So we need more government types. I can see that kingdoms were the norm in the middle ages, but there were quite many powerful republics too. Think venice, Frankfurt, Genua... Having different types of government adds a new layer for conflict. A republic of hill dwarves will want to destroy the duke of a closeby fortress of humans...
The differences between governments should be that in democratic governments the laws are created through vote and election whilst a monarchy will create laws on the whims of individuals.
Suggesting Theocracy as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Religion arc" is a good suggestion.
Suggesting City States as a possible governance type that can be fleshed out with the "Economy arc" is also a good suggestion.
Military Junta(or whatever a militaristic governance is called) is a good suggestion as well.
There are ways to implement many governance types by name and basic concept at least without having everything already available .. that's the basic idea of Dwarf Fortress, that things gets fleshed out as development of the game progresses.
We should also consider the differences inside the same kind of government: for exemple, republics could differ over which classes get to vote and/or get elected (in some, merchants and craftsmen get to vote, in others, only landowners get to power) and their internal working (is the leadership done by an individual (consul, mayor) or a body (directoire, ), and how is the nomination? Does a senate exists and, if so, who elect it?). Monarchy would be whether they are elective (who elect the king?) or whether they are hereditary (what is the laws of succession?).
If you have a king you already have created a class of people with no rights....
Also the player is a force that cannot be voted because it is above the entire universe of DF...
When the economy is added it would make sense to have economic classes, but again we already have classes and oppression as the nobles are exempt from work And get to make mandates...
I don't know if toady said that he was not going to include things like racism, but even if not, the system intends to have slavery which in itself is an economical class that has no rights and freedom whatsoever, at least in the sense of american slavery. I dont really get your entire point there. so maybe you could explain it to me in a different way
"Comrades the proletariat shall rule! Down with the bourgeoisie!"
-Urist McLenin
"Comrades the proletariat shall rule! Down with the bourgeoisie!"
-Urist McLenin
What was the point of that post?
Arguments over who gets to vote among the actual citizenry really only make sense if we adding in privilaged/oppressed economic classes into the game
Well I dont really feel the people should be able to uprise the player. I dont think we should have it be this complex unless it can be toggled. For those who like games with advanced governments can keep it on while laymen like me who simply want to have UNLIMITED POWAHR! And only want to deal with keeping my Dwarves happy with nice decor and trinkets of there favourite materials.Toady disagrees with you, however. When talking about stress and needs he said a long-term solution (as opposed to the current 'go insane, smash stuff, die' ) would more likely end up being political. To have the dwarves begin to rebel against you if you insist on keeping them in terrible conditions.
And I disagree with GoblinCookie if your going to add in advanced governments dont half ass the job becuase lf PC bollocks.
Well I dont really feel the people should be able to uprise the player. I dont think we should have it be this complex unless it can be toggled. For those who like games with advanced governments can keep it on while laymen like me who simply want to have UNLIMITED POWAHR! And only want to deal with keeping my Dwarves happy with nice decor and trinkets of there favourite materials.Toady disagrees with you, however. When talking about stress and needs he said a long-term solution (as opposed to the current 'go insane, smash stuff, die' ) would more likely end up being political. To have the dwarves begin to rebel against you if you insist on keeping them in terrible conditions.
And I disagree with GoblinCookie if your going to add in advanced governments dont half ass the job becuase lf PC bollocks.
Maybe you should not post if it annoys you so much when people talk about such issues. Class oppression is a common trope in human history and its art, so it does make sense to include it in one way or another as it a) creates interesting stories of heroes overcoming such struggles and b) it can make a deep simulation like dwarf fortress rounder and more realistic.And now I feel myself a little autistic because I were not able to tell right-away if this post was meant as a a clever irony or not. :-\
In my opinion there should be worlds where this is a part of the history while still having worlds where there is no class struggles, though I find that quite silly as about every civilization has had these struggles one way or another. These struggles continue to this day in some countries so I wonder why it poses such a problem to you when people discuss these possibilities for the game.
Furthermore I would like to point out that your first sentence as well as your pc assumption read as passive aggressive, but as I believe that your ibtention was not to infuriate, I wonder if you could use a less aggressive language to get your point across.
I HAVE ANOTHER GREAT IDEA!SOunds pretty simple, I'm surprised if this isn't already planned for the next 20 years.
So this ties in to the economical arc of our favorite anime known as Dwarf Fortress. And its a way for trading reputation to work. So there are to variables for trading fortress reputation and civilization reputation with a specific trade partner. Two things effect fortress reputation the percentage of dwarves that dont like the civilization or race of the traders vs the ones that do or dont care. The other thing that matters is what system we currently have which there happier the more stuff that we trade with them.
For civilization reputation its just how two civilizations get along.
The player is pretty much a representation of the current fort's ruler (or the collective will of the dwarves).
I'm not sure that it could be toggled. Go ask in FOTF.The player is pretty much a representation of the current fort's ruler (or the collective will of the dwarves).
I hope what ever toady does theres always a toggle for the player to not have to deal with elections and dwarves uprising. Im fine if all other civs have all that but I dont want to be forced to deal with it. So as long as it can be toggled I dont mind.
Also, the plan is (I think) to NOT have the overseer as an omnipotent god. Toady has the final say everywhere. If a suggestion goes against the plan, it won't be implemented. And yes, he reads all suggestion threads that aren't obvious trolls (like your battle royale thing).
I'm not sure that it could be toggled. Go ask in FOTF.The player is pretty much a representation of the current fort's ruler (or the collective will of the dwarves).
I hope what ever toady does theres always a toggle for the player to not have to deal with elections and dwarves uprising. Im fine if all other civs have all that but I dont want to be forced to deal with it. So as long as it can be toggled I dont mind.
Toady never comments on suggestion threads. Just silently takes notes. That's it.Also, the plan is (I think) to NOT have the overseer as an omnipotent god. Toady has the final say everywhere. If a suggestion goes against the plan, it won't be implemented. And yes, he reads all suggestion threads that aren't obvious trolls (like your battle royale thing).
Well I should have been more specific. Toady reading the thread who cares. I want him to comment on it.
Toady never comments on suggestion threads. Just silently takes notes. That's it.Also, the plan is (I think) to NOT have the overseer as an omnipotent god. Toady has the final say everywhere. If a suggestion goes against the plan, it won't be implemented. And yes, he reads all suggestion threads that aren't obvious trolls (like your battle royale thing).
Well I should have been more specific. Toady reading the thread who cares. I want him to comment on it.
Of we add republics, no matter what specific type, I would like to be able to vote on important issues as if were going to war, if we want to create a new settlement for the civ, who becomes a leader, where to settle, etc. Before the actual voting happened there would be a discussion phase where each voting member could try to persuade others to join their side. So maybe the civ discusses the possible change of law to forbid slavery and I as a player could potentially sway the humans to do just that. Nobles in noble republics would have to travel to the capital to vote and on the way fun stuff happens. Maybe there is a violent group that wants to assassinate a certain individual who votes against said group.
In a absolutist monarchy there wouldn't be any votes, but in a feudal monarchy the dukes would get to vote on some manners...
Lol ok thanks for the info. Does that nullify the argument wntirely though?
It would soak up valuable development time. DF development is quite efficient for such a complicated game.Toady never comments on suggestion threads. Just silently takes notes. That's it.Also, the plan is (I think) to NOT have the overseer as an omnipotent god. Toady has the final say everywhere. If a suggestion goes against the plan, it won't be implemented. And yes, he reads all suggestion threads that aren't obvious trolls (like your battle royale thing).
Well I should have been more specific. Toady reading the thread who cares. I want him to comment on it.
Thats a little disappointing to be honest.
Toady answers questions by email, responds to questions on Twitter, holds a monthly q&a, ensures all his seminars are uploaded for free somewhere and he reads every suggestions thread (first post at least anyhow). He also monitors and responds to queries in each release thread, comments and takes action on the bug tracker and occassionally posts in other threads.It would soak up valuable development time. DF development is quite efficient for such a complicated game.Toady never comments on suggestion threads. Just silently takes notes. That's it.Also, the plan is (I think) to NOT have the overseer as an omnipotent god. Toady has the final say everywhere. If a suggestion goes against the plan, it won't be implemented. And yes, he reads all suggestion threads that aren't obvious trolls (like your battle royale thing).
Well I should have been more specific. Toady reading the thread who cares. I want him to comment on it.
Thats a little disappointing to be honest.
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I can see what you mean, and it is true that we cannot tell how the game ends up being but we can start discussions based on assumptions to inspire toady.
Now, when I said that by having a king you already have a class system, I meant to point out that a king ultimately has the last word in all matters therefore rendering the rest of the people second class citizens. They might be allowed to shape society however they want, but if king does not agree then he can stop them how he seems fit.
Therefore the existance of an all powerful king implies that the rest are powerless naturally.
What's the deal of you constantly being worried about portrayal of class oppression in game?
I know you are probably into some PC stuff, but seriously - what the hell? Not portraying/portraying it in game does not put it into higher moral standard. Also, subjugating art to ideology is always something I consider a bad thing.
No thats not how rebublics work. Your confusing republics with democracy. Democracy is when everyone votes not just leaders no country at the moment exists that is a democracy. Republics is just when the people vote in leaders and the leaders vote on issues and what not, which is the system most countries currently use.
And now I feel myself a little autistic because I were not able to tell right-away if this post was meant as a a clever irony or not. :-\
To answer your question. My criticism was not meant to be argument-filled complex discussion about society and classes, because I find these discussions generally not guiding game development at all. DF developers take general ideas and try to put them inside the framework of the game while not trying to follow every single philosophical implication that it brings along.
My criticism was only meant as a metaphorical *smack* to GoblinCookie's head, because I don't find the guy dumb and I wouldn't even care if GC was dumb. But the problem is that he is very obsessive about certain ideas. And I actually find it kinda fascinating how this obsession leads him to react to things and ideas very specific way. Like in the topic of "Dwarven Social Lives" he brought out some existential ideas he found horrifying and I compared his existential fears to mine concluding that he is probably metaphysical opposite of me :D since, I am also obsessed with different philosophical ideas and ideals, but they are located in opposite spectrum.
I have realised that these obsessions are unhealthy when not controlled. And in case of myself, when I find out that I act on behalf of obsession, I metaphorically smack myself and ask - "Is this me or is this my obsession acting out right-now?" This simple Cognitive-behavioral technique has helped me to find out if my behaviour is unconstructive and save huge amount of my time and energy. Otherwise I fear I might be really annoying person in every social circle :D
I hope this explained my post and my emotionally motivated need to smack GC while telepathically yelling him that "Hey, you don't have to take these things obnoxiously seriously!"
I have some remnant left of a conscience, therefore I am naturally concerned about oppression of folks and depictions thereof.
I wonder if people will actually start discussing government types and functions for dwarf fortress?I've tried twice in this thread.
I wonder if people will actually start discussing government types and functions for dwarf fortress?I've tried twice in this thread.
The only difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is as follows; the Line of Succession, the Title, and title of those legitimizing your power.A dictator is pretty much a president for life with a bit more power.
Other than that it is depending on your own acts if you are a benevolent or malevolent leader.
In a Dictatorship you are either a military leader or the leader of a military coup, and those legitimizing your power are other military leaders.The only difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is as follows; the Line of Succession, the Title, and title of those legitimizing your power.A dictator is pretty much a president for life with a bit more power.
Other than that it is depending on your own acts if you are a benevolent or malevolent leader.
Hmm. Maybe we have different definitions. Also, Stalin has been described as a dictator, despite being the second Soviet leader (after Lenin) after the revolution, and therefore not coming to power via a military coup.In a Dictatorship you are either a military leader or the leader of a military coup, and those legitimizing your power are other military leaders.The only difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is as follows; the Line of Succession, the Title, and title of those legitimizing your power.A dictator is pretty much a president for life with a bit more power.
Other than that it is depending on your own acts if you are a benevolent or malevolent leader.
In a Monarchy you are a noble that either inherited the thron from a parent or you and other nobles overthrew the previous monarch, and it is the nobles that legitimizes your power.
The citizens of either system has very little influence on the ruling of the nation other than reporting the progress of projects and the quality/quantity of taxable goods.
Just because there's a military coup it does not necessarily mean it is a bloody coup.Hmm. Maybe we have different definitions. Also, Stalin has been described as a dictator, despite being the second Soviet leader (after Lenin) after the revolution, and therefore not coming to power via a military coup.In a Dictatorship you are either a military leader or the leader of a military coup, and those legitimizing your power are other military leaders.The only difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is as follows; the Line of Succession, the Title, and title of those legitimizing your power.A dictator is pretty much a president for life with a bit more power.
