I now have a mental image of the lady and the tramp spaghetti scene, except it's two dwarves and some raw intestines.Well, then my work here is done. 8)
GoblinCookie, they have a few things they could do in their rooms, but don't yet, like practice a performance, invite friends over to socialise as you mentioned, or to watch/help with the performance, read, pray, meditate, and once they're implemented, play board/card games. Gregarious people should prefer to do all of these things in public and might not get as much of a mood boost if they have to do things in their rooms, but the option to do these things at home makes sense.
Yeah books may be a bad idea if you use fire to light rooms, even without considering the possibility of fire related accidents, but glowing fungus has appeared in at least one Threetoes story iirc, so it might be a thing once the game actually does simulate light, making lighting dwarven rooms cheap and easy (the drawback being a less impressive room, nobles may insist on wall-mounted torches and a central fire pit).
I'd say taverns should stay as meeting areas that may contain hearths, could even be that dwarves don't get the "ate in a legendary dining room" thought if they can't see it due to poor lighting to encourage people to place hearths in them, and the hearth itself would encourage ventilation post-gas simulation. I say this because taverns as meeting areas are such a common fantasy trope that it's a cliche tabletop RPG campaign starting location. Not saying there shouldn't be other meeting areas, just not sure hearths as their own type of room fill any role that taverns don't already fill, especially since booze, socialising, and performances are pretty close friends irl.
So let's not assume that one dwarf would necessarily aim to seek out another dwarf in their bedroom. Or, if they do, do not assume that it will result in mutual happy thoughts . . .Very true, I hadn't considered that. Still, if the dwarves are already friends, it's safe to assume that they know each other's Privacy traits, and likely have Gregariousness traits that aren't too dissimilar. And of course they would knock first, as opposed to just barging right in.
So, yet another Personality vs. Personality test needs to he resolved, Definitely (with social/performance skills used to smooth things out or otherwise for the visitor).
(♪ Do you want to build a gabbro man? ♫)(I know you're referencing Frozen, with the closed door etc, but what first came to my mind on reading the above was (with not quite the same words) something (http://www.cannibalthemusical.net/songs.shtml#snowman) else (https://youtu.be/mK-loCEmzyw)... ;))
Goblincookie, take it from someone who's played Klei's Oxygen Not Included, poorly ventilated residences is a very, very bad idea once you have any significant number of residents, unconsciousness + poor oxygen supply = not waking up.
I would say a more personal meeting area definitely interlinks well with the whole group hangout/dating idea, though making a hearth a necessity seems too restrictive on fortress design, so perhaps call it a rec room? Cause again, you might decide you want an alternative light source like glowing fungus or little hanging lanterns filled with fireflies dotted all over the room if you want it all romantic for the couples, and a fairly small fire or an enclosed oven for the kitchen. I usually tend to have my tavern on a different z-level to my kitchen anyway, and usually there's a booze/prepared food stockpile between them, so if I were forced to have a cooking/socialising hearth it wouldn't serve my tavern too well as a light source.
The caving in from over-ventilation problem may not be as big of an issue here for 2 reasons: 1) ventilation could lead to the surface or the caverns, spreading out the oxygen sources should reduce structural stress, caverns must have abundant oxygen in order to have such enormous wildlife, and 2) crops, potted plants, and subterranean orchards could take in CO2, and give out oxygen, again relieving stress on the system, farms may not need any ventilation at all, and may reduce the need for ventilation for surrounding areas.
And not to turn this thread into a rehash of the Lighting arc, but even better than glowing fungus, is glowing plants. Phosphorescent trees have been suggested for the caverns, which could be adapted for use as dwarven "streetlights", with small, potted bonsai versions as single-room illumination. Plants would actually generate oxygen, as opposed to ventilation shafts which just share whatever oxygen is outside.
And not to turn this thread into a rehash of the Lighting arc
Until Toady weighs in on the subject however, this debate is ultimately pointless
... More to the point, friends in general should seek out other friends. Are they busy in a workshop? Go and chat with them, it might slow them down a little bit but they'll be grateful for the company. ...This would be excellent. Dwarfs should chase down friends (and family/pets) for socializing needs at least some of the time.
I'll be honest, that whole thing about fires and ventilation and building a fort around them that GoblinCookie described really doesn't sound enjoyable, it sounds rather annoying and limiting....I somewhat agree. We already know that (procedural town 'sewers' aside (which are more like a qanat, given that they are tapped into by wellheads) Toady aint too fond of waste-water plumbing (for various reasons). Though his main objection wouldn't apply to 'waste-air plumbing' it doesn't seem like the most important aspect of realism that's yet misaing, and (as far as I'm concerned) I'd be perfectly happy if it never became so.
Goblincookie, remember this is a fantasy setting, if Toady decides fungitrees are more tree than fungi, they'll probably produce enough oxygen to be a reliable source, thus making caverns oxygen rich. In terms of realism you're right, there's no reason subterranean flora should be able to produce oxygen, but there's also no reason that one of them should have a constant temperature of the melting point of ice, at least from a realism perspective. Until Toady weighs in on the subject however, this debate is ultimately pointless, either he decides that absolute realism is 100% necessary and fortress ventilation will be a serious and constant concern with only one solution, which can't be overused without the fortress collapsing in on itself, and that the design restrictions forced by that are an acceptable sacrifice for the purpose of making the game more realistic, or he decides that restrictive design takes from the fun and that realism isn't such a rigid concept when you already have dragons and necromancers.
I'll be honest, that whole thing about fires and ventilation and building a fort around them that GoblinCookie described really doesn't sound enjoyable, it sounds rather annoying and limiting.... just my thoughts here, also I feel as though lighting might have to wait until more optimization, because I can't imagine adding a bunch of calculations on every tile, and possibly on items, and then needing to add more for creatures to use them, will be very good for FPS, much like how temperature works now
While I of course am firmly in agreement that DF should eventually give both light and atmospheric conditions the same level of realistic modeling that it grants to just about everything, this thread is for discussing dwarven social behaviors. In recent updates, Toady has given us taverns, temples, and libraries, therefore we must assume that conditions will never be such as to make their use impossible. Dwarves WILL be able to congregate and socialize, and while they may require additional elements to allow that, the place to discuss and debate those elements is not here.
The flip side to traveling to meet one's friends is making friends with those who live nearby. Perhaps dwarves should make extra efforts to socialize with dwarves whose bedrooms are close to their own? Or, if there is a vacant bedroom (of a value similar to their own) next door to their best friend's room, should they be able to unilaterally move there, taking all their stuff with them?
I now have a mental image of the lady and the tramp spaghetti scene, except it's two dwarves and some raw intestines.Well, then my work here is done. 8)
Btw, my points aren't adding fantastical things for familiarity, it's for architectural freedom. If oxygen exclusively comes from the surface, that forces players to build relatively flat, wide fortresses to avoid the inevitable poor ventilation in lower levels, and if caverns drain oxygen, you basically cannot build anything of worth there. That's not even mentioning that the caverns are already fantastical. They do not exist in the real world in any meaningfully similar way, and many things within them make no logical sense, especially if you make them oxygen deprived.This
Goblincookie, that MAD was sorta the point, this isn't the thread for debate about functionality of light or ventilation, I appreciate you looking ahead to distant future compatibility, it is important, but it's quite simply too distant for us to properly debate without input from Toady.
Btw, my points aren't adding fantastical things for familiarity, it's for architectural freedom. If oxygen exclusively comes from the surface, that forces players to build relatively flat, wide fortresses to avoid the inevitable poor ventilation in lower levels, and if caverns drain oxygen, you basically cannot build anything of worth there. That's not even mentioning that the caverns are already fantastical. They do not exist in the real world in any meaningfully similar way, and many things within them make no logical sense, especially if you make them oxygen deprived.
JezaGaia, I'd ask Starver about precise defining features of asociability, but I consider myself unsociable because I don't really care about social interaction, I can take it or leave it really, whereas the term antisocial sounds like a strong aversion to it.I wouldn't claim authority. But, in my mind:
JezaGaia, I'd ask Starver about precise defining features of asociability, but I consider myself unsociable because I don't really care about social interaction, I can take it or leave it really, whereas the term antisocial sounds like a strong aversion to it.
I'd say a constant mood debuff for antisocial folk just having friends is a bit harsh, but they could get thoughts like "Urist felt annoyed after being pestered by others" from having lots of unwanted conversations in a short span of time (e.g. an acquaintance tries to befriend them), and "Urist felt satisfied after some peace and quiet" if they've spent a long time without any conversations. Sounds weird that they're getting lonely while they have non-sociable, private personalities, but it's possible that they still value family and friends highly, every dwarven civ I've seen favours those values, personal values rarely stray too far from the civ's norm, and if you check in adventure mode character creation you'll see those values actually have associated needs.
Positive thoughts from personalised rooms for more private residents sounds like a good idea, though it'd probably take some work to balance, since communal dining room value usually shoots up to legendary levels fairly quick due to all the tables and chairs, possibly making bad thoughts from communal dining/good thoughts from private dining irrelevant.
I'd also call a personal/private temple a shrine rather than a chapel, but that's probably just personal preference.
The military dwarf issue might be mitigated by an increased interaction radius, unless nobody engages in social interaction during jobs, and if that's the case that kinda has to change otherwise the 'chatting with friends without interrupting jobs' thing doesn't work.
Well I don't know about that I have a legendary dining room and still have a dwarf that is private doesn't care for luxury doesn't handle stress well and a tendency towards getting depressed. He has only neutral thoughts about the legendary dinning room but a lot of negative thoughts about being forced to eat on a crowded table and is getting a very high stress level.Make sure there's only one chair next to each table. No dwarf likes to share table space, but they're stupid about avoiding it.
KittyTac, I'd argue that GC's realism applies only to plants, and that cavern critters couldn't maintain the size/fireyness/numbers they do now with such a low oxygen supply. Either you have (relatively) realistic flora and make cavern critters [NOBREATHE] and something to stop fire-composed creatures from just dying, or you could have (relatively) realistic fauna and have oxygen production sans-light, or caverns are going to need a total rework. Fire men in particular would likely be difficult to have in oxygen deprived caverns, given how deep you have to dig for them to appear.
GoblinCookie, firstly, default DF is fantastical. Even after the fantasticality slider is introduced, only the very bottom setting will be truly mundane. Not planning for the fantastical would be mindbogglingly short-sighted. Not to mention, that mechanic we're talking about? Bedroom visits? Works even when nothing fantastical is present, since a medieval subterranean fortress is pretty fantastical, and lighting/ventilating an above ground fortress is way less hassle, even in your scenario.
Secondly, multi-tile/level creatures will change architecture, not restrict it. Needing a wider/taller hallway isn't restricting, it just means you're gonna need a bigger boat. Only way you're gonna find it restricting is if a) if multi-tile/level doors aren't implemented at the same time, or b) if you have extravagantly large fortresses that take up the whole map both vertically and horizontally already. Besides, how often do you actually want big creatures inside your fortress? If they aren't grazers that should be in a pasture, they're usually trying to smash your dwarves into paste.
Finally, and this goes for everyone, this debate belongs in a thread of it's own. The subject of the debate is now completely unrelated to the subject of the thread, any vague relations to the thread have faded into obscurity. If someone wants to make a thread for this and link here that's fine, but this thread is about dwarven social interactions, not lighting and oxygen, or architectural freedom vs botanical realism
If the creator of a thread gives appropriate additional guidelines for an individual thread, please try to respect them. Threads often drift away from their opening themes here, and there isn't a strong sense of thread "ownership", so there's a gray area, but if a thread has been designed for a specific purpose, please try to adhere to that, especially if the creator urges you to do so. Do not derail threads.
I have no problem with us getting rid of fire men and the like, fiery creatures should not exist in caverns that are inhabited by other life forms; they should be consigned to live only in lifeless caverns, which should be common.Either fire men require oxygen or they don't. In a lifeless cavern they suffocate. In the other case, there is no problem of cohabitation with other creatures.
Medieval dwarf fortress however are not fantastical. There is no magic required to build such a thing, only an understanding of the same physical principles that allow for mines to be built that don't kill all their miners.On the scale of dwarf forts, you would need industrial air pumps. It's not doable with medieval tech.
GoblinCookie, yeah you might need to reinforce some walls and roofs for larger hallways, and make pillars in the larger rooms. I'm still not seeing any "architectural freedom nose-dive" as you put it, just some challenges to overcome.
Maybe fantastical was too strong of a word for a medieval subterranean fortress, since in and of itself it's not, however, the reason they don't exist in real life in the same way that they do in DF is actually much simpler than what you state. Humans need sunlight to produce vitamin D. A human who lived like a DF dwarf would get rickets, in fact, during the ice age, rickets was such a serious problem that it resulted in the evolution of pale skin, sacrificing some UV protection to get more vitamin D from sunlight, and that was just because days were short, nights were long, it was probably quite cloudy, and shelter + fire was warmer than sunlight. Presumably dwarves have some other means of keeping healthy bones.
I have never claimed that dwarves are just short humans. I do not consider dwarves to just be short humans. I'm well aware that dwarven society would be alien (and as I have mentioned, harmful) to humans. Please don't assume that I have made assumptions.
The one time you mentioned anything about dwarven socialising during that entire post was when you claimed this debate was still relevant to it. Nice. Let me list 3 reasons to put it in another thread:
1) People who just want to talk about dwarven socialisation, and have no interest in how ventilation or lighting are implemented, are more likely to not bother reading the thread because they aren't interested in the debate subject at all. This results in less people contributing, and more people making suggestions that have already been made, because they didn't want to check every post to see which ones weren't part of the debate.
2) People who have absolutely no interest in dwarven social lives but are very interested in lighting, ventilation, botanical realism, architectural freedom, the caverns, e.c.t. likely won't see the debate because of the thread name, and won't be able to contribute points that we may have overlooked.
3) Forum organisation. If every debate about subject x was met with a link to a thread about subject x, those debates would be better informed, wouldn't repeat the same points over and over on many different threads, and there would be a huge decrease in related thread derailment.
I'm surprised I had to explain this to you, you seem intelligent enough to be able to figure this out yourself. I'm not trying to avoid the debate, I'll gladly follow you to the new thread and it can continue there, I just want to keep the forum organised and user-friendly.
scourge, yeah I assume there'll be an init option to switch off light and gas simulation, just like temperature.
Either fire men require oxygen or they don't. In a lifeless cavern they suffocate. In the other case, there is no problem of cohabitation with other creatures.
On the scale of dwarf forts, you would need industrial air pumps. It's not doable with medieval tech.
Their fire consumes oxygen, whether they need oxygen to survive or not.I guess you could get a backdraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdraft) when you open the caverns? :P
KittyTac, that part was specifically about surface-dwellers that do need vitamin D, like humans, and possibly also elves and animal peopleOh, OK. I misunderstood. There should be a tag for that, yeah.
Maybe dwarves are not vitamin-D dependent. They're not humans.It'd be interesting if each of the intelligent races had some strange dependency, without which they suffer withdrawal and reduced efficiency. Dwarves = alcohol, humans = sunlight, elves = tree-hugging and goblins = cruelty? Each could, theoretically, put the person into an emotional state that releases an enzyme/hormone/neurotransmitter/etc., which is beneficial to various bodily functions.
Racial needs sound interesting, though as previously mentioned, may need extra balancing to get right, if I have a goblin who stops working every week so it can go off and mutilate a puppy I'm just not gonna accept goblin residents. Sounds like it might be tough to rawify them enough to give modders full control over extra needs for their custom races, but just having tags for the vanilla racial needs available could work.What about a "Dummy" creature that can be created at a workshop and could be used by goblins and violent civilized creatures in general to relieve stress and the need for violence by hitting the dummy? It would relieve less of it, but better than nothing.
Ceremonies are a nice idea, finally, a reason to actually assign people to work at the temple. It'd be extra cool if it consulted mythgen when deciding religious holiday placement.
Not sure insistence on being outside to socialise works for simulating vitamin D deficiency, since not all humans need to socialise, and IRL we don't need to be outside for a chat, but going for a walk about outside with friends actually sounds like a nice social activity for residents who value nature and aren't cave adapted, though a park/nature reserve zone may be needed to avoid them wandering straight into large predators. I think humans, and maybe other surface-dwellers, could show the need for sunlight with a variant on the code for cave adaption (maybe call it cave sickness?), meaning it'd be a good idea to keep them closer to, or on the surface, though that may need some balancing to avoid confusing new players as their foreign residents all go pale and sickly.
Btw, sorry if I've been a bit snappy in previous posts, the pollen count has been, and still is, super high here, and I tend to get a bit grouchy when I can't breathe.
Racial needs sound interesting, though as previously mentioned, may need extra balancing to get right, if I have a goblin who stops working every week so it can go off and mutilate a puppy I'm just not gonna accept goblin residents. Sounds like it might be tough to rawify them enough to give modders full control over extra needs for their custom races, but just having tags for the vanilla racial needs available could work.What about a "Dummy" creature that can be created at a workshop and could be used by goblins and violent civilized creatures in general to relieve stress and the need for violence by hitting the dummy? It would relieve less of it, but better than nothing.
Ceremonies are a nice idea, finally, a reason to actually assign people to work at the temple. It'd be extra cool if it consulted mythgen when deciding religious holiday placement.
People with high Anger_Propensity and related traits might be satisfied by abusing inanimate objects and/or watching bloodsports in the arena, but I personally doubt that would satisfy most goblins, especially if it really is a biological need. But even if goblins really did have to knowingly inflict pain upon the helpless, they could do the jobs of Gelder, Animal Trainer (someone's got to teach the beasts to hate goblins, after all), Ambusher, Trapper, Fishergoblin, etc. They would probably also love the office of Sheriff or Hammerer, and they might someday also torture for information, or serve as the "bad sergeant" for military recruits.If I have a goblin who stops working every week so it can go off and mutilate a puppy I'm just not gonna accept goblin residents.What about a "Dummy" creature that can be created at a workshop and could be used by goblins and violent civilized creatures in general to relieve stress and the need for violence by hitting the dummy?
For the antisocial creature that suffers from Vitamin D shortage we can have a separate behavior that would cause them to walk to the surface to spend time in the sun.As far as Vitamin D itself is concerned, there are plenty of dietary sources, most of which are easily obtained in a dwarf fort: cheese, eggs, fatty fish, & various types of mushrooms. It really shouldn't be a problem. I read humans (and elves) as having more of a psychological need for sunlight (and fresh air): If they go without for too long, they start to get stir-crazy, and if it's made to continue, they can even develop claustrophobia. But we needn't develop a special behavior just to force asocial humans to head topside every now and then, just have any human that feels "hemmed in after not being able to see the sky lately" try to path to an Outside Aboveground tile during their next On Break. You could also assign them aboveground jobs like Woodcutter, Herbalist, etc.
Well, that depends on whether or not you're talking about things that creatures like to do (a lot of mammals enjoy skin stimulation, like cats being petted or bears rubbing on trees), and things that they actually need to do (dwarves are the only creatures that must drink booze or suffer harsh penalties to speed & coordination).What about a "Dummy" creature that can be created at a workshop and could be used by goblins and violent civilized creatures in general to relieve stress and the need for violence by hitting the dummy? It would relieve less of it, but better than nothing.That makes them sound like cats needing to scratch things and dogs needing to chew things. Actually this applies in general to Six of Spades suggestions on the matter, a lot of them while interesting are not really going to be unique to that specific creature.
As far as Vitamin D itself is concerned, there are plenty of dietary sources, most of which are easily obtained in a dwarf fort: cheese, eggs, fatty fish, & various types of mushrooms. It really shouldn't be a problem. I read humans (and elves) as having more of a psychological need for sunlight (and fresh air): If they go without for too long, they start to get stir-crazy, and if it's made to continue, they can even develop claustrophobia. But we needn't develop a special behavior just to force asocial humans to head topside every now and then, just have any human that feels "hemmed in after not being able to see the sky lately" try to path to an Outside Aboveground tile during their next On Break. You could also assign them aboveground jobs like Woodcutter, Herbalist, etc.
