Print

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

[Granite26]

As a first point, I think it's important not to place too much stock in the stock universe, since I'm not very attached to it and really would like to use it as a springboard for more varied, generated civilizations and so on over time.  That said, some of the mechanics that persist will likely take sides one way or another in nature vs. nurture arguments and various historical determinism paradigms and all that.<P>Right now, and it's likely to continue more or less in this way for a long while, the creature definition says what part is nature, and the entity definition says what part is nurture.  For instance, at this point, a kidnapped elf will still use the elven personality definition to determine their personality profiles, and in this way, an elven leader for a goblin civilization will behave differently from a goblin leader, even though the elf still has the goblin culture.  At this time, the post-kidnap process is entirely unspecified -- whether or not that should have impact on an elf's personality or self-image and so on is all up in the air.  I don't think it's a given that an elf would feel bad about being an elf in a goblin civ, since kidnapping is such an important part of goblins society, and in that way elves are valued in goblin society -- they could very well feel at home among the other elves there, and made to feel as if they belong, but nothing is decided here.  Certainly the stock creatures will have pliable minds when it comes to goblin indoctrination -- there'd be no point for the kidnapping mechanic otherwise, though it would certainly be interesting to have their individual personalities affect the outcome, leading to conflict with the more obstinate ones, etc.<P>"Alignment" is something I'd like to avoid.  I'd rather deal with specific universe metaphysics, which I'd hope to have generated.  It would be a fair mechanic to have some sort of "evil" associated to creatures like demons that is inherent to their nature, and as it stands, the stock demon in the raws would receive any such concept that arises, but the custom world map fields and creature variables that come up don't have to be alignment-driven.  As it stands in the raws at this time, there's a basically unused [EVIL] tag for demons and goblins (which is sort of a placeholder for their underworld status), and the evil of goblins is cultural -- aside from their negative personalities, which are inherent traits.  The demon in particular has a very nasty personality, and it's always set to extreme values on certain traits -- this is a natural property in that all demons generated will be this way, though we have no idea what the underworld was like...  perhaps it affects demons in horrible, horrible ways.<P>I think racial loyalty/xenophobia could work as both a creature (natural) and an entity (cultural) parameter.  Ideally, for modding purposes, every parameter would be handled that way, so that you could set a xenophobia value wherever you think it should be for humans, and then have some of their societies modify that value.  Wherever I'd stick that on the DF humans, I think the system should probably be set up to allow that sort of wiggling.<P>As for leaders and good vs. evil ones etc., there really isn't a lot of interaction at this point between the leader's personality and their overall culture.  Of course, that sort of thing is a drama/conflict goldmine and should be exploited, but we aren't there yet.  In general though, instead of good vs. evil, it would have to handle the creatures personality and ethical framework vs. the personality and ethical framework of the host culture -- that would just have to be handled a step at a time.  An elf enslaved from its formerly tree-loving society and placed in the role of a woodcutter currently feels no conflict -- I basically have to go through all of the professions and teach it more about each one so that critters can better judge their situation.<P>I'm sorry this is all sort of vague/rambling/dodging, but like I said, the core response here is that I'd like to have the game designed to answer most of the questions in more than one way.  I don't really have a desired direction so much as I'd like a robust system.  Of course, this is a lot of work, so many of the issues will fall squarely on one side of the fence or the other and choices will be made, but it's not something I can really anticipate for a given DF civilization, since I don't have strong feelings about it.<P>The same holds for all the metaphysical/deity stuff -- I'll put in as much as I can put in, and for magic and religion in particular, I'm not planning to do much with stock DF at all -- it really should be world dependent (though the already-defined religion spheres such as "fire" and so on will certainly constrain the outcome in stock DF a bit).  Some of the religions should be fake (they are all fake now), and some of them should be real (probably has to wait for magic, though some elements can be put in early).  Right now, religious groups can build temples and convert people within sites, but there aren't any attempts to convert outside of that, and there's no general notion of cultural diffusion or anything like that.  This will start to come up more with the caravan arc when civilizations start to have non-violent dealings with one another.<P>...  I have to get back to work.  I apologize in advance for the lack of proofreading.

[Lungfish]

It's cool, but I always imagined them living in tree houses/villages like Wookies and Ewoks. A GIANT tree could have natural hollows or be big enough to handle being bored into a bit... but I frankly love how frustrating it is when I accidentally select a wooden object for trade and they leave immediately and can be goaded into war - I like that they love trees, and can't imagine them harming a tree enough to carve out a livable space. 

I am hoping to one day seeing taller trees that take longer to grow depending on what they are and generate more logs the taller they are. And if trees can be a barrier like a wall, it would be nice if a tree top could be a surfice like the z level above a wall.