Other than that it is depending on your own acts if you are a benevolent or malevolent leader.
In a Monarchy you are a noble that either inherited the thron from a parent or you and other nobles overthrew the previous monarch, and it is the nobles that legitimizes your power.
The citizens of either system has very little influence on the ruling of the nation other than reporting the progress of projects and the quality/quantity of taxable goods.
A Republic is a type of governance where a collection of representatives(usually elected) form the government body, and either they elect a primary representative to lead the entire Republic, or they rule together cooperatively.This is quite helpful. The game should give some civs constituency based on nobility while some covs should allow all people to partake in votes. Maybe to keep it simple the votes decide on the people who actually make decisions be it one or more people who need to hold discussions before deciding.
The representatives are either elected among themselves in the local governance group, or they are elected by all their constituents.
The constituency is either members of a group such as which economic bracket they belong to, or the inhabitants of a geographic region within the larger nation.
So I skimmed the thread, and felt I should say I'm actually proud of everyone involved, because this has been way less of a shitshow than I was expecting.Mostly because GC has learned to back out when an argument is clearly lost instead of trying to save it.
Recent studies have shown that violent video games don't make people violent (unless they're really mentally immature, but if you're playing DF you're probably mentally mature), so your argument is flawed, GoblinCookie.
Thanks GoblinCookie. I think I finally understand where you are coming from in your opposition to any implementation of class systems in game. I think most people are more mature than that, but there are of course exceptions.
I have a somewhat different perspective. I feel modern media tends to (inadvertently) downplay past discriminatory behaviour by making protagonists have unusually modern values. It bothers me as it tends to portray this myth of racism etc being some unusual aberration, when in fact those sorts of things were quite ubiquitous. Ironically, I feel censoring those ideas makes overcoming these issues more difficult as people are never confronted with them.
For DF:
Without some framework for social hierarchy (beyond the limited roles of nobles now) the game will be quite limited in how societies are structured. I'd personally prefer governance and social structures to be as intricate as the geology. The concept of class can be interpreted quite broadly: You could have a "class" system based on seniority, for instance. It could be discriminatory in the sense that elders have more privileges than young dwarves, but everyone gets a chance to be an elder eventually. So, rule by a council of elders as a form of government.
What we would need is a "privilege" framework which defines certain prerequisites for a dwarf to gain certain rights (voting, eligibility for military service, noble title, right to make mandates, eight to own land and collect rents, etc). From there you could build up whatever system of government you like by defining whatever privilege structure you need. So, for a dictatorship you have a leader with the right to do anything, generals who can do almost anything but are obliged to demonstrate loyalty to the leader, and everyone else who must obey the laws but can otherwise do what they want. In a democracy, some citizens will be eligible to vote. Immigrants may only vote after being naturalized. Children cannot vote. All citizens are eligible to serve in parliament.
Please no arguments about semantics.
A Republic is a type of governance where a collection of representatives(usually elected) form the government body, and either they elect a primary representative to lead the entire Republic, or they rule together cooperatively.
The representatives are either elected among themselves in the local governance group, or they are elected by all their constituents.
The constituency is either members of a group such as which economic bracket they belong to, or the inhabitants of a geographic region within the larger nation.
Mostly because GC has learned to back out when an argument is clearly lost instead of trying to save it.
What source are you using?Recent studies have shown that violent video games don't make people violent (unless they're really mentally immature, but if you're playing DF you're probably mentally mature), so your argument is flawed, GoblinCookie.
You're wrong but we weren't talking about that.
I understand your reasoning against racost depiction in the game , though I think many people would actually play the slave. I would lve to play the dwarf fortress version of spartacus killing his master and leading a revolution against the slaver empire. Without adding this kind of discrimination we won't see such a story where the oppressed overcomes the oppressor.This. DF is a plot generator. If it makes for a good plot, it should go in.
Thats how I feel but the points raised by gc are understandable, and one has to wonder what kind of atrocities actually need to enter a game to be fun. I for one wouldn't mind if things like torture wouldn't make it in the game, though it would be enough for me if it only wasn't available to the player.They're letters on a screen. If erasing letters is a bad thing, then the backspace key is a crime against humanity.
Well, I wouldn't stop you if you pursued virtual torture... Don't pursue me for not engaging that activity myself...But those who WANT virtual torture could still use an option. If you don't want to do it, don't. Simple as that.
...I would LOVE to see your source for your claim that racism barely existed in medieval times
Racism is either nonexistent or very weak in the medieval times. Someone failing to depict racism in the medieval era then is pretty much historically accurate. Other things however that are unacceptable in modern times, sexism, homophobia and general religious bigotry are very much rife. The rise of racism is actually an interesting inversion of the normal story of societal progress towards the better.
...
That is one reason why historical fiction generally makes me uneasy. You don't want to identify, empathise with and hence think like people who are quite realistically worse than you are simply because they are more like you than villain-antagonists. That results in a kind of reactionary hybridisation, by which we in the modern world instead of moving forward end up resurrecting elements of the past which we left behind for a good reason.
...
Are you really questioning the ability of fiction to change the perception of the world?My curiosity revolves around the apparent claim that fictional violence and hatred turns otherwise peaceful and harmless citizens into vicious murdering beasts.
I would recommend you simulations and simulacra by baudrilliard to you if you have never come it. Seriously, fiction is just as real as fact in the perception of the single individual...
Are you really questioning the ability of fiction to change the perception of the world?It isn't. I am violent in DF, but I'm not violent IRL.
I would recommend you simulations and simulacra by baudrilliard to you if you have never come it. Seriously, fiction is just as real as fact in the perception of the single individual...
It'd be a little odd for every race in the game to have ethics regarding torture and then there to be no torture. Although given all the awful things you can do to someone with wrestling, I doubt there's very much else you could do without going into absurd and specific agonies that would be a waste of valuable development time.But only the player can torture things. I'd like for NPCs to be able to do that.
I'd also like to add that GC's statements about what people would and wouldn't want to play are more indicative of their own harrowing psychological profile than anyone else's.
The latter kind of divisions I am uneasy about because you will never be playing the slave but instead one of the masters, since only the masters have stories that we would actually wish to play.Tell that to Spartacus. Playing as the underclass can make things more interesting.
The latter kind of divisions I am uneasy about because you will never be playing the slave but instead one of the masters, since only the masters have stories that we would actually wish to play.Tell that to Spartacus. Playing as the underclass can make things more interesting.
Even better if you get a tragic backstory of betrayal that got you there.
If I recall correctly, there was a study which indicated that violent games were an outlet for violent tendencies. Just imagine if a child were full of energy and instead of letting them burn it off in a park, we kept them locked in a small room. It's obvious which one solves the problem of having too much energy and which one results in penning it up until the child literally explodes, throwing gibs everywhere and slapping passersby with arcing limbs.Yeah. If anything, violent video games REDUCE violence. It's better if some extremely frustrated and angry 13-year-old brutalizes some peasants in DF than if he brutalizes his peers IRL.
Let's put Urist McFumbleFingers in the rack and make him human!If I recall correctly, there was a study which indicated that violent games were an outlet for violent tendencies. Just imagine if a child were full of energy and instead of letting them burn it off in a park, we kept them locked in a small room. It's obvious which one solves the problem of having too much energy and which one results in penning it up until the child literally explodes, throwing gibs everywhere and slapping passersby with arcing limbs.Yeah. If anything, violent video games REDUCE violence. It's better if some extremely frustrated and angry 13-year-old brutalizes some peasants in DF than if he brutalizes his peers IRL.
My take on GoblinCookie's claim that racism didn't exist in the middle ages is that he is referring to white supremacism.He is talking about racism in general because he is referencing other forms of generalised hatred/bigotry/discrimination such as sexism and homophobia.
So you guys want to have that video game debate that nobody asked for?My point is backed by scientific studies. Violent video games only make their players less violent by producing an outlet for violent tendencies.
Art does influence the beliefs of its beholders just as anything does. Art pieces are small beacons of ideas floating through time space... At times fiction becomes reality to some... An atheist might say, afterall so many billions believe that the crucifiction and reaurecction of a carpenter was real and this belief still shapes societies. Tribal beliefs shape the behaviour of the tribes too so one surely can argue that literature and art shapes the mind. Its kind of ridiculous that you made me point it out.
Also it is interesting to note that some of you are fighting FOr the introduction of torture in the game vehemently while trying to portray someone who is against it as the insane one... Maybe if we'd agree that we disagree on some matters would lead to an actual discussion about dwarf fortress instead of continuous insult rants of opposing world views.
Okay then please provide me with a link. I have no sources as of now but consider this: To say it is absolutely impossible that violence in video games could strengthen aggressive and violent behaviour is just as outrageous as promoting the opposite. There has been connections at shootings in the past and it wasn't all media hype. If you desire to delve deeper on the matter we should do that elsewhere, not in this thread.Ask Rowanas. He knows more about this stuff and could provide a better source. Now, could you please provide me with links to said descriptions of shootings caused by games?
So you guys want to have that video game debate that nobody asked for?IF fiction influenced people the way and to the severity it is claimed then why are we NOT seeing a radical increase in violence among teens and young adults; i.e. the primary target demographic for shooter games.
Art does influence the beliefs of its beholders just as anything does. Art pieces are small beacons of ideas floating through time space... At times fiction becomes reality to some... An atheist might say, afterall so many billions believe that the crucifiction and reaurecction of a carpenter was real and this belief still shapes societies. Tribal beliefs shape the behaviour of the tribes too so one surely can argue that literature and art shapes the mind. Its kind of ridiculous that you made me point it out.
Also it is interesting to note that some of you are fighting FOr the introduction of torture in the game vehemently while trying to portray someone who is against it as the insane one... Maybe if we'd agree that we disagree on some matters would lead to an actual discussion about dwarf fortress instead of continuous insult rants of opposing world views.
I never spoke of severity actually but there are cases where the people involved in shootings had been massive players of such games, though there might not be a correlation.In the cases I believe you are referring to it was shown that they were all troubled youth with a lot of social and/or mental baggage, all known contributing factors to violent dysfunctional individuals.
To back YOUR argument actually, apparantly the youth crime has dropped significantly in the US, over the past 10-15 years. So this must not be connected to video games per se but it COULD be interrelated.
Thank you yes. There was a fair consideration that these games partially contributed to the shootings. I did not want to make it seem like it was the norm but you shouldn't forget about that either.
Portrayal of such Offtopics has to be done in a delicate way or else it becomes a depravity machine void of any story, but at the same time there needs to be a certain level of realism to appease reality...
No but at this point i realized that you like polarizing...Thank you yes. There was a fair consideration that these games partially contributed to the shootings. I did not want to make it seem like it was the norm but you shouldn't forget about that either.
Portrayal of such Offtopics has to be done in a delicate way or else it becomes a depravity machine void of any story, but at the same time there needs to be a certain level of realism to appease reality...
Why should we tread carefully when portraying violence?
Are you saying that there is a definitive link between fictional violence and real-life violence?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180116131317.htm
If I recall correctly, there was a study which indicated that violent games were an outlet for violent tendencies. Just imagine if a child were full of energy and instead of letting them burn it off in a park, we kept them locked in a small room. It's obvious which one solves the problem of having too much energy and which one results in penning it up until the child literally explodes, throwing gibs everywhere and slapping passersby with arcing limbs.Yeah. If anything, violent video games REDUCE violence. It's better if some extremely frustrated and angry 13-year-old brutalizes some peasants in DF than if he brutalizes his peers IRL.
I did read it ;)
The only difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is as follows; the Line of Succession, the Title, and title of those legitimizing your power.A dictator is pretty much a president for life with a bit more power.
Other than that it is depending on your own acts if you are a benevolent or malevolent leader.
Your idea seems pretty nice. Of course the levels of privileges should be broad and well defined.
With your picture i can envision a theocracy backed by military (god of war and swords). The generals are equal to low priests and may vote on bishops and the grand bishop/pope who is the de facto leader. A theocratic monarchy of a god of birth religion might install a king who's son will become the next by birthright.
To add to your suggestion: Maybe there could be certain jobs available to certain classes. A dwarf civ might consider smithing to be sacred and therefore only members of the chucrch are allowed to smith. Or the same civ might consider fishing as a low job so only immigrants and criminals may fish and this could create bad thoughts in them because the job is considered low.