Not according to Wikipedia.As far as Vitamin D itself is concerned, there are plenty of dietary sourcesDon't the dietery sources require sunlight to 'unlock'?
The idea was to use the social behavior in order to cause them to move to the surface in groups, rather than simply doing so individually when they feel the need.Yes, I was suggesting the 'cabin fever' behavior as a safety, to catch those humans who happen to be asocial (and/or there just aren't enough other humans in the fort) and thus don't catch the "hey guys, let's go upstairs for a picnic" bandwagon.
Oh, I doubt he'll pretend to be versed in biochemistry, along with everything else. Then again, it might be amusing to see him try. And this thread's already suffered one hard derail, let him spin his wheels and try for two.No. It's just that he'll dismiss Wikipedia because it is "inaccurate" to him.
Not according to Wikipedia.
Yes, I was suggesting the 'cabin fever' behavior as a safety, to catch those humans who happen to be asocial (and/or there just aren't enough other humans in the fort) and thus don't catch the "hey guys, let's go upstairs for a picnic" bandwagon.
Of course, having humans require regular sunlight exposure means renewed attention to more realistic properties of glass, and most likely unavoidable fortress security flaws. If you live in an area with Evil weather (though I don't know if that'll still be a thing after the Sphere-based biome rebalancing), then an enclosed greenhouse is literally the only way to air your humans out . . . assuming, of course, that glass will finally be made transparent to light transmission. And if glass is made transparent (as it should be), then it will most likely be made breakable (as it should be) as well . . . meaning, any flying building destroyer (or just any flier strong & smart enough to drop a rock) can easily create a path into the fort, all because you have human residents.
Oh, I doubt he'll pretend to be versed in biochemistry, along with everything else. Then again, it might be amusing to see him try. And this thread's already suffered one hard derail, let him spin his wheels and try for two.
Oh, I doubt he'll pretend to be versed in biochemistry, along with everything else. Then again, it might be amusing to see him try. And this thread's already suffered one hard derail, let him spin his wheels and try for two.No. It's just that he'll dismiss Wikipedia because it is "inaccurate" to him.
I never claimed to be omniscient, merely cleverer than most people. ;)
I never claimed to be omniscient, merely cleverer than most people. ;)The reason you are not is precisely because you think you are. You never learn anything out of ego and everytime you stumble upon someone who actually knows their shit you try to deflect with logghorea, trying to control damage with ad nauseam.
No. It's just that he'll dismiss Wikipedia because it is "inaccurate" to him.The fact that it can be maliciously edited hardly means that it is likely to be so--I highly doubt anyone has nefarious purposes regarding, say, the nature of a Tibetan sky burial. GoblinCookie's disdain for Wikipedia is humorous to me because it's A) pretentious (Of course the world's largest body of knowledge would be less prestigious and reliable than GoblinCookie's own brain), B) facile (It costs him nothing to malign the huge body of knowledge that can most easily be used to prove him wrong), and C) hypocritical (He quoted it himself back when we were fighting about the meaning of the word 'clan'. Amusingly, he cherry-picked out the parts of the article that supported his argument, while conveniently glossing over the parts that supported mine, a tidy little example of intellectual dishonesty).
Wikpedia is something of the idiot's bible. It is basically a place full of stuff so basic that even the world's plentiful supply of idiots cannot be persuaded that it isn't the case.Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars? I just want to be sure DF's geology is correct. I know you have this sort of information on the tip of your tongue, so thanks in advance.
Which was why my answer was direct, GoblinCookie. In a word, "No."QuoteNot according to Wikipedia.The question was not a rhetorical one SixOfSpades.
I think ultraviolet light does not pass throughIt depends on the nature of the particulates suspended within the glass. In DF terms, UV light would pass through clear glass and probably crystal glass as well, I'm not sure about green glass. More important than Vitamin D synthesis is flower pollination: Bees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go. Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce.lightglass and hence Vitamin D is still a problem, since I think (again I don't claim to know) that UV light is specifically needed for Vitamin D synthesis.
The glass is fragile problem can also be solved by having a secondary level of drawbridges to seal off the greenhouses fragile glass walls.That's good, but aren't lowered drawbridges vulnerable to building destroyers? I lack experience on this.
Since people love to derail threads when I am around, let's derail the thread into a discussion that is all about ME!Funny how you noticed that too . . . Thread derails always seem to involve GoblinCookie . . . I wonder what could be the root cause. But curiously, this digression is actually ON topic, because we're talking about social lives, and mocking you certainly does seem to be an entertaining social activity.
Oh, I think it's far too late for that. Your recent displays of condescension and overweening arrogance are going to take you a HELL of a long time to live down--that is, if you were even inclined to do so, which you clearly are not.That was a joke.I never claimed to be omniscient, merely cleverer than most people. ;)The reason you are not is precisely because you think you are. You never learn anything out of ego and everytime you stumble upon someone who actually knows their shit you try to deflect with logghorea, trying to control damage with ad nauseam.
And if glass is made transparent (as it should be), then it will most likely be made breakable (as it should be) as well . . . meaning, any flying building destroyer (or just any flier strong & smart enough to drop a rock) can easily create a path into the fort, all because you have human residents.I would think this would just be subject to invader digging mechanics. Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.
Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.I sort of imagine that Constructions of glass are basically Glass Brick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_brick) walls/floors. As "furniture", I have in mind that built 'windows' are pretty much more like a glass partition (strong enough to resist being fell against, here in Roundworld by being using tempered/toughened glass and/or lamination methods) crossed with a stained-glass-window (where made of jewels).
. . . do dwarves mock each other?I don't see why they shouldn't. If they can dislike each other enough to form grudges and get in fistfights, name-calling seems quite an expected behavior. I agree, it could largely depend on/increase one's Comedian skill, and could backfire if the insulted dwarf has a higher Comedian skill than the instigator. Successfully or repeatedly mocked dwarves should have appropriate emotional, and quite possibly physical, reactions to being ostracized. And that's just dwarf-dwarf interactions. If your fort managed to acquire, say, a goblin resident, I would think it's hardly likely that every single dwarf in your fort would welcome him with open arms, there's bound to be animosity, at least some of which would take the form of verbal taunts and harassment. Elves (the first few, at least) would likely also be made objects of fun, though I think humans would fare better.
I would think this [glass walls/floors being made breakable] would just be subject to invader digging mechanics. Glass isn't really any more breakable than most rock of equivalent thickness.
I sort of imagine that Constructions of glass are basically Glass Brick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_brick) walls/floors.Largely, I'm in agreement, although I must point out that the "equivalent thickness" of a glass floor is, arguably, zero--given that a natural ground tile, a floor tile built upon that ground tile, and the top of a wall built on the z-level below that ground tile, are all treated by the game as being exactly the same height. I would certainly not be opposed to some refinement in this regard, although such a fundamental change in the nature of what constitutes a 'tile' would doubtless be highly disruptive to the entire game's functionality.
I have in mind that built 'windows' are pretty much more like a glass partition (strong enough to resist being fell against) crossed with a stained-glass-window (where made of jewels).Yes, but why should they be immune to even accidental breakage? If dwarves are strong enough to break stone (with their bare hands, in some cases), it stands to reason they could do the same to glass, even glass bricks.
Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars? I just want to be sure DF's geology is correct. I know you have this sort of information on the tip of your tongue, so thanks in advance.
The Plagioclase series is a group of related feldspar minerals that essentially have the same formula but vary in their percentage of sodium and calcium. Albite and Anorthite are the end members of the series, with the intermediary minerals Oligoclase, Andesine, Labradorite, and Bytownite.
It depends on the nature of the particulates suspended within the glass. In DF terms, UV light would pass through clear glass and probably crystal glass as well, I'm not sure about green glass. More important than Vitamin D synthesis is flower pollination: Bees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go. Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce.
That's good, but aren't lowered drawbridges vulnerable to building destroyers? I lack experience on this.
Funny how you noticed that too . . . Thread derails always seem to involve GoblinCookie . . . I wonder what could be the root cause. But curiously, this digression is actually ON topic, because we're talking about social lives, and mocking you certainly does seem to be an entertaining social activity.
Oh, I think it's far too late for that. Your recent displays of condescension and overweening arrogance are going to take you a HELL of a long time to live down--that is, if you were even inclined to do so, which you clearly are not.
Yayy pollen count is down, I am vaguely human once more.
I'd say whether people have a physical need for sunlight or just a psychological one isn't too relevant, all it changes is whether they get debuffs to mood or toughness for failing to fulfil the need, either way they wanna go outside and presumably, and not doing so will be a health hazard. If they aren't the sociable nature loving sort that'll go have a picnic or walk their llama through the park, they'll be sunbathing or staring wistfully through the nonspecific precipitation towards the horizon, which'll probably end badly when the husking fog envelops them. Maybe that's why surface dwellers don't settle in evil biomes?
On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.
SixOfSpades, IIRC bridges break when you try to atom smash an object that's just too massive, can't quite remember the threshold though
Also can everyone chill a little?
Also also, since SixOfSpades mentioned mockery as a social interaction, do dwarves mock each other? I know about dismissal, flattery, and passive responses, but not mockery. Seems like something the Comedian skill could handle, and also a fine way to start a bar brawl.
Deconstructing structures of obsidian, talc, rock salt, soap, glass or ice is routine business for a fortress dwarf on 'official' business but currently impossible to offensively destroy (or melt, or erode or dissolve) in any direct manner other than assigned/domino-effect deconstruction.Tantruming dwarves are known for destroying workshops, furniture, farm plots, and even bridges that they're standing on. If I'm supremely pissed off, I'm holding something made of glass, and nearly everything else around me is made of hard rock, chances are that glass isn't going to last for much longer.
In DF terms, andesite is plagioclase, while orthoclase and microcline are non-plagioclase. Minerals.com and other specialist sites have that kind of detailed info too, of course, but Wikipedia has it all in one place, which is invaluable if you have to bounce around all the different subjects that DF touches on (and in the Suggestions forum, that spectrum is even wider). Wikipedia also covers its subjects in more than enough detail than I've ever really needed, so I for one feel that the minute risk of hostile editing is well worth the convenience.Oh, good. Can you clarify for me, please, the precise distinction between plagioclase vs. non-plagioclase feldspars?The Plagioclase series is a group of related feldspar minerals that essentially have the same formula but vary in their percentage of sodium and calcium.
I never implied that ultraviolet-blocking glass would be between the flower and the bee, merely between the flower and the sun. UV light can't bounce off the flower & hit the bee if the UV light can't reach the flower at all.QuoteBees and many other insects see in the UV range, and most flowers have UV patterns (invisible to us) that help guide the bees where they need to go.Presumably the bees would be inside the greenhouse, so the inability of the bees to see flowers through the greenhouse is not so much of a problem.
I don't think goblins would work as a civilization if goblins required to inflict actual cruelty to actual living creatures that were sentient like themselves.I just picture an entire population of alcoholic stepfathers.
On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.Yeah, that's what I was going for. A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones. Now, if some goblin civ (or subset thereof) was randomly predisposed to be noticeably less cruel than the goblin mean, then they might consciously seek out less traumatic outlets for their emotions, so theoretically some torture dummies and participating in high-impact but non-lethal bloodsports like boxing (padded gloves) might just be enough for them.
. . . it'd be kinda annoying if cruelty towards the undead didn't count, perhaps I should have said animate.As Undead creatures are [NOPAIN], any goblin intending to inflict cruelty on one would have to kill it outright. Killing fragments of an undead should probably be only a fraction as satisfying as destroying the entire creature . . . unless perhaps the goblin stretched it out by slowly dismembering the creature, and killing it piece by piece.
Eitherway i agree with the notion of dwarves acting on seeking friends via a mutual activity to invite them to a friendship circle ("hey Urist, want to hang out with me and a buddy by the Statue of dancing frogs?") but dwarves are kind of selfish, so breaking off to go to the tavern, temple or to eat and sleep might pull them away from the situation and not fix it.Well, at least there was an attempt at social interaction that the dwarf got pulled away from. The important thing is that dwarves should actively try to be with friends, and make new ones. Right now, the interaction is purely random, and only reactionary: IF you happen to bump into an acquaintance, THEN chat with them. It should be IF you feel bored or lonely, THEN seek out a friend, ELSE IF you can't find a friend, THEN settle on an acquaintance or even a stranger.
Illegal mockery sounds very dystopian,It could be dystopian (so such thing as freedom of speech, etc.), or it could simply take the form of anti-harassment / anti-discrimination laws.
I do like the idea of people forming positive relations with those who've helped them out somehow, and if they only helped because it's their job to help, we could get a few one-sided admiration relationships that could make for some interesting stories.I fully agree with one-sided feelings like hero worship, unrequited love and the like. Keep stirring that pot of emotions!
Yes, as I said, but not constructed walls, floors, stairs, etc.Deconstructing structures of obsidian, talc, rock salt, soap, glass or ice is routine business for a fortress dwarf on 'official' business but currently impossible to offensively destroy (or melt, or erode or dissolve) in any direct manner other than assigned/domino-effect deconstruction.Tantruming dwarves are known for destroying workshops, furniture, farm plots, and even bridges that they're standing on.
If I'm supremely pissed off, I'm holding something made of glass, and nearly everything else around me is made of hard rock, chances are that glass isn't going to last for much longer.No argument, IRL, but a table by a wall is going to be the only victim of any attack, whatever the table is made of and whatever the wall is made of. That's DF...
GoblinCookie, I never specified that goblins should need to be cruel to sentients, that sounds way too restricting. I did say living though, but that being said, it'd be kinda annoying if cruelty towards the undead didn't count, perhaps I should have said animate. Still, this sorta goblin wouldn't be the kinda thing you want as a resident unless there were labours that were considered cruel, like the ones SixOfSpades mentioned a while ago.
Mockery being considered cruel would certainly make life for these goblins easier, though I don't think it should have as big of an effect as the aforementioned puppy mutilation/"cruel" labours. Linking it to the cruelty personality facet also makes sense, more merciful creatures could prefer flattery/passive responses, and more cruel ones could prefer mockery/dismissal. Are those kind of preferences a thing already? Obviously not including mockery (yet).
In DF terms, andesite is plagioclase, while orthoclase and microcline are non-plagioclase. Minerals.com and other specialist sites have that kind of detailed info too, of course, but Wikipedia has it all in one place, which is invaluable if you have to bounce around all the different subjects that DF touches on (and in the Suggestions forum, that spectrum is even wider). Wikipedia also covers its subjects in more than enough detail than I've ever really needed, so I for one feel that the minute risk of hostile editing is well worth the convenience.
I never implied that ultraviolet-blocking glass would be between the flower and the bee, merely between the flower and the sun. UV light can't bounce off the flower & hit the bee if the UV light can't reach the flower at all.
On the topic of the dummy creature, it's a nice concept, but I was under the impression that being biologically dependant on cruelty wouldn't be tied to an action, but rather the psychological effects of doing said action to a living thing, savouring it's suffering, and the hormones released by such amoral behaviour.Yeah, that's what I was going for. A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones. Now, if some goblin civ (or subset thereof) was randomly predisposed to be noticeably less cruel than the goblin mean, then they might consciously seek out less traumatic outlets for their emotions, so theoretically some torture dummies and participating in high-impact but non-lethal bloodsports like boxing (padded gloves) might just be enough for them.
. . . a table by a wall is going to be the only victim of any attack, whatever the table is made of and whatever the wall is made of. That's DF...Seriously? That's all tantruming dwarves do now, break tables? It's clearly been quite a while since I witnessed a tantrum.
. . . is genocide against goblins acceptable because if goblins are allowed to survive they will necessarily have to hurt other beings in order to survive and stay sane?Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.
Or to put it another way, if goblins are cruel simply as an fact initial average personality it is simply a question of setting up a social system to 'make goblins nicer'. If goblins need actual cruelty to survive however then we are in big ethical trouble, we are forced to indulge the goblins characteristics by virtue of the fact they exist.I don't think that the player should be able to really influence the cruelty levels of goblins. Assuming that goblins have a species-wide range of values into which the Cruelty levels of individual goblins must fall, then any goblins that can peaceably cohabit in a dwarf fort are very likely already near the minimum Cruelty possible, and further attempts to lower it would prove fruitless. All the player could do is provide/encourage outlets for their cruelty that are more acceptable to the player, or (threaten to) expel them from the fort entirely.
What I am against is not wikipedia but simply the way certain people use wikipedia. Those are people whose minds remain trapped inside a box created by their belief that wikipedia has all knowledge and insights that they have any right to have and automatically dismissing anything that is not written in wikipedia; but this problem is one of encyclopedias in general.To say nothing of what happens when you replace the word "wikipedia" in that with "the Bible", or any other set of religious teachings. As for myself, I freely acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of human information-gathering, there are other sources that can be far more insightful, far-reaching, and comprehensive in their various respective subjects. I simply recognize that Wikipedia fills 99% of all needs, is unlikely to be wrong, acknowledges controversy & opposing viewpoints when such exist, and also lists its own sources for further verification. So far as any individual point on Wikipedia stands unchallenged by any person or publication of authority, it is by far the best use of my time to assume that Wikipedia is both thorough and correct. And yes, I too hope this is the end of the Wikipedia diversion.
Hm. I was picturing a "greenhouse" large enough for the farm plot(s), beehive(s), and space for surface-dwellers to congregate & socialize, because presumably you'd want to protect all from them from Evil weather, or at least flyers. But regardless, yes, bees most likely could still find the flowers, just not as well, which is why I initially said "Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce", I didn't say pollination or crop production would drop off completely.I never implied that ultraviolet-blocking glass would be between the flower and the bee, merely between the flower and the sun. UV light can't bounce off the flower & hit the bee if the UV light can't reach the flower at all.But in a small area can they not find the flowers by scent? Outside of the greenhouse it does not matter, the problem I understood was them realizing the flowers were *in* the greenhouse in the first from outside, I would guess that along as the greenhouse itself is too small for them to have any problem finding flowers by scent or by their non-UV sight there would not be a problem.
Well, this is still under the supposition that goblins have some biochemical hormone/neurotransmitter/whatever that is only released while they're in the emotional state produced when they are actively inflicting suffering or death upon another being. Since its release is dependent on the goblin's emotions, a "dummy" creature to attack can work in only two ways: Either it is realistic enough to actually fool the goblin into thinking that he's harming another creature (unlikely to work, as goblins are quite intelligent), or the goblin mentally projects another (possibly specific) creature onto the dummy, in much the same way as one might fantasize about punching one's boss or mother-in-law while working a speed bag.A dummy "creature" to attack might satisfy some psychological need, but hardly any physical ones.What do you mean by physical need? How exactly could hurting other being be a physical need?
SixOfSpades, yeah I said to include undead cause, IRL, IIRC, ants don't feel pain, but it's still cruel to pluck their legs off to watch them squirm.True, and a lot of that very likely depends on the projecting that I just mentioned; It's horrible to do to an ant because it'd be horrible if someone did it to you. So maybe goblins could also get their kicks by "torturing" and mocking the "suffering" of the undead, and outright destroying them need not be a necessity.
I didn't really think about anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws, but yeah they fit the bill for illegal mockery, though you'd have to track a few more things for those, specifically, the frequency for harassment, and the subject for discrimination.Yeah, I figure it would depend on the society's values, and the player's choices. If an elf or goblin gets harassed, maybe they'll petition the mayor to make it stop, and maybe the mayor will agree, if some citizens ignore the edict maybe they'll get punished. Etc.
I reckon the cruel personality approach is the way to go, cause not only would that make some goblins capable of functioning outside of their own society, but also it makes it so it's not only goblins who act seemingly needlessly cruel, which might work pretty well with villains stuff, add a little variety to things.Agreed.
