's confidence? I mean, if you had the sharper stick, you'd be more confident, no?

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Hey, Deathworks, don't you think that weapon quality (Idk if this has been mentioned already) should be a big boost to one's confidence? I mean, if you had the sharper stick, you'd be more confident, no?

Absolutely. If your equipment is obviously better than your foe's, that boosts confidence. Only the most cowardly or most unstable would flee in the face of an enemy that can't really cause them major harm (but there are probably one or two dwarves in each fortress who will even flee in such a situation).

I am not opposed to situational and equipment influences, but I don't want them to roll over the entire personality of a dwarf.

Basically, I see it that way, if you send your dwarves 3 times into combat, and one dwarf always turns tail, you have no one to blame but yourself if you send that dwarf into combat a 4th time - that dwarf is simply not cut out for that line of work.

Roughly speaking, I think there are those who have the real mind set for hardened warriors and who are likely to make your fortress proud, so to speak, then there is the great mass of average people who can perform as soldiers, but who may falter if the odds are not favorable (they will attack with two dwarves against one goblin, but if you want a single guy against a single goblin of comparable equipment, there is a good chance he will turn tail instead). And then there is the group of professional cowards who will basically flee from anything larger than a purring maggot. Of course, that is an over-simplification and you get more of a continuum. Still, I think that you should basically be able to group your dwarves into such groups.

This gives you the option to either hand pick your soldiers, taking only those who have the right mindset into the troop and thus have a small but very reliable military, or you may have a horde of soldiers randomly picked where you rely on at least a few of them being brave enough or that the advantage of numbers gives them the courage to stand. Both approaches should work although the details of how the battles develop would vary a bit.

And you can also think about it as military training - only those who have the strength of body and character to get through the training really get into the proper military. Only that, because there is no training/selection in the game, you have to replace that.

At least that is the way I see it.

Deathworks

[Kogan Loloklam]

Ok, first of all you are confusing evil or violent with brute,

I don't know what culture you grew up in, but in mine, the tendancy for violence with little or trivial causes is evil. This appears to be your definition of "brute", therefore brute is evil.

Also, the situation of deserters being punished is a matter of who wins. In the Persian Gulf wars, America had THOUSANDS of Iraqi deserters come to them. They weren't killed.

As for your dwarven attitude, again you take other fantasy and apply it to dwarves. They like to CREATE wealth in their fortresses, they don't seem to adore it very much. This statement "dwarves are proud and like to show what they have, its part of their honor, they are like, the extreme of manlyness," Ignores the fact that dwarves who create great artifacts want to hide it away in Toady's vision. Their "manlyness" seems to be focused on being able to do something well, and not the actual generation. This is proven by the fact that legendaries are exempt from taxes. Dwarves value good skill, not items of wealth. This isn't Honor though. This is their attitude toward wealth. Their honor is in the raws, things that are unthinkable and punishable. Honorable means someone who does the right thing regardless of the consequences. The dwarven raws explain what dwarves think are the right thing. Warlike behavior is limited there. Where you get the idea that the dwarven racial favored weapon is an axe is beyond me. Dwarves use hammers for capital punishment. Even nobility proves this. Nobles don't demand the most expensive material when they make demands, instead they demand it be made out of certain materials. Often these are hard to get and work with. When they punish, they punish someone at random, often the most skilled, for not being skilled enough. They ignore the fact that they were made most of the time once they have been made. it is the EFFORT that the noble wanted, not the item.

My point in the end is, elves, humans and dwarves dont enjoy war, only goblins do,

This entire statement is wrong. Elves enjoy war, given the fact they start so many over their right to eat people. Goblins are often warred against because they steal children. Look at a typical world history. Elves start most of the damn wars. Goblins start the fewest. Just because the goblins have the most doesn't mean they like it. It seems to me that as long as goblins are given the ability to steal children in peace, they never go to war.

but, wen it comes to be in battle, i think the best ones, or the ones that are better fit to be there are dwarves, and they are also the ones who in my opinion have the most personal reason to be there, elves are supposed to be proud, but battle is not really something i see as part of their nature, dwarves, well, i think they would enjoy the general concept of battle (again not exactly killing, its not the violence in the meaning of killing each other, its the whole lack of control and excess of strength).