I would also like to see symbolism within the government types. A new king HAS TO be crowned on Shimmerrock the Fall of Kings an artifact throne, and if the throne is stolen it creates a huge crisis because the country cant crown legitimately anymore.
Lastly, I would like privileged classes to partake in events that could shape the course of the civ as described earlier by me. In that theocracy of war, generals could come up with different plans of action and then wrestle over which course to take while in a democracy the same military issue might be voted on. It is fun when the leader of the religion of the god of games is decided by playing a sacred game... ( Urist McGamey has become Pope, as he won the sacred game of monopoly)
I agree with PlatinumSun. Though goblins should be 100% racist.Should they? Right now goblins have [PERSONALITY:TOLERANT:50:75:100], which actually makes them the least bigoted race. Presumably, they hate everyone equally, without regard for colour or creed.
I agree with PlatinumSun. Though goblins should be 100% racist.Should they? Right now goblins have [PERSONALITY:TOLERANT:50:75:100], which actually makes them the least bigoted race. Presumably, they hate everyone equally, without regard for colour or creed.
What source are you using?
I understand your reasoning against racost depiction in the game , though I think many people would actually play the slave. I would lve to play the dwarf fortress version of spartacus killing his master and leading a revolution against the slaver empire. Without adding this kind of discrimination we won't see such a story where the oppressed overcomes the oppressor.
Should they? Right now goblins have [PERSONALITY:TOLERANT:50:75:100], which actually makes them the least bigoted race. Presumably, they hate everyone equally, without regard for colour or creed.
So you guys want to have that video game debate that nobody asked for?
Art does influence the beliefs of its beholders just as anything does. Art pieces are small beacons of ideas floating through time space... At times fiction becomes reality to some... An atheist might say, afterall so many billions believe that the crucifiction and reaurecction of a carpenter was real and this belief still shapes societies. Tribal beliefs shape the behaviour of the tribes too so one surely can argue that literature and art shapes the mind. Its kind of ridiculous that you made me point it out.
Also it is interesting to note that some of you are fighting FOr the introduction of torture in the game vehemently while trying to portray someone who is against it as the insane one... Maybe if we'd agree that we disagree on some matters would lead to an actual discussion about dwarf fortress instead of continuous insult rants of opposing world views.
I would LOVE to see your source for your claim that racism barely existed in medieval times
And I would also LOVE to see your source for your claim that fiction influences reality.
Seriously, out of genuine scholarly curiosity I actually would love to see those sources.
Because every time I've come across someone making those claims they've either turned to ad hominem attacks or they have completely ignored my request
IF fiction influenced people the way and to the severity it is claimed then why are we NOT seeing a radical increase in violence among teens and young adults; i.e. the primary target demographic for shooter games.
Goblins believe in equality of prejudice, everyone gets shit.
What source are you using?
Wrong and right is not a mere question of sources. In any case you seem to be derailing this topic into a discussion of video game violence, I do not really feel like cooperating but it seems you have already succeeded in your derail.I understand your reasoning against racost depiction in the game , though I think many people would actually play the slave. I would lve to play the dwarf fortress version of spartacus killing his master and leading a revolution against the slaver empire. Without adding this kind of discrimination we won't see such a story where the oppressed overcomes the oppressor.
This is where there is a difference between for instance a book and a video game like DF. In a book you can write from the perspective of the slave and then write the narrative so that there is still an interesting story. Realistically however, if you play as a slave you are going to be bored out of your brain since all you will end up doing is hauling items about and if you try to do anything exciting to move the story along, you will just be crushed by overwhelming force and punished. A story can write it so that this slave just happens to be the right guy at exactly the right time, but odds are that the slave you play is not going to be Spartacus (not that the real Spartacus won).
In a computer game, the player aims to win. That means if given a choice between the boot and the human face, the player is going to fight as hard as they can to be the boot. Adding social classes into the game results in that choice, since all the roles the typical player is interested in playing are those of the ruling class in society. Slaves don't get to wander the world, armed to the teeth in order to slay dragons; knights do.Should they? Right now goblins have [PERSONALITY:TOLERANT:50:75:100], which actually makes them the least bigoted race. Presumably, they hate everyone equally, without regard for colour or creed.
Indeed, the social oppressions if they have to exist at all should reflect the personality and values of the creature. We could come up with a sort of strawman version of each personality-facet/value and when the civilization's is the villain we make the strawman come true.So you guys want to have that video game debate that nobody asked for?
Art does influence the beliefs of its beholders just as anything does. Art pieces are small beacons of ideas floating through time space... At times fiction becomes reality to some... An atheist might say, afterall so many billions believe that the crucifiction and reaurecction of a carpenter was real and this belief still shapes societies. Tribal beliefs shape the behaviour of the tribes too so one surely can argue that literature and art shapes the mind. Its kind of ridiculous that you made me point it out.
Also it is interesting to note that some of you are fighting FOr the introduction of torture in the game vehemently while trying to portray someone who is against it as the insane one... Maybe if we'd agree that we disagree on some matters would lead to an actual discussion about dwarf fortress instead of continuous insult rants of opposing world views.
Torture in itself does not imply the existence of distinct social classes, which I am generally against. Torture is really just a word for 'punishment nastier than I consider acceptable', so in itself it is a fairly subjective concept.I would LOVE to see your source for your claim that racism barely existed in medieval times
And I would also LOVE to see your source for your claim that fiction influences reality.
Seriously, out of genuine scholarly curiosity I actually would love to see those sources.
Because every time I've come across someone making those claims they've either turned to ad hominem attacks or they have completely ignored my request
Here comes the proving of a negative; racism does not exist in the middle ages because no sources exist to establish that it does and it is not necessary to explain anything. As for the other point I have made a rather lengthy argument for how fiction would influence reality already, I suggest you reread it. It is to do with perspective, that is to say it is about empathy/lack of empathy for a party, if you play as a bloody tyrant, then you will empathize with bloody tyrants more than you would otherwise.
The alternative to what I am saying verges on the ridiculous. It would in effect be saying that a person that assumes a role does not empathize with others that are in the same position as himself.IF fiction influenced people the way and to the severity it is claimed then why are we NOT seeing a radical increase in violence among teens and young adults; i.e. the primary target demographic for shooter games.
Because in the real-world there are other factors at work. If something more powerful is working in the other direction to reduce violence in teens and young adults, then it is entirely possible for there to be a negative effect from violent games but because this is weaker than the other factor working in the other direction the overall trend is still down.
You also disregard the fundamental attribution fallacy. If a person is more violent, it does not mean that will act violently more, that requires the correct environment. A violent person in a peaceful environment, is still likely going to be nonviolent. It is only when placed in a confrontational environment that the differences in character will show.Goblins believe in equality of prejudice, everyone gets shit.
A statement that does not make any sense at all.
Oh look, CrumblingCookie, er, GoblinCookie is back!Uncalled for he presented his views in a decent diplomatic manner and has maybe made some comments that you do not agree on...
The thing that matters is not "video games make kids theoretically more violent, so they're bad". It is "there is no practical difference (other factors counteract the increase in violence), so it doesn't matter anyway, as the effect is almost nonexistent".
This is where there is a difference between for instance a book and a video game like DF. In a book you can write from the perspective of the slave and then write the narrative so that there is still an interesting story. Realistically however, if you play as a slave you are going to be bored out of your brain since all you will end up doing is hauling items about and if you try to do anything exciting to move the story along, you will just be crushed by overwhelming force and punished. A story can write it so that this slave just happens to be the right guy at exactly the right time, but odds are that the slave you play is not going to be Spartacus (not that the real Spartacus won).All you really have to do is wander off when nobody is looking and don't get caught. If you can make it to somewhere you won't be recognized, you're basically an outsider peasant.
This is where there is a difference between for instance a book and a video game like DF. In a book you can write from the perspective of the slave and then write the narrative so that there is still an interesting story. Realistically however, if you play as a slave you are going to be bored out of your brain since all you will end up doing is hauling items about and if you try to do anything exciting to move the story along, you will just be crushed by overwhelming force and punished. A story can write it so that this slave just happens to be the right guy at exactly the right time, but odds are that the slave you play is not going to be Spartacus (not that the real Spartacus won).
In a computer game, the player aims to win. That means if given a choice between the boot and the human face, the player is going to fight as hard as they can to be the boot. Adding social classes into the game results in that choice, since all the roles the typical player is interested in playing are those of the ruling class in society. Slaves don't get to wander the world, armed to the teeth in order to slay dragons; knights do.
>The horrible things we can do in DFExactly. GC is one of these Stop Having Fun guys who always go "OH GAWD GUYS U ARENT PLAYING THE GAEM RIGHT. PLZ STOP PLZZZZZ!!1!1!".
Guys I have not read the novels written on this thread but those discussion always go the same way since the first GTA was ever released, so here goes my two cents.
As I usually try and play the good guy, I'll defend with the last energy the right of people to mutilate, exterminate, brutalize and discriminate virtual people.
Three reasons :
One : it's an open sandbox game, so it's par for the course. Yeah some people play sims 3 with the intent of killing their sims, big deal I know.
Two : because having evil expressed in a safe and harmless environment have a pretty much proven positive effect on human psyche. Sometimes you just want to punch a Dick and it's better if that Dick is virtual. (Dick is the name of a dude)
Three : Because even if you play the good guy, you need an evil foil if you want your quest to have a modicum of meaning. Yeah, playing the revolting slave necessitate you have a slave country on your board. It sucks but it's just plain common sense. People who want to erase the things that contradict their agenda are just sawing the branch onto which they sit. You may not like conservatives, but if you're going to play LCS you'll need them at some point, yes?
Frankly to me the limit is that : is that legal to despict X or Y scene ? If it is, then case close. Play the game as you want and enjoy the ride you chose. If you're going to approach DF with a soccermom mentality, at some point you have to realize you're doing things wrong.
Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary.
Look GoblinCookies, you the derailer, someone wanted torture added in to get information out of people or as punishment. You said I dont want it in because it hurts my sensibilities stop talking about it your derailing. He said he wanted it in the GAME as a SYSTEM AND FEATURE TO GET INFORMATION AND PUNISHMENT. YOU said no becuase of REAL LIFE implications you did the derailing if anything.
Any way who derialed what aside. The idea that we shouldnt allow violence in games becuase a violent person might do something violent is stupid. Becuase the kiddie winks poor little malleable minds. Look this game has ASCII graphics I dont a violent child will be that interested in it. Very few children even play this game. And they most likely wont get the kick they want vs playing school shooting sim. Besides these sorts of children who just want to watch the world burn like Elliot Rogers was imagining doing awful things in his head anyways. Having a kid play Doom wont have any effect like making them commit murder. Having mental illness becuase of shit parents or abuse or social deprivity is what causes this. And the idea if you play as a tyrant you will emphasize with them and turn into some evil horrible person is absolutely ludicrous. So I want your honest opinion should violent games be banned?
Some work looks at the causal effect of game play by asking some individuals to play violent games in the lab, while others play non-violent games, then measuring the behaviour of each group in social tasks afterwards. These studies have shown that playing violent games results in immediate changes to behaviour[v]. For example, after playing violent games participants are more likely to ‘punish’ unseen opponents in a task with loud noise bursts, compared to peers who had played a non-violent video game. Young adults also show physiological desensitisation, as measured by less of an increase in heart rate and skin conductance, to scenes of real life violence[vi]. Individuals who had played violent, compared with non-violent, games were also less likely to report hearing a fight staged outside the laboratory, judged the fight as less serious, and were slower to respond when they offered help[vii]. Desensitisation to violence is thought to link violent game play with later aggressive behaviour[viii].
The effects vary across individuals
The effects of violent games don’t seem to be equal for everyone, however. Short-term effects in the laboratory are found to be larger for undergraduate men than women[xi], and younger children are more likely to be affected by violent games if they have a high score on the personality trait ‘neuroticism’ and a low score on the traits ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’[xii]. In terms of the game, playing with a personalised avatar has been found to result in more arousal and more aggressive behaviour than when playing with a generic character[xiii].
Also gooblincookie torture is not only used as punishment, sometimes as enjoyment, sometimes to gain information. It is a highly debated topic and brushing it off with one sentece like harsher than I want punishment you are indeed misdirected with your thinking, as you showcase that you are dismissing such a delicate issue while vehemently fighting for another quite similar issue... I mean if you feel that way it's good for you.
"Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary."