They target furniture/furnishings, workshops and buildings (much apart from causing personal arm on others, and pets), I think, as an 'honorary' Building Destroyer. But nothing deconstructs constructions like walls, unless a task is so designated by you. (Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/out of date/never was right about this.). . . a table by a wall is going to be the only victim of any attack, whatever the table is made of and whatever the wall is made of. That's DF...Seriously? That's all tantruming dwarves do now, break tables? It's clearly been quite a while since I witnessed a tantrum.
Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.
I don't think that the player should be able to really influence the cruelty levels of goblins. Assuming that goblins have a species-wide range of values into which the Cruelty levels of individual goblins must fall, then any goblins that can peaceably cohabit in a dwarf fort are very likely already near the minimum Cruelty possible, and further attempts to lower it would prove fruitless. All the player could do is provide/encourage outlets for their cruelty that are more acceptable to the player, or (threaten to) expel them from the fort entirely.
And I think ethical dilemmas arising from the personal needs of little lowercase 'g's running around are pretty cool, actually.
To say nothing of what happens when you replace the word "wikipedia" in that with "the Bible", or any other set of religious teachings. As for myself, I freely acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of human information-gathering, there are other sources that can be far more insightful, far-reaching, and comprehensive in their various respective subjects. I simply recognize that Wikipedia fills 99% of all needs, is unlikely to be wrong, acknowledges controversy & opposing viewpoints when such exist, and also lists its own sources for further verification. So far as any individual point on Wikipedia stands unchallenged by any person or publication of authority, it is by far the best use of my time to assume that Wikipedia is both thorough and correct. And yes, I too hope this is the end of the Wikipedia diversion.
Hm. I was picturing a "greenhouse" large enough for the farm plot(s), beehive(s), and space for surface-dwellers to congregate & socialize, because presumably you'd want to protect all from them from Evil weather, or at least flyers. But regardless, yes, bees most likely could still find the flowers, just not as well, which is why I initially said "Without UV light, pollination would be less successful, and some aboveground crops more scarce", I didn't say pollination or crop production would drop off completely.
Well, this is still under the supposition that goblins have some biochemical hormone/neurotransmitter/whatever that is only released while they're in the emotional state produced when they are actively inflicting suffering or death upon another being. Since its release is dependent on the goblin's emotions, a "dummy" creature to attack can work in only two ways: Either it is realistic enough to actually fool the goblin into thinking that he's harming another creature (unlikely to work, as goblins are quite intelligent), or the goblin mentally projects another (possibly specific) creature onto the dummy, in much the same way as one might fantasize about punching one's boss or mother-in-law while working a speed bag.
Materially, glass walls just aren't breakable because no wall is breakable.Or meltable, or burnable, etc., gotcha. So, another reference to the "enhanced realism" of the future digging mechanics.
Well, if the only way they know how to be cruel is to kill each other, then yeah, that's obviously counterproductive. But there's no shortage of nonlethal forms of suffering: Slavery, gratuitous corporal punishment, torture, rape, starvation, psychological trauma, etc. Goblin societies could make one, more, or even all of these mainstays of their culture, and still technically thrive. Hence why I compared them to an abusive parent--yeah, you can live in that kind of environment, but no sane person would want to.An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.Yes, but if the only victims that are available are other goblins, the goblin civilization will presumably end up wiping itself out.
Then it [goblin cruelty] is a psychological need then? I think what you are trying to say is the difference between the need being controlled by the general personality facet and a specific demand-slider like thirst or hunger; though in this case this is an imaginary need rather than a real one.I should clarify some terms. Rather than the blanket "physical vs. psychological need", I'd like to discuss it in terms of physical vs. psychological causes, and physical vs. psychological effects. To move from goblins to dwarves for a moment, we can see that the effects from their suffering alcohol withdrawal are both physical (slower movement rate & worse coordination) and mental (unhappy thoughts from having no liquor). But whether these effects are have a root cause that is physical (some chemical present in the booze, possibly the ethanol itself) or psychological (the mental state of drunkenness) is rather unclear.
Goblins that *need* to be cruel in order to function as opposed to ones that simply tend to be cruel but no ill effects will occur if they are prevented from being so are a quite different game. . . .Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone suggested that the victims had to be sentient--the only specific targets mentioned were puppies and the undead. But according to the game, goblins gotta goblin, yo: "driven to cruelty by its evil nature," and [BABYSNATCHER] and all that. As far as ethics are concerned, I'm not advocating for things like torture, or for popular goblin inclusion in dwarf fortresses. I'm just suggesting a flavor element that (apparently) is very interesting & thought-provoking, as well as being in accordance with game canon. Besides, any player who chooses to allow something as potentially volatile as goblin citizens should fully expect that action to have fitting consequences. Could this lead to such things as individual dwarf forts being deliberately made into foul hives of decidedly UNdwarfy behavior, like slavery and torture? Yes, but only though much deliberate effort on the part of the player. Would such activities be worse than what's already in the game, such as children being kidnapped into a lifetime of servitude, or night trolls mind-wiping people to be their spouses, or being digested from the inside out by a giant cave spider? Arguably not.
I was not talking about changing the actual personality of the goblins, I was talking about us simply changing their external behavior so that they behave nicer, at least when it matters. . . .
If we actually have to provide actual sentient creatures to torment in order to meet their cruelty quota so that they can function and further cruelty can be controlled, this creates a very disturbing ethical dilemma indeed;
Well, if the only way they know how to be cruel is to kill each other, then yeah, that's obviously counterproductive. But there's no shortage of nonlethal forms of suffering: Slavery, gratuitous corporal punishment, torture, rape, starvation, psychological trauma, etc. Goblin societies could make one, more, or even all of these mainstays of their culture, and still technically thrive. Hence why I compared them to an abusive parent--yeah, you can live in that kind of environment, but no sane person would want to.
I should clarify some terms. Rather than the blanket "physical vs. psychological need", I'd like to discuss it in terms of physical vs. psychological causes, and physical vs. psychological effects. To move from goblins to dwarves for a moment, we can see that the effects from their suffering alcohol withdrawal are both physical (slower movement rate & worse coordination) and mental (unhappy thoughts from having no liquor). But whether these effects are have a root cause that is physical (some chemical present in the booze, possibly the ethanol itself) or psychological (the mental state of drunkenness) is rather unclear.
As inflicting cruelty introduces no material element into one's system, it's clear that the cause of this need-fulfillment is purely psychological rather than physical. (But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an acquired addiction, indeed I was thinking of all of these as unavoidable, biological needs, just like dwarves & their alcohol.) As to what the effects of cruelty withdrawal might be, I've deliberately left that up in the air. It might be something as simple as repeated, strong, unhappy thoughts, which could theoretically be counterbalanced by giving your goblin residents good meals & nice furniture. Or it might be something more insidious, like making goblins unable to have happy thoughts while in withdrawal: No amount of pretty statues are going to assuage that, and you are going to see some goblin torture tantrums.
Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone suggested that the victims had to be sentient--the only specific targets mentioned were puppies and the undead. But according to the game, goblins gotta goblin, yo: "driven to cruelty by its evil nature," and [BABYSNATCHER] and all that. As far as ethics are concerned, I'm not advocating for things like torture, or for popular goblin inclusion in dwarf fortresses. I'm just suggesting a flavor element that (apparently) is very interesting & thought-provoking, as well as being in accordance with game canon. Besides, any player who chooses to allow something as potentially volatile as goblin citizens should fully expect that action to have fitting consequences. Could this lead to such things as individual dwarf forts being deliberately made into foul hives of decidedly UNdwarfy behavior, like slavery and torture? Yes, but only though much deliberate effort on the part of the player. Would such activities be worse than what's already in the game, such as children being kidnapped into a lifetime of servitude, or night trolls mind-wiping people to be their spouses, or being digested from the inside out by a giant cave spider? Arguably not.
I also find it interesting to point out that, depending on what the effects of cruelty withdrawal might be, it could turn out that the very cruelest thing you could do to a goblin is . . . to prevent them from being cruel. How's THAT for an ethical dilemma? ;D
People who hate you will either try to kill you or they will avoid you, either outcome is ruinous to society. It get's worse in that hatred undermines cruelty directed against you by those you hate, so goblins constantly need to get fresh victims and make new enemiesOr, they can keep their existing victims and enemies, and let them retaliate & get revenge as they wish. Some vendettas will succeed, some will fail, some will backfire. As long as fatal attacks are uncommon, society continues to function, in fact it reinforces a social order with the strongest on top & the weakest at the bottom. It works for most savage forms of wildlife. It works for bullies, it works for assholes. It works for fascist & totalitarian governments. Fictionally, it works for Orcs, Klingons & Dothraki. Why shouldn't it work for goblins?
. . . the effectiveness of cruelty is undermined by the very knowledge of the existence of the cruelty-quota. Once folks know that you have to engage in a certain fixed amount of cruelty, nobody is going to take goblin cruelty seriously anyhow, which means the effect is much reduced.As you yourself just said, emotion is pre-rational. If some guy is literally searing your flesh with a branding iron, you're not going to consider his point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt, you're going to HATE the motherfucker. Reactional empathy could occur in far more minor altercations, like when somebody rudely bumps you out of their way or is verbally abusive, but even then it'd be unlikely and difficult if the entire fabric of one's society (not to mention biology) is against it.
Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible. Cruelty undermines slavery also, if the slaves think their masters are just being cruel then they have no reason to take their punishments seriously. It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves' than it is for them to simply think that they are the random designated victim because somebody has to suffer today.I understand that black people in England do not have quite the same gut reaction to the word "slavery" that American blacks do. Even so, I am pleased to imagine you going up to one or more of them, and reading out what I just quoted. I am sure their response would be far more eloquent than mine.
As I said, it's physical and psychological, although granted that the physical side is arguably more serious. The bad thoughts from alcohol withdrawal alone are not enough to send a dwarf into melancholy or whatever, but in combination with other factors they could certainly tip the balance.. . . we can see that the effects from their suffering alcohol withdrawal are both physical (slower movement rate & worse coordination) and mental (unhappy thoughts from having no liquor).The effect in dwarf cases is quite physical, their metabolism slows down and they basically need alcohol in order to avoid slowing down to a crawl.
So there we have it, a potential moral requirement to commit genocide, similar to that which exists against vampires, except vampires are individuals and not a people. That is why I reckon that cruelty-quota goblins, as opposed to merely goblins that *are* cruel puts you pretty much on the darkest end of the world badness slider. It works as an idea, provided they start with a suitable population of non-goblins to torture, however it is a very bad thing. "You must murder thousands of sapient beings because their very continued existence require other beings to be made to suffer and even they have no choice about this," is a pretty horrid situation.I see your point, though I doubt it's so extreme. I could just as easily argue that it's certainly justified to take appropriate punitive measures against a goblin civ that has attacked either your own nation or a weaker neighbor, but it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture, especially when they're simply acting in accordance with their own biological imperatives. After all, we don't declare war on Muslim countries because they're extremely repressive of women's rights and practice child marriage. (Americans do it because our military-industrial complex profits from endless war, but that's beside the point.)
Or, they can keep their existing victims and enemies, and let them retaliate & get revenge as they wish. Some vendettas will succeed, some will fail, some will backfire. As long as fatal attacks are uncommon, society continues to function, in fact it reinforces a social order with the strongest on top & the weakest at the bottom. It works for most savage forms of wildlife. It works for bullies, it works for assholes. It works for fascist & totalitarian governments. Fictionally, it works for Orcs, Klingons & Dothraki. Why shouldn't it work for goblins?
In addition, there could very easily be a vast range of animals that goblins (even the weakest ones) could safely abuse. Livestock, "pets", mounts, game, vermin.
As you yourself just said, emotion is pre-rational. If some guy is literally searing your flesh with a branding iron, you're not going to consider his point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt, you're going to HATE the motherfucker. Reactional empathy could occur in far more minor altercations, like when somebody rudely bumps you out of their way or is verbally abusive, but even then it'd be unlikely and difficult if the entire fabric of one's society (not to mention biology) is against it.
I understand that black people in England do not have quite the same gut reaction to the word "slavery" that American blacks do. Even so, I am pleased to imagine you going up to one or more of them, and reading out what I just quoted. I am sure their response would be far more eloquent than mine.
As I said, it's physical and psychological, although granted that the physical side is arguably more serious. The bad thoughts from alcohol withdrawal alone are not enough to send a dwarf into melancholy or whatever, but in combination with other factors they could certainly tip the balance.
I see your point, though I doubt it's so extreme. I could just as easily argue that it's certainly justified to take appropriate punitive measures against a goblin civ that has attacked either your own nation or a weaker neighbor, but it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture, especially when they're simply acting in accordance with their own biological imperatives. After all, we don't declare war on Muslim countries because they're extremely repressive of women's rights and practice child marriage. (Americans do it because our military-industrial complex profits from endless war, but that's beside the point.)
Yes, a player could use this hypothetical goblin hard-wiring to justify a crusade, but that's a) the player's choice, and b) an enhancement of overall game flavor. Even more relevant, my suggestion would make no overt change to actual goblin behavior, but merely provide a reason behind it. (Edit: I've never had a goblin resident, I'm just assuming that their basic underlying nature wouldn't really change that much than from when they are openly hostile invaders.)
What I find a little chilling is how you're painting the idea of a biologically-cruel goblin society as basically the Worst Thing Ever, and I'm mollifying you largely by demonstrating that it's not that different from how humans behave in real life.
On another note, what the heck does everyone ELSE think of this? I get the impression that other users are seeing that the conversation is just between GoblinCookie & SixOfSpades again, and assuming that we must be bitching at each other. HELLO! We're actually having an interesting discussion over here! Come share your opinions! Admittedly, the conversation is no longer about Dwarven Social Lives, but that line of discourse appears to have petered out anyway, at least for now.
I thought the bad thoughts were because of Alcohol_dependent?
Maybe goblins should intentionally target limbs in combat to cause the most pain by breaking bones.It explains the scourges and whips, too.
I feel like the goblins ARE cruel rather than NEED to be cruel is more interesting to me since you can add things like, "This goblin tribe is trying to escape their nature and be kind" while if it's goblins NEED to be cruel they would suffer horribly from trying to do that . . .Agreed, for the most part, as the flexibility allows greater diversity, which I've always supported. Although, even if cruelty were an actual biological imperative for goblins, they could still practice moderation by limiting themselves to more acceptable forms of cruelty, as previously mentioned.
I'd say I agree with GoblinCookie on one subject; I'd prefer goblins to be prone to a cruel personality, perhaps with a focus-based "need" for that, rather than the entire race being biologically dependent on it.I was trying to be balanced and give each race a fairly exact parallel to dwarven alcohol; since dwarven booze is both physical ([ALCOHOL_DEPENDENT]) and mental ("unfocused after being kept from alcohol"), I was trying to entertain both possibilities for goblins as well--although I also agree that a physical, biological requirement to be cruel doesn't make much sense.
You're placing yourself at a disadvantage arguing in this way: You imagine one situation and assume that that's the only way it could be, while all I have to do is provide one plausible counterexample. For instance, a goblin society could be arranged into strata, or castes, or gangs, and each group tries to shield its own members from murderous attacks from outside the group. The only (socially acceptable) way to kill a fellow goblin citizen (i.e., not a convicted criminal) could be to publicly call him out for a duel. Let's put the goblin who got branded into this scenario: If he wants revenge on the goblin who branded him, he can eitherOr, they can keep their existing victims and enemies, and let them retaliate & get revenge as they wish. . . . As long as fatal attacks are uncommon, society continues to function, in fact it reinforces a social order with the strongest on top & the weakest at the bottom.Well firstly the [fatal attacks] won't be uncommon and secondly it does not matter. The issue you are not understanding is that is everybody wants to avoid each-other as much as possible, then society will collapse just as readily as it would collapse if everybody killed eachother.
The result is going to be a society where everybody hates everybody else and hence nothing gets done efficiently.Precisely. That's pretty much what goblins do.
In fiction orcs might be cruel and whatever, but that is not how orc society can plausibly function. . . . If orcs were nicer, that would actually make them far more of a threat since it would make their society more functional (I suppose that could be what baby-snatching is about).It is true, every time we are allowed to observe Tolkien's orcs (or Uruk-Hai) closely, there is orc-on-orc killing, although in each case there's a valid enough reason for it, especially in the instance of the Uruk-Hai, who kill a few troublemaking Moria goblins in order to enforce unity and strong leadership. But on the whole, I largely agree that they (and DF goblins) would be more of a threat if they cooperated to a greater extent, which is why I suggested that personal grudges should preferably be settled by non-lethal means.
In time even that stops working, folks get used to a certain level of pain and we end up constantly needing even more pain to cause them to actually suffer.That's actually little more than wishful thinking. Empirical studies on torture are of course difficult to come by, but some researchers believe that repeated pain exposure actually increases pain sensitivity.
The connection between slavery and blackness is an entirely accidental one Six of Spades. ::)Sorry, I was a bit blindsided by that rather breathtaking display of naivete. I apologize that my first reaction was to warn you that expressing those views in public could constitute a threat to your personal safety. As for what you actually said . . .
I don't actually see a response relevant to anything I said about slavery.
Slavery does not really work as cruelty however. Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible. Cruelty undermines slavery also, if the slaves think their masters are just being cruel then they have no reason to take their punishments seriously. It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves' than it is for them to simply think that they are the random designated victim because somebody has to suffer today.Um, nope, that's still bullshit. Slavery is obviously cruel, as it denies fundamental human rights. Individuals who restrain, imprison, overwork, hunt, torture, or otherwise abuse a slave can (and should) definitely be held personally responsible. And who the hell is not going to "take it seriously" after being flogged? Saying that they work for a "nice Massuh, good Massuh" makes the master feel better, not the slave. Crack open another history book, and go get yourself some damn sensitivity training.
You are not seriously comparing muslims to goblins?No, I was using them as a counterexample to your suggestion that innate goblin cruelty would present dwarves/humans/elves with "a potential moral requirement to commit genocide". I said that most Muslim nations typically deny the basic right of self-governance to over half of their population, which most Western cultures consider appalling--and yet despite that, Westerners do not make war upon the Muslim countries to spread their culture by force, instead they generally prefer to live and let live. By the same token, a naturally-cruel goblin race would hardly present the player with an ultimatum that "you must murder thousands of sapient beings", etc.
Well then, the key difference here is that it is possible for muslims to change, they are capable of becoming less repressive over time, . . . Your goblins on the other hand, they don't have a choice, they can never improve, they can never get less badYes, except for my repeated mentions of more acceptable (even constructive) outlets for their cruelty, and more mild-mannered goblins (including entire societies of them) who intentionally try to keep their desires in check.
That being the case, to allow such beings to survive is in effect to be complicit in everything they do, genocide is arguably the only moral outcome for them as their very continued existence requires them to harm others. Nobody, including themselves can ever do anything to rectify this. How can you not realize just how uniquely horrific this situation is?The horror exists only in one's own imagination. Yours may be more horrific than mine. But as I said before, goblins are already cruel, already evil, already torture for fun. It's their nature. The only real change that I'm suggesting is to tell the player why they're that way.
As previously mentioned, personality-specific rather than race-specific cruelty needs means some goblins can play nice and function in non-goblin society, and some dwarves/elves/humans can be seemingly unnecessarily cruel, meaning more villain variety.Good call.
Goblins are not supposed to be misguided creatures you can simply re-educate to become regular members of society. They need an outlet for their cruelty, even if personality shift causes them to hate themselves for it."What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" - Paarthurnax
You're placing yourself at a disadvantage arguing in this way: You imagine one situation and assume that that's the only way it could be, while all I have to do is provide one plausible counterexample. For instance, a goblin society could be arranged into strata, or castes, or gangs, and each group tries to shield its own members from murderous attacks from outside the group. The only (socially acceptable) way to kill a fellow goblin citizen (i.e., not a convicted criminal) could be to publicly call him out for a duel. Let's put the goblin who got branded into this scenario: If he wants revenge on the goblin who branded him, he can either
a) Try to murder the dude--if he succeeds, he'll probably get off scot-free, but if he fails, the dude's gang will pummel him without mercy, and probably brand him again.
b) Fight him in a duel--except that the branding dude clearly isn't afraid of pissing people off, OR of being challenged, so the branding victim doesn't have the best odds. This goes double if the brander was acting in his official capacity of government torturer.
c) Get payback via some other, less lethal but more creative, method.