Another wrong statement. Arena mode proves this to be false. Dwarves are only good fighters because of the weapons and armor they make. Most races are better fighters then them.

First of all remember the game is in alpha, second, the mountainhomes or fortresses are megaconstructions in my book, and the mining may not be in the raws but its quite a bit of the game.

Does that mean every human village is a megaconstruction? Where I live, there are birds that dig nests into cliffs. Are these holes megaconstruction? What about ant Hills? An ant hill is a massive underground complex compared to the size of an ant. in fact, Up where I live there is one ant hill that is about 26 ants high, which is the equivelant of 156 feet. That's bigger than many office buildings in my area, but small for some of the mounds around here. Your book appears to be very easily impressed.

You really think being fanatic is being a robot?

I do. Jihadists blow themselves up, robots blow themselves up. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Fanatism usually results in the lack of an individual thinking. I think there is room for some individuals in Dwarf Fortress to be fanatics, but just as all of Iran aren't muslim extremists, so too are not all Dwarves of Dwarf Fortress fanatical observers of your opinion of what Bushido is (which, as Deathworks pointed out, is flawed)

And yet all elves get angry wen you cut too many trees,

Elven DIPLOMATS get angry, which is probably related to the spirits that rule them. Still, the elves allow you to cut down trees, just not more than their imposed quota. Elves are a "brute" race anyway, as evidenced by the fact they come to the territory of another sovereign empire and start telling them what to do. The fact that dwarves sometimes obey this infraction is just proof that dwarves are NOT inherently warlike.

This deserves special attention:

it is known that greeks and italians are loud and friendly, japanese are diciplined, german have little sense of humour, and i could go on, sure, you always have the extremes, but culture has certain characteristics lets take for example the raws

What fapping planet are you from? Are there more than one italians?
Here's my the notions of all those cultures in MY area:
Greeks are generally quiet but devious, Italians are mean and vicious but are good cooks, Japanese are perverted with no sense of space, germans are perverted and inappropriate but generally friendly and funny.

Steriotyping is fun! That is how those "cultures" are viewed where I am from. It appears to differ vastly from your impressions. Strangely, most individuals I've met who come from those areas differ greatly from both impressions. There was a test in one of the south pacific cultures once, to compare the cultural identity of a people to the individuals. The thoughts on the cultural identity of the country was different than the actions of the individuals. Also, something important to realize is ALL THESE CULTURES YOU MENTIONED ARE HUMANS!
And here you are using the diversity of humanity to justify eliminating diversity for an entire race?

[PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100]
[PERSONALITY:VULNERABILITY:0:45:100]
[PERSONALITY:STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS:0:55:100]

This means, that, they are less moderate than normal, they are less vulnerable than normal, and they are more straightforward than normal, wich can easily be translated as brute, and sure, you will always have someone that will be vulnerable, or shy, but they have the tendency to be what i call brutes.

Understanding the Raws is important.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Here's a Dwarf's:
   [PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100]
   [PERSONALITY:VULNERABILITY:0:45:100]
   [PERSONALITY:STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS:0:55:100]

Here's an Elf's:
   [PERSONALITY:IMAGINATION:0:55:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ARTISTIC_INTEREST:0:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:INTELLECTUAL_CURIOSITY:0:55:100]
   [PERSONALITY:SELF_DISCIPLINE:0:45:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ACTIVITY_LEVEL:0:40:100]

Here's a Goblin's:
   [PERSONALITY:ANGER:25:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:50:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:EXCITEMENT_SEEKING:0:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:CHEERFULNESS:0:40:90]
   [PERSONALITY:ALTRUISM:0:25:50]
   [PERSONALITY:MODESTY:0:40:90]
   [PERSONALITY:SYMPATHY:0:25:50]
Here's a Kobold's:
   [PERSONALITY:ANXIETY:50:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:TRUST:0:25:50]
   [PERSONALITY:ACTIVITY_LEVEL:50:75:100]

Here's a Gremlin's:
   [PERSONALITY:EXCITEMENT_SEEKING:50:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ADVENTUROUSNESS:50:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:LIBERALISM:50:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ORDERLINESS:0:25:50]
   [PERSONALITY:DUTIFULNESS:0:25:50]

Now, examine the numbers.
You have three.
The first is the "minimum". The second is the "peak of the curve", the third is the "maximum"
Those not listed are the standard 0:50:100.