Exactly this. People want certain stuff in you don't like, so the middleground is people start creating united visions to actually make all people somewhat happy. In my opinion concepts such as classes and other social issues that humanity faced should be included to an extent that the simulation feels wholesome, and still playable and fun. I would have fun to free slaves from a slaver civ and then leading them to create a peaceful settlement from the ashes of their oppressors. Or imagine a woman wrestler who saves a young cheese maker in distress and they fall in love... These stories happen because of conflict, so therefore there should be levels of conflicts for these similar to the real world, unless they overcame them by ingenieuity of history gen.
I believe many people would love to play underdogs. I for one play demi-god but I heard of many who start as peasent outsider, which is a underdog story for itself.
Maybe most social classes shouldnt be portrayed so rigid more lenient than in real life though...
All you really have to do is wander off when nobody is looking and don't get caught. If you can make it to somewhere you won't be recognized, you're basically an outsider peasant.
-Snip as I don't want to dig into that rabbit hole further-
The amount of text that needs to be written off to revive a drama that was closed in the 90' is just staggering.
There is a board for concerns about the ethics and gaming in this very forum. It's called "other games" or "general discussion". I believe the suggestion board is not the place to write an essay about feelings and concerns about how other people play their game.
I'd like to stress that this isn't necessarily a problem. Dwarf fortress is a very detailed game, but it is not even remotely realistic. Furthermore, it will never be realistic, as the core premise of the game is unrealistic (i.e. Dwarves building subterranean kingdoms and fighting megabeasts, etc). At one point the most feared creature in the game was a giant sponge, for goodness sake.
Sure, we can rationalize thing like magma smelting away by arguing that they are somehow feasible in the fantasy setting, but we could do that for ANY game mechanic, including run away slaves starting their own isolated colony (or running off in adventure mode). Thus, not being realistic isn't a convincing counter-argument for me. I do understand where you are coming from though.
One way around the moral hazard of discrimination would be to make it come at a price. Say you are founding a new fort ruled by some horrible fascist regime. You're starting 7 won't be high ranking officials, they'll be ordinary dwarves looking for a new shot at life. Great. You get a few immigrants. That's great too. You're fort grows nicely and everyone is happy. Then the central government send an official to oversee your fort. Your legendary armoursmith turns out to be a secret worshipper of the Goddess Delga, so he gets put to death and your Mayor gets hammered for allowing it. Your Delga worshipping doctor suddenly disappears one day too. You're not sure what happened, but since there's no body you just assume he ran away before he got caught. You then find only the Pureblooded are allowed to perform any crafts, and lesser dwarves must clean fish and haul. And the local administrator has a nasty habit of sentencing anyone to death he likes, irrespective of how useful they are. Then the persecuted dwarves attempt an insurrection. Guess who the player is going to side with?
Is that realistic? Perhaps not. But it addresses the problem with discrimination while allowing for the mechanics tp drive narratives. And if the player doesn't want to be tlruled by racist a-holes, they can choose another civ.
Because the video games cause violence folks are correct,
They are not and more importantly, we don't care because it's not the topic nor the board. Post your stuff in the correct board please
Then feel free to discuss their correctness elsewhere and come back once you're done. Jesus christ
I can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Do you really think I would massacre an entire town with a knife for fun like I do in DF? The fact that I am not in jail says otherwise.Not necessarily if you are sneaky enough ;)
Well, I got the point across. Just because people are murderous in DF doesn't mean that they're murderous in reality.I can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Do you really think I would massacre an entire town with a knife for fun like I do in DF? The fact that I am not in jail says otherwise.Not necessarily if you are sneaky enough ;)
Good call.Sounds good enough. Better than magic telepathic messages that we have now (of course, they might be a thing with the magic system).
So how do you guys feel about messengers and officials stating the laws and mandates of the king to the people?
I can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Do you really think I would massacre an entire town with a knife for fun like I do in DF? The fact that I am not in jail says otherwise.
By imaging players’ brain activity before, during and after each violent encounter, the investigators found that immediately before firing a weapon, players displayed greater activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. This area involves cognitive control and planning, among other functions. While firing a weapon and shortly afterward, players showed less activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) and amygdala. Because interaction between these brain areas is associated with resolving emotional conflict, their decreased functioning could indicate a suppression of the emotional response to witnessing the results of taking violent action.
The very idea that kings could make mendates that would be superimposed to the mendates of the mayor and local noble is extremely appealing. The liaison would give the mendate to the player in autumn, and leave him with one year to do a (substential ?) goal. Craft X amount of boots, or conquer Y territory, maintain an army of Z ammount of soldiers, depending on the monarch's personality and the state of the kingdom.
That system could be in return be used by the players to give orders to his own holdings, increasing the interconectivity between the fort and the world
I'm not too fond of the laws specifically, as I would prefer that the monarch leave this kind of decision to the local power
I believe that the governments should be based on the culture. So, a culture that values tradition may tend towards a monarchy. With different cultural values, you get different governments. The government itself and culture can drift in ideology and values, say if a scholar named Urist Marks writes about the economy and the importance of people to band together, his writings may get twisted enough and influence enough people that it changes the culture enough to lead to an insurrection.
I envision governments growing decandant and unstable, and may slowly drift towards centralization. All of which could add some more spice to world gen.
Then again the Laws/Property/Status release is I think supposed to happen after starting scenariosOther way around (or, same release more likely). Law, politics and property allow the specific definition of a site/individual's relationship to the rest of the world from which starting scenarios can be made.
I recall; a form of "powerless monarchy" designed by a fictional anarchist civilization; the randomly-appointed King has absolute authority in matters of war while a randomly-appointed council of landowners decide matters of peace. Random-appointments are done by getting the previous King incredibly drunk and having him throw darts at a map of their nation, the owner of whatever property a dart hits gets a title for the next 5 years.
QuoteThen again the Laws/Property/Status release is I think supposed to happen after starting scenariosOther way around (or, same release more likely). Law, politics and property allow the specific definition of a site/individual's relationship to the rest of the world from which starting scenarios can be made.
Let's go back to discussing government types. GC didn't win, it's just that I'm bored arguing with him.
What about a government type where an avatar of a deity rules the country?
I believe that the governments should be based on the culture. So, a culture that values tradition may tend towards a monarchy. With different cultural values, you get different governments. The government itself and culture can drift in ideology and values, say if a scholar named Urist Marks writes about the economy and the importance of people to band together, his writings may get twisted enough and influence enough people that it changes the culture enough to lead to an insurrection.
I envision governments growing decandant and unstable, and may slowly drift towards centralization. All of which could add some more spice to world gen.
Let's go back to discussing government types. GC didn't win, it's just that I'm bored arguing with him.
What about a government type where an avatar of a deity rules the country?
Thats how I feel but the points raised by gc are understandable, and one has to wonder what kind of atrocities actually need to enter a game to be fun. I for one wouldn't mind if things like torture wouldn't make it in the game, though it would be enough for me if it only wasn't available to the player.They're letters on a screen. If erasing letters is a bad thing, then the backspace key is a crime against humanity.
Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary.
Look GoblinCookies, you the derailer, someone wanted torture added in to get information out of people or as punishment. You said I dont want it in because it hurts my sensibilities stop talking about it your derailing. He said he wanted it in the GAME as a SYSTEM AND FEATURE TO GET INFORMATION AND PUNISHMENT. YOU said no becuase of REAL LIFE implications you did the derailing if anything.
Any way who derialed what aside. The idea that we shouldnt allow violence in games becuase a violent person might do something violent is stupid. Becuase the kiddie winks poor little malleable minds. Look this game has ASCII graphics I dont a violent child will be that interested in it. Very few children even play this game. And they most likely wont get the kick they want vs playing school shooting sim. Besides these sorts of children who just want to watch the world burn like Elliot Rogers was imagining doing awful things in his head anyways. Having a kid play Doom wont have any effect like making them commit murder. Having mental illness becuase of shit parents or abuse or social deprivity is what causes this. And the idea if you play as a tyrant you will emphasize with them and turn into some evil horrible person is absolutely ludicrous. So I want your honest opinion should violent games be banned?
Things really are not as simple as you make out. There is plenty of evidence that things work exactly as I described they do, evidence from people who are actual neuroscientists and not just the regular lying press. See here (http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/violent-video-games-make-children-more-violent/) and here (http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/Video_Games_Affect_the_Brain%E2%80%94for_Better_and_Worse/).QuoteSome work looks at the causal effect of game play by asking some individuals to play violent games in the lab, while others play non-violent games, then measuring the behaviour of each group in social tasks afterwards. These studies have shown that playing violent games results in immediate changes to behaviour[v]. For example, after playing violent games participants are more likely to ‘punish’ unseen opponents in a task with loud noise bursts, compared to peers who had played a non-violent video game. Young adults also show physiological desensitisation, as measured by less of an increase in heart rate and skin conductance, to scenes of real life violence[vi]. Individuals who had played violent, compared with non-violent, games were also less likely to report hearing a fight staged outside the laboratory, judged the fight as less serious, and were slower to respond when they offered help[vii]. Desensitisation to violence is thought to link violent game play with later aggressive behaviour[viii].QuoteThe effects vary across individuals
The effects of violent games don’t seem to be equal for everyone, however. Short-term effects in the laboratory are found to be larger for undergraduate men than women[xi], and younger children are more likely to be affected by violent games if they have a high score on the personality trait ‘neuroticism’ and a low score on the traits ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’[xii]. In terms of the game, playing with a personalised avatar has been found to result in more arousal and more aggressive behaviour than when playing with a generic character[xiii].
The bolded part is crucial to the initial point I was making about oppressive systems. Not only is there plenty of evidence that doing bad stuff in video games makes the player more likely to do bad stuff in the real-life, this is also proportionate to the extent to which they personally identify with the character that they play. That means that if we create a deeply oppressive society and allow the player to assume the role of one of the oppressors, they will start to see things through the eyes of a bloody tyrant and that is not a good thing and will ultimately result in bad stuff in the real-world.Also gooblincookie torture is not only used as punishment, sometimes as enjoyment, sometimes to gain information. It is a highly debated topic and brushing it off with one sentece like harsher than I want punishment you are indeed misdirected with your thinking, as you showcase that you are dismissing such a delicate issue while vehemently fighting for another quite similar issue... I mean if you feel that way it's good for you.
Punishments are also handed out by cruel people with little justification for the sake of fun. You don't do what I say so I punish you, vs you don't do what I say so I torture you; it really is a matter of degree. The only point I was making is that what constitutes torture has to be defined by the civilization culturally, it is quite possible for a civ to consider the other civ's punishments to be torture, even if both civs agree torture is bad in general."Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary."
Exactly this. People want certain stuff in you don't like, so the middleground is people start creating united visions to actually make all people somewhat happy. In my opinion concepts such as classes and other social issues that humanity faced should be included to an extent that the simulation feels wholesome, and still playable and fun. I would have fun to free slaves from a slaver civ and then leading them to create a peaceful settlement from the ashes of their oppressors. Or imagine a woman wrestler who saves a young cheese maker in distress and they fall in love... These stories happen because of conflict, so therefore there should be levels of conflicts for these similar to the real world, unless they overcame them by ingenieuity of history gen.
I believe many people would love to play underdogs. I for one play demi-god but I heard of many who start as peasent outsider, which is a underdog story for itself.
Maybe most social classes shouldnt be portrayed so rigid more lenient than in real life though...
My only point was that the nonexistance of racism in the middle-age implies the nonexistance of racism in DF would not be unrealistic. When we have thrown out the need to add oppression for the sake of realism, the question is why add it in at all? That in turn overturns a lot of assumptions about the topic of this thread, which is governments (not violence in video games).
My general position is that civilizations that are very oppressive should be non-playable, unless you choose to play on the wrong end of the bootheel as it were, which should be very hard. If you successfully liberate a civilization, it could then become playable as a result of your actions while if you corrupt a civilization enough it should become unplayable.All you really have to do is wander off when nobody is looking and don't get caught. If you can make it to somewhere you won't be recognized, you're basically an outsider peasant.
But now you are not really part of the civilization are you?-Snip as I don't want to dig into that rabbit hole further-
The amount of text that needs to be written off to revive a drama that was closed in the 90' is just staggering.
There is a board for concerns about the ethics and gaming in this very forum. It's called "other games" or "general discussion". I believe the suggestion board is not the place to write an essay about feelings and concerns about how other people play their game.
Except in this case the question of ethics is very much relevant to what should be added into the game to begin with. Because the video games cause violence folks are correct, we have to pay attention to what roles we are giving the player, especially when we are encouraging him to adopt those roles by the mechanics. We know the video games cause violence folks are correct, not only because of evidence but because the consequences of them NOT being correct are one or several of the following stupid and extreme statements being true.