Alternatively,
d) The branding victim could work out his aggressions on less threatening targets, while nursing a grudge against the brander until the end of his days.
Both options b and d reinforce the social pecking order, and neither a nor c work against it. Nor does this imagined setup require anyone to be antisocial. Yes, it does suggest the possibility of inter-caste enmity flaring up into full gang warfare, but One, that tastes just about right for goblins, and Two, any decent goblin war leader would quell/prevent such gang violence by sending in other gangs to flagellate the survivors.
Precisely. That's pretty much what goblins do.
It is true, every time we are allowed to observe Tolkien's orcs (or Uruk-Hai) closely, there is orc-on-orc killing, although in each case there's a valid enough reason for it, especially in the instance of the Uruk-Hai, who kill a few troublemaking Moria goblins in order to enforce unity and strong leadership. But on the whole, I largely agree that they (and DF goblins) would be more of a threat if they cooperated to a greater extent, which is why I suggested that personal grudges should preferably be settled by non-lethal means.
That's actually little more than wishful thinking. Empirical studies on torture are of course difficult to come by, but some researchers believe that repeated pain exposure actually increases pain sensitivity.
Sorry, I was a bit blindsided by that rather breathtaking display of naivete. I apologize that my first reaction was to warn you that expressing those views in public could constitute a threat to your personal safety. As for what you actually said . . .
Um, nope, that's still bullshit. Slavery is obviously cruel, as it denies fundamental human rights. Individuals who restrain, imprison, overwork, hunt, torture, or otherwise abuse a slave can (and should) definitely be held personally responsible. And who the hell is not going to "take it seriously" after being flogged? Saying that they work for a "nice Massuh, good Massuh" makes the master feel better, not the slave. Crack open another history book, and go get yourself some damn sensitivity training.
No, I was using them as a counterexample to your suggestion that innate goblin cruelty would present dwarves/humans/elves with "a potential moral requirement to commit genocide". I said that most Muslim nations typically deny the basic right of self-governance to over half of their population, which most Western cultures consider appalling--and yet despite that, Westerners do not make war upon the Muslim countries to spread their culture by force, instead they generally prefer to live and let live. By the same token, a naturally-cruel goblin race would hardly present the player with an ultimatum that "you must murder thousands of sapient beings", etc.
Yes, except for my repeated mentions of more acceptable (even constructive) outlets for their cruelty, and more mild-mannered goblins (including entire societies of them) who intentionally try to keep their desires in check.
The horror exists only in one's own imagination. Yours may be more horrific than mine. But as I said before, goblins are already cruel, already evil, already torture for fun. It's their nature. The only real change that I'm suggesting is to tell the player why they're that way.
I can't decide which is my favorite model for your fallacy here. You give me so many choices.For instance, a goblin society could be arranged into strata, or castes, or gangs . . .All of these are elaborate systems that require organization and cooperation in order to work. Since all goblins are constantly trying to be cruel to eachother and hence also hate eachother, there is no way to arrange for elaborate systems along the lines you are describing. The whole society will simply fall apart because all it's members either kill or avoid eachother.
each group tries to shield its own members from murderous attacks from outside the group. . .
The only (socially acceptable) way to kill a fellow goblin citizen could be to publicly call him out for a duel. . .
There is no way to settle a hatred by non-lethal means. They *want* to kill each-other, because of the bad things that they all did to eachother in the past.Really? Literally every single interpersonal conflict must unavoidably end in death? Granted, if we're already at the point where one goblin is branding another, a revenge killing sounds quite understandable--but equally understandable is a revenge branding. If you truly cannot imagine any non-lethal way to resolve enmities, then either you lack imagination, or you lack the desire to examine your own ideas for weaknesses. I strongly suspect the latter.
That would be a very odd conclusion that would have pain working in the opposite way to pretty much all stimulus. The effect of stimulus in general tends to get less acute the more you are exposed to it, you get desensitized.In my (admittedly casual) research, I found that most sites discussing how to improve one's pain tolerance mentioned only psychological ways of dealing with the pain, such as meditation or breathing exercises--decreasing sensitivity through repeated exposure didn't come up even once.
Yet in order to understand slavery you have to think like a slaver not a slave; the nature of slavery is determined by the former.Yes, that's quite true, but then you had to immediately contradict yourself with
. . . there is no 'internal' group that cares to maintain slavery, that is to say no slaves would fight to defend slavery if it's abolition was imminent.Dude. Slaves would not fight to defend slavery, at ANY time. If you want to backtrack and say that you actually meant to write "slave owners", I assure you that slavers can, and would, and did, fight to defend slavery long after it'd been formally abolished.
People who are legally slaves have no fundamental human rights to deny, since no relevant law has granted them such rights; do not confuse morality with legal rights.Now that's just pure hypocrisy in a nutshell, telling me not to confuse legality with morality almost literally in the same breath as doing so yourself. Fundamental human rights, by definition, supersede all legal matters and are held to be inalienable regardless of legal jurisdiction. The list of Substantive Human Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Substantive_rights) has been internationally agreed to apply to all persons of all nationalities, and oh look what's the third one? FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY.
My views were simply that some slaves suffered worse from slavery than others and that slavery largely functions because of this discrepancy. Yes I do think that people's understanding of slavery is mostly based upon anti-slavery propaganda. . .Facepalm. Please do not express any more views about slavery until you read at least one relevant history book. Seriously. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, here.
I don't see what the controversy is, nor why anyone would want to kill me for it.Oh, I doubt anyone would try to kill you over it . . . you might lose a couple of teeth, though.
We are both in agreement that goblins are inherently cruel. What you however are arguing is that there should be cruelty quota, a definite amount of cruelty that a goblin must meet out in order for bad things not to happen to them.Good, back to talking sense. While I (intentionally) never did specify what sort of effects cruelty withdrawal might have, yes, I do think it should be "something bad", solely to enforce the idea that goblins should have to act like goblins. No matter how you slice it, no matter what ethical red flags you think it raises, goblins are and always have been "driven to cruelty by its evil nature". Now, maybe some goblins can choose to resist that nature--that's fine, it makes for diversity & a good story. But goblins will never be elves, or even dwarves, and no one should be more aware of this than the goblins themselves. So as long as creative players can find relatively low-impact outlets for goblin cruelty, any moral concerns about this proposed change are quite effectively nullified.
You are responding to me telling you that you don't understand how horrific your idea is, by telling me how you don't understand how horrific the idea is.Oh, gee. Someone who thinks that modern views of slavery are excessively colored by "anti-slavery propaganda", and who "doesn't see what the controversy is" about saying things like that, has an opinion about what is or is not horrific.
Whenever I see an argument on these forums and people raise their "voices" I see a: Urist Mc123 felt annoyed after an argument." Sometimes this becomes: Urist Mc123 has become enraged.Just let them. One of them will get bored, or Toady will lock the thread.
I can't decide which is my favorite model for your fallacy here. You give me so many choices.
Circular reasoning: "Without any form of social structure to constrain their violent impulses, goblins would all kill each other. And the goblins can't have any social order, because they're all dead."
Starting from the conclusion:
SixOfSpades- "Here is one possible example of a hypothetical goblin cultural system that could control its hateful tendencies."
GoblinCookie- "That could never work, because goblins are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to have a culture at all."
Thinly veiled ad hominem:
"Hmmm . . . SixOfSpades has got to be wrong about something here. I think I'll argue that his idea of goblins being innately cruel and violent would inevitably lead to their social collapse, and even extinction--never mind the fact that every portrayal of goblins and orcs ever, including DF itself, has depicted them as being cruel and violent, and yet they continue to pose a substantial threat to other races."
Really? Literally every single interpersonal conflict must unavoidably end in death? Granted, if we're already at the point where one goblin is branding another, a revenge killing sounds quite understandable--but equally understandable is a revenge branding. If you truly cannot imagine any non-lethal way to resolve enmities, then either you lack imagination, or you lack the desire to examine your own ideas for weaknesses. I strongly suspect the latter.
Dude. Slaves would not fight to defend slavery, at ANY time. If you want to backtrack and say that you actually meant to write "slave owners", I assure you that slavers can, and would, and did, fight to defend slavery long after it'd been formally abolished.
Now that's just pure hypocrisy in a nutshell, telling me not to confuse legality with morality almost literally in the same breath as doing so yourself. Fundamental human rights, by definition, supersede all legal matters and are held to be inalienable regardless of legal jurisdiction. The list of Substantive Human Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Substantive_rights) has been internationally agreed to apply to all persons of all nationalities, and oh look what's the third one? FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY.
Facepalm. Please do not express any more views about slavery until you read at least one relevant history book. Seriously. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole, here.
Oh, I doubt anyone would try to kill you over it . . . you might lose a couple of teeth, though.
Good, back to talking sense. While I (intentionally) never did specify what sort of effects cruelty withdrawal might have, yes, I do think it should be "something bad", solely to enforce the idea that goblins should have to act like goblins. No matter how you slice it, no matter what ethical red flags you think it raises, goblins are and always have been "driven to cruelty by its evil nature". Now, maybe some goblins can choose to resist that nature--that's fine, it makes for diversity & a good story. But goblins will never be elves, or even dwarves, and no one should be more aware of this than the goblins themselves. So as long as creative players can find relatively low-impact outlets for goblin cruelty, any moral concerns about this proposed change are quite effectively nullified.
(Also, the word is "mete", but blame your Autocorrect and I'll believe you in advance.)
Oh, gee. Someone who thinks that modern views of slavery are excessively colored by "anti-slavery propaganda", and who "doesn't see what the controversy is" about saying things like that, has an opinion about what is or is not horrific.
On another note, is "eachother" becoming a word in England?
I let them, i just wanted to point it out. It usually settles quite nicely.Whenever I see an argument on these forums and people raise their "voices" I see a: Urist Mc123 felt annoyed after an argument." Sometimes this becomes: Urist Mc123 has become enraged.Just let them. One of them will get bored, or Toady will lock the thread.
A creature unable to form a viable society cannot form a viable society in order to deal with whatever it is that prevents them from being unable to form a viable society. That is called logic, it is not a fallacy at all. It is an example of "one cannot build a house with no bricks", beings unable to cooperate cannot cooperate in order to be able to cooperate. If the moment the first goblins get together they immediately *have* to hurt each-other and consequently end up killing each-other due to the resulting hatred, there is no goblin society.
You Have Selected: Starting From The Conclusion. That's a bold move, Goblin, let's see if it pays off for him.I can't decide which is my favorite model for your fallacy here. You give me so many choices.A creature unable to form a viable society cannot form a viable society in order to deal with whatever it is that prevents them from being unable to form a viable society.
Circular reasoning:
Starting from the conclusion:
Thinly veiled ad hominem:
beings unable to cooperate cannot cooperate in order to be able to cooperate.My point above was only one possible refutation to this line of thinking, two others are:
Also if you weren't too angry to pay attentionActually, I don't believe you've ever gotten me angry. Annoyed, but not angry.
I am not arguing that goblins should not be cruel and that goblin society would not function. I was specifically arguing only against the idea of having goblins have to inflict a given amount of cruelty in order to function.And that's very interesting to me, that you would take such a fine distinction (goblins perform some given amount of cruelty just for the hell of it, vs. goblins perform the exact same acts of cruelty because they feel some innate drive to do so) and explode it into such a major difference of results (goblins that torture for fun are seen to live in population centers of around 10,000 people, but goblins that feel biological pressure to torture can never be around each other). As I recall, you were similarly fond of hyperbole back during the DuckTales episode, arguing that the majority of ducks successfully reproducing could have no other result than total ecocide within the span of a single generation. Is "Extreme Conclusion Jumping" a sport? Should you be wearing protective equipment?
I am only saying that a society would not function if all it's members were forced to be cruel to each-other by some biological imperative . . .I have stated repeatedly that goblins are NOT forced to be cruel to each other, victims such as other races, animals, the undead, and even inanimate dummies have all been discussed in this thread. If anyone isn't paying attention, it's you. Please stop arguing against things that I clearly did NOT say . . . unless you're playing Logical Fallacy Bingo, and you need "Straw Man" to win.
. . . slavers are not themselves slaves so they are apart from the regime as it were.::) Slavery obviously cannot exist without slave owners, and therefore slavers are unequivocally an essential part of the system. They are also, as it happens, the part of the system with the greatest amount of control over said system, so the lion's share of the guilt & blame for slavery's inherent evils must fall directly to them. I say this not out of desire to perpetuate a slavery derail (you'll notice I'm not bothering to respond to your Human Rights clusterfuck), but merely as an example of how you tend to say ridiculous things if you think you can get away with it. Let me simply assure that you are wrong, on the factual count as well as the ideological one.
I do actually have a history degreeI wouldn't worry about it, you hide it rather well.
One interesting little detail is the ability of slaves to actually buy their freedom *from* their masters.Yes, several cultures that practiced slavery did so in a manner that was decidedly low-key, compared to the more hardcore American version. But in those cases, an adult slave willingly signing his services over to a master for a set period of time, for a set wage, is actually far more akin to a contract employee than a "real" slave, born into bondage and with hardly any feasible way of ever escaping it, short of death. For some types of Roman slaves, it was practically being a slave in name only. But to extend that sort of leniency to all slave-keeping cultures, and imply that all slaves had the ability to buy their own freedom, is a gross overstatement on your part.
Sigh. Over saying crap that makes you sound incredibly racist, such as "Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible," and "It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves'".Oh, I doubt anyone would try to kill you over it . . . you might lose a couple of teeth, though.Over what?
The reality of slavery for many slaves was far more boring.Yes, but when we modern humans think of the word "slavery", especially when it's goblins doing the enslaving, that kind of slavery is not what we're thinking of. We don't think, "Oh, I won't be allowed to vote or own property, but I'll still be treated about as well as a minimum-wage McDonalds employee", we think "Oh My God, I'm going to be flogged every night and worked to death, aren't I." That kind of slavery is clearly evil, and that's the clearly kind of slavery that goblins practice, and for you to step in and say, "ACKCHYUALLY, slavery was sometimes more moderate," does nothing but cloud the issue for no other purpose than to let you sound educated. If you want to muddy the ethical waters with low-impact slavery, have at least the good taste to specify that you're doing it with humans or dwarves, or with goblins trying to change their ways.
QuoteA creature unable to form a viable society cannot form a viable society in order to deal with whatever it is that prevents them from being unable to form a viable society. That is called logic, it is not a fallacy at all. It is an example of "one cannot build a house with no bricks", beings unable to cooperate cannot cooperate in order to be able to cooperate. If the moment the first goblins get together they immediately *have* to hurt each-other and consequently end up killing each-other due to the resulting hatred, there is no goblin society.
Actually this a very strong argument FOR the idea that goblins "must" be cruel when you think about it.
After all, as the current game goes it is impossible for goblin civilisations to form without a literal demon raising a fortress straight from actual hell to rule them, if I'm not mistaken. So the society is not being formed by the fractious creatures that could not create a stable society, it is being created by a magical being of great power to enable it to rule over them.
And when you look at classic fantasy that's a pretty common theme. The supreme commanders of orcs/goblins are very often external beings who either created their society, brought it to prominence, or in some cases actually created the species as servants.
I still dont think goblins should have a biological imperative to be assholes, because thats un-fun, but its an interesting thought
Did Toady actually say that? It would explain some things (like why gobs don't eat or drink) but that's a major change from what I would have thought. I hope it doesn't exclude the possibility of the occasional friendly goblin.
In the currently released version, in world gen the demon 'escapes from the underworld'. That has certain implications, right, about existing holes and stuff. So we're messing around with that, trying to come up with some different solutions that meter the flow, so having the demon in control of a portal, for instance. In a lot of Threetoe's stories the goblins are from the underworld, so I think we're going to relate that to it, to make it have more of a goblinesque feel for the current portal that the demon's controlling, so it doesn't just pour through with demons. We already have these giant spires down in the underworld that were filled with demons, but perhaps they'll be filled with goblins, they're, kind of, bastions from the demons or something like that. We're just playing around with different stuff, we'll see what happens.
Rainseeker: Yeah, will all the goblins suddenly descend on you, or will it be just, like, some, the warriors?
Toady: Yeah, I think the thing is that a lot of the goblins just aren't going to give a crap. I mean, if they hear a scream that's probably commonplace. They're just not going to care, sometimes, but if you're too brazen about it, there are too many screams, or you make yourself visible to too many people then you'll have to deal with it. I mean, we were thinking of running it with different groups, because the goblins don't get along, they're not supposed to get along with each other, it's supposed to be the power of the demon that keeps them under control and able to take over a bunch of civilizations instead of just descending into violence among the goblins themselves, so there are going to be different groups of goblins that don't care about the other groups of goblins and I think the only thing keeping it together is going to be the demon's secret police, set up with goblins and worse, like undead things and other kind of horrible night creatures and stuff.
Rainseeker: 'Hey, you! No fighting, okay? Thank you. I will suck your blood if you don't stop fighting.'
Toady: That's right, and those humans that they're kidnapping, that grow up and so on, can bring some order to the situation.
Rainseeker: 'Okay, guys. Let's talk about our feelings now. Let's not raise our voices, just use healing words.'
Toady: That's right. That's why we bring the elves in there, and if they don't like them, they keep mouthing off, then they'll eat them. The idea would be, then, that those guys would be people you absolutely don't want to be spotted by because they could actually marshal an organized resistance. So if you can sneak up behind the human and shank him a few times before he can alert anybody then you'll just have a bunch of goblins wandering around and then it won't be a big deal.
Rainseeker: Or perhaps making friends with him?
Toady: Yeah. Aren't you nice? Maybe he'll want to overthrow the demon with you.
Rainseeker: Exactly. 'Hey, do you want to, like, leave the goblins? We could do this together.'
Toady: Yeah, or perhaps he'll just sell you out when you get to the throne room.
Rainseeker: Yeah, but that would be an interesting thing, if you could try.
Toady: It is going to be something that we mess with sometime, maybe not this time but just the fact that the goblins might not actually attack you, with this racial enmity, or whatever, right? I mean, we had some of our silly power goals and stuff where you actually brought them a child from the village, or whatever, it's like you're being a freelance snatcher, and in that case you should be able to bargain with them, as long as they see the benefit in keeping you alive rather than killing you then, you know ...
Actually, I personally think (heresy of heresies!) that ALCOHOL_DEPENDENT is also needlessly gamey and would be better off replaced by just making the average dwarf have high immoderation, rather than treating them like some kind of alcohol-powered robot or whatever, but that's just me.You're not alone. I, too, believe it would work far better purely as a focus-based need, especially because it's never made sense to have newborns drink whiskey, and to have only invalids drink water. Dwarves can (and should) enjoy frequently drinking alcohol, but it shouldn't be an absolute biological requirement by any means. As to whether their industrial livers could survive drinking nothing but booze, I'd say that depends on the type of booze: Beer yes, wine maybe, spirits probably not. Maybe each type could reduce thirst by a different amount.
Did Toady actually say that? It would explain some things (like why gobs don't eat or drink) but that's a major change from what I would have thought. I hope it doesn't exclude the possibility of the occasional friendly goblin.I agree--while the Always Chaotic Evil trope certainly has it uses, DF shouldn't squander its ability to tell good stories, and individuals rebelling against their nature nearly always makes for a good story. Sure, all goblins being thought-slaves to a demonic overlord would certainly support my argument that goblins could have an innate pressure driving them to be cruel, but I'd hate to win a good fight for a bad reason.
