Print

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

[Jeoshua]

And if you'd read anything that I have posted in this thread, instead of just skimming through to find the points that you want to disagree with, you'd realize that I'd already addressed that very point.

Elves do not eat sentients.  They eat their kills.

I make the point over and over because people don't seem to read it the first time.

Look in your entity_default.txt file.  You will find in there an entry for the elves, on their ethics.

Code: [Select]

[ETHIC:SLAVERY:UNTHINKABLE]
[ETHIC:EAT_SENTIENT_KILL:ACCEPTABLE]
[ETHIC:EAT_SENTIENT_OTHER:UNTHINKABLE]

To translate that from raw speak, let me tell you what this means for the ethics of our "friends" the Elves.

Slavery Unthinkable: They will not engage in the traffic of sentient beings forced into servitude.  They do not keep members of other races as chattle.

Eating Sentient Kills: They WILL eat enemies they have slain.  This applies only to those they have personally slain in battle.  If an Elf kills a man, it is for him to eat.  Other Elves will not eat that kill.

Eating Other Sentients: They are not cannibals.  They do not eat their own, and given the opportunity to eat the meat of something that once could talk, they will decline.  It is a reprehensible act to them.

So basically, offering Slaves to Elves, and telling them that it's food, would most likely get them to attack you.  They would be so offended they couldn't speak clearly, and would almost certainly think that you were so depraved they'd declare war.

Ironically, they feel the same way about animals.  They will only kill an animal if it attacks them, in other words [ETHIC:KILL_ANIMAL:ONLY_IN_SELF_DEFENSE].  So they don't even actively seek out meat.  They won't kill animals unless they're threatened, which leaves out the entire concept of them being carnivorous, let along cannibalistic.  However, their ethics on plants are even stranger, considering this.  [ETHIC:KILL_PLANT:UNTHINKABLE].  They can't bear the thought of so much as damaging a blade of grass.

So it would seem their only source of protein is creatures who attack them, which they kill in self defense, then eat.  Whether they're a sentient being or not does not enter into their conciousness.  They can only eat things they've recently fought with.

So I didn't hijack this thread with an Ethics argument.  I pointed out, simply and truthfully, why the original posters idea of selling prisoners to elves is not an option, either for the Elves OR for the Dwarves, for multiple reasons.  It just so happens that this reason is an Ethical one, from both sides of the fence.

Also, I'm almost willing to bet that if you changed both Elven and Dwarven ethics to allow Slavery, and to make the eating of sentients acceptable, that this behavior would be possible in the game as-is.  You might even see them chow down on gobbos you sold them.

But, as I stated, due to the ethics which are already in the game, this is not an option.

TLDR; I didn't derail the topic with an Ethics argument.  This suggestion is IS an Ethics argument.

[FallingWhale]

Aaaww, Shanpple.

Dealing in sentient trade is slavery.

[Joakim]

I'm guessing most people agree it should be possible if both sides find slavery acceptable.
Apart from that, you could always ransom prisoners back to their civs. I reckon a leader would be worth quite a lot.

[Jeoshua]

Ransom now... theres nothing in the raws specifically against ransom.  You could argue it's sentient trafficking ie slavery but...

Problem is, how would you get those prisoners, then trade them back to their civ? In order for them to show up, you'd have to be at war.  And warring civs don't send trade caravans.

[kilakan]

War, capture, peace, sell?  I'd think that's how most prisoners get sold back to thier home country.  Anyways, we really need some type of either conversion job, where a dwarf takes a prisonor, and food or something and spends a lot of time making them think differently so you could end up with goblins as part of the civ, I think that would fit pretty well in with dwarven ethics, and a economy based civ, since another pair of hands is another pair of hands.  And if you are goung to jump on me saying, dwarves would never allow a goblin to live among them!  The really execution and slavery are the only two other routes, so should we get a Elightenment job (like a medival christian missionary) or the ability for slavery, doesn't have to be terrible slavery like that of 1700's America, but could be more along the lines of do what you're told and get food, since you did try and kill us you won't be paid.

[Avo]

Perhaps they could send a small, wagonless caravan (1 guy, 2 guards or so) that will stop showing up when you kill him once. I personally dont like it because it doesn't result in that humiliating death of the axe lord that killed 50 dogs and a squad of your dwarves after rampaging through your traps but its better than having them live amongst you. If you read the goblins description, it states them as pure evil. Additionally, we have plenty of dwarves.

The Ideal solution is to get them off of the map after stripping them down. Converting them would only really work until you got to around 100+ dwarves then you would go right back to your favorite execution tower.

[NW_Kohaku]

Ransom now... theres nothing in the raws specifically against ransom.  You could argue it's sentient trafficking ie slavery but...

Problem is, how would you get those prisoners, then trade them back to their civ? In order for them to show up, you'd have to be at war.  And warring civs don't send trade caravans.

Ransom was a very common medieval custom.

Right now, you could have something like declaring goblins or other creatures like elves that get caught in cages while attacking your civ are your prisoners.

After a failed siege, an elven diplomat might come and try to arrange for trading to get some of their captured soldiers back.  (If you don't murder the diplomat just for fun.)  It might even help normalize relations with humans or elves who are at war with you to release some prisoners as an act of goodwill, or just for the money.

(I would say the goblins would trade to get their own back... but goblins seem like a pretty cutthroat crowd, who wouldn't bother.)


Real-life middle ages involved most nobles/knights actually putting up a ransom for themselves.