1. Human personalities are absolutely fixed and immutable.
2. Human personalities do not exist, all behavior is in response to the immediate environment and responses of all humans are the same given the same environment.
3. Human brains can clearly distinguish the difference between real and fictional stimulus, despite the evolutionary novelty of this distinction and the fact that they respond emotionally (and neurologically) in a similar fashion.
Only one side here has a clear reason to believe what they do. The other simply likes playing computer games and seldom bother to actually consistently apply the actual conclusions that follow from violent video games *not* making people more violent.I'd like to stress that this isn't necessarily a problem. Dwarf fortress is a very detailed game, but it is not even remotely realistic. Furthermore, it will never be realistic, as the core premise of the game is unrealistic (i.e. Dwarves building subterranean kingdoms and fighting megabeasts, etc). At one point the most feared creature in the game was a giant sponge, for goodness sake.
Sure, we can rationalize thing like magma smelting away by arguing that they are somehow feasible in the fantasy setting, but we could do that for ANY game mechanic, including run away slaves starting their own isolated colony (or running off in adventure mode). Thus, not being realistic isn't a convincing counter-argument for me. I do understand where you are coming from though.
One way around the moral hazard of discrimination would be to make it come at a price. Say you are founding a new fort ruled by some horrible fascist regime. You're starting 7 won't be high ranking officials, they'll be ordinary dwarves looking for a new shot at life. Great. You get a few immigrants. That's great too. You're fort grows nicely and everyone is happy. Then the central government send an official to oversee your fort. Your legendary armoursmith turns out to be a secret worshipper of the Goddess Delga, so he gets put to death and your Mayor gets hammered for allowing it. Your Delga worshipping doctor suddenly disappears one day too. You're not sure what happened, but since there's no body you just assume he ran away before he got caught. You then find only the Pureblooded are allowed to perform any crafts, and lesser dwarves must clean fish and haul. And the local administrator has a nasty habit of sentencing anyone to death he likes, irrespective of how useful they are. Then the persecuted dwarves attempt an insurrection. Guess who the player is going to side with?
Is that realistic? Perhaps not. But it addresses the problem with discrimination while allowing for the mechanics tp drive narratives. And if the player doesn't want to be tlruled by racist a-holes, they can choose another civ.
Slaves running away and setting up their own outlaw settlements is very realistic. All of the slaving powers in the new-world had a problem with exactly this situation, though of course those colonies were not in DF terms really part of their civilization. I do think that if we add oppressive systems in the game then we should be prevented from playing as members of the elite in those civilizations *or* as a loyal government. Playing as the oppressed should be allowed, but the mechanics should make having an enjoyable game rather hard if you remain a part of your own civilization. An idea is to procedurally generate oppressive systems to degrees of severity dependent upon a token that defines how oppressive they are. So for instance.
[HERO_CIV] = Dwarves : Pretty much what we have at the moment, no real oppressive class divisions. Means we get to found loyal settlements and all characters are playable in adventure site.
[NEUTRAL_CIV] = Elves : No real oppressive class division, but a number of oppressive, morally dubious practices which cause certain individuals to sometimes suffer. We cannot found loyal settlements but we can play as all characters in adventure mode.
[SEMI_VILLAIN_CIV] = Human : Oppressive class divisions can exist, there are oppressive morally dubious practices that cause particularly the lower-classes to suffer. We cannot found loyal settlements and can only play as characters that do not hold political power in adventure mode.
[VILLAIN_CIV] = Goblin : Very oppressive society in all aspects that make sense for the creature and it's values. We cannot found loyal settlements and can only play as oppressed characters in adventure mode.
What about a government type where an avatar of a deity rules the country?I wonder if there's a name for that...
Guess what? I'm coming back into this by supporting this argument.Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary.
Look GoblinCookies, you the derailer, someone wanted torture added in to get information out of people or as punishment. You said I dont want it in because it hurts my sensibilities stop talking about it your derailing. He said he wanted it in the GAME as a SYSTEM AND FEATURE TO GET INFORMATION AND PUNISHMENT. YOU said no becuase of REAL LIFE implications you did the derailing if anything.
Any way who derialed what aside. The idea that we shouldnt allow violence in games becuase a violent person might do something violent is stupid. Becuase the kiddie winks poor little malleable minds. Look this game has ASCII graphics I dont a violent child will be that interested in it. Very few children even play this game. And they most likely wont get the kick they want vs playing school shooting sim. Besides these sorts of children who just want to watch the world burn like Elliot Rogers was imagining doing awful things in his head anyways. Having a kid play Doom wont have any effect like making them commit murder. Having mental illness becuase of shit parents or abuse or social deprivity is what causes this. And the idea if you play as a tyrant you will emphasize with them and turn into some evil horrible person is absolutely ludicrous. So I want your honest opinion should violent games be banned?
Things really are not as simple as you make out. There is plenty of evidence that things work exactly as I described they do, evidence from people who are actual neuroscientists and not just the regular lying press. See here (http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/violent-video-games-make-children-more-violent/) and here (http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/Video_Games_Affect_the_Brain%E2%80%94for_Better_and_Worse/).QuoteSome work looks at the causal effect of game play by asking some individuals to play violent games in the lab, while others play non-violent games, then measuring the behaviour of each group in social tasks afterwards. These studies have shown that playing violent games results in immediate changes to behaviour[v]. For example, after playing violent games participants are more likely to ‘punish’ unseen opponents in a task with loud noise bursts, compared to peers who had played a non-violent video game. Young adults also show physiological desensitisation, as measured by less of an increase in heart rate and skin conductance, to scenes of real life violence[vi]. Individuals who had played violent, compared with non-violent, games were also less likely to report hearing a fight staged outside the laboratory, judged the fight as less serious, and were slower to respond when they offered help[vii]. Desensitisation to violence is thought to link violent game play with later aggressive behaviour[viii].QuoteThe effects vary across individuals
The effects of violent games don’t seem to be equal for everyone, however. Short-term effects in the laboratory are found to be larger for undergraduate men than women[xi], and younger children are more likely to be affected by violent games if they have a high score on the personality trait ‘neuroticism’ and a low score on the traits ‘agreeableness’ and ‘conscientiousness’[xii]. In terms of the game, playing with a personalised avatar has been found to result in more arousal and more aggressive behaviour than when playing with a generic character[xiii].
The bolded part is crucial to the initial point I was making about oppressive systems. Not only is there plenty of evidence that doing bad stuff in video games makes the player more likely to do bad stuff in the real-life, this is also proportionate to the extent to which they personally identify with the character that they play. That means that if we create a deeply oppressive society and allow the player to assume the role of one of the oppressors, they will start to see things through the eyes of a bloody tyrant and that is not a good thing and will ultimately result in bad stuff in the real-world.Also gooblincookie torture is not only used as punishment, sometimes as enjoyment, sometimes to gain information. It is a highly debated topic and brushing it off with one sentece like harsher than I want punishment you are indeed misdirected with your thinking, as you showcase that you are dismissing such a delicate issue while vehemently fighting for another quite similar issue... I mean if you feel that way it's good for you.
Punishments are also handed out by cruel people with little justification for the sake of fun. You don't do what I say so I punish you, vs you don't do what I say so I torture you; it really is a matter of degree. The only point I was making is that what constitutes torture has to be defined by the civilization culturally, it is quite possible for a civ to consider the other civ's punishments to be torture, even if both civs agree torture is bad in general."Yes your correct racism did not exist in middle age Europe. Who cares. I want all the differant possibilities. This is DF not a historical documentary."
Exactly this. People want certain stuff in you don't like, so the middleground is people start creating united visions to actually make all people somewhat happy. In my opinion concepts such as classes and other social issues that humanity faced should be included to an extent that the simulation feels wholesome, and still playable and fun. I would have fun to free slaves from a slaver civ and then leading them to create a peaceful settlement from the ashes of their oppressors. Or imagine a woman wrestler who saves a young cheese maker in distress and they fall in love... These stories happen because of conflict, so therefore there should be levels of conflicts for these similar to the real world, unless they overcame them by ingenieuity of history gen.
I believe many people would love to play underdogs. I for one play demi-god but I heard of many who start as peasent outsider, which is a underdog story for itself.
Maybe most social classes shouldnt be portrayed so rigid more lenient than in real life though...
My only point was that the nonexistance of racism in the middle-age implies the nonexistance of racism in DF would not be unrealistic. When we have thrown out the need to add oppression for the sake of realism, the question is why add it in at all? That in turn overturns a lot of assumptions about the topic of this thread, which is governments (not violence in video games).
My general position is that civilizations that are very oppressive should be non-playable, unless you choose to play on the wrong end of the bootheel as it were, which should be very hard. If you successfully liberate a civilization, it could then become playable as a result of your actions while if you corrupt a civilization enough it should become unplayable.All you really have to do is wander off when nobody is looking and don't get caught. If you can make it to somewhere you won't be recognized, you're basically an outsider peasant.
But now you are not really part of the civilization are you?-Snip as I don't want to dig into that rabbit hole further-
The amount of text that needs to be written off to revive a drama that was closed in the 90' is just staggering.
There is a board for concerns about the ethics and gaming in this very forum. It's called "other games" or "general discussion". I believe the suggestion board is not the place to write an essay about feelings and concerns about how other people play their game.
Except in this case the question of ethics is very much relevant to what should be added into the game to begin with. Because the video games cause violence folks are correct, we have to pay attention to what roles we are giving the player, especially when we are encouraging him to adopt those roles by the mechanics. We know the video games cause violence folks are correct, not only because of evidence but because the consequences of them NOT being correct are one or several of the following stupid and extreme statements being true.
1. Human personalities are absolutely fixed and immutable.
2. Human personalities do not exist, all behavior is in response to the immediate environment and responses of all humans are the same given the same environment.
3. Human brains can clearly distinguish the difference between real and fictional stimulus, despite the evolutionary novelty of this distinction and the fact that they respond emotionally (and neurologically) in a similar fashion.
Only one side here has a clear reason to believe what they do. The other simply likes playing computer games and seldom bother to actually consistently apply the actual conclusions that follow from violent video games *not* making people more violent.I'd like to stress that this isn't necessarily a problem. Dwarf fortress is a very detailed game, but it is not even remotely realistic. Furthermore, it will never be realistic, as the core premise of the game is unrealistic (i.e. Dwarves building subterranean kingdoms and fighting megabeasts, etc). At one point the most feared creature in the game was a giant sponge, for goodness sake.
Sure, we can rationalize thing like magma smelting away by arguing that they are somehow feasible in the fantasy setting, but we could do that for ANY game mechanic, including run away slaves starting their own isolated colony (or running off in adventure mode). Thus, not being realistic isn't a convincing counter-argument for me. I do understand where you are coming from though.
One way around the moral hazard of discrimination would be to make it come at a price. Say you are founding a new fort ruled by some horrible fascist regime. You're starting 7 won't be high ranking officials, they'll be ordinary dwarves looking for a new shot at life. Great. You get a few immigrants. That's great too. You're fort grows nicely and everyone is happy. Then the central government send an official to oversee your fort. Your legendary armoursmith turns out to be a secret worshipper of the Goddess Delga, so he gets put to death and your Mayor gets hammered for allowing it. Your Delga worshipping doctor suddenly disappears one day too. You're not sure what happened, but since there's no body you just assume he ran away before he got caught. You then find only the Pureblooded are allowed to perform any crafts, and lesser dwarves must clean fish and haul. And the local administrator has a nasty habit of sentencing anyone to death he likes, irrespective of how useful they are. Then the persecuted dwarves attempt an insurrection. Guess who the player is going to side with?
Is that realistic? Perhaps not. But it addresses the problem with discrimination while allowing for the mechanics tp drive narratives. And if the player doesn't want to be tlruled by racist a-holes, they can choose another civ.
Slaves running away and setting up their own outlaw settlements is very realistic. All of the slaving powers in the new-world had a problem with exactly this situation, though of course those colonies were not in DF terms really part of their civilization. I do think that if we add oppressive systems in the game then we should be prevented from playing as members of the elite in those civilizations *or* as a loyal government. Playing as the oppressed should be allowed, but the mechanics should make having an enjoyable game rather hard if you remain a part of your own civilization. An idea is to procedurally generate oppressive systems to degrees of severity dependent upon a token that defines how oppressive they are. So for instance.