. . . In a lot of Threetoe's stories the goblins are from the underworld, so I think we're going to relate that to it, to make it have more of a goblinesque feel for the current portal that the demon's controlling, so it doesn't just pour through with demons. We already have these giant spires down in the underworld that were filled with demons, but perhaps they'll be filled with goblins, they're, kind of, bastions from the demons or something like that. We're just playing around with different stuff, we'll see what happens.Personally, I feel that the goblins fully deserve to have their own culture (or possibly lack thereof), independent of direct demonic control. I'd like to see the Dark Pits (Population ≈ 200) exhibit the goblins' natural social behavior, while the full-on Dark Fortress (Population ≈ 10,000) showcases what a demon can do with them. Perhaps only goblins from the Pits could potentially "escape" and have more benign interactions with other races. Fortress-Mode goblin sieges could also have different compositions, depending on whether the invaders are the Pit-goblins acting on their own, or if it's coming from the Dark Fortress itself.
Toady: . . . I mean, we were thinking of running it with different groups, because the goblins don't get along, they're not supposed to get along with each other, it's supposed to be the power of the demon that keeps them under control and able to take over a bunch of civilizations instead of just descending into violence among the goblins themselves, so there are going to be different groups of goblins that don't care about the other groups of goblins and I think the only thing keeping it together is going to be the demon's secret policeThis is where the argument could devolve into mere speculation on whether or not these "groups" could act as stable tribal units on their own, or whether goblin cruelty would necessarily disintegrate them until only the individual level is stable. But I for one am not going to go there, as far as I'm concerned this diversion has already been concluded.
Actually this a very strong argument FOR the idea that goblins "must" be cruel when you think about it.
After all, as the current game goes it is impossible for goblin civilisations to form without a literal demon raising a fortress straight from actual hell to rule them, if I'm not mistaken. So the society is not being formed by the fractious creatures that could not create a stable society, it is being created by a magical being of great power to enable it to rule over them.
And when you look at classic fantasy that's a pretty common theme. The supreme commanders of orcs/goblins are very often external beings who either created their society, brought it to prominence, or in some cases actually created the species as servants.
I still dont think goblins should have a biological imperative to be assholes, because thats un-fun, but its an interesting thought
You Have Selected: Starting From The Conclusion. That's a bold move, Goblin, let's see if it pays off for him.
It is indeed a fallacy, because you base everything upon the assumption that having a racial drive to be cruel must needs cause every goblin to start bloodfeuds with their fellow goblins, to the point that culture and population centers cannot exist. You offer no hint of evidence (beyond your own feelings) to support your claim of how these goblins must unavoidably be. Of course, as the saying goes, what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, but happily I don't even have to go that route, as it's quite simple for me to show that "alternate possibilities could exist," which was all I've been arguing for.
Just as the other forum members have commented, I too agree that goblin cruelty would be better as a focus-based drive than a biological requirement.
Yet there are creatures that DO have an absolute imperative to hurt, maim, and kill on a very regular basis: They're called carnivores, and almost all of them must kill at least once every couple of days. Granted, basic hunting does not necessarily involve any actual cruelty . . . except that it's a very common behavior for an adult predator to catch a prey animal, and bring it back to its young still alive, so that the offspring can inexpertly rip apart a critter that has already been too badly injured to defend itself. Common house cats, meanwhile, are well known for their practice of playing with their wounded prey for long periods before finally killing it, and they very often kill purely for sport. These behaviors actually go beyond the levels of cruelty that goblins are seen, or even hinted at as, doing in DF, and therefore one could quite plausibly argue that goblins are actually LESS cruel than cats. According to YOU, then, GoblinCookie, cats cannot have any kind of social organization, because they "have to hurt each other and consequently end up killing each other."
Except of course, that that is patently false. What do we KNOW about cats? They have an innate drive to hunt, torture, and kill, even without need. They are fiercely territorial, and will defend their home turf against rival cats with tooth and claw. The more belligerent toms will frequently sport scars, torn ears, and other marks of their various battles. When on the prowl, cats almost always prefer to do so alone, and never cooperate to bring down a target animal. BUT. Their fights are only rarely fatal. That one-eyed tomcat is proof, not that he fights all the time, but that he survives those fights. Cats frequently make friends with other cats, and sometimes congregate in large communities where their individual interactions do hint at a social structure, and even a hierarchy.
Now, granted, cats are not sentient, but even so we can clearly see that here is a creature with a genuine, full-blown biological cruelty "quota", that still manages not to murder itself to extinction, and even has a semblance of social order. I told you earlier that I only had to show a single reasonable counterexample in order to prove you wrong. That example is now provided, your baseless assertion is now disproved.
My point above was only one possible refutation to this line of thinking, two others are:
They can if the beings are hostile to each other at some times, but more placid during others. With the most obvious examples naturally being the various species who routinely fight many duels during mating season, but get along with each other quite well at all other times of the year. We can see this especially in animals that have evolved distinctly non-lethal weapons to be used against rivals, such as the giraffe's little rounded knobs that pass for "horns". Cooperative behaviors learned during peacetime would very plausibly lead to mercy during times of stress, an effect that increases proportionally with the creature's intelligence.
Innate cruelty, and social behaviors that can mitigate / channel said cruelty, could have evolved in tandem ('evolved' in this case possibly meaning either a generational progression of learned cultural behaviors, or actual genetic evolution). Cruelty and brutality can be very effective means to reproductive success, but taken to extremes they can also quite easily backfire and make one the common enemy of a larger group, so the two qualities of "You should be the baddest dude around" and "But not TOO bad, though" could wind up in a sort of arms race, each trait effectively striving to outdo the other. Apply this pattern to your average primate, and eventually you'll get a goblin. At no point does the creature's cruelty override its self-control by too great an extent, so there is no paradox.
Actually, I don't believe you've ever gotten me angry. Annoyed, but not angry.
And that's very interesting to me, that you would take such a fine distinction (goblins perform some given amount of cruelty just for the hell of it, vs. goblins perform the exact same acts of cruelty because they feel some innate drive to do so) and explode it into such a major difference of results (goblins that torture for fun are seen to live in population centers of around 10,000 people, but goblins that feel biological pressure to torture can never be around each other). As I recall, you were similarly fond of hyperbole back during the DuckTales episode, arguing that the majority of ducks successfully reproducing could have no other result than total ecocide within the span of a single generation. Is "Extreme Conclusion Jumping" a sport? Should you be wearing protective equipment?
I have stated repeatedly that goblins are NOT forced to be cruel to each other, victims such as other races, animals, the undead, and even inanimate dummies have all been discussed in this thread. If anyone isn't paying attention, it's you. Please stop arguing against things that I clearly did NOT say . . . unless you're playing Logical Fallacy Bingo, and you need "Straw Man" to win.
::) Slavery obviously cannot exist without slave owners, and therefore slavers are unequivocally an essential part of the system. They are also, as it happens, the part of the system with the greatest amount of control over said system, so the lion's share of the guilt & blame for slavery's inherent evils must fall directly to them. I say this not out of desire to perpetuate a slavery derail (you'll notice I'm not bothering to respond to your Human Rights clusterfuck), but merely as an example of how you tend to say ridiculous things if you think you can get away with it. Let me simply assure that you are wrong, on the factual count as well as the ideological one.
I wouldn't worry about it, you hide it rather well.
Yes, several cultures that practiced slavery did so in a manner that was decidedly low-key, compared to the more hardcore American version. But in those cases, an adult slave willingly signing his services over to a master for a set period of time, for a set wage, is actually far more akin to a contract employee than a "real" slave, born into bondage and with hardly any feasible way of ever escaping it, short of death. For some types of Roman slaves, it was practically being a slave in name only. But to extend that sort of leniency to all slave-keeping cultures, and imply that all slaves had the ability to buy their own freedom, is a gross overstatement on your part.
Sigh. Over saying crap that makes you sound incredibly racist, such as "Slavery is not an individual cruelty to which an individual can personally be responsible," and "It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves'".
Yes, but when we modern humans think of the word "slavery", especially when it's goblins doing the enslaving, that kind of slavery is not what we're thinking of. We don't think, "Oh, I won't be allowed to vote or own property, but I'll still be treated about as well as a minimum-wage McDonalds employee", we think "Oh My God, I'm going to be flogged every night and worked to death, aren't I." That kind of slavery is clearly evil, and that's the clearly kind of slavery that goblins practice, and for you to step in and say, "ACKCHYUALLY, slavery was sometimes more moderate," does nothing but cloud the issue for no other purpose than to let you sound educated. If you want to muddy the ethical waters with low-impact slavery, have at least the good taste to specify that you're doing it with humans or dwarves, or with goblins trying to change their ways.
Actually, I personally think (heresy of heresies!) that ALCOHOL_DEPENDENT is also needlessly gamey and would be better off replaced by just making the average dwarf have high immoderation, rather than treating them like some kind of alcohol-powered robot or whatever, but that's just me.You're not alone. I, too, believe it would work far better purely as a focus-based need, especially because it's never made sense to have newborns drink whiskey, and to have only invalids drink water. Dwarves can (and should) enjoy frequently drinking alcohol, but it shouldn't be an absolute biological requirement by any means. As to whether their industrial livers could survive drinking nothing but booze, I'd say that depends on the type of booze: Beer yes, wine maybe, spirits probably not. Maybe each type could reduce thirst by a different amount.
I would also suggest that dwarves have an additional need to be underground, at least periodically. Dwarves are so powerful in comparison to the other races, it's only fitting they should have an additional handicap or two.
. . . if I am able to discipline my goblins into behaving somewhat without this resulting in them suffering a permanent malus, suffering or dying. . . .Just as you apparently perceive no difference between "goblins are driven to be cruel" and "goblins must slaughter each other", you also seem to think that "cruelty" is equal to "torture" (especially of sentients), and that "failure to fulfill this need" can have no other outcome than "loss of function, and death". This repeated tendency toward extrapolation on your part, trying to make my position seem far more radical than it actually is, is a variation of the Straw Man fallacy, deliberately misrepresenting my argument to make me sound like the extremist. It is you who is being inflexible, not I.
If goblins have to torture other beings in order to function, then goblin society is effectively impossible unless there are suitable beings that are not goblins about to torture instead of each-other . . .
I am well aware that goblin society could plausible function (and exist) if there were beings other than goblins around to torture . . .
We were specifically talking about the situation in which goblins have no choice but to torture actual sentient beings in order to function. . . .
You just love to put words into other people's mouths.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
Thank you for so readily (albeit unintentionally) proving my point about you starting from the conclusion, it seems you literally cannot distinguish a possible effect (goblin separation) from its cause (goblin cruelty). But let me correct your use of terms: A premise is statement of fact, reduced to be as simple and nonspecific as the argument will allow. It is the combination of different premises, and how they interact with one another, that constitutes logical argument. So the actual premise, in this case, is "Goblins feel an innate drive to inflict cruelty," and nothing else. So your argument isIt is indeed a fallacy, because you base everything upon the assumption that having a racial drive to be cruel must needs cause every goblin to start bloodfeuds with their fellow goblins, to the point that culture and population centers cannot exist.The assumption is not an assumption Six of Spades. It is a conclusion that follows from the premise. The premise is that goblins with a biological requirement to inflict a given amount of cruelty to each-other cannot form a functional society *in isolation* because of the hatreds engendered in this fact drive the individual goblins apart.
There is however no cruelty-quota governing cat behavior, the cat does not work on the basis of "Got to be mean to X mice this month".As we are unable to observe cats' "source code" and see whether they have a quota or not, neither of us is able to make any kind of statement on this matter. All we can do is judge from their behavior: Cats, largely without exception, will try to kill any prey animal that presents itself, whether they're hungry or not . . . and if possible, they will do it slowly.
. . . you won't be able to find any evidence.I already told you that your claims may be dismissed without evidence, as you provide none of your own. I also said I didn't need to go that route, I needed only to present a single plausible alternative--which I did.
. . . if I am able to discipline my goblins into behaving somewhat . . .I am amazed at your choice of words. What sort of "discipline" are you proposing, whipping the goblins into not whipping people?
. . . if goblins are just crueller dwarves, then we can prevent them from acting on their nature by disciplinary means.
As I stated earlier, I started by proposing that goblins' cruelty need should parallel dwarves' alcohol need, which is both a biological requirement ([ALCOHOL_DEPENDENT]) and a focus-based need. But I also soon clarified that withJust as the other forum members have commented, I too agree that goblin cruelty would be better as a focus-based drive than a biological requirement.You changed your mind then. You started by proposing that just as dwarves have a biological need for alcohol, goblins would have a similar need to inflict cruelty on others. I have been arguing against that position, but you have now shifted your position into one more similar to my own . . .
As inflicting cruelty introduces no material element into one's system, it's clear that the cause of this need-fulfillment is purely psychological rather than physical.So it seems that your entire cause for contention is the "cruelty quota" (as opposed to the cruelty itself), which course isn't even detectable by an in-game observer. Talk about much ado about nothing. I'll leave you to dwell on that.
Giraffe horns work just as well against the many things that want to eat giraffes as they do against rival giraffes. Giraffe horns are also pretty lethal . . . they are actually more dangerous than the horns of say deer or cattle.You're correct in that they're made of bone, not horn, and therefore are technically antlers. Everything else, however, is dead wrong.
You read as very, very angry indeed. Seething I think the word is.Seething is indeed an applicable word, but it certainly doesn't apply to me in this case. You may be projecting again.
If you own your house, does that make you part of your house? Owning slaves does not make you part of slavery, it makes you an owner of slavery.Owning a house makes me part of the Homeowner's Association. It makes me part of the housing market. Just as everybody involved in the capture, transport, housing, sale, purchase, receipt, and management of slaves, were ALL part of the institution of slavery. Even those who knowingly purchased the goods produced by slaves were arguably involved, as they provided a market for the slaves' labor. I thought you were supposed to know your economics.
I am specifically saying that individual slaves within pretty much any system of slavery are divided into various strata, some of which are relatively easy and some of which are practical hell-on earth. I am also saying that the very functioning of slavery is best served by this situation, the plight of slaves worse than you serves to motivate the slaves in general to work hard and well in order to please their masters to avoid 'demotion'.Yes, that is technically quite correct, stick vs. carrot is a powerful motivational tool. But I was reacting to the way in which you said it, earlier: "It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves'". As a student of history, you should know that the history of slavery has been fraught with racism, and as someone fluent in the English language, you should know that 'slavery' is a word charged with incredible amounts of racial tension, whether you yourself happen to be racist or not.
That means they [goblins] can potentially do the impossible, but can they do the socially impossible?I'm suggesting that goblins should be able to do at least one thing that you apparently find impossible: Learn from suffering multiple defeats, know when they are beaten, and accept their relatively lower rank with grace . . . ideally, without trying to murder the one(s) who shamed them.
That is vicious; are you practising for goblinhood?As I've said earlier, one of my principal aims is to supplement your noticeable lack of humility. To encourage you to STOP thinking of yourself as the Smartest Guy in the Room, particularly when that room was created for the specific purpose of discussing an extremely wide range of possible improvements to one of the most complicated games on the planet. But in this case, my jab originated primarily from my surprise at how a self-professed scholar of history could seem to be so thoroughly, so deliberately, and so consistently on the wrong side of it.
A focus based drive would be fine, since not meeting all focus drives of a creature does not result in any notable harm. The important thing though is that it must be possible for the goblins focus drive to be thwarted by the correct environment, or else the behavioural effect is exactly the same as having a biological drive.Sadly, this is the ONLY part of my post specifically intended for the wider forum audience in general. Reading this made me think: Would, or should, a goblin deprived of all other possible targets for cruelty resort to self-harm? That they must inflict pain, even upon themselves? Might particularly "righteous" goblins take this route even if they didn't have to, to show their "virtue" of not hurting anyone else? It's an interesting thought.
SixOfSpades, that self harm thing doesn't really work in any way. If the need for cruelty comes from a cruel personality, you're looking at the wrong person for selflessness, sacrifice, and caring about others. If it's a biological requirement based on brain chemicals, I highly doubt they'd get the same kick out of self harm as they do out of cruelty towards others. Remember, cruelty and harm are two different things.Oh yeah, that's all true, I was just thinking about what some possible effects of "cruelty withdrawal" might be, especially if the goblin is denied ALL opportunities to be cruel to others (because the simplest solution for players would likely be to put the goblin in solitary confinement). The "default" (?) effect of withdrawal would be for the goblin to lose focus and become distracted, and if it truly is denied all outlets for this need, then his anxiety might increase to the point that borders on insanity, of which self-harm is not an uncommon indicator. After all, especially despondent dwarves already commit full-on suicide, and flagellation & self-harm are not infrequently seen in real-life humans with unmet psychological needs.
What do folks think about babysitting and/or playdates that use a similar system to the group hangout/date type system I mentioned way back on page 1?Definite +1, it works as a social circle for the parents as well, so they can take turns watching the group of kids, and converse with each other when there are multiple adults present. This sounds like a good side-project for / segue into nannies, day care, and schools.
I like the idea of dwarves children hanging around together and seeking each other out immensely. It provides endless possibilities for mischief, emergent stories, and little Kogan being eaten by a cave spider and scaring the other kids into not trying to fight giant monsters with their grubby fistsIt should probably be a combination of age (if the kids are among the oldest in the group) and traits like Independence, Curious, and Excitement_Seeking, that determines if individual dwarf children consider themselves too cool for school.
Just as you apparently perceive no difference between "goblins are driven to be cruel" and "goblins must slaughter each other", you also seem to think that "cruelty" is equal to "torture" (especially of sentients), and that "failure to fulfill this need" can have no other outcome than "loss of function, and death". This repeated tendency toward extrapolation on your part, trying to make my position seem far more radical than it actually is, is a variation of the Straw Man fallacy, deliberately misrepresenting my argument to make me sound like the extremist. It is you who is being inflexible, not I.
Let me be clear on all three counts: Fighting does not necessarily mean Death, Cruelty does not necessarily mean Torture, and (the most confusing one, thanks, English language) "Need" does not necessarily mean Need. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs famously includes both actual needs (food, warmth) and "needs" (love, social acclaim). In goblin terms, this means (as I stated) that goblins can regard each other as direct competitors without seeing them as actual enemies to be killed. It means that these competitors can exercise their cruelty through insults, humiliation, confiscation of goods & resources, denial of rights, assignment of menial/grueling/difficult/dangerous tasks, and physical blows, long before going to such extremes as actual torture. And it means that simply feeling a great, unfulfilled longing for an activity or emotion that has too long been denied you, does not infallibly result in your collapse and death.
Let me be clear on another matter as well: I never once described what goblins' "cruelty withdrawal" would entail. I think this idea is still too conceptual to be pinned down to specifics, and so deliberately left the matter vague and open to interpretation. You evidently have interpreted it to mean that each goblin must either torture, or die.
Thank you for so readily (albeit unintentionally) proving my point about you starting from the conclusion, it seems you literally cannot distinguish a possible effect (goblin separation) from its cause (goblin cruelty). But let me correct your use of terms: A premise is statement of fact, reduced to be as simple and nonspecific as the argument will allow. It is the combination of different premises, and how they interact with one another, that constitutes logical argument. So the actual premise, in this case, is "Goblins feel an innate drive to inflict cruelty," and nothing else. So your argument is
a) Goblins feel an innate drive to inflict cruelty,
b) Inflicting cruelty engenders fear and/or hatred,
sub-conclusion 1) therefore goblins hate each other,
c) creatures that hate each other avoid each other,
sub-conclusion 2) therefore goblins avoid each other,
d) societies cannot exist without sufficient interaction,
sub-conclusion 3) therefore goblin society cannot exist,
conclusion) therefore goblin society cannot develop means to circumvent goblin hatred.
Yet this argument is inherently flawed, as 1) assumes that the hatred must be between goblins, and c) assumes that the hatred must outweigh any reason the goblins might have to stick together (and goblins being almost universally hated is a very good reason to stick together).