Here's the GOBLIN version of Immoderation: 50:75:100
Here's the DWARVEN version:   0:55:100
Here's the ELVEN version: 0:50:100
So, out of a population of 1000 people, 100% are over 50% immoderated in goblins, 55% in Dwarves, and 50% in elves.
Bump it up to 75%, and you get 50% Goblins, 27?% Dwarves (my math skills aren't great), and 25% elves.
When you are talking about a difference of 5% difference, the difference is too small to make what you are talking about true. If you were discussing goblins it'd be a different story. As Deathworks pointed out though, lack of moderation, straitforwardness, and vunerability don't bring someone to fighting. In fact, the lack of moderation combined with the straitforwardness tend to ensure things aren't built up and planned, with the reduced vunerability ensuring that small things don't cause offense. this would make someone LESS inclined to violence, not more so. It might make others more inclined to ATTACK them, but defensive actions don't fit in with the personalities you are trying to push on them. Someone can always walk away rather than attacking another, but people who are attacked often don't get that choice.

If they run away as a civilian, is normal, they never had a reason to be there in the first place they have no role to play in a battle, however a military guard, is there for that exact reason.

And yet, soldiers still run. Sometimes they are given medals for it, and sometimes they are shot for dereliction of duty for it. In fact, many real world tactics were created because of the fact that people sometimes run away. Play some Total War sometime. It gives a good idea of the concept.

[Acanthus117]

Whoa. Nice deconstruction there.

[father_alexander]

"I don't know what culture you grew up in, but in mine, the tendancy for violence with little or trivial causes is evil. This appears to be your definition of "brute", therefore brute is evil."

Not really, im not saying its good, its just a general devaluation of violence, you hit someone, you dont want to kill him, on the other hand if its between equals they dont take it so hard, on other cultures using any kind of violence is terrible, im talking as brutes as a way of acting in a more metaphorical sense, im not talking about them being butchers, im talking about them using excesive force, in every way of life.

"This entire statement is wrong. Elves enjoy war, given the fact they start so many over their right to eat people. Goblins are often warred against because they steal children. Look at a typical world history. Elves start most of the damn wars. Goblins start the fewest. Just because the goblins have the most doesn't mean they like it. It seems to me that as long as goblins are given the ability to steal children in peace, they never go to war."

I believe its the other way around, elves have more wars that dosnt mean they enjoy it, they have more wars because they have more reasons to, but in the case fo the goblins its in their nature to fight, many times even with those of their own race, at least thats what i know due to threetoe stories and general idea i have of them from the raws, if im wrong, my bad.

"Another wrong statement. Arena mode proves this to be false. Dwarves are only good fighters because of the weapons and armor they make. Most races are better fighters then them."

in fact its not wrong, i said "i think" wich means its my opinion obviously, and thats like saying that humans are not the best animals in nature at war simply because they use their creations...

"Does that mean every human village is a megaconstruction? Where I live, there are birds that dig nests into cliffs. Are these holes megaconstruction? What about ant Hills? An ant hill is a massive underground complex compared to the size of an ant. in fact, Up where I live there is one ant hill that is about 26 ants high, which is the equivelant of 156 feet. That's bigger than many office buildings in my area, but small for some of the mounds around here. Your book appears to be very easily impressed."

no, it means what i said, every fortress is a megaconstruction, did you look at them? i only visited one, but it was pretty large, like 10 levels deep with a gigantic staircase, dunno, thats pretty large taking in count the tecnology we have here.

"What fapping planet are you from? Are there more than one italians?
Here's my the notions of all those cultures in MY area:
Greeks are generally quiet but devious, Italians are mean and vicious but are good cooks, Japanese are perverted with no sense of space, germans are perverted and inappropriate but generally friendly and funny.

Steriotyping is fun! That is how those "cultures" are viewed where I am from. It appears to differ vastly from your impressions. Strangely, most individuals I've met who come from those areas differ greatly from both impressions. There was a test in one of the south pacific cultures once, to compare the cultural identity of a people to the individuals. The thoughts on the cultural identity of the country was different than the actions of the individuals. Also, something important to realize is ALL THESE CULTURES YOU MENTIONED ARE HUMANS!
And here you are using the diversity of humanity to justify eliminating diversity for an entire race?"