[HERO_CIV] = Dwarves : Pretty much what we have at the moment, no real oppressive class divisions. Means we get to found loyal settlements and all characters are playable in adventure site.
[NEUTRAL_CIV] = Elves : No real oppressive class division, but a number of oppressive, morally dubious practices which cause certain individuals to sometimes suffer. We cannot found loyal settlements but we can play as all characters in adventure mode.
[SEMI_VILLAIN_CIV] = Human : Oppressive class divisions can exist, there are oppressive morally dubious practices that cause particularly the lower-classes to suffer. We cannot found loyal settlements and can only play as characters that do not hold political power in adventure mode.
[VILLAIN_CIV] = Goblin : Very oppressive society in all aspects that make sense for the creature and it's values. We cannot found loyal settlements and can only play as oppressed characters in adventure mode.
Im rather sure violence has nothing to do with aggressiveness. Maybe to an extent desensitization. Think of it this way. If you have Quake. But you remove all weapons but the heart and it shoots a ray of hearts and you must love (to there point where they explode into rainbows and hearts) your opponent as much as possible and the game has no blood and its a nice peaceful meadow you love(fight each other in). People are still going to get full of Adrenalin because there goals conflict. Because you cant love your opponent as much as possible when he trys to love you. So you still going to get people screaming in chat and calling each other fags. And look the first violent game ive played was Call Of Duty: Black Ops when I was 6 and we just got an Xbox 360. And I can assure you. I would rather stay out of violence in real life I'm terrified by it, its horrible.
Also who financed these studies? I'm rather curious. Also these studies are from 2010. Any newer ones?
I’d assume it would be something along the lines of “deiocracy”What about a government type where an avatar of a deity rules the country?I wonder if there's a name for that...
*note to self; research mythical governance types*
I’d assume it would be something along the lines of “deiocracy”What about a government type where an avatar of a deity rules the country?I wonder if there's a name for that...
*note to self; research mythical governance types*
GoblinCookie needs to stop having people tell him what he actually thinks. Hes all like the brain cant tell the differance blah blah blah. Well Look I being myself can say with certainty that I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between real life and a game. You are not us. I am my self. Detoxicated is himself. KittyTac is himself. If we say we aren't sympathizing with a dictator when we want the ability to be an evil overlord in DF we aren't, well atleast I'm not. Here is another example. Lets say I play this game made by Neo-Nazis called ethnic cleansing. I play it a little bit and im pretty sure I wouldn't once think: Maybe the Nazi's were not that bad they only wanted to kill all the Jews and blacks.
Im rather sure violence has nothing to do with aggressiveness. Maybe to an extent desensitization. Think of it this way. If you have Quake. But you remove all weapons but the heart and it shoots a ray of hearts and you must love (to there point where they explode into rainbows and hearts) your opponent as much as possible and the game has no blood and its a nice peaceful meadow you love(fight each other in). People are still going to get full of Adrenalin because there goals conflict. Because you cant love your opponent as much as possible when he trys to love you. So you still going to get people screaming in chat and calling each other fags. And look the first violent game ive played was Call Of Duty: Black Ops when I was 6 and we just got an Xbox 360. And I can assure you. I would rather stay out of violence in real life I'm terrified by it, its horrible.
Also who financed these studies? I'm rather curious. Also these studies are from 2010. Any newer ones?
I've been gone a week for vacation and gave some people(won't name names) the opportunity to give scientific sources to back up their claims, but all I find is walls of text that basically boils down to "My opinion is that it is this way so I don't have to prove anything to you." ...
I keep giving your sort of people the benefit of the doubt, I seriously want to believe that you guys have something substantial to back up your damning assertions, but I'm always disappointed to find the same emotional arguments over and over.
The point is all of each sides' certainty has been disproven so nobody is a winner, which is great because losing is fun...
So since we cleared that argument,
How do you guys feel about the possibility of judges? I find it weird that the captain of the guard merely decides who gets hammered. There should be courts and also the judge might overrule mandates if necessary...
''We are socialists, we are enemies of the capatilist economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseenly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions ''Just for reference, this is an Urist McStrasser quote misattributed to Urist McHitler. But back to an increasing issue I see, why is it that the same user(s) constantly derail threads via cherrypicked arguments and ignoring one another's sources? This is getting crazy, I keep seeing it happen again and again and again, and it's strangling relevant discussion in the crib.
-Urist McHitler
The point is all of each sides' certainty has been disproven so nobody is a winner, which is great because losing is fun...IMO, it should depend primarily on cultural conditions and the 'need' for them, as well as viability. It does not make sense to have a judge in every peasant hamlet off the coast when the peasants can just tie a noose and let superstition be the jury. However, in larger, developed cities and such, and with the right values? Absolutely.
So since we cleared that argument,
How do you guys feel about the possibility of judges? I find it weird that the captain of the guard merely decides who gets hammered. There should be courts and also the judge might overrule mandates if necessary...
Is GC seriously trying to suggest that as soon as one study ever has found a positive correlation then it is the “correct” study and every other study is untrustworthy?I think so. That is a ridiculously asymmetrical burden of proof. And there's the essential symmetry which belies all non-truth-seeking behaviors: I could make the same argument GC did, with just as much force behind it (if not more). Therefore, wrong statements can be supported with this argument just as easily as right statements. This means that "this argument supports my statement" isn't meaningful evidence toward the statement being true.
No, I never said the authority of 1 positive study was not rather low. The authority of positive 100 studies is considerably greater than that of 1 study. However the number of negative studies has no bearing on the situation, simply the relative number of positive studies.Is GC seriously trying to suggest that as soon as one study ever has found a positive correlation then it is the “correct” study and every other study is untrustworthy?I think so. That is a ridiculously asymmetrical burden of proof. And there's the essential symmetry which belies all non-truth-seeking behaviors: I could make the same argument GC did, with just as much force behind it (if not more). Therefore, wrong statements can be supported with this argument just as easily as right statements. This means that "this argument supports my statement" isn't meaningful evidence toward the statement being true.
Will you PLEASE for the love of god, stop derailing threads to sate your personal argument ego. It's blatantly obvious that no party is going to concede and actually change their opinions, neither are the people viewing the argument. One thread is bad enough, but to do it in countless is just plain unacceptable.
The argument is blatantly over, everyone involved can throw sources at one another until the cows come home and it will not go anywhere. If it vexes you so badly, why not take it to PMs whilst using the thread for what the OP has outlined?
Indeed.SO VENICE
I would actually love to see trade republics with a doge as head. What do you guys think?
Indeed.I like the idea, but if we're going by Toady's development schedule, trade republics would first need some form of class system and of course a total economic overhaul. Republics and city states controlled by wealthy merchants will certainly become a thing later on, but they will require at least two big waits from what I can tell.
I would actually love to see trade republics with a doge as head. What do you guys think?
But back to an increasing issue I see, why is it that the same user(s) constantly derail threads via cherrypicked arguments and ignoring one another's sources? This is getting crazy, I keep seeing it happen again and again and again, and it's strangling relevant discussion in the crib
How do you guys feel about the possibility of judges? I find it weird that the captain of the guard merely decides who gets hammered. There should be courts and also the judge might overrule mandates if necessary...
But yet you insist on not dropping the argument yourself...But back to an increasing issue I see, why is it that the same user(s) constantly derail threads via cherrypicked arguments and ignoring one another's sources? This is getting crazy, I keep seeing it happen again and again and again, and it's strangling relevant discussion in the crib
It became derailed when one user kept insisting that portrayals of violence, such as slavery or torture, should not be in the game as that is(according to said user) the cause of violent individuals.
Multiple attempts have been made to get the conversation back on topic, but said user kept on bringing up the off-topic subject in their walls of text.
It has gotten to the point that ignoring said user is no longer an option.
It became derailed when one user kept insisting that portrayals of violence, such as slavery or torture, should not be in the game as that is(according to said user) the cause of violent individuals.
Multiple attempts have been made to get the conversation back on topic, but said user kept on bringing up the off-topic subject in their walls of text.
It has gotten to the point that ignoring said user is no longer an option.
You provided *one* study. That's what we were saying.
I'll ask a FOTF question before it is too late.It became derailed when one user kept insisting that portrayals of violence, such as slavery or torture, should not be in the game as that is(according to said user) the cause of violent individuals.
Multiple attempts have been made to get the conversation back on topic, but said user kept on bringing up the off-topic subject in their walls of text.
It has gotten to the point that ignoring said user is no longer an option.
I actually tried to end the discussion myself, but it kept coming back. The problem is that with governments, it really *is* the main issue; everything else is just talking about mechanics. How far should we go down the road of representing structurally oppressive systems in the game. That issue has far greater significance if video games condition their player's minds to replicate what they have been doing in-game than it does if it doesn't.
If that is the case then any game that casts the player as the oppressor become in effect propaganda for oppression.You provided *one* study. That's what we were saying.
I provided two documents referencing several studies. Someone else provided two more studies on top of that if I recall.
I actually tried to end the discussion myself, but it kept coming back.
GC has even stated that backing out of arguments is "not his style". That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
I actually tried to end the discussion myself, but it kept coming back.
For anyone who wasn't aware, the way to end a pointless internet debate is to stop participating in it. We're not stupid, we don't judge the winner by whom pots last.
And back to our regularly scheduled programme -
I think that, regardless of how it works, the position of judge is necessary. Whether they are Judge Dredd or just handing down sentences after conviction by a jury of peers, there's always someone making a decision, and Legal Decision Maker is a bit wordy.
+1.And back to our regularly scheduled programme -
I think that, regardless of how it works, the position of judge is necessary. Whether they are Judge Dredd or just handing down sentences after conviction by a jury of peers, there's always someone making a decision, and Legal Decision Maker is a bit wordy.
Good idea, and the position can also hold some clout, that would make it be a target for plots.
For anyone who wasn't aware, the way to end a pointless internet debate is to stop participating in it. We're not stupid, we don't judge the winner by whom pots last.
As stated in the FOTF, Toady doesn't really care about playing oppressive governments, as long as it's not hardcoded racism or hardcoded sexism. I win.
+1.
There are particular bits of oppression I have no interest in adding (systematized sexual violence, many of the various human genocides, certain forms of discrimination as previously discussed, etc), and other bits are already in there, as observed in the referenced posts. So you'd have to be more specific, though I don't want to drag what's apparently a suggestions forum beef into this thread.
Technically you don't since your discussion's subject was about the possibilities of media influence on the player not if it was actually going to matter for dwarf fortress.
So we all agree on having a judge type position that is nice. So how could it work in game?
Can the comments like "Toady One knows what you're up to, KittyTac" and "doesn't everyone agree that GoblinCookie is hypocritical" stop? Moving from a heated object-level discussion to a passive-aggressive sniping duel is not an improvement.+1
And back to our regularly scheduled programme -If you have an Anarchist type of governance then there won't be a de facto "Judge", but rather it is based on who is the best at arguing their case before the coincidentally gathered crowd/mob, or who is more charismatic/liked, or it is based solely on peer pressure from those with a biased opinion.
I think that, regardless of how it works, the position of judge is necessary. Whether they are Judge Dredd or just handing down sentences after conviction by a jury of peers, there's always someone making a decision, and Legal Decision Maker is a bit wordy.
And back to our regularly scheduled programme -If you have an Anarchist type of governance then there won't be a de facto "Judge", but rather it is based on who is the best at arguing their case before the coincidentally gathered crowd/mob, or who is more charismatic/liked, or it is based solely on peer pressure from those with a biased opinion.
I think that, regardless of how it works, the position of judge is necessary. Whether they are Judge Dredd or just handing down sentences after conviction by a jury of peers, there's always someone making a decision, and Legal Decision Maker is a bit wordy.
Social, governmental, and judicial systems are more nuanced and varied than most people think.
To some Anarchism is a legitimate and sustainable option superior to all other forms.And back to our regularly scheduled programme -If you have an Anarchist type of governance then there won't be a de facto "Judge", but rather it is based on who is the best at arguing their case before the coincidentally gathered crowd/mob, or who is more charismatic/liked, or it is based solely on peer pressure from those with a biased opinion.
I think that, regardless of how it works, the position of judge is necessary. Whether they are Judge Dredd or just handing down sentences after conviction by a jury of peers, there's always someone making a decision, and Legal Decision Maker is a bit wordy.
Social, governmental, and judicial systems are more nuanced and varied than most people think.