As we are unable to observe cats' "source code" and see whether they have a quota or not, neither of us is able to make any kind of statement on this matter. All we can do is judge from their behavior: Cats, largely without exception, will try to kill any prey animal that presents itself, whether they're hungry or not . . . and if possible, they will do it slowly.
I already told you that your claims may be dismissed without evidence, as you provide none of your own. I also said I didn't need to go that route, I needed only to present a single plausible alternative--which I did.
I am amazed at your choice of words. What sort of "discipline" are you proposing, whipping the goblins into not whipping people?
Seething is indeed an applicable word, but it certainly doesn't apply to me in this case. You may be projecting again.
Owning a house makes me part of the Homeowner's Association. It makes me part of the housing market. Just as everybody involved in the capture, transport, housing, sale, purchase, receipt, and management of slaves, were ALL part of the institution of slavery. Even those who knowingly purchased the goods produced by slaves were arguably involved, as they provided a market for the slaves' labor. I thought you were supposed to know your economics.
Yes, that is technically quite correct, stick vs. carrot is a powerful motivational tool. But I was reacting to the way in which you said it, earlier: "It is better for the slaves to think that their masters are kind people and they are only being punished because they are 'bad slaves'". As a student of history, you should know that the history of slavery has been fraught with racism, and as someone fluent in the English language, you should know that 'slavery' is a word charged with incredible amounts of racial tension, whether you yourself happen to be racist or not.
I'm suggesting that goblins should be able to do at least one thing that you apparently find impossible: Learn from suffering multiple defeats, know when they are beaten, and accept their relatively lower rank with grace . . . ideally, without trying to murder the one(s) who shamed them.
As I've said earlier, one of my principal aims is to supplement your noticeable lack of humility. To encourage you to STOP thinking of yourself as the Smartest Guy in the Room, particularly when that room was created for the specific purpose of discussing an extremely wide range of possible improvements to one of the most complicated games on the planet. But in this case, my jab originated primarily from my surprise at how a self-professed scholar of history could seem to be so thoroughly, so deliberately, and so consistently on the wrong side of it.
Sadly, this is the ONLY part of my post specifically intended for the wider forum audience in general. Reading this made me think: Would, or should, a goblin deprived of all other possible targets for cruelty resort to self-harm? That they must inflict pain, even upon themselves? Might particularly "righteous" goblins take this route even if they didn't have to, to show their "virtue" of not hurting anyone else? It's an interesting thought.
Somewhere along the line it so happened that we both lost track of both what we were talking about and even what our own positions are even supposed to be.Your original take was that goblins having a known need to be cruel would justify other races attempting to exterminate them, and that this had dire moral implications. Meanwhile, I took the moderate take (as I still do) that there were many mitigating factors to be considered, that such a change would have little to no impact on the cruelty that goblins already practice, that the other races already have ample reasons to desire goblin genocide, and that ethical dilemmas make the game philosophically intriguing.
Cruelty ultimately engenders hatreds from those who are the victims of it, everyone in an isolated goblin population is forced to victimise other goblins, which then consequently hate them. The victimised goblins are themselves also forced to victimise other goblins in turn so there is nowhere for this to end up except in a loop.Even with the huge assumption that there are zero convenient animals to torment, some terribly unfortunate goblins could find themselves made into local "whipping boys", that are forced to bear the brunt of everyone else's whims. Interestingly enough, these would be the goblins most likely to want to break free from their civilizations and perhaps defect to yours; they would also be the goblins most likely to believe that torturing for fun is wrong.
If goblins perceive all other goblins as competitors, then they will quickly conclude that to kill each-other is a good idea since it means their position is more secure. Since all other goblins are going to randomly hurt you, then why go near them at all?Because pretty much every sentient who isn't a goblin hates goblins too, and it's better to be a member of a group whose members defend each other for mutual protection than a single goblin wandering alone. Having to fistfight for a spot at the dinner table, and occasionally losing out & having to go hungry for the night, is preferable to having to solo a tigerman whose nephew got babysnatched last year.
Since their cruelty is expressed as a quota goblins are unable to *not* be cruel to each-other, so goblin separation does necessarily happen.That is pretty much exactly what you said before. I broke down your line of reasoning for easy analysis, specifically pointed out its logical flaws, and now you respond by stating it again, practically verbatim. You have managed to learn nothing. I recently said that you represented The Great Unteachable. That may have been an understatement: perhaps you are the very concept made flesh.
I was trying to establish why an ethical dilemma exists in a world where the cruelty quota is a thing for goblins, one that does not exist in a world where goblins are simply crueller on average than you are.Speaking as someone who hasn't recently spoken out against the very existence of inalienable human rights, I think I'll operate by my standards of ethics, thanks.
Case in point. Hypocrisy is not a virtue.What sort of "discipline" are you proposing, whipping the goblins into not whipping people?Pretty much.
Technically true, but it would be more correct to say nothing more than "cats suffer no significant penalties from cruelty withdrawal", and leave it at that. Whether there's a quota or not remains unknowable.As we are unable to observe cats' "source code" and see whether they have a quota or not, neither of us is able to make any kind of statement on this matter.The cats do very much have a quota for dead mice nutrients. However cats do not need to torture a given number of mice every week in order to survive, that is the difference.
The claim you made, that "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is total rubbish and you provided no evidence for it ;).The entire history of religion is more than evidence enough--as you should well know, historian.
As I told you, I am a historian and the majority of history is based upon extrapolating a long chain of conclusions from sources, any of which could potentially be fake/inaccurate. . . . it is also the case that you can sometimes dismiss evidence without evidence.Okay, now if I were to take that quote's meaning, and extrapolate on it with as little regard for accuracy as it seems to give me license to do, I could say that it boils down to "Historians just make stuff up." You know--the way you just did with giraffes.
If goblin cruelty comes simply from the same source that dwarf cruelty does, which is the current situation then dealing with the average goblin is no different from dealing with a particularly cruel dwarf. Carrots+Sticks should work to make them behave nicer, even if it does nothing to actually make them nicer people.Actually, no, that is almost certainly not the current situation. A goblin is "driven to cruelty by its evil nature", while a dwarf is a "creature of drink and industry". Cruelty is arguably as fundamental (if not absolutely essential) to goblins as booze is to dwarves--and as Bumber said, let's not forget that goblins are ruled by actual demons from hell, and were (at least conceptually) literal fragments of evil. I think it's quite clear that they are VERY different from "a particularly cruel dwarf".
. . . you dig up all the ways that I was right in the past*derisive snort*
In any case, can you be a bit less obsessed with me?I'm hardly concerned with you, but I do have a stake in what you do on this forum. If you reply to viable ideas with your own stonewalling criticism just because that's not the way YOU want to play the game-- If you answer suggestions for possibility, diversity, and roleplaying variation with artificially forced rigid uniformity-- If your response to someone pointing out your errors is to not change your position by one iota-- then you are not working in the best interests of the Suggestions forum, or even the DF community as a whole. And when you do all that while pretending to be intellectually (and now, perhaps even morally) superior, there's a risk that somebody might actually believe you. I for one would much rather that new forum members got their guidance from people who actually are trying to improve the game.
Your original take was that goblins having a known need to be cruel would justify other races attempting to exterminate them, and that this had dire moral implications. Meanwhile, I took the moderate take (as I still do) that there were many mitigating factors to be considered, that such a change would have little to no impact on the cruelty that goblins already practice, that the other races already have ample reasons to desire goblin genocide, and that ethical dilemmas make the game philosophically intriguing.
Even with the huge assumption that there are zero convenient animals to torment, some terribly unfortunate goblins could find themselves made into local "whipping boys", that are forced to bear the brunt of everyone else's whims. Interestingly enough, these would be the goblins most likely to want to break free from their civilizations and perhaps defect to yours; they would also be the goblins most likely to believe that torturing for fun is wrong.
You keep saying that there's no possible way that a driven-cruelty goblin society could work, yet I keep finding ways in which it could plausibly work. I expect this pattern to continue.
Because pretty much every sentient who isn't a goblin hates goblins too, and it's better to be a member of a group whose members defend each other for mutual protection than a single goblin wandering alone. Having to fistfight for a spot at the dinner table, and occasionally losing out & having to go hungry for the night, is preferable to having to solo a tigerman whose nephew got babysnatched last year.
That is pretty much exactly what you said before. I broke down your line of reasoning for easy analysis, specifically pointed out its logical flaws, and now you respond by stating it again, practically verbatim. You have managed to learn nothing. I recently said that you represented The Great Unteachable. That may have been an understatement: perhaps you are the very concept made flesh.
While I readily agree that goblins are indeed likely to be cruel to each other, hate each other, feel urges to avoid each other, and even kill each other (at least sometimes), that "likely" does not equal "certain", no matter how much you want it to. You have a marked tendency towards stubbornness and narrowmindedness; I remember in the most recent Names thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=170319.0), the OP suggested that dwarves should inherit part of their names from one or both parents, a realistic enough request. You immediately responded with (paraphrasing) "No, that could never work, surnames are completely useless." You seemed to have trouble with people having opinions that were different from yours, and running their forts unlike the way you (apparently) do. Now we're seeing that again in this thread, where you evidently believe that goblins having a cruelty urge must infallibly lead to the entire goblin population self-destructing. That's the way you imagined it, and therefore that's the only way it could be. I have indicated several alternatives, circumventions, and middle-ground variations, yet you insist on dealing in absolutes.
Speaking as someone who hasn't recently spoken out against the very existence of inalienable human rights, I think I'll operate by my standards of ethics, thanks.
Case in point. Hypocrisy is not a virtue.
The entire history of religion is more than evidence enough--as you should well know, historian.
Okay, now if I were to take that quote's meaning, and extrapolate on it with as little regard for accuracy as it seems to give me license to do, I could say that it boils down to "Historians just make stuff up." You know--the way you just did with giraffes.
Actually, no, that is almost certainly not the current situation. A goblin is "driven to cruelty by its evil nature", while a dwarf is a "creature of drink and industry". Cruelty is arguably as fundamental (if not absolutely essential) to goblins as booze is to dwarves--and as Bumber said, let's not forget that goblins are ruled by actual demons from hell, and were (at least conceptually) literal fragments of evil. I think it's quite clear that they are VERY different from "a particularly cruel dwarf".
Although I do agree that goblin residents could (and should) at least try to adjust their outward manners to life in a dwarf fort--as long as there's a range of ways for them to do so, different motivations for them to do so, and varied ways to encourage them to do so.
I'm hardly concerned with you, but I do have a stake in what you do on this forum. If you reply to viable ideas with your own stonewalling criticism just because that's not the way YOU want to play the game-- If you answer suggestions for possibility, diversity, and roleplaying variation with artificially forced rigid uniformity-- If your response to someone pointing out your errors is to not change your position by one iota-- then you are not working in the best interests of the Suggestions forum, or even the DF community as a whole. And when you do all that while pretending to be intellectually (and now, perhaps even morally) superior, there's a risk that somebody might actually believe you. I for one would much rather that new forum members got their guidance from people who actually are trying to improve the game.
GoblinCookie, I think expecting the violence/evilness slider to edit existing raws rather than allow/disallow things with certain tags is a little optimistic, unless conditional tokens are added in or something, like [IF:WORLD_VIOLENCE:HIGH:CRUELTY_DEPENDENT_EXTREME]. Sounds like if the appropriate tags/DFHack features are added the features you suggested could be modded in though.
This is half religion based:
Each Deity should require procedurally generated religious requirements (eg. no consumption of plump helmets or plump helmet derived foods in the month of Granite) and depending on how faithful the dwarf is will give them stronger thoughts about either following the law (decrease stress) or breaking it(increase stress). The more casual of a worshipper the dwarf is the more likely they will be to break it (ie. a highly faithful dwarf would rather starve to death than break the first example given if plump helmets were the only food)
Put a minimum and maximum amount of requirements per deity in the world Gen parameter probably set the default to
Min: 0
Max: 5
SixOfSpades, surely if you're suggesting self harm be due to anxiety bordering on insanity, it would do better as a precursor symptom of the suicidal behaviour you mentioned wouldn't it? And maybe once religion gets expanded, a method of showing devotion to gods of pain and suffering, for people who don't enjoy/need cruelty.Yes, it'd add a good bit of flavor, as well as a final warning before somebody goes melancholy or whatever. Ditto for appropriate worship spheres.
Each Deity should require procedurally generated religious requirements . . . Put a minimum and maximum amount of requirements per deityThe number of requirements should be proportional to the number of spheres that each god controls. If the ratio is even 1:1, then each requirement could be specifically tied to just one sphere, and different worshipers (say, a Blacksmith and a Gem Cutter both praying to a deity of metals & jewels) might think that different requirements are more important to follow. But this deserves its own topic.
The whipping boys idea simply does not work for two reasons. One is that is requires a high level of societal organization to reliably enforce such a status, meaning goblin society/states must have already reached a certain level of size and complexity, . . .Did the Goonies need a large or complex population in order to unanimously make Chunk into their patsy and verbal punching bag? Granted, that's a work of fiction, but was their behavior anything but realistic in this matter? The only level of societal organization required is mutual recognition of relative status, which the stronger goblins would naturally encourage and even enforce. The smallest/weakest/etc. goblin in any group is almost certainly going to be taking more than his fair share of abuse.
. . . or else the whipping boys will simply keep escaping or murdering their tormentors.If the whipping boys are indeed restrained, it quite plausibly is as punishment for a (failed) crime, and a couple of days as a whipping boy should be quite an effective deterrent. After their time is up, yes, naturally they're still going to harbor resentment toward those who mistreated them--but the experience of being released, and knowing that everyone knows you're no longer the whipping boy, is also a powerful psychological burden being lifted from you. (Or should be--goblin psychology is of course something of a guess.) And then, before too long, maybe there'll be a new criminal to be the whipping boy.
The second is the whipping boys are themselves subject to the same cruelty need as the regular goblins. They will hence be forced to lash at the other whipping boys, resulting in conflicts that will reliably result in them all killing eachother. Once the whipping boys have killed eachother, the other goblins will be forced to turn against eachother.Again you pretend that there are no beings other than goblins to torment, again you assume that all goblin conflicts end in death.
Why do??? Because they have a long and storied history of attacking foreign settlements, killing & maiming the citizenry, and dragging off their children to be worked as slaves until the day they die? Just a guess.allmost other sentient beings hate goblins?
Seriously? Are you actually arguing that your hidebound mindset comes from being SO intelligent, while my own open-ended approach indicates relative stupidity? Don't try it. You won't like what's down that road.You seemed to have trouble with people having opinions that were different from yours, and running their forts unlike the way you (apparently) do. . . . That's the way you imagined it, and therefore that's the only way it could be.. . . The cleverer you are, the more predictable things are, conversely the stupider you are the more things seem to be an accidental.
Where is your evidence for the existence of inalienable human rights?I do hope you're not literally asking me to show you one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy, or otherwise summon physical proof of intangibles. As you well know, such things exist not through their presence, but through their demonstration, and so naturally a degree of subjectivity is not only expected, but unavoidable. This does not make them any less real. Certain human rights are judged to be inalienable because they descend directly from mankind's most fundamental trait: sentience. To consciously strip a fellow mind of its inherent bodily sovereignty and treat it as if it were nothing more than an object, with no capacity for reason or emotion--well, that displays a callous disregard of empathy on par with the very textbook examples of evil. GoblinCookie, questioning the existence of human rights is evil. Not as evil as actually doing evil deeds, of course, but to deliberately try to equate morality with legality and argue that historical slaves had no inherent right to personal autonomy because they predated the Geneva Accords just makes you sound like a character of LE alignment, looking for a loophole to exploit.
So punishing the bullies is now hypocrisy.Punishing bullies is not, but punishing them by precisely replicating their own actions is. For a punishment to fit the crime, it must cause suffering in proportion to, but always less than, the amount of suffering caused by the crime itself. If a goblin resident goes on a torture tantrum and starts whipping random dwarves, the just sentence is not an equal amount of lashes inflicted on the goblin. Such a lesson does not teach him that "Whipping people is wrong," but rather, "I can be just as cruel as you can," and indeed, "But I'm better at it than you are." Which, incidentally, is almost certainly the exact mindset the goblin left behind when he abandoned his old civ. Congratulations, you're running your fort just like a goblin might.
Religions don't historically behave any differently to how we are behaving here in this place; they fight and argue with each-other.The history of religion isn't simply that they fight, but that they fight over nothing. "Elohim is the One True God!" asserts the Jew, simply because that's what he was raised to believe. "There is no God but Allah!" retorts the Muslim, because that's how he was raised. Meanwhile, thousands of Christians kill each other over whether the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all of the same essence, or separate manifestations of the same indivisible godhead. Almost the entire history of religion is people dismissing, without evidence, what other people have claimed without evidence.
Note that I did not actually say that historians make stuff up--merely that your sentence was so loosely worded that merely to accept it at face value and follow in its footsteps would be an insult to your entire field of study.Okay, now if I were to take that quote's meaning, and extrapolate on it with as little regard for accuracy as it seems to give me license to do, I could say that it boils down to "Historians just make stuff up."No historians do not simply make things up. You can legitimately draw conclusions from evidence and you can draw conclusions from conclusions. Lastly you can in some cases debunk apparent evidence using conclusions.
Just because somebody criticizes an idea does not mean their criticism is validThat is quite true, but it doesn't mean that the criticism is invalid, either. The critique, as well as the idea, must be judged on its merits. I judged your idea, found that your logic contained two faulty assumptions, and indicated them to you. You then judged my criticism, found it "pretty good", and then ignored it completely, going right back to your original (indeed, only) argument, which you now knew to be incorrect. You would rather weld yourself to a bad idea than admit that I had a better one.
The funny thing in this thread however is that I have mostly been trying to figure out how we could best implement *your* own ideas here, so where is the gratitude?WTF? So far, your thoughts as to the "implementation" of goblins needing to be cruel have mainly focused on dire prognostications that the change could never work, as it would infallibly and immediately cause all goblin civs to crumble and die. Not exactly in the spirit of constructive criticism.
As for the rest: Nobody has the right to demand someone change another person's opinion nor to complain when they do not do so.I may not have the right to demand that you change your opinion, but I do have the right to say your opinion is wrong--and even prove it, if I can. More relevant is the fact that different opinions should not automatically be assumed to be of equal merit: If one person says, "It's night-time", and the person next to them says, "No, it's broad daylight," an impartial observer should not simply let them agree to disagree, the impartial observer should look out the damn window. But our differences are even more fundamental than that: I am arguing like someone saying, "I'm pretty sure there could be at least eight different flavors of ice cream," to which you reply, "No, flavors other than mint chip are impossible, as anything else would cause the freezer to short-circuit, and all the ice cream would melt." Now, I like mint chip, and could happily go the rest of my life eating no other flavor. But I know that it's factually wrong to pretend that other ice cream flavors either don't or can't exist, and it's morally wrong for me to try to force that flavor onto those who might prefer chocolate, or those that like variety. That's why I'm not the one arguing that the only way to play Dwarf Fortress, is the way that I like to play Dwarf Fortress.
Just a thought seeing as this thread is bordering on double digit page numbers; should I collect suggestions as the thread progresses and edit them into the end of the OP, so it's easier to jump right into the discussion? Kinda like what I did on pg 3, but with 6 more pages of stuff, and right at the end of the first post of the thread so it's always easy to spot no matter how long this thread goes on for.Agreed. Someone unbiased (that is, not GoblinCookie or myself) should probably decide what ideas / details are worthy suggestions or not, and compile them for Toady.
GoblinCookie, Disallow creatures from dying? Those worlds sound like they'll get crowded fast.
I'm not sure about your suggestion for the raw tag, it still relies on the addition of conditional tags to switch things around based on the evilness/violence slider value if you want cruelty quota implementation to vary based on slider value. Maybe if there were a variable that could be used in place of the number, and reference slider values, then you could have the tag be independent of conditional tags. So, your [CRUELTY_QUOTA:1] (and other quota intensities, each nested in a conditional statement) becomes [CRUELTY_QUOTA:WORLD_VIOLENCE]. Added bonus of that is that it makes the new additions to the raws required for the addition of the sliders more concise, and should be quicker to compile and run.