[Max White]

As a first point, I think it's important not to place too much stock in the stock universe, since I'm not very attached to it and really would like to use it as a springboard for more varied, generated civilizations and so on over time.  That said, some of the mechanics that persist will likely take sides one way or another in nature vs. nurture arguments and various historical determinism paradigms and all that.<P>Right now, and it's likely to continue more or less in this way for a long while, the creature definition says what part is nature, and the entity definition says what part is nurture.  For instance, at this point, a kidnapped elf will still use the elven personality definition to determine their personality profiles, and in this way, an elven leader for a goblin civilization will behave differently from a goblin leader, even though the elf still has the goblin culture.  At this time, the post-kidnap process is entirely unspecified -- whether or not that should have impact on an elf's personality or self-image and so on is all up in the air.  I don't think it's a given that an elf would feel bad about being an elf in a goblin civ, since kidnapping is such an important part of goblins society, and in that way elves are valued in goblin society -- they could very well feel at home among the other elves there, and made to feel as if they belong, but nothing is decided here.  Certainly the stock creatures will have pliable minds when it comes to goblin indoctrination -- there'd be no point for the kidnapping mechanic otherwise, though it would certainly be interesting to have their individual personalities affect the outcome, leading to conflict with the more obstinate ones, etc.<P>"Alignment" is something I'd like to avoid.  I'd rather deal with specific universe metaphysics, which I'd hope to have generated.  It would be a fair mechanic to have some sort of "evil" associated to creatures like demons that is inherent to their nature, and as it stands, the stock demon in the raws would receive any such concept that arises, but the custom world map fields and creature variables that come up don't have to be alignment-driven.  As it stands in the raws at this time, there's a basically unused [EVIL] tag for demons and goblins (which is sort of a placeholder for their underworld status), and the evil of goblins is cultural -- aside from their negative personalities, which are inherent traits.  The demon in particular has a very nasty personality, and it's always set to extreme values on certain traits -- this is a natural property in that all demons generated will be this way, though we have no idea what the underworld was like...  perhaps it affects demons in horrible, horrible ways.<P>I think racial loyalty/xenophobia could work as both a creature (natural) and an entity (cultural) parameter.  Ideally, for modding purposes, every parameter would be handled that way, so that you could set a xenophobia value wherever you think it should be for humans, and then have some of their societies modify that value.  Wherever I'd stick that on the DF humans, I think the system should probably be set up to allow that sort of wiggling.<P>As for leaders and good vs. evil ones etc., there really isn't a lot of interaction at this point between the leader's personality and their overall culture.  Of course, that sort of thing is a drama/conflict goldmine and should be exploited, but we aren't there yet.  In general though, instead of good vs. evil, it would have to handle the creatures personality and ethical framework vs. the personality and ethical framework of the host culture -- that would just have to be handled a step at a time.  An elf enslaved from its formerly tree-loving society and placed in the role of a woodcutter currently feels no conflict -- I basically have to go through all of the professions and teach it more about each one so that critters can better judge their situation.<P>I'm sorry this is all sort of vague/rambling/dodging, but like I said, the core response here is that I'd like to have the game designed to answer most of the questions in more than one way.  I don't really have a desired direction so much as I'd like a robust system.  Of course, this is a lot of work, so many of the issues will fall squarely on one side of the fence or the other and choices will be made, but it's not something I can really anticipate for a given DF civilization, since I don't have strong feelings about it.<P>The same holds for all the metaphysical/deity stuff -- I'll put in as much as I can put in, and for magic and religion in particular, I'm not planning to do much with stock DF at all -- it really should be world dependent (though the already-defined religion spheres such as "fire" and so on will certainly constrain the outcome in stock DF a bit).  Some of the religions should be fake (they are all fake now), and some of them should be real (probably has to wait for magic, though some elements can be put in early).  Right now, religious groups can build temples and convert people within sites, but there aren't any attempts to convert outside of that, and there's no general notion of cultural diffusion or anything like that.  This will start to come up more with the caravan arc when civilizations start to have non-violent dealings with one another.<P>...  I have to get back to work.  I apologize in advance for the lack of proofreading.

By armoks beard! Don't click "Veiw sorce" before looking for a quote!!!

[Granite26]

you can just click on the link to take you to where it was originally said, if all you want to do is make it bigger.

[antymattar]

Look.If you are going to say that elves=no wood then elves=no beds. Then elves=no metal. Elves=no windows. elves=NO PICKAXES TO EVEN GET CHARKOAL OR ROCKS.

[therahedwig]

Hence why there's no elven cities ofcourse!

Nah, the Elves are anti-wood cutting. Because they do have wooden items, it's assumed they grow their furniture somehow. (And they can always make hammocks, what with all their pig-tail cloth)
Aside from that, it's reasonable that they can gain a lot from trade as well.