Without wanting to derail this into a full on argument about political philosophy, Anarchism is an interstitial form of non-governance, and cannot be maintained for long enough that it's worth Toady's (Kittens Be Upon him) time to worry about it for this game. If Anarchy is to be represented, then it is easily represented by the current state of things, simply without any form of legal decision maker present at all. If justice is to be served, it will be vigilante justice carried out by a dwarf that has decided to tantrum against that particular person.
In fairness, beating up a specific person because you hate them, rather than throwing a general tantrum because your whole life is shit, would be nice to have ingame and would be a natural stepping stone to this kind of anarchist "legal decison making proxy".
Bloody hell!
BACK TO THE FEATURED DISCUSSION -
I think that the Legal Decision Maker (Judge) should be the head of his own pseudo-squad of investigators, just as the Chief Doctor is. In this fashion, you can split it from anything else, or you can designate the Hammerer as Judge without a squad for a Judge Dredd style systejm, or the Expedition Leader as Judge for autocracies, or the Militia Leader and his squad as Judge+squad for military Juntas, or hell, even assign a total random and a bunch of randomly selected mooks as judge+squad for a less consolidated legal system. This would cover a massive array of possible legal systems (religious, military, noble, etc) with very little effort. Obviously squads are good for investigating, as ZM5 said, because more bodies are useful, but it also introduces more risk and requires more dwarf-hours.
I would be in favour of the player assigning this role as any other, and potentially having a few levels of judge, just as counts, dukes, barons etc do, so your judge might start off as just that, then the next highest position once a certain threshold is reached would become a High Judge, and finally the Supreme Judge. Again, all of these could be rolled into various other positions, so the Monarch might also be Supreme Judge, while at your colony of zealots the position of High Judge is given to a priest, and at one of your outposts, the Expedition Leader is Judge. The outpost judge makes local legal decisions but can be overruled by your High Judge, and both of those can be overruled by the Monarch-Supreme Judge at the top.
Bloody hell!
BACK TO THE FEATURED DISCUSSION -
I think that the Legal Decision Maker (Judge) should be the head of his own pseudo-squad of investigators, just as the Chief Doctor is. In this fashion, you can split it from anything else, or you can designate the Hammerer as Judge without a squad for a Judge Dredd style systejm, or the Expedition Leader as Judge for autocracies, or the Militia Leader and his squad as Judge+squad for military Juntas, or hell, even assign a total random and a bunch of randomly selected mooks as judge+squad for a less consolidated legal system. This would cover a massive array of possible legal systems (religious, military, noble, etc) with very little effort. Obviously squads are good for investigating, as ZM5 said, because more bodies are useful, but it also introduces more risk and requires more dwarf-hours.
I would be in favour of the player assigning this role as any other, and potentially having a few levels of judge, just as counts, dukes, barons etc do, so your judge might start off as just that, then the next highest position once a certain threshold is reached would become a High Judge, and finally the Supreme Judge. Again, all of these could be rolled into various other positions, so the Monarch might also be Supreme Judge, while at your colony of zealots the position of High Judge is given to a priest, and at one of your outposts, the Expedition Leader is Judge. The outpost judge makes local legal decisions but can be overruled by your High Judge, and both of those can be overruled by the Monarch-Supreme Judge at the top.
I think the controversy management, that is, judging, should be separate from the investigation and law enforcement, at least in criminal matters.
I want to play as a slaver. That is all. Of course, that is my opinion. If you do not want to play as one because it disturbs you, then don't do it.
Bloody hell!
BACK TO THE FEATURED DISCUSSION -
I think that the Legal Decision Maker (Judge) should be the head of his own pseudo-squad of investigators, just as the Chief Doctor is. In this fashion, you can split it from anything else, or you can designate the Hammerer as Judge without a squad for a Judge Dredd style systejm, or the Expedition Leader as Judge for autocracies, or the Militia Leader and his squad as Judge+squad for military Juntas, or hell, even assign a total random and a bunch of randomly selected mooks as judge+squad for a less consolidated legal system. This would cover a massive array of possible legal systems (religious, military, noble, etc) with very little effort. Obviously squads are good for investigating, as ZM5 said, because more bodies are useful, but it also introduces more risk and requires more dwarf-hours.
I would be in favour of the player assigning this role as any other, and potentially having a few levels of judge, just as counts, dukes, barons etc do, so your judge might start off as just that, then the next highest position once a certain threshold is reached would become a High Judge, and finally the Supreme Judge. Again, all of these could be rolled into various other positions, so the Monarch might also be Supreme Judge, while at your colony of zealots the position of High Judge is given to a priest, and at one of your outposts, the Expedition Leader is Judge. The outpost judge makes local legal decisions but can be overruled by your High Judge, and both of those can be overruled by the Monarch-Supreme Judge at the top.
To some Anarchism is a legitimate and sustainable option superior to all other forms.
By its supporters Anarchism is described as the ultimate form of Human Rights, Freedoms and Liberalism where EVERY action and interaction is your own choice and where you yourself decide what kind and level of judicial, firefighting, schooling, healthcare and welfare systems you have and pay for...
Among vanilla goblins, it seems like any dispute that doesn't draw the attention of the ruler would be settled either by the two parties working to convince everyone interested to side with them and form a mob, or by a nice, quiet murder in the night. I could also see formal or semi-formal dueling as a possibility. Some more structured societies might have trial by combat; the closest thing to a judge could be the warrior tasked with fighting accused criminals.
GoblinCookie, why did you even reply when all you do is complaining that "this" won't make the game become PRECISELY how YOU want it to be...Just ignore him. I wish there was a block feature on the forums for this sort of occassion, admittedly.
Ah forget about it. I don't see why there couldn't be anarchist systems in df. I tend to view dwarves to be fairly anarchic in the way their society actually works. Also for a short time a people could be anarchist but then they are run over by other systems due to their inability to act quickly.Actually, Anarchist societies are quite quick to respond to threats.
I would object but this would be somewhere else. Since we both agree on having a variety in game I asume a violent and a cooperative anarcy would be plausible in df.Ah forget about it. I don't see why there couldn't be anarchist systems in df. I tend to view dwarves to be fairly anarchic in the way their society actually works. Also for a short time a people could be anarchist but then they are run over by other systems due to their inability to act quickly.Actually, Anarchist societies are quite quick to respond to threats.
They are however Not very good at cooperation .. because of their disdain for hierarchy.
I'm pretty sure that there are lots of versions of Anarchism, and none of them promise everything to everyone. They just claim to be a better option than the alternatives. Sure, you can probably find a few individuals who will promise everyone that anarchy will make their lives perfect, just like some insist that the free market will solve all problems if we just get out of its way, or the government can fix everything if given the chance. But that isn't part of the actual political philosophy behind it - just advertising.To some Anarchism is a legitimate and sustainable option superior to all other forms.Problem with Anarchism is that it is a have-cake+eat-it-too ideology. It promises everything to everyone, ignoring the internal contradictions between every promise and every other promise given the rules of reality. Dwarf Fortress is realistic enough in it's mechanics that it would not be possible to gloss over the contradictions, so our DF Anarchism would result in a whole raft of societies, none of which would qualify as Anarchy, because key promises would be broken.
Among vanilla goblins, it seems like any dispute that doesn't draw the attention of the ruler would be settled either by the two parties working to convince everyone interested to side with them and form a mob, or by a nice, quiet murder in the night. I could also see formal or semi-formal dueling as a possibility. Some more structured societies might have trial by combat; the closest thing to a judge could be the warrior tasked with fighting accused criminals.Problem with that system is that the different mobs simply end up becoming two different governments and the goblins cease to be a unified force. Division is not a solution to problems for a society that wishes to remain in existence. This runs up against the whole ethics problems, ethics exist in society for a reason and they are not optional.
I reckon goblins work based upon a creative application of treason, the only thing they care about. If a goblin kills another goblin, the other goblins just look the other way. But if a goblin kills 10 other goblins, then the goblin get's defined as a traitor since his killing is obviously more than a personal spat.
@ZM5: Goblin societies actually function more like a chaotic Autocracy; i.e. the demon overlord does not care about how the goblins organize themselves as long as he/she/it is obeyed by these insignificant creatures.The word I've seen that best describes the way vanilla goblins seem to operate is kratocracy - rule by the strong. Authority rests with individuals who can manage to seize power, be it through force and threats, skillful negotiation and dealmaking, or sheer charisma and persuasion. The overlord has control because they're the strongest of all.
@ZM5: Goblin societies actually function more like a chaotic Autocracy; i.e. the demon overlord does not care about how the goblins organize themselves as long as he/she/it is obeyed by these insignificant creatures.The word I've seen that best describes the way vanilla goblins seem to operate is kratocracy - rule by the strong. Authority rests with individuals who can manage to seize power, be it through force and threats, skillful negotiation and dealmaking, or sheer charisma and persuasion. The overlord has control because they're the strongest of all.
I'd love to see the return of the old 'any appropriate power' religion type as a possibility, where goblins could be religiously devoted to their demon ruler, with priests and temples and such. It would add more variety to the range of potential social structures. Maybe when the myth arc gets here, it'll come back as a possible outcome.
Ah forget about it. I don't see why there couldn't be anarchist systems in df. I tend to view dwarves to be fairly anarchic in the way their society actually works. Also for a short time a people could be anarchist but then they are run over by other systems due to their inability to act quickly.
I'm pretty sure that there are lots of versions of Anarchism, and none of them promise everything to everyone. They just claim to be a better option than the alternatives. Sure, you can probably find a few individuals who will promise everyone that anarchy will make their lives perfect, just like some insist that the free market will solve all problems if we just get out of its way, or the government can fix everything if given the chance. But that isn't part of the actual political philosophy behind it - just advertising.
Also, DF is a fantasy world generator, not a political science research simulation. It should be able to handle a wide variety of social and governmental structures, including ones that probably wouldn't work in reality, because lots of fantasy settings include societies that aren't very plausible.
Goblins aren't a unified force. They routinely murder each other. They only seem to unify when their leader or an outside threat forces them into it.
Mobs would generally be temporary, focused upon a specific issue or conflict, but the most powerful networks of cooperation and loyalty probably would develop into something rather like a local government. When there are several large networks in the same site, I'd expect a lot of scheming and a bit of skirmishing to get more power within the site, but they'd usually avoid the sort of outright warfare that would attract the ruler's attention and is likely to get all the leaders swatted down.
It's all well and good to say that goblins who cause too much trouble get defined as traitors, but defined by who? If they annoy the ruler, the ruler can declare them a traitor and mobilize everyone against them. But short of that, it's just going to be the individuals who don't like them or consider them a threat, trying to convince enough others to act that they can overwhelm the problem's supporters or intimidate them into switching sides. In that context it doesn't matter much if the accusers are appealing to ethics against treason or to self interest.
The word I've seen that best describes the way vanilla goblins seem to operate is kratocracy - rule by the strong. Authority rests with individuals who can manage to seize power, be it through force and threats, skillful negotiation and dealmaking, or sheer charisma and persuasion. The overlord has control because they're the strongest of all.
I think philosophical debates between philosophers ahould unlock civ secrets. These secrets give civilizations reforms of government and societies. Furthermore, philosophical texts should influence public opinions.Just knowing about a type of governance and what it entails philosophically does not result in the greater majority of a society/civilization into reforming to that type of governance.
True but knowing about it adds the possibility.Not really.
Okay. So how about these discussions produce procedural society facets with rng names with points like slavery yes no, independence: 90, Judge Position for each site: yes no...Could make for some fun and curious combinations .. and many that would be paradoxically contradictory.
Would love to see a militarist kingdom with a pacifist majority whilst the rulers are supersoldiers.
Hmm maybe political entities could decide on what type of work they value and encourage this work. So a society with a love for hammering would get loads of hammerdwarves and produce more hammers than necessary
..(a thought that would take an unacceptable amount of time out of Toady's schedule)..Only Toady One can say if the time the implementation of a specific system/mechanic is worth it or unacceptable.
Not really.
All knowledge does is pit a name to the concept a group promotes.
RL example: Even if we had not known of Anarcho-Capitalism there would still be groups promoting the foundational ideas that we connect to the name Anarcho-Capitalism.
Would love to see a militarist kingdom with a pacifist majority whilst the rulers are supersoldiers.
Hmm maybe political entities could decide on what type of work they value and encourage this work. So a society with a love for hammering would get loads of hammerdwarves and produce more hammers than necessary
GC, your first point is clearly and obviously false for any intellectually curious society. Close minded societies might not explore alternative and even radical philosophy, but in the midst of an archlibertarian society, extreme socialist thought still appears. For instance, during the iron-tight reign of the church in western Europe, we came up with and first penned treatises on the virtues of atheism.