Oh, and Exail did already mention, only highly faithful (so maybe exclusively "ardent") worshippers would put their own life at risk to satisfy religious traditions. You wouldn't have people dying left and right because of that stuff, you'd have the occasional death and a load of bad thoughts because your fortress doesn't actually provide necessary facilities for people to properly practice their religion. It'd be like exclusively providing a community of jews with non-kosher foods, I doubt you'll find a great deal of people willing to die via starvation rather than eat it, but you can bet people won't be happy about it.
Also worth mentioning: not all dwarves worship the same gods. Religious dietary restrictions, especially temporary ones, will not likely be a fortress-wide issue.
The only problems I can foresee with it is if one possible tradition is that people can only eat [insert randomly selected food(s)] for a period of time, simply because of potential unavoidable bad thought flood. The Aztecs did it IRL with beans and maize, but I don't really trust my dwarves or their gods to pick a sensible food.
Did the Goonies need a large or complex population in order to unanimously make Chunk into their patsy and verbal punching bag? Granted, that's a work of fiction, but was their behavior anything but realistic in this matter? The only level of societal organization required is mutual recognition of relative status, which the stronger goblins would naturally encourage and even enforce. The smallest/weakest/etc. goblin in any group is almost certainly going to be taking more than his fair share of abuse.
If the whipping boys are indeed restrained, it quite plausibly is as punishment for a (failed) crime, and a couple of days as a whipping boy should be quite an effective deterrent. After their time is up, yes, naturally they're still going to harbor resentment toward those who mistreated them--but the experience of being released, and knowing that everyone knows you're no longer the whipping boy, is also a powerful psychological burden being lifted from you. (Or should be--goblin psychology is of course something of a guess.) And then, before too long, maybe there'll be a new criminal to be the whipping boy.
Again you pretend that there are no beings other than goblins to torment, again you assume that all goblin conflicts end in death.
??? Because they have a long and storied history of attacking foreign settlements, killing & maiming the citizenry, and dragging off their children to be worked as slaves until the day they die? Just a guess.
Really, how did you think I was going to answer this?
Seriously? Are you actually arguing that your hidebound mindset comes from being SO intelligent, while my own open-ended approach indicates relative stupidity? Don't try it. You won't like what's down that road.
(For starters, lessons like not to say things like "stupider," and "an accidental," while trying to sound smart.)
I do hope you're not literally asking me to show you one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy, or otherwise summon physical proof of intangibles. As you well know, such things exist not through their presence, but through their demonstration, and so naturally a degree of subjectivity is not only expected, but unavoidable. This does not make them any less real. Certain human rights are judged to be inalienable because they descend directly from mankind's most fundamental trait: sentience. To consciously strip a fellow mind of its inherent bodily sovereignty and treat it as if it were nothing more than an object, with no capacity for reason or emotion--well, that displays a callous disregard of empathy on par with the very textbook examples of evil. GoblinCookie, questioning the existence of human rights is evil. Not as evil as actually doing evil deeds, of course, but to deliberately try to equate morality with legality and argue that historical slaves had no inherent right to personal autonomy because they predated the Geneva Accords just makes you sound like a character of LE alignment, looking for a loophole to exploit.
Punishing bullies is not, but punishing them by precisely replicating their own actions is. For a punishment to fit the crime, it must cause suffering in proportion to, but always less than, the amount of suffering caused by the crime itself. If a goblin resident goes on a torture tantrum and starts whipping random dwarves, the just sentence is not an equal amount of lashes inflicted on the goblin. Such a lesson does not teach him that "Whipping people is wrong," but rather, "I can be just as cruel as you can," and indeed, "But I'm better at it than you are." Which, incidentally, is almost certainly the exact mindset the goblin left behind when he abandoned his old civ. Congratulations, you're running your fort just like a goblin might.
The history of religion isn't simply that they fight, but that they fight over nothing. "Elohim is the One True God!" asserts the Jew, simply because that's what he was raised to believe. "There is no God but Allah!" retorts the Muslim, because that's how he was raised. Meanwhile, thousands of Christians kill each other over whether the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all of the same essence, or separate manifestations of the same indivisible godhead. Almost the entire history of religion is people dismissing, without evidence, what other people have claimed without evidence.
That is quite true, but it doesn't mean that the criticism is invalid, either. The critique, as well as the idea, must be judged on its merits. I judged your idea, found that your logic contained two faulty assumptions, and indicated them to you. You then judged my criticism, found it "pretty good", and then ignored it completely, going right back to your original (indeed, only) argument, which you now knew to be incorrect. You would rather weld yourself to a bad idea than admit that I had a better one.
WTF? So far, your thoughts as to the "implementation" of goblins needing to be cruel have mainly focused on dire prognostications that the change could never work, as it would infallibly and immediately cause all goblin civs to crumble and die. Not exactly in the spirit of constructive criticism.
I may not have the right to demand that you change your opinion, but I do have the right to say your opinion is wrong--and even prove it, if I can. More relevant is the fact that different opinions should not automatically be assumed to be of equal merit: If one person says, "It's night-time", and the person next to them says, "No, it's broad daylight," an impartial observer should not simply let them agree to disagree, the impartial observer should look out the damn window. But our differences are even more fundamental than that: I am arguing like someone saying, "I'm pretty sure there could be at least eight different flavors of ice cream," to which you reply, "No, flavors other than mint chip are impossible, as anything else would cause the freezer to short-circuit, and all the ice cream would melt." Now, I like mint chip, and could happily go the rest of my life eating no other flavor. But I know that it's factually wrong to pretend that other ice cream flavors either don't or can't exist, and it's morally wrong for me to try to force that flavor onto those who might prefer chocolate, or those that like variety. That's why I'm not the one arguing that the only way to play Dwarf Fortress, is the way that I like to play Dwarf Fortress.
Agreed. Someone unbiased (that is, not GoblinCookie or myself) should probably decide what ideas / details are worthy suggestions or not, and compile them for Toady.
If GoblinCookie & I clash ever again, I'll simply start a new thread just for that purpose--if, while arguing, either of us manages to say anything suggestion-worthy, we can copy just that bit out to the main thread.
OP updated with all the relevant suggestions I could find. Things I'm not counting as relevant are:Actually, gaming tables do seem relevant, as some games could attract a number of spectators (given a setting with enough bystanders), perhaps even with some gambling on the outcome.
. . . gaming tables
If I mod goblins so that they have a cruelty-quota in a world where suffering does not exist, what then?Cruelty-dependent goblins would either not exist at all (just as they are currently dependent on the existence of demons), or they would be forced to subsist on nothing more than harsh language as their only outlet.
Close--each goblin (I'll call him Goblin Bob) knows that all the other goblins are trying to hurt someone or something, so Bob knows that as long as he can avoid being chosen as a target of abuse (i.e., avoid screwing up or appearing weak in front of the other goblins), Bob knows that he's going to have a good day. Smack some lower-ranking goblin upside the head, take a child's sweetroll. The kid's mom might cuss Bob out as he walks away, but if he flips her off in reply he still saves face. And as long as the majority of goblins can usually have good days, the band can have enough cohesion to stay together.The only level of societal organization required is mutual recognition of relative status, which the stronger goblins would naturally encourage and even enforce. The smallest/weakest/etc. goblin in any group is almost certainly going to be taking more than his fair share of abuse.The difference is that every goblin knows that every other goblin is going to try to hurt them. Every goblin is also trying to hurt all the other goblins.
That basically means that all goblins inherently fear all other goblins, theYES. Finally. (I took the liberty of replacing your "only" with "most common", but at this stage I'll settle for that minor edit.) It's not that goblins don't hate/fear/despise each other (they do), it's that they hate/fear/despise other creatures more. And in the extreme case where there literally are NO other creatures but goblins about, or for some other reason the level of intra-group mutual hatred reaches the critical tipping point, the civilization would most likely not break down to the level of individual, solitary goblins: what would happen is the civ would split, forming two or more new civs that each coalesce around a particularly strong goblin. Bob knows that if he's alone, and he encounters goblins that have already reformed into a band, he's much more likely to be made into their whipping boy, so he wants to join a band as quickly as possible. Result? At least two new groups, all members of which hate each other, but not as much as they hate the other group. If one group conquers the other(s), repeat as needed.onlymost common way for goblin society to come about in our scenario is if the individual goblins are already in the predatory relationship of preying on some other suitable creature so they can de-facto have a reason to trust each-other.
It may be what you were talking about, but I sure wasn't--when I described a goblin civilization as being "isolated," I thought that was understood to mean "isolated from other civs", not "cut off from literally every other type of animal, including vermin". The only time I think I've ever discussed goblins existing entirely on their own was in the paragraph just above.Again you pretend that there are no beings other than goblins to torment,No pretending at all, that is the situation we are talking about remember?
Everbody knows there *has* to be a whipping boy, everyone knows there *has* to be a punishment.Eh, not necessarily. A goblin society could probably exist with just random and/or hierarchical cruelty for quite some time, especially if the lowest-tier goblins have some animals to abuse. Whipping boys might simply be a nice change of pace, to unify the band against a minority of scapegoats, or the leader could believe that a rival is growing too strong, and this is a way to bring him down a few pegs.
Goblins aren't megabeasts, they cannot wreck mayhem on a civilisation scale as individuals.Who said they had to act as individuals? If Goblin Bob kidnaps some tigerman's nephew (and gets seen doing it), that tigerman's going to hate Goblin Bob. But if a bunch of goblins attack and babysnatch, then the tigerman is just going to hate "goblins" in general. Tough luck for Bob if the tigerman catches him alone, whether or not it was actually Bob who took the kid.
Stupider is a word.Descriptively, yes. Prescriptively, no. If your dictionary says that the word "literally" also means "figuratively", then it's a descriptive dictionary and should be used only if you don't particularly care about being accurate when you speak. In short, "stupider" only became a word because enough stupid people didn't care that it wasn't a real word. So using it (and "an accidental") when you're trying to sound impressively well-read is counter-productive.
I do not recall intending that to be an ad-hominen. What does lead down that road?Well, it sure came off that way. But I suppose if you can be wrong about me sounding angry, I can be wrong about you sounding belittling.
You can provide no evidence for those intangibles, yet you claim they exist.I say again--I hope you're not literally asking for physical proof. If that's what's required, then a VAST wealth of things, including Dwarf Fortress itself, arguably do not exist. Please specify what you would/would not consider to be evidence in this regard, and be advised that I will hold other intangibles to this same standard.
I was claiming that human rights confuse legality with morality. My question to you was whether human rights are morality or law, a question you dodged by taking objection to my disbelief in the concept as it stands.My "dodge" originated out of my surprise that anyone would actually question their existence. The only "confusion" was created when the pre-existing moral rights were given formal legality, a distinction that most people do not find confusing in the least. And when you say "my disbelief in the concept as it stands," should I take that to mean that you do indeed actively disagree with the idea of inalienable human rights?
You cannot have it both ways. If human rights are morality they can in fact be universal, but they stand on an even footing with all other moral systems, including that of slavers.Ah, but I can have it both ways if I accept that some people are evil. But are you truly arguing that all moral systems, perhaps even by definition, are equal? In other words, what IS evil, from your point of view?
basically it is the Is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem).We don't need a philosophy derail on top of everything else, come on!
True. But it is also true that Gandhi is regarded as having been considerably more ethical than those civilizations. Take a tooth for a tooth if you want to, it's your fort, but don't try to lecture me on morality while you're doing it.For a punishment to fit the crime, it must cause suffering in proportion to, but always less than, the amount of suffering caused by the crime itself.That is your opinion but a number of historical civilisations were definitely committed to the eye-for-an-eye principle that the punishment should be of equivalent nastiness as the crime.
You have a responsibility to the victims, past and future to keep those inclined to harm them from carrying out what is in their nature, punishments are judged by whether they will terrify the perpetrators enough to keep them from actually doing what they wish to do. In inverse of the above situation, punishments are necessary evils that exist to compel individuals into serving the greater good which is society/state.The word is "deterrent". Yes, I admit there is some justification for the eye-for-an-eye approach, the problem is it simply places the local government on equal footing with the criminal. You could even go well beyond equal, and exact extremely harsh penalties for even minor offenses, but of course at that point, you're doing more harm than good, so what the hell are you doing, trying to govern? As for demonic rulers, demons most likely wouldn't balk about inflicting more pain than good, but they still wouldn't want to cause more actual harm than good.
That is why it matters whether goblins are cruel due to this just being the expression of their personality or whether this is an actual *need*. In the former case you can deal with them as you would any other being with undesirable characteristics, in the latter case however tolerating their very existence effectively betrays their present and future victims.Fair enough, but in both cases, the overseer must weigh the goblins' inherent drawbacks (pain/fear/anger/possible violence of their victims, both animal and dwarf) against the benefits of having them around (expendable shock troops to bear the brunt of attacks?). Since their outward behavior is likely going to be pretty much the same if they have a quota or not, you must ask yourself how you'd feel about them if you didn't know one way or the other.
The Bible is evidence to the Jew or Christian, the Koran is evidence to the Muslim.Evidence cannot be subjective, it must be agreed upon by all parties--or at least a quorum of educated and disinterested outsiders. Also, physical existence does not constitute being physical evidence, just thought I'd mention that. An intelligent Christian, for example, can believe that the Bible is the Word of God, while also acknowledging that it is not proof of the existence of God, or of the validity of the laws espoused therein.
My other point is that because this is the case it creates a moral dilemma by which genocide arguably becomes right, a situation that does not exist with the present goblins. The present goblins create no more problem than the existence of cruel dwarves does, your new goblins on the other hand are quite something different.I'm just going to admit that even the most persuasive argument I (or indeed, probably anyone) could muster here would just be wasted breath at this point.
I don't think I ever claimed people were obliged to agree with me!Forget "is" and "ought", the problem here is "could" and "could not". This is the Suggestions forum, and here, "could" is king. Things that could be done, features that could be added, ways the game could be improved. It's about broadening the range of possibility. Now look back over your posts. Count up all the times you expressed exclusive certainty, every time you embraced "could not". Every time you said that goblin society was certain to crumble, or that goblins must kill each other, or that goblins would always avoid each other. Every time you took a basic premise, and reduced it to only one inevitable outcome. THAT is "could not", THAT is dealing only in absolutes, THAT is having only mint chip ice cream, and THAT is not what we do here. Or at least, ought not.
No, I mean a single thread for ALL of our messes. If you and I start a new argument ever again, one of us will make the thread, and that's where all of our fights will be contained from that point on. If we say anything actually relevant to the original idea (in this case, Dwarven Social Lives), we can copy that idea to where it might do some good. This forum ain't big enough for the two of us, so I'm proposing that we both leave, when we're not getting along.If GoblinCookie & I clash ever again, I'll simply start a new thread just for that purpose--if, while arguing, either of us manages to say anything suggestion-worthy, we can copy just that bit out to the main thread.That sounds like a disastrous idea. Especially if it catches on, imagine if every last element of discussion in every thread ends up with it's own thread?
Cruelty-dependent goblins would either not exist at all (just as they are currently dependent on the existence of demons), or they would be forced to subsist on nothing more than harsh language as their only outlet.
Close--each goblin (I'll call him Goblin Bob) knows that all the other goblins are trying to hurt someone or something, so Bob knows that as long as he can avoid being chosen as a target of abuse (i.e., avoid screwing up or appearing weak in front of the other goblins), Bob knows that he's going to have a good day. Smack some lower-ranking goblin upside the head, take a child's sweetroll. The kid's mom might cuss Bob out as he walks away, but if he flips her off in reply he still saves face. And as long as the majority of goblins can usually have good days, the band can have enough cohesion to stay together.
YES. Finally. (I took the liberty of replacing your "only" with "most common", but at this stage I'll settle for that minor edit.) It's not that goblins don't hate/fear/despise each other (they do), it's that they hate/fear/despise other creatures more. And in the extreme case where there literally are NO other creatures but goblins about, or for some other reason the level of intra-group mutual hatred reaches the critical tipping point, the civilization would most likely not break down to the level of individual, solitary goblins: what would happen is the civ would split, forming two or more new civs that each coalesce around a particularly strong goblin. Bob knows that if he's alone, and he encounters goblins that have already reformed into a band, he's much more likely to be made into their whipping boy, so he wants to join a band as quickly as possible. Result? At least two new groups, all members of which hate each other, but not as much as they hate the other group. If one group conquers the other(s), repeat as needed.
It may be what you were talking about, but I sure wasn't--when I described a goblin civilization as being "isolated," I thought that was understood to mean "isolated from other civs", not "cut off from literally every other type of animal, including vermin". The only time I think I've ever discussed goblins existing entirely on their own was in the paragraph just above.
Personally, I think goblins having animals nearby is pretty much a given, quite apart from their known behavior of using trolls and mounts. Even if their dietary needs don't turn out to be largely carnivorous, they should still desire to (be seen to) eat lots of meat, because vegetarianism would almost certainly be perceived as an extreme weakness--and besides, you've GOT to be at least as carnivorous as those pansy elves, right? Ideally, goblins would both hunt AND keep livestock: There's cruelty in knowing that you're running an animal to its death, but it's also good to keep your torment animal close by, in case you don't feel like chasing anything today. And since we know goblins are particularly fond of raiding other sites and kidnapping living things, it's odd to suppose that they'd steal children but not animals.
Eh, not necessarily. A goblin society could probably exist with just random and/or hierarchical cruelty for quite some time, especially if the lowest-tier goblins have some animals to abuse. Whipping boys might simply be a nice change of pace, to unify the band against a minority of scapegoats, or the leader could believe that a rival is growing too strong, and this is a way to bring him down a few pegs.
Who said they had to act as individuals? If Goblin Bob kidnaps some tigerman's nephew (and gets seen doing it), that tigerman's going to hate Goblin Bob. But if a bunch of goblins attack and babysnatch, then the tigerman is just going to hate "goblins" in general. Tough luck for Bob if the tigerman catches him alone, whether or not it was actually Bob who took the kid.
Descriptively, yes. Prescriptively, no. If your dictionary says that the word "literally" also means "figuratively", then it's a descriptive dictionary and should be used only if you don't particularly care about being accurate when you speak. In short, "stupider" only became a word because enough stupid people didn't care that it wasn't a real word. So using it (and "an accidental") when you're trying to sound impressively well-read is counter-productive.
Well, it sure came off that way. But I suppose if you can be wrong about me sounding angry, I can be wrong about you sounding belittling.
If you really were trying to equate intelligence with surety of opinion (and I fail to see what other line of attack that passage could have had), then I would simply mention the huge abundance of cases of profoundly ignorant people being absolutely dead-set in their ideas (so much so that literally nothing can dissuade them), crossed with a quote or two about highly intelligent people actually being the most imaginative. Or, even worse, the two of us could compare our academic credentials, because I know that the entire forum's just dying to see us get into an actual pissing contest. ::)
I say again--I hope you're not literally asking for physical proof. If that's what's required, then a VAST wealth of things, including Dwarf Fortress itself, arguably do not exist. Please specify what you would/would not consider to be evidence in this regard, and be advised that I will hold other intangibles to this same standard.
My "dodge" originated out of my surprise that anyone would actually question their existence. The only "confusion" was created when the pre-existing moral rights were given formal legality, a distinction that most people do not find confusing in the least. And when you say "my disbelief in the concept as it stands," should I take that to mean that you do indeed actively disagree with the idea of inalienable human rights?
Ah, but I can have it both ways if I accept that some people are evil. But are you truly arguing that all moral systems, perhaps even by definition, are equal? In other words, what IS evil, from your point of view?
We don't need a philosophy derail on top of everything else, come on!
True. But it is also true that Gandhi is regarded as having been considerably more ethical than those civilizations. Take a tooth for a tooth if you want to, it's your fort, but don't try to lecture me on morality while you're doing it.