Aha, well, i was talking from examples i experienced, as i said these are the general characteristics of those cultures, i may be wrong, my point was that cultures have diferent characteristics and the population has a tendency towards those characteristics, i was using a general example because i dont believe you can say 100% sure THIS culture has THESE characteristics, its a pretty subjetive deal, i visited both greece and italy, people i knew from there where pretty loud and friendly, germans at least the older generation i heard from many people of trust that they are indeed like that, im not going to say they are all like that, or even most of them, and wen i meet someone from any culture im going to judge him by himself, in your defence i should have used its believed instead of its known, my mistake.

Im not talking about eliminating diversity im talking about how much diversity should be allowed, we are talking about a culture in the medieval time wich makes it much more rigid to variations.Yes they are all humans, but humans are the only animals that developed culture in this worldm and we are not talking about diferent cultures in dwarves acording to diferent experiences or stories or regions (wich by the way would be awesome and should be suggested) but about what culture should the dwarves have and how would said culture affect fighting.If dwarves would indeed have diferent cultures i would agree that dwarves from diferent places should react in a diferent way, but since they all have the same culture (for now) you always have the same "spectrum" of reactions, i think that this spectrum should make it less usual for dwarves to run away.

Lets talk about an example i KNOW its true, argentineans, we are loud, and we are pretty proud and hardheaded, this is the general and normal concept, again its like in the raws, while most people would have a loud characteristic of "0:50:100" we have a characteristic of "0:45:100" it will not make EVERYONE with those characteristics but you will have more people of those characteristics in this country and culture than in other countries and cultures, im not talking about 25% more people like this, im talking about 5% or even less.

"So, out of a population of 1000 people, 100% are over 50% immoderated in goblins, 55% in Dwarves, and 50% in elves.
Bump it up to 75%, and you get 50% Goblins, 27?% Dwarves (my math skills aren't great), and 25% elves.
When you are talking about a difference of 5% difference, the difference is too small to make what you are talking about true. If you were discussing goblins it'd be a different story. As Deathworks pointed out though, lack of moderation, straitforwardness, and vunerability don't bring someone to fighting. In fact, the lack of moderation combined with the straitforwardness tend to ensure things aren't built up and planned, with the reduced vunerability ensuring that small things don't cause offense. this would make someone LESS inclined to violence, not more so. It might make others more inclined to ATTACK them, but defensive actions don't fit in with the personalities you are trying to push on them. Someone can always walk away rather than attacking another, but people who are attacked often don't get that choice."

Actually its a lot, if you have a squad of 20 dwarves 5% makes quite a diference, that said , it may take more to anger them but i take that being straitforward talks about how they would react.


"And yet, soldiers still run. Sometimes they are given medals for it, and sometimes they are shot for dereliction of duty for it. In fact, many real world tactics were created because of the fact that people sometimes run away. Play some Total War sometime. It gives a good idea of the concept."

Im not saying they should not run, im saying it should be more unusual, also you are talking about present day soldiers.

you all keep saying that i dont think there should be deserters, and pointing out examples of soldiers runing away i think there should, but you should have one or two from a squad at most, and remember im talking about deserting not geting scared or panic, panic should be even more usual than deserting, also im talking about normal battles, if we are talking about hfs for example you should have many more runing away, you also need to think what you can and cant do, you HAVE to defend yourself, and if you have half of your military runing away its pretty imposible to defend...

EDIT:
I also would like to add that you need to think of the numbers and situations, we are talking of armies of many soldiers fighting other big armies, while in df we dont have battles that big, we have smaller squads fighting each other, wich changes many things, general visual impresion, how easy it is to run away, how much control and trust the leader has with his squad and so on, that should make things pretty diferent too.

EDIT 2:
Im checking rome total war, thanks for the suggestion

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I am trying to get a lot of the new version going and windowed mode is no fun with it, so I want to keep this short.

Father_Alexander: Stereotyping is not meaningful, believe me. There are a lot of factors that play into the creation of stereotypes, but real difference in the nature of the people rarely if ever is one of them (besides politically motivated insulting, you also have simply differences in customs that get interpreted in certain ways).

"Excessive force" is still "excessive". And most people I know will agree that "excessive" is a bad thing.

