Print

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

[Owlbread]

I did not know exactly where to put this thread, as I am not necessarily suggesting something as much as I am putting a discussion forward that would deal with the future of dwarf fortress. I do not have a specific idea as such, but I would rather like to hear the ideas of the bay watchers. I apologise for the wall of text in advance, if you would like me to put a spoiler on it I can do so.

The discussion in question is the future of Dwarven Justice: I am referring to the likes of the hammerer, fortress guards and laws, as well as crime and punishment.

Allow me to put a few points forward, given that they have been circulating around my brain for some time:

I once read on the wiki that if no fortress guards were present in a fortress, the hammerer would not dispense justice. I am not sure if this is still the case, but the point is still there: without a hammerer, justice was not necessary at all. For example, although this was 40d, I had a rather successful ice fortress that existed for several years with around 120 dwarves. Not a single guard was present in the fortress, nor a sheriff. The nobles were certainly unhappy at their mandates being ignored, but that was easily remedied by giving them engraved bedrooms, offices and dining rooms.

My point here is that dwarven justice is not really necessary at this time. Dwarves are being imprisoned for ignoring mandates or breaking things in a tantrum, both of which can be easily avoided and aren't very serious at all. Many of you seem to understand this, as I have seen plans for very elaborate and somewhat "cushy" prison cells.
As I said, dwarven "crime" seems to encompass assault, murder, breaking things and ignoring the nobility, most of which are related to tantrums; an unfortunate occurance that can often be avoided.

Justice is not so much an enjoyable, important feature to the game as much as it would appear to be a chore, another "unnecessary" difficulty that is thrown in our path to greatness. But what is wrong with this picture? Why must we have entities such as the hammerer to coerce us into creating justice, even if it is detrimental to the happiness of our dwarves?

I feel that the answer may be the lack of "bad dwarves".

You may have noticed that, aside from being lazy, foolish, petulant or insane, dwarves tend to be very friendly, hardworking little people. No dwarves seem to commit crimes out of sheer "badness", it's often just a mistake or the result of a misendeavour on our part.

A bad dwarf is simply a dwarf that would do bad things. I am not referring to an evil dwarf possessed by evil spirits, I am referring to a dwarf that might break something because he "felt like it", or he might steal something because he "wanted it". What if a dwarf were to ignore your work order out of sheer laziness, as opposed to being trapped inside a cavern because of a cave-in that you have caused by accident? This could be extremely harmful to your fortress, especially if the dwarf in question was supposed to operate a lever that would close the floodgates to the corridor you have created to pierce the lava tube of the volcano, causing widespread burning, face melting, cat scalding and destruction?

What if a dwarf were particularly sneaky, and after he has deduced that the philosopher has a masterwork platinum figurine of a cloud (something he desperately wants), he simply murders the philosopher and takes it? The philosopher's wife is in tears, as are his children. The philosopher was a well liked member of the fortress, and his many friends are seeking justice for the matter. Everyone saw the dwarf murder the philosopher (witnesses to the crime). What would the fortress guard do? They ought to imprison him, thus ensuring that he does not perform such an act again.

Perhaps dwarves with very few moral inhibitions would be inclined to do such things, or perhaps be very manipulative, but if they knew that their thieveries and murders would warrant severe punishment, surely they would be less likely to perform such an act?

A possible situation may be that a witness to the crime may run to the captain of the guard (or perhaps the nearest guard?), explaining to him that such a terrible deed was committed. He would then seek out the dwarf, then bring him to justice, putting him in a prison cell or perhaps calling upon the hammerer to execute him.

Based on some skills appearing accidentally among the migrants in earlier installments of DF:2010, I gather that thieves may be possible among dwarves. This would be excellent, and I am sure Toady intends to implement such things soon in something like the bustling town arc, but it is worth discussion, is it not?

Another point that I would like to discuss is the fortress guard: After observing towns that have been generated in adventure mode, I have noticed that guardsmen seem to be used by the computer in a similar way that we would use the military.

Take a defensive position, for example. You have created a long corridor with many fortifications at the far end; behind which are several marksdwarves. On either side of these fortifications are doors, with speardwarves in front. Note that you would not place fortress guards there, you would be more likely to position soldiers there, yes?

I don't know what you would prefer, but I would rather that the "guards" be actual guards, not just militiamen or soldiers. But what would the benefits of that be?

It is at this point that we must question the fortress guard and the military. What is their purpose? What are their differences?

My suggestion would be that the guardsmen (and guardswomen) should be the defensive force of your fortress. They can function in a manner similar to the military, guarding things, patrolling and attacking intruders, but they would also dispense justice if certain dwarves were "out of line". (Take note, the final point would actually be worthwhile.) They would also be unable to perform raids on other sites, unlike the military, as seems to be Toady and Threetoes' intentions. Soldiers could easily perform the same tasks as the guard, but may be unable to arrest dwarves etc.

I'm not really sure about the royal guard; I really do like them, and I'm sure they can be improved in some way, but I'm not sure how. Perhaps they could guard the nobility as they travel, rather like how the tax collector used to be protected.