The word is "deterrent". Yes, I admit there is some justification for the eye-for-an-eye approach, the problem is it simply places the local government on equal footing with the criminal. You could even go well beyond equal, and exact extremely harsh penalties for even minor offenses, but of course at that point, you're doing more harm than good, so what the hell are you doing, trying to govern? As for demonic rulers, demons most likely wouldn't balk about inflicting more pain than good, but they still wouldn't want to cause more actual harm than good.
Fair enough, but in both cases, the overseer must weigh the goblins' inherent drawbacks (pain/fear/anger/possible violence of their victims, both animal and dwarf) against the benefits of having them around (expendable shock troops to bear the brunt of attacks?). Since their outward behavior is likely going to be pretty much the same if they have a quota or not, you must ask yourself how you'd feel about them if you didn't know one way or the other.
Evidence cannot be subjective, it must be agreed upon by all parties--or at least a quorum of educated and disinterested outsiders. Also, physical existence does not constitute being physical evidence, just thought I'd mention that. An intelligent Christian, for example, can believe that the Bible is the Word of God, while also acknowledging that it is not proof of the existence of God, or of the validity of the laws espoused therein.
Forget "is" and "ought", the problem here is "could" and "could not". This is the Suggestions forum, and here, "could" is king. Things that could be done, features that could be added, ways the game could be improved. It's about broadening the range of possibility. Now look back over your posts. Count up all the times you expressed exclusive certainty, every time you embraced "could not". Every time you said that goblin society was certain to crumble, or that goblins must kill each other, or that goblins would always avoid each other. Every time you took a basic premise, and reduced it to only one inevitable outcome. THAT is "could not", THAT is dealing only in absolutes, THAT is having only mint chip ice cream, and THAT is not what we do here. Or at least, ought not.
By pretending that there was only one inevitable outcome to the idea I proposed, you were essentially telling me, and indeed everyone else, how to play the game--and if we didn't agree with you, then we must be stupid.
No, I mean a single thread for ALL of our messes. If you and I start a new argument ever again, one of us will make the thread, and that's where all of our fights will be contained from that point on. If we say anything actually relevant to the original idea (in this case, Dwarven Social Lives), we can copy that idea to where it might do some good. This forum ain't big enough for the two of us, so I'm proposing that we both leave, when we're not getting along.
We have actually been talking about dwarven social lives all along.Haha, what? :P
That question was not addressed to you.So what? It's a public forum, I'm allowed to have opinions, especially when it's considering an idea (cruelty-dependent goblins) that I came up with.
Each goblin knows that every goblin is going to try to hurt him and therefore he avoids all the other goblins, except when he is seeking to hurt another goblin. . . . There is no goblin society is there?I'm going to be direct here, and just flat-out ask you if you have ANY intention at all of ever supporting this thesis in any way, besides simply stating it over and over. And over. And over and over and over and over. I keep coming up with alternate possibilities, modifiers, workarounds, completely plausible snapshots of a working goblin society, and you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears & saying "Nuh-uh, can't happen, 'cause I said so." Repetition and persistence are remarkably poor substitutes for a competent line of argument.
Not so, the cruelty-quota goblins hate each-other more than they hate all other creatures, that is because all the other goblins have to hurt each-other but the other creatures don't need to hurt goblins. The necessary basis for cruelty-quota goblin society . . .Again with the gross and unfounded assumptions about how the entire goblin population must behave in a certain way, and that they could never behave in any other way.
the goblins agree to refrain from being cruel to each-other and meet out their cruelty on their hapless victimshttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mete (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mete)
The victims however cannot be goblins, since they would themselves have to be cruel to a third party, but they don't have any outlets except each-other or their masters, both of which results in their self-destruction.So, you're saying that goblins cannot be very cruel to one another . . .
Everbody knows there *has* to be a whipping boyExcept, of course, when they can? I guess?
I was operating on the assumption that animal suffering does not count, in order to avoid opening a huge can of worms and derailing the thread into a discussion of animal rights.While your deep and abiding concern for thread derails is duly noted, for our purposes it doesn't matter if animals suffer pain or not--what matters is that goblins think they do, making animals valid targets for cruelty.
You solution of isolation was assumed to imply either that animal suffering does not work for goblins, or the isolation is from animals also.False. The situation of isolation first came up only in terms of civ-level interactions with other civs . . . or lack thereof, necessitating some form of internal conflict within the goblin civ itself. The discussion didn't even mention animals in any context, as you should know because you took part in it:
. . . is genocide against goblins acceptable because if goblins are allowed to survive they will necessarily have to hurt other beings in order to survive and stay sane?Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.
Only really nasty forms of torture can overcome this rational comprehension.Pardon my bluntness, but are you speaking from experience, or from out of your ass?
Do not make the fundamental intellectual error of the racist and ethno-nationalist, that of confusing groups with classifications.Do not make the fundamental assumption that the tigerman has spent 20 credits in night school taking courses in Understanding Racial Differences 101 and Avoiding Hate Speech.
This is why goblin-groups are a bad idea for goblins. Goblin Bob does better if instead of fighting along with his fellow goblins, he defects to join the tigermen group and fight against the other goblins.Yeah, because that doesn't go directly against literally every single depiction of goblins and orcs ever made.
Joining that group means he has a huge number of victims to choose from, enough that the tigermen will not realise the classification-level conflict that exists. It gets better in that if the tigerman group expands and grows, there are an ever greater number of victims for Goblin Bob and an even lower risk of exposure.Wait, what? "The tigermen will not realize the conflict"? "Lower risk of exposure"? I can't quite work out what you think you're saying here, but you seem to be suggesting that Goblin Bob is frequently being cruel to his tigermen "friends" . . . and somehow they don't know it's him?
People can basically be sure for two reasons. One is they are clever enough to know why everything they are saying is true and you are not yet clever enough to prove them wrong. The second is that they are what I call intellectual authoritarians, they are sure because their authorities have told them such is so and all truth comes from those authorities.And the third obvious possibility, which I am sure has occurred you but which you have omitted for most mysterious reasons, is that they are too stubborn to recognize the viability of any possibility but the one which they have already decided must be true--especially when this new possibility is suggested by someone they dislike.
If you really feel that your tortuous grasp of semantics is sufficient reason to disregard basic moral compassion . . . Well then, you are lost!. . . should I take that to mean that you do indeed actively disagree with the idea of inalienable human rights?I cannot really decide whether I disagree or disagree unless I know whether I am dealing fundamentally with a moral concept or a legal one. Since a great deal of war and chaos is the product of such a confusion I am forced to reject the concept of human rights.
You can argue that they are wrong, but you don't have the 'right' to liberate their slaves because your morality gives them inalienable human rights not to be enslaved.I already stated that "it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture," four pages back, I'll thank you not to take this discussion back to where it was a week ago. Circular reasoning is bad enough, without an actual time loop.
I'll be frank (...and you can be dean...) and say that I'm entirely ignoring those walls of text.We have actually been talking about dwarven social lives all along.Haha, what? :P
We have actually been talking about dwarven social lives all along.Haha, what? :P
So what? It's a public forum, I'm allowed to have opinions, especially when it's considering an idea (cruelty-dependent goblins) that I came up with.
I'm going to be direct here, and just flat-out ask you if you have ANY intention at all of ever supporting this thesis in any way, besides simply stating it over and over. And over. And over and over and over and over. I keep coming up with alternate possibilities, modifiers, workarounds, completely plausible snapshots of a working goblin society, and you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears & saying "Nuh-uh, can't happen, 'cause I said so." Repetition and persistence are remarkably poor substitutes for a competent line of argument.
Again with the gross and unfounded assumptions about how the entire goblin population must behave in a certain way, and that they could never behave in any other way.
So, you're saying that goblins cannot be very cruel to one another . . .Everbody knows there *has* to be a whipping boyExcept, of course, when they can? I guess?
While your deep and abiding concern for thread derails is duly noted, for our purposes it doesn't matter if animals suffer pain or not--what matters is that goblins think they do, making animals valid targets for cruelty.
False. The situation of isolation first came up only in terms of civ-level interactions with other civs . . . or lack thereof, necessitating some form of internal conflict within the goblin civ itself. The discussion didn't even mention animals in any context, as you should know because you took part in it:. . . is genocide against goblins acceptable because if goblins are allowed to survive they will necessarily have to hurt other beings in order to survive and stay sane?Other beings, yes, but not necessarily other races. An isolated goblin civ could happily keep itself occupied with gang wars and other forms of infighting. Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.
Pardon my bluntness, but are you speaking from experience, or from out of your ass?
Do not make the fundamental assumption that the tigerman has spent 20 credits in night school taking courses in Understanding Racial Differences 101 and Avoiding Hate Speech.
Yeah, because that doesn't go directly against literally every single depiction of goblins and orcs ever made.
Wait, what? "The tigermen will not realize the conflict"? "Lower risk of exposure"? I can't quite work out what you think you're saying here, but you seem to be suggesting that Goblin Bob is frequently being cruel to his tigermen "friends" . . . and somehow they don't know it's him?
And the third obvious possibility, which I am sure has occurred you but which you have omitted for most mysterious reasons, is that they are too stubborn to recognize the viability of any possibility but the one which they have already decided must be true--especially when this new possibility is suggested by someone they dislike.
If you really feel that your tortuous grasp of semantics is sufficient reason to disregard basic moral compassion . . . Well then, you are lost!
I already stated that "it's morally wrong to seek to forcibly impose one's own values upon another culture," four pages back, I'll thank you not to take this discussion back to where it was a week ago. Circular reasoning is bad enough, without an actual time loop.
I'm too bored to bother with knocking down the rest of your claims. GoblinCookie, this post of yours was largely a train wreck, jumping from one disjointed argument or incongruous digression to the next, with only repetition to hold it into some form of coherence. I'll just be happy that you will almost certainly never be in a position to impose your own ideas of morality, punishment, and evil upon others.
I’ve never seen someone argue that all governments exist only by the constant threat of massacring their citizens. Sounds like it would make elections awkward since the old governments right to rule is being revoked in favour of the new government whoops they’re now mandated to kill everyone.
The last two are only tangentially related to dwarven society.It really goes like this. Dwarven Social Gatherings > Effect of oxygen on dwarven society > Need of humans for sunlight > Societal Effect of Goblins needing to be cruel. So at no point did we ever stop talking about society.We have actually been talking about dwarven social lives all along.Haha, what? :P
I’ve never seen someone argue that all governments exist only by the constant threat of massacring their citizens. Sounds like it would make elections awkward since the old governments right to rule is being revoked in favour of the new government whoops they’re now mandated to kill everyone.
Yes, me. Walls of text. Ignoring.
I'm glad to know I needn't read them.
I think this thread should be wound to a close now or least compiled into a number of key points, im usually pretty competent handling walls of texts but i have no idea what the last few pages were about.I would like to apologize, on behalf of GoblinCookie and myself, for this seemingly omnipresent scar on the front page of the forum. I wish it was more easily avoidable, but I just cannot abide deliberate attempts to stifle creativity just because somebody doesn't think the game should be played that way. At least I'll keep the remainder of this brief, and you have my word that our running disagreement will never again trouble another productive thread.
You list the thread's major changes of subject . . . to show that the thread stayed on the same subject?! Are you even trying to make sense?We have actually been talking about dwarven social lives all along.Dwarven Social Gatherings > Effect of oxygen on dwarven society > Need of humans for sunlight > Societal Effect of Goblins needing to be cruel. So at no point did we ever stop talking about society.
I have already supported the thesis [cruel goblin society can't exist] with a wall of text, perhaps you could reread it?In the words of Truman Capote, "This isn't writing, this is typing."
They are not gross and unfounded assumptions, they are the logical consequences of the cruelty-quota.You have already shown yourself to be largely incapable of distinguishing between a logical argument and a gut reaction. I would ask you to provide a full breakdown of the logic process that you describe as a certainty, but it would only prolong the discussion and I know you couldn't do it anyway.
We are talking about a situation where the suffering has to be real. If imaginary suffering works, then we can simply have our goblins pretend to hurt dummies can't we?As has been previously stated (again with the time loops), a dummy is unlikely to convince the goblin that he is actually inflicting pain. It is probably the perception of cruelty that's most important.
It makes no sense to avoid a war?? Especially one you'd be sure to lose? And you say you studied History??Even if it wasn't isolated, this civ could still keep its cruelty directed inwards if it was consciously trying to restrain its evil tendencies, or (more likely) to avoid pissing off a far more powerful neighbor.??? ???. Restraining your evil tendancies makes no sense at all in the situation you are referring too . . .
If a person insults you unexpectedly then that will hurt you more than if a person tells you "hey I am going to insult you are 3.30 pm tommorow".Come on, you're making this too easy for me. If the school bully randomly sucker-punches you in the hall between classes, does that somehow hurt more than when he says, "I'm gonna kick your ass under the bleachers after school," & then follows through on that threat? Or is the delayed beating worse, because a) more people are gathered to watch you get creamed, b) he wants to put on a good show for them, so he's hardly likely to hit you only once, c) you've got the rest of the school day to waste on worry and dread, and even d) his status goes up even more because he showed enough confidence and style to warn you beforehand. If anything, spontaneous cruelty is the gentler of the two.
Things don't work that way objectively, what the tigerman subjectively believes is not what we are discussing.Too bad. If the tigerman sees a group of 10 goblins kidnap his nephew, he's not going to memorize the physical description of the one particular goblin carrying the sack, he's far more likely to just hate goblins in general. Particularly since the tigerman knows that this is standard goblin behavior.
Obviously, you made a major innovation to DF goblins and that innovation has consequences. In all the other depictions goblins and orcs are cruel because that is what they are like, not because they have some quota for cruelty to meet for the month.It's an exact parallel to the innovation that Toady made when he decided that dwarves should have an alcohol quota. Hopefully you recognize the inherent futility in trying to explain precisely why he was right to do so, while I am wrong to suggest the counterpart.
This is where you start from a negative premise . . . relying upon the fact that they cannot be 100% sure . . . which allows you to then assert that actually the other side's position is really nonsenseFinally, you acknowledge the difficulty I indicated to you back on page 7: "You're placing yourself at a disadvantage arguing in this way: You imagine one situation and assume that that's the only way it could be, while all I have to do is provide one plausible counterexample."
. . . which is why I am against the concept of human rights, it is not that I lack "moral compassion" but because I know what the logical consequences of such ideas are and have been in the past.Are you still on about that? It's over, GoblinCookie! I have the moral high ground! You first lost it when you trivialized slavery, dug yourself deeper when you let your Lawful Evil self deliberately obfuscate the difference between legality with morality, and now you're putting the final(?) nail in your coffin by calling human rights a "dangerous concept".
In saying that other cultures have the legal right to violate human rights, you are in effect either denying their universality, or you denying that they are in fact law.Wrong again! I know you won't listen, but here it is: The fact that members of certain other states have the legal right to infringe on other members' human rights, does not change the fact that they have no moral right to infringe on those same rights. And that's my final word on the matter.
That means that figuratively speaking not only do I presently rule, but I have always ruled.Again with the hilarious choice of words. I'm not even going to respond to the substance of this, it's more fun to simply gaze in awe upon your ego.
No, I am ommited it because they are the same thing!Oh! I was not under the impression that "I am sure because [my authoritative source] disagrees with you" and "I am sure because [I] disagree with you" were the same thing. But hey, if that's how you see it, thanks for going there.
You are no less an intellectual authoritarian if you declare *yourself* to be the authority and refuse to take notice of what anyone says because they are beneath you.Hey, remember this?
You represent the ignorance of the unthinking mob and nothing else, sadly. Your ideas are bad ideas, ignorance is where they come from and you act as the spokesmen for others like yourself; lesser men to myself might regard your words as worth something but I have no interest in what the unthinking mob has to say.
As I said, you wish to place yourself at the head of the ignorant mob. The more stupid you are, the less you understand and the more things other people say seem 'ridiculous' to you. I don't care if people think what I say is ridiculous, that is because they so much beneath my level they cannot comprehend anything being said. They are also too ignorant to ask me to clarify what they don't understand.
The USA's Constitution establishes a government by the People, for the People. It's supposed to exist as a shield for the citizens to wield, not as a separate entity that will massacre you if you try to vote them out. A democratic government's authority is upheld because it's useful. Would you have us believe that a government ruled by martial law is inherently more stable because it has more rights to bargain with?
You list the thread's major changes of subject . . . to show that the thread stayed on the same subject?! Are you even trying to make sense?
You have already shown yourself to be largely incapable of distinguishing between a logical argument and a gut reaction. I would ask you to provide a full breakdown of the logic process that you describe as a certainty, but it would only prolong the discussion and I know you couldn't do it anyway.
As has been previously stated (again with the time loops), a dummy is unlikely to convince the goblin that he is actually inflicting pain. It is probably the perception of cruelty that's most important.
It makes no sense to avoid a war?? Especially one you'd be sure to lose? And you say you studied History??
Come on, you're making this too easy for me. If the school bully randomly sucker-punches you in the hall between classes, does that somehow hurt more than when he says, "I'm gonna kick your ass under the bleachers after school," & then follows through on that threat? Or is the delayed beating worse, because a) more people are gathered to watch you get creamed, b) he wants to put on a good show for them, so he's hardly likely to hit you only once, c) you've got the rest of the school day to waste on worry and dread, and even d) his status goes up even more because he showed enough confidence and style to warn you beforehand. If anything, spontaneous cruelty is the gentler of the two.
Too bad. If the tigerman sees a group of 10 goblins kidnap his nephew, he's not going to memorize the physical description of the one particular goblin carrying the sack, he's far more likely to just hate goblins in general. Particularly since the tigerman knows that this is standard goblin behavior.
It's an exact parallel to the innovation that Toady made when he decided that dwarves should have an alcohol quota. Hopefully you recognize the inherent futility in trying to explain precisely why he was right to do so, while I am wrong to suggest the counterpart.
Finally, you acknowledge the difficulty I indicated to you back on page 7: "You're placing yourself at a disadvantage arguing in this way: You imagine one situation and assume that that's the only way it could be, while all I have to do is provide one plausible counterexample."
But if you're going to try to stretch that to put me in the same boat as climate-change deniers? Good--I was waiting for the False Equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence) fallacy to turn up. The difference is that the evidence put forward by the climatologists outweighs that of the deniers to such a degree, the opposition isn't even statistically significant. But yours doesn't outweigh mine by any account: I'm just refuting your gut feeling, that a cruelty-dependent goblin society could never exist, with my credible stories, which illustrate how just such a society could exist just fine.
Are you still on about that? It's over, GoblinCookie! I have the moral high ground! You first lost it when you trivialized slavery, dug yourself deeper when you let your Lawful Evil self deliberately obfuscate the difference between legality with morality, and now you're putting the final(?) nail in your coffin by calling human rights a "dangerous concept".
Wrong again! I know you won't listen, but here it is: The fact that members of certain other states have the legal right to infringe on other members' human rights, does not change the fact that they have no moral right to infringe on those same rights. And that's my final word on the matter.
No, GoblinCookie. It's over. It's perfectly understandable that you would want to salvage some dignity, but we're done here. You are intellectually disarmed, and ethically without a leg to stand on. And what's more, everyone knows it. It's time for you to accept it, and move on. This forum is not for debating the niceties of governmental overthrow, or for teaching the fundamentals of logical argument, or for exploring what "racism" means in a fantasy setting, or for discussing human rights. I was willing to humor you for a while, true--but the forum's patience, along with my own, has officially worn thin. That's why my last post was so punishing, and this one is so dismissive. Because not even I am listening to you any more.
You guys reallya need to practice nonviolent conversation.
Also I would like to point out that if you tried to overthrow the governemnt you wouldn't get a second chance on account of human rights because as long as they keep your dignity in prison you can rot there for the rest of your life. Rights can be taken from you and it IS legitimized under the Human Rights...