10 z-levels for a population of several hundred... that does not sound unreasonable. And have you seen the dark towers of the goblins? The forts of the humans? Those were constructed not dug out, so they are much more work.

And if you are talking mathematics, you should get it right: 5% of 20 is one. So, among 20 dwarves, 11 will be 50% immoderate or higher as opposed to 10 which would be the average. I am sorry, but I don't see that as a major difference.

Deathworks

[Nikov]

"Excessive force" is still "excessive". And most people I know will agree that "excessive" is a bad thing.

Most people you know haven't used force, much less lethal force, or had it used against them.

Yeah, so anyway. Tee Ell Dee Are.

I would like combatants to flee, panic, rout, stand firm, charge lustily and enter bloodthirsty rages based on their personalities, the quality of their equipment and training, and events around them. I don't give a flying fluffy wambler striking a collossus in the head about stereotypes, since I can always set my dwarves to be [DUTIFUL:90:95:100] if I want them to be honor-bound hardasses. Case in point;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:35:100]
   [PERSONALITY:VULNERABILITY:0:30:80]
   [PERSONALITY:STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS:0:20:60]
   [PERSONALITY:ANGER:25:75:100]
   [PERSONALITY:EXCITEMENT_SEEKING:0:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:CHEERFULNESS:0:40:80]
   [PERSONALITY:ALTRUISM:0:25:50]
   [PERSONALITY:MODESTY:0:40:80]
   [PERSONALITY:SYMPATHY:0:50:70]
   [PERSONALITY:IMAGINATION:0:40:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ARTISTIC_INTEREST:0:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:INTELLECTUAL_CURIOSITY:0:40:100]
   [PERSONALITY:SELF_DISCIPLINE:10:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:ACTIVITY_LEVEL:10:60:100]
   [PERSONALITY:TRUST:0:40:80]

Happen to be my dwarves.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Nikov: I take it that you are fine with the proposals I have made? After all, they would probably not affect your modded dwarves...

As for "excessive force", I don't really see the argument you are trying to bring up there. My basic military training made it a point that we are to use only "appropriate force" (of course, if someone shoots at you, that usually entails shooting back :) :) :) ).

Deathworks

[father_alexander]

Hi!

I am trying to get a lot of the new version going and windowed mode is no fun with it, so I want to keep this short.

Father_Alexander: Stereotyping is not meaningful, believe me. There are a lot of factors that play into the creation of stereotypes, but real difference in the nature of the people rarely if ever is one of them (besides politically motivated insulting, you also have simply differences in customs that get interpreted in certain ways).

"Excessive force" is still "excessive". And most people I know will agree that "excessive" is a bad thing.

10 z-levels for a population of several hundred... that does not sound unreasonable. And have you seen the dark towers of the goblins? The forts of the humans? Those were constructed not dug out, so they are much more work.

And if you are talking mathematics, you should get it right: 5% of 20 is one. So, among 20 dwarves, 11 will be 50% immoderate or higher as opposed to 10 which would be the average. I am sorry, but I don't see that as a major difference.

Deathworks

There is a large diference between stereotyping and pointing out the particular characteristics and customs of a culture, as i said im not asuming they are all like that,im not even assuming that most are like that. Im saying those are the particular customs that point out.

Excessive CAN be bad, but does not make the one using the excesive force evil, those are his customs or his usual manner, so he will act the only way he knows how to act, not to mention to be evil means that you do the excess with the intention of that evil, excesive force can also be an accident.

And yes, i did the math, and i do think its quite a change, you have a 20 people squad but you have a 200 people fortress, this means 20 more dwarves can get scared, or 20 less dwarves can get scared, wen you have a situation in wich you have to choose from a small number of useless dwarves to be placed in your military can make quite a diference, also im pretty certain we are all doing the math the wrong way, im pretty certain those numbers change more than just 5% but i dont really know much about percentage and odds.

And finally "10 z-levels for a population of several hundred... that does not sound unreasonable. And have you seen the dark towers of the goblins? The forts of the humans? Those were constructed not dug out, so they are much more work." they are not several hundred, ive never seen even a hundred of dwarves, though, again its personal experience i may be wrong. That said building should be easier than digging, but i do agree, the towers are pretty large so you are right on that one (i never got to see the forts of the humans).