Hell, you could even go as far as to assume that the elves have some magical source of warmth that they could use to heat forges, or perhaps they only use dead trees and driftwood for charcoal.
And hopefully, perhaps the elves will have a specialisation that allows them to have intresting export. Like, perhaps all elves can tame any kind of animal, no matter the exoticness.

I agree that the mockup-tree needs more leaves...

EDIT: also, don't forget, the current culture/race system will become much more fluent, as silverionmox noted. This means that perhaps we'll have both your vision of the elves as well as the current stock elves in the same world. However, you do need to understand that when you start suggesting, most people will consider the stock races as they are now.

[Babylon]

I'm also hopping that by the time that elves have hometrees they will be able to forge and mine.

Elves have been around since the first versions of DF. Being hippies and having wooden armor. In fact back when elves did have forest retreats, they still did not have metal. Why would they change? Toady doesn't want to give them metal or the ability to forge it, or he would have put it in the game years ago.

This is why they suck, and it's a shame. "Traditional" elves do forge, actually. Of course some of you will say that DF is unique and all, but the fact is that elves do suck at the moment and most players only use them as training targets or gullible merchants to loot every year. What's the point? Making them stronger will help them have some kind of credibility in the game. And if I remember correctly there is a mod (Genesis I think) that allows elves do make some special wood as strong as high-quality metals, that could be a good replacement.

I like elves as trading partners because they bring exotic beasts.  This could certainly be expanded to make them pretty formidable.

[nil]

It's cool, but I always imagined them living in tree houses/villages like Wookies and Ewoks. A GIANT tree could have natural hollows or be big enough to handle being bored into a bit... but I frankly love how frustrating it is when I accidentally select a wooden object for trade and they leave immediately and can be goaded into war - I like that they love trees, and can't imagine them harming a tree enough to carve out a livable space. 

I am hoping to one day seeing taller trees that take longer to grow depending on what they are and generate more logs the taller they are. And if trees can be a barrier like a wall, it would be nice if a tree top could be a surfice like the z level above a wall.

After watching this (arguably NWS, but it's BBC and not the least bit pornographic) last night I've converted to the "elven treehouse cities" camp...

[Zesty]

I just want to note that I love the concept you developed here.

[antymattar]

Ok, A tent tree city. Notice how the higher you go, the better(lighter) and bigger the tents:


the white stuff is ropes(to get up and down)

[Erkki]

It doesn't matter at all what Tolkien did, Toady isn't Tolkien's slave, and if Toady doesn't want elves that forge, they don't forge in DF.

In Tolkien's universe the Elves are DARK haired hippies, and Aüle(who created Dwarves) taught only the ones that migrated to the West to forge. The Elves in DF = the elves that never migrated. They live in the woods, they cant forge or even know how to write or read, and they do cannibalism. 

[Max White]

In Tolkien's universe the Elves are DARK haired hippies, and Aüle(who created Dwarves) taught only the ones that migrated to the West to forge. The Elves in DF = the elves that never migrated. They live in the woods, they cant forge or even know how to write or read, and they do cannibalism. 

No, NO! We do not do this. Toadys elves are related to Tolkiens elves only in name, and some common atributes, but Toady has the right to forge hes own story of how the elves came to be and why they are as they are. We do not need to keep felling back on Lord of the rings!

Unless that was a joke, in that case, I see the humor in it, but on the internet it can oftern be hard to measure tone.

Ok, A tent tree city. Notice how the higher you go, the better(lighter) and bigger the tents:


the white stuff is ropes(to get up and down)

Look cool! I mean we are ignoring the fact that trees are only 1 z level high, so I'm up for it.

[Erkki]

In Tolkien's universe the Elves are DARK haired hippies, and Aüle(who created Dwarves) taught only the ones that migrated to the West to forge. The Elves in DF = the elves that never migrated. They live in the woods, they cant forge or even know how to write or read, and they do cannibalism. 

No, NO! We do not do this. Toadys elves are related to Tolkiens elves only in name, and some common atributes, but Toady has the right to forge hes own story of how the elves came to be and why they are as they are. We do not need to keep felling back on Lord of the rings!

Unless that was a joke, in that case, I see the humor in it, but on the internet it can oftern be hard to measure tone.

Joke of course. Personally I like how they're different from the stereotypical elves... But balance/gameplay wise they could be boosted up a little. Now they're just free stuff & easy kills if you happen to have even copper. Even in the .19.

[Granite26]

I think the strength of elves is their immortality.  Infinite experiencr makes a badass warrior.  Unfortunately, everyone maxes out in 2 years of training...

There's also magic, which isn't in yet (heh) and that might fix things.

[NW_Kohaku]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63054.msg1453010#msg1453010

If we have raw-editable procedural cities, then you can make whatever kind of tree fort you want.  Plus you can mod in whatever kind of other races and make them all live like Tolkien elves or whatever "homage" you want to make.