Well, that should be it, let the games begin. Do keep in mind though that this is may not be as much a debate as it is just a brainstorming session. Please, do come forth and throw your hat into the ring. I have put forth points of discussion with the hope that you can take these ideas and mull over them, or perhaps give forth some of your own. Even if this entire thread falls flat on its face, I would love to hear your opinions, as you are all lovely, intelligent people.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

My 2 cents:
Individual dorfs should have a tendency to (or aversion to) certain criminal acts. They should be less likely to commit crimes in proportion to the strength of law enforcement.

In the historical period DF is loosely inspired by, afaik there were no police forces as such - the local lord and his men were responsible for enforcing their and the king's laws. So dealing with criminals should be carried out by the militia. It would also be cool to see something like "hue-and-cry" implemented (dorfen lynch mobs!). Sheriffs should not be appointed nobles, but instead be emissaries from the mountainhome, like the liason and the shire-reeves of old. If you have no or inadequate law enforcement, it would adversely affect your relationship with your civ, and the sheriff might impose a fine or even depose your mayor or baron.

The Fortress / Royal Guard should disappear, and be replaced by certain nobles having retinues or households which could include bodyguards. (And peasants and artisans, but that's straying away from the topic of justice.)

[NW_Kohaku]

Although I'm starting to do this with alarming frequency when responding to various suggestion threads, maybe you should look at the Class Warfare thread, its spin-off autonomy discussion, I, Dwarfbot, or its predecessor Dwarf Psychology. 

Both of these involve ways in which dwarves and their thought and behavior patterns can be given more depth.

I think that is the core problem with having some of these suggestions for crime - dwarves just aren't deep enough as individual characters with autonomous enough will to actually make things like this really possible to include in the game.  If you have some sort of "evil" or "criminal" trait that is easily measured, and entirely contained in the dwarf himself that causes crime, then the answer is to just look for any migrant with those traits, and have your "Pre-Crime Detectives" escort him to the magma pit for "re-education". 

Crime, instead, needs to be social in cause.  Sure, some dwarves can be more naturally inclined to commit crimes, but social pressures like social injustice, massive income disparity, and just plain cultural acceptance of violence and greed should have a major impact in the crime rate.  After all, how much of a "deterrant" (and punishment as a deterrant is historically a pretty lousy method of crime prevention, incidentally) is death if you get caught when someone already "Doesn't really care about anything anymore"?  If they expect or even welcome death, then it's no big thing, and they might just have fun in the immediate short term while trying it.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

If you have some sort of "evil" or "criminal" trait that is easily measured, and entirely contained in the dwarf himself that causes crime, then the answer is to just look for any migrant with those traits, and have your "Pre-Crime Detectives" escort him to the magma pit for "re-education". 

Good point, but there's no reason I can see that all traits have to be viewable by the player. Actually, do any traits have to be viewable, I wonder? I'll have to check out the other threads you mentioned.

I wouldn't just have a criminal trait either - for example I'd have avaricious (prone to steal), murderous (prone to, well, murder), etc. You probably wouldn't want too many of these though.

Crime, instead, needs to be social in cause.  Sure, some dwarves can be more naturally inclined to commit crimes, but social pressures like social injustice, massive income disparity, and just plain cultural acceptance of violence and greed should have a major impact in the crime rate.  After all, how much of a "deterrant" (and punishment as a deterrant is historically a pretty lousy method of crime prevention, incidentally) is death if you get caught when someone already "Doesn't really care about anything anymore"?  If they expect or even welcome death, then it's no big thing, and they might just have fun in the immediate short term while trying it.

I think having a tendency towards criminality as a trait is an acceptable simplification for a game (yes, even DF). And personally, I think it'd be Fun to have a dwarf that doesn't care anymore going on a final crime spree.

[NW_Kohaku]

any[/i] traits have to be viewable, I wonder? I'll have to check out the other threads you mentioned.

Actually, I just had a rather long discussion in the Future of the Fortress thread about why they need to be more visible.  The problem is that players already have no idea if or when these traits have any effect at all, and assume that the effects of triats that are working properly are actually just "bugs".  For example - doctors who don't like helping people letting their patients die without bothering to treat them because they don't like their job.

If you're going to have a mechanism that impacts play, the player has to at least have some way of telling that the mechanism is there, or else you're just wasting resources at best, or frustrating the player by witholding a significant chunk of the game from his or her means of understanding or manipulating.

I think having a tendency towards criminality as a trait is an acceptable simplification for a game (yes, even DF). And personally, I think it'd be Fun to have a dwarf that doesn't care anymore going on a final crime spree.

The thing is, you don't really have any control over criminal-trait dwarves showing up, aside from just identifying them and murdering them, or simply not caring, and letting a few crime sprees happen here and there.

If there are social mechanisms you have to struggle to manipulate, then you have something that actually makes for gameplay in dealing with them.  You have the choice of either going out of your way to try crime-prevention methods that eat up your time, effort, dwarven labor, and resources, or you can settle for the level of crime you find acceptable in your society.

In the method of simply having a few random "bad dwarves", there is really only one playstyle, two if you count not even bothering to stop the dwarves.  In the other, you have a wider variety of styles to play the game, involving how you choose to manage your dwarves needs, or how harsh or benevolent your rule might be.