In battle, if the knight was knocked off his horse, the arrangement was that if he was taken alive, rather than killed, his ransom would be paid to have him returned.  Hence, rich nobles could buy their survival on the battlefield by simply making it known a fitting ransom exists.   I remember once reading of a knight who made himself a golden helmet that was engraved with "6,000 francs would be paid to any who spared the head inside that helmet."  (The term "A King's Ransom" comes from this practice.)

Many landless knights went full-on mercenary, and made their living entirely by hunting down people with massive ransoms as their main way of making a living.  They charged into battle solely for the purpose of taking down those with a ransom on their heads. 

[Jeoshua]

I love it when an idea that just won't work ends up turning into an idea that just might be FREAKING AWESOME! 

Maybe send a Diplomat to the top of the walls, declaring your intent to trade prisoners back to your besieging enemies.  You could even set terms:

"I will return your diplomat to you in exchange for your absense from my sight within this night!"

[Joakim]

I imagine it would work fairly similar to normal trading with trade offers and appraising and all that stuff. Just with prisoners instead. And different options available depending on if the civs involved find slavery ok or if they have a [ETHIC:PRISONER_DEALING:RANSOM] tag or not.

Goblins probably don't care about their lowly soldiers that much but I imagine squad leaders and upwards might be valuable to them. Maybe they might exchange kidnapped children in return for their Spearmaster. Still I think all races might offer up some varying level of wealth if you have enough of them locked up.

Which of course leads to the reverse idea that enemy ambush parties might take your dwarves hostage instead of killing them. It would be great if my woodcutter or fisherman was kidnapped and I was asked for a ransom rather than having him killed. Though I imagine you'd get him back pretty beaten up.

[Detonate]

Goblins probably don't care about their lowly soldiers that much but I imagine squad leaders and upwards might be valuable to them. Maybe they might exchange kidnapped children in return for their Spearmaster. Still I think all races might offer up some varying level of wealth if you have enough of them locked up.

If goblins taking prisoners was implemented you could also use captured goblins in a prisoner exchange.

[Joakim]

If goblins taking prisoners was implemented you could also use captured goblins in a prisoner exchange.

So now we we have got prisoners of war, slaves, hostages and prisoner-snacks as options, depending on the ethics involved. I imagine some civs might release prisoners of war when peace breaks out, if they're not valuable enough. Actually, what if you yourself could get into trouble if you keep prisoners of war after the war ends? This being DF you'd probably be able to promise their release and then not do it. Maybe fulfillment of peace agreements should be like mandates?

Another option would be that the dwarven justice system deals with some prisoners, like kobold thieves. If they survive a hammering they're free to go.

[Ahrimahn]

The Dwarvenly Way is not cruelty.  That's just your imagination because you make them do cruel things.

You sir, are an elf. Grow a beard and build something torturous! The dwarven way is cruelty, most dwarf fortress players play cruelly therefore most dwarves are cruel. Since most dwarves are cruel there way is considered cruel.

Do i need to refer you to the mermaid thread?

Dwarves arent cruel they are dumb this is the race that will in a fit of inspiration they will never get again make a chair with a picture of a dwarf sitting on the chair he just made do i need to refer you to the times your engraver engraved a billion images of cheese on the wall.

[Ethicalfive]

...
Elves do not eat sentients.  They eat their kills.
...

But their kills are sentient, so they do eat sentients.. There isn't much difference between killing something to eat, or killing something then eating it.. In both cases you've killed and eaten it. Only motive is different.

Or you could look at it this way. Why did they kill the sentient? They were enemies so the elf killed them, then consumed them. Now your saying you can't give them their enemy on a silver platter? Does the enemy need to have a sporting chance for survival to make it ok to kill and eat it?

I mean, you've already imprisoned the damn goblin and to taken away his freedom. You have the option of using him as target practice, magma/drowning him, dropping him off a high place and having him horribly maimed or exploded. How is trading them away possibly any worse than your other options? Seems to me like you forget that ethics go out the window during times of war. Also the geneva convention didn't exist in toady's time frame.

All that said, I love NW_Kohaku's prisoner trading idea alot and would avoid the controversy of what I personally think was a weird implementation of ethics in the first place.

[Jeoshua]

Elven ethics is certainly an odd thing.  I don't know what Toady was thinking when he set it up but it's deffinitely deliberate.  They hate people who kill plants, yet eat the bodies of their slain enemies, yet won't eat meat of any other kind.

Where the hell do they get food in worldgen? They don't starve like Kobolds do.

But that's the way that they are.  Strange... but true.

[NW_Kohaku]

Where the hell do they get food in worldgen? They don't starve like Kobolds do.

But that's the way that they are.  Strange... but true.

Toady has said some things about this in the past, where he talked about them not having rows of crops like humans do, but instead having something like one of the Threetoe stories, where they have orchards, and just pick wild rope reed from shrubs with plant gatherer. 

They might also use some sort of permaculture technique, which involves growing a set of plants and animals together in a way that ensures a constant cycle of refertilization in a semi-wild setting.

Generally, however, it seems like they use low-impact, low-maintenance, if perhaps low-efficiency methods of farming, and just rely upon the forest providing enough food for them.  (They shouldn't be capable of forming "cities" if they rely upon gathering and low-impact farming, however.  Cities that import food require a more serious organization structure.)

I had a rather short section speculating on this in Improved Farming - http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76007.msg2002656#msg2002656