Second point, we have the entire concept of "caste" from the situation described. In many societies, warmongers and pacifists toil side by side, fulfilling those duties to which their skills and predilections dispose them. You can even take any election in which the popular vote and the eventual ruling class don't match up as an example of such (first past the post voting especially) - the majority of populace are no more convinced than they ever were, and yet we are ruled by people with entirely different ethics and priorities, despite them having all of the political and economic power. We are subjugated but not altered by our subjugation, and they are our masters, yet not altered by their mastery.
Technically caste is simply a system for creating subvariants of creatures which Toady only really uses for biological gender but which is a powerful tool for modders creating less standard species and creatures. Not that that’s particularly relevant here, but it’s a distinction.
I do feel that GC is right here and that the proposed state in which a tiny minority relying on the obedience of a huge population that is diametrically opposed to everything they do without any support or similarity in goals is fundamentally doomed. That caste of supermen might be able to take over the system from the top and rule it for a short while, but no government can stand when literally every aspect of the system including their own enforcers hate them and their ideals
The majority of us hate our leaders and their idealsI don't. I merely have mixed feelings towards a certain Russian president. ;)
Indeed.
Maybe gold or other more naturally sharp metals could make somebody a noble.
True but there is no buying titles without a proper ceremony...Indeed.
Maybe gold or other more naturally sharp metals could make somebody a noble.
I think you're being much too black-and-white here. The majority of us hate our leaders and their ideals, but we don't rise up and overthrow the centuries old system we have in place (European countries, obviously - America hasn't been wiping its own arse for that long). A nation of pacifists aren't pacifists to their very core, which is why you and GC are, in my opinion, arguing unfairly. It's dishonest to argue about a perfect planet-of-hats people on your side, and then throw out valid observations from the significantly more complex real world.
Technically caste is simply a system for creating subvariants of creatures which Toady only really uses for biological gender but which is a powerful tool for modders creating less standard species and creatures. Not that that’s particularly relevant here, but it’s a distinction.
I do feel that GC is right here and that the proposed state in which a tiny minority relying on the obedience of a huge population that is diametrically opposed to everything they do without any support or similarity in goals is fundamentally doomed. That caste of supermen might be able to take over the system from the top and rule it for a short while, but no government can stand when literally every aspect of the system including their own enforcers hate them and their ideals
From the accounts I read from the one hundred years wars, they really don't give a damn about who is in power. When the power in a city changes, this is the opportunity for a carnival, and the population likes that since it is customary for the new lord to distribute gifts to its new population.
They have absolutely no lasting loyalty. This is a foreign concept that do not even occur to them (from my readings)
Edit : That said, pre-roman or early middle age had a different approach, since the nobles were basically peasants with weapons, taken from the population itself (don't quote me on that).
Maybe we can discuss about differences like that in DF societies, rather than about 20th century ideologies which are a bit out of place in a medieval setting. Variables like "how does someone becomes noble", "what are the perks and responsabilities of nobles" and "how the population views them", stuff like that
I mean as far as I know, medieval/renaissance government types are of three kinds ; city state republics, where the city governance is independant, feudalism where the landowners are the vassals of bigger landowners and have their legator inherit their lands, and imperial where one man controls all and local governors are just his representatives and are designed and removed according to the monarch. We could add to this a tribal/pre roman system where the leaders are elected by the community, and I believe we have all possible government systems of that time.
The details could be procedurially generated (ex ; you need to be a magician to access nobility and non-magic nobles are automatically replaced as soon as a magic user is available, or your father need to has been a noble for you to be a noble etc)
Just some thoughts
If people had no lasting loyalty, then how was it possible for kingdoms and political arrangements to persist for hundreds of years, basically you are talking nonsense to a frightening degree.
The Hundred Years War was not a "war of religion" as far as I have ever seen, it was a war based on the King of England's claim to the Kingdom of France, triggered by the King of France revoking all of Edward III's french titles after a falling-out. The Protestant Reformation would not take place for another hundred years, and the Church Of England another fifty years after that.
It was instrumental to the rise of english/french nationalism due to the immense hatred it gendered between the two kingdoms, however, along with the decline of traditional medieval feudalism in those emerging nations.
The Hundred Years War was not a "war of religion" as far as I have ever seen, it was a war based on the King of England's claim to the Kingdom of France, triggered by the King of France revoking all of Edward III's french titles after a falling-out. The Protestant Reformation would not take place for another hundred years, and the Church Of England another fifty years after that.
It was instrumental to the rise of english/french nationalism due to the immense hatred it gendered between the two kingdoms, however, along with the decline of traditional medieval feudalism in those emerging nations.
You are making the assumption that because people accept the system in which they live, they do care about the personae that are at its head. Truth is they don't, and they don't have to because feudalism do not rely on what farmers think.
This is hindsight at its worse.
You can read Machiavelli's Prince to have a better understanding on the "social contract" that exists between lords and common class. It is a short read and will give you a surface knowledge on how those things work and why loyalty is holy unneeded in a medieval setting.
This is also hindsight. It was indeed not a war of religion (do people really think that? xD), it is a war of succession. French king dies without heir, next in line is already king of England. Local french noble are divided and some think too much power in the hands on one man will act contrary to their interests and chose another man to carry the title of King of France. English king decides he will take none of it and sends mercenaries to force them into submission.
This has nothing to do with nationalism "France" as it was understood by then, was not a nation. We didn't even had a unified language. When Joan of Arc says she will "bout the english out of France", she means "Ile de France", the region around Paris in which they had a foothold.
This later was "revisionned" by french writters during the 19th and early 20th century to give credibility to their nationalistic and patriotic movement. This is a well after-the-case rewritting of history. Joan of Arc was never a nationalistic icon during her time, she was a retainer of Charles V.
Also a thing of note : Joan of Arc herself was understood to be a diviner or a witch by the partesans of the french king. It was not a rare occurence for women like her to accompany armies (during her life she shared that position with no less than three other witches, two women and a man).
(Even the name "Joan of Arc" is a modern fabrication. She was called "Jeanne", commoners had no family names. They however had nicknames to distinguish from one another, and her father was called Jacques "Dard" in his village. His nickname would be transferred to her during her trial. And because writing was not exactly an exact science at the time, Jeanne Dard became Jeanne d'Arc.
She was however awarded a family name when she was annoblished, and given the name "Du Lys".)
Now I want people to believe I'm genuinly surprized by this revelation
GoblinCookie is correct insofar as loyalty is absolutely necessary for the long term stability of a government.
a system of loyalty did exist, albeit between nobles and higher ranking nobles
there were no competing ideological alternatives to feudalism until the advent of parliamentary democracy (given a choice between the King of England or King of France, you'll choose whoever your local noble is behind, because that's the guy who could make your life very difficult if you object - nobles are motivated by loyalty and perceived self interest with incomplete information),
China is interesting as they were overtly nationalistic, and had a sophisticated meritocracy system of political advancement where anyone (in principle) could sit an exam and be eligible for higher service. This helped justify the system as it was "fair", but even so there was still the odd uprising.
Finally, I vehemently disagree with the suggestion that because df isn't medieval real world medieval examples aren't relevant. That's not our call to make. And if those examples can help to flesh out interesting government models worthy of inclusion, all the better.
To clarify, I believe feudalism was an inherently unstable form of government as it lacked adequate loyalty from commoners to sustain it. It survived for as long as it did solely due to the fact commoners had no real alternatives. But in the interim, there was a LOT of violence and political instability. It shouldn't surprise anyone that commoners prefered despotic peace over anarchic violence (revolutions are hard).
"Instability", here, is subjective. An administration everyone hates can remain in existence for a very long time, so long as its subjects have no viable means to overthrow it. Once things do start unravelling, everything falls apart very quickly. Regimes that last only 100 years or so between dynasties warrant inclusion in df. The wars of succession and revolutions also make for interesting scenarios.
It depends on what you mean by loyalty. In the context of our conversation, I was talking specifically about the loyalty from the farmers to their nobles. Such loyalty did not exist, and I base that assertion on the records of the hundred years war, where it is noted that the same city, Paris, shown displays of joy at both the conquest from the english and the reconquest by Charles V.
This is explained by the fact that conquests are followed by lavish gifts from the conquerors to the conquered city, but also shows to illustrate that the common folk of the time had no loyalty to their local noble and would just go with whatever happens.
Loyalty by the commoners/peasants/plebeians towards the rulers/kings(queens) of the lands actually did exist back in medieval times .. it was just binary and dependant on the state of the neighbouring regions.
If the ruler treated his/her subjects well(enough), and kept tyrannical neighbouring rulers from invading/pillaging the "countryside", then they would help defend the land(although quite begrudgingly).
But that loyalty was fickle as soon as a "better" ruler came invading and there was a hint of a better life under him/her(preferably to just be left alone).
On another note; Nationalism is nothing more than Tribalism on a much larger scale, so technically Nationalism DID exist back then .. there just wasn't much of a sense of common culture/history with those a weeks travel away...
GC I highly recommend The Prince and Discorsi by machiavelli. Just because you didn't have to bribe the population doesn't mean that it wasn't smart to do so anyway. The leader highly depended on the loyalty and fear of its subject
Oh my god. No, nationalism did not exist in the medieval time, it's an invention of the 18th century.*sigh*
Edit : Just to give the benefit of the doubt, if you mean "people are naturally tribalistic and nationalism is an extention of tribalism ipso facto people are naturally nationalistic"...you're still very wrong.
Language itself is not unified in the middle age, every province has its linguae, they don't feel a patriotic feeling like they are part of the same group as each others, and certainly not as the same group as their lord or his mercenaries. Tribalism expressed itself in a village, or in a family, but for nation-sized tribes to organize themselves you need modern communications and an unified language.
Just as a trivia ; did you know that "mercenary", "soldier" and "bandit" were used interchangeably ? They eytmologically all describe the same people. In France they had signature methods of torture to force the peasants to feed them ("la chauffe" for exemple, was very common). "Chauffard" was also a term used, and nowaday it is an insult meant at bad drivers.
They don't just etymologically describe the same people, they literally *are* the same people in many areas during the middle ages. Soldiers get recruited from ordinary people and trained to fight, then the soldiers find themselves unemployed once they are disbanded either because there is peace or they lost the war, then they turn into bandits because nobody is doling out welfare to ex-soldiers and then finally they end up being hired to work somewhere else where there is a war going on as mercenaries and then potentially it is back to being bandits again.
Alright, so it's a bickering on words. Fine. Nationalism existed from the 18th century onward. Attributing it to medieval people is hindsight at its absolute worst. And to your defense, some historians did it, which is a mistake that is forgivable for a forum poster, but not for a man such as Michelet who is at the origin of most of our misconceptions about the "patriotic feeling" of the 100yw, which, again, was completely foreign to those people.
At the origin, it wasn't even a differenciation between the state of employment of hired fighters. Fighters were not hired from the common folk, they were hired as professionals members of companies. Soldiers means "who receives a solde" which is an amount of money paid for work, mercenary comes from the latin "mercenarius" who means "hired or rented". The words means the same exact thing. Bandit simply means "who travels in a band", which all soldiers did at the times. Tho you are right, soldiers were the most dangerous to peasants when they were unemployed and starving, and you can bet your pocket money that farmers despised these guys and did not felt like they were part of the same group
You can say that, but you have no evidence nor reason to back it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuNMM4Atmk
I have no idea why you're asking me for evidences since we all witnessed before you can't be arsed to check them once provided. But if you discovered yourself some sudden interest for learning stuff, here you go. It's an excellent series who clears a lot of confusion about medieval society.
The rest is not worth responding to.
I'm curious how Dwarf Fortress could be made to simulate a Technocratic government in Fortress mode...
A Technocratic system is one where the best suited or most knowledgeable on the subject are given the position to make decisions about that area; i.e. the best farmer would be making decisions about agriculture, the best military leader would handle militaristic affairs, and so on...
Officials can have tags relating to how someone can become one (election, inheritance, delegation by a superior), qualifications (skills, relative power, nepotism, social class, prestige), responsibilities (external diplomacy, military command, finances management, providing military aid to superior, providing taxes to superior, law making/enforcement, voting). There could also be values such as rank or authority, a list of subordinate positions, and such.
Much of this already exists in DF.Wow! You learn something new every day with this game. Glad to know I am not the first to think of this.
See: Entity position tokens (https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Position_token)