Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: thobal on January 31, 2009, 09:52:36 pm
-
what's there is there, but maybe instead of going back to their original profession, they become philosophers, or perhaps change fields. Sometimes they leave with the next caravan, to find a new life.
Underemployed dwarfs could leave with caravans as well.
-
Emigration would have to have some very distinct conditions, and would have to be able to be remedied. Players would also need to know if a dwarf was considering/going to emigrate so they could make concessions to change that fact.
-
I don't really get this suggestion. What are you suggesting?
-
Dwarves that want to leave will leave with the next caravan, and maybe insane dwarfs can become philosophers. I think.
-
I like the idea of unhappy dwarves deciding to hit the road instead of killing themselves/their neighbors.
To compensate for the fact that his makes the game substantially easier (losing friends to emigration is probably less traumatic than watching them get eaten by a zombie cow, and there's less killing sprees) you'd want some way for the effect to spread.
An emigrating dwarf should try to gather up a whole wagon train, to go with him. Those immigration waves come from somewhere. His family going is a given (Maybe, this only happens if the entire immediate family is bordering on mindbreak.), but his friends and co-workers should also consider joining up, with unhappy dwarves more likely to join the quest for greener pastures.
It still does less damage than a killing spree, but if the wave leader is friends to a lot of important, but unhappy, dwarves, you may find yourself wishing he had just killed himself. Then again, if they'll leave with him, they'd have probably lost it if he died.
There was talk in the religion brainstorming thread, of having becoming an ascetic as a new type of insanity. Tired of the stress and pain of materialistic life, the dwarves in question would swear off worldly labors and possessions, to survive by eating vermin, drinking creekwater and meditating. He doesn't work anymore, but he doesn't eat your food anymore, he might as well be dead, but his friends don't mourn him because he's still around. Because he doesn't attend parties or take social breaks, his relationships decay into oblivion, and he starves to death alone and unmourned. Everybody wins!
This also makes the game easier, since as bad as losing that dwarf might be, it won't be as bad as what he could have done.
While they would make the game easier, the random nature of these changes means that they won't really make the game less intense. Every time a guy leaves or becomes a guru, you'll be thinking, "Whoa! That was way too close. I gotta get this fortress fixed up quick, or the next one could go even worse for me."
-
The suggestion above is awesome.
The OP meant that Philosopher would cure insane dwarves. How hard is that to understand?
-
The suggestion above is awesome.
The OP meant that Philosopher would cure insane dwarves. How hard is that to understand?
what's there is there, but maybe instead of going back to their original profession, they become philosophers, or perhaps change fields. Sometimes they leave with the next caravan, to find a new life.
Underemployed dwarfs could leave with caravans as well.
-
If you have a Cabinet of Wonders, a dwarf in a fay mood could claim it, create a magnificent tome of unintelligible wisdom, and become a philosopher... Sounds utterly marvellous to me!
-
If you have a Cabinet of Wonders, a dwarf in a fay mood could claim it, create a magnificent tome of unintelligible wisdom, and become a philosopher... Sounds utterly marvellous to me!
I'm not sure I like the 'become a philosopher' element, but claiming the Cabinet and producing a treatise as an artifact mood sounds pretty damn cool. Not at all dwarfy, but there's at least 5 races in just vanilla.
-
I don't get why people consider kobolds a civilization... I never saw a kobold settlement or community of any kind :(
-
That's why the kobolds are still a civ :)
-
The current philosophers earned the respect of the civ somehow.
These guys get room and board for life, just to sit around and think. They're the Albert Einsteins of the Mountainhomes.
It shouldn't be unreasonable for somebody to write a universal theory of relativity, and win a position among the ranks of the philosophers.
-
If you have a Cabinet of Wonders, a dwarf in a fay mood could claim it, create a magnificent tome of unintelligible wisdom, and become a philosopher... Sounds utterly marvellous to me!
I'm not sure I like the 'become a philosopher' element, but claiming the Cabinet and producing a treatise as an artifact mood sounds pretty damn cool. Not at all dwarfy, but there's at least 5 races in just vanilla.
Mmm.. maybe there could be the possibility of a dwarf changing personality (a trait or two) by the experience of being possessed/making an artifact. That personality could make the dwarf more eligible to become named a philosopher by the king, or a conclave of the other philosophers. They have to come from somewhere, after all.
-
Okay, I get it.
The OP wants philosophers to convert axe murderers into philosophers, where I was reading it as unhappy dwarves becoming philosophers spontaneously, instead of turning into axe murderers.
I was just confused by him not restating the title thesis in the post proper.
Both are good potential origins for philosophers, though I must question the ability of a thinking man to penetrate the red veil of a fugued dwarf. Madness has a distinct brand of logic.
-
The suggestion above is awesome.
The OP meant that Philosopher would cure insane dwarves. How hard is that to understand?
so much THIS
On the note of failure, perhaps instead of a new wave of emigrants, or the occasional reformed case of mellancholly, something new could arise. A dark monk, shunned by the mine for failing to produce a wonder. An evil man with a group of unhappy cohorts, a craftsdwarf who works only in dwarf bone.
Instead of a single killer, a sinister faction preying on peasants, pets, and merchants.
-
It shouldn't be unreasonable for somebody to write a universal theory of relativity
wait.. what?
-
I don't think he knows what "relativity" (in terms of science) is.
-
On the note of failure, perhaps instead of a new wave of emigrants, or the occasional reformed case of mellancholly, something new could arise. A dark monk, shunned by the mine for failing to produce a wonder. An evil man with a group of unhappy cohorts, a craftsdwarf who works only in dwarf bone.
Instead of a single killer, a sinister faction preying on peasants, pets, and merchants.
That would tie in beautifully with the religion stuff coming in too. I can see cults forming around artifacts...
-
I meant, of course, a general theory of relativity. --not that that isn't kind of redundant, if you think about it.
Blood. Give them a random theory name generator.
"Urish McThink, Philosopher has created the Universal Theory of Cats, a brilliant philosophical concept!"
-
Relativity is a specific concept in physics, the kind of physics we had no way to measure or even really consider until very recently...
And I don't know about berserk dwarves, but maybe this'd work better on melancholy ones.
-
Relativity is a specific concept in physics, the kind of physics we had no way to measure or even really consider until very recently...
And I don't know about berserk dwarves, but maybe this'd work better on melancholy ones.
The personality and mood of the philosopher should influence the efficacy of their counseling though. I can't really see a nihilist helping a depressed person get better.
-
Blood! It's not meant to be literal!
Here, let me state my case more plainly, as my intentionally anachronistic example appears to be muddying the issue more than I expected:
1. Dwarf comes up with an idea. It doesn't really matter what it is.; the Universal Theory of Cats can state that "a cat in motion will always interfere with traffic, given enough time." So long as the dwarves buy into it, it doesn't even need to be correct.
2. The dwarves buy into it. The dwarf who came up with the idea wins the gratitude and respect of you civilization for the rest of his life.
3. The dwarf becomes a professional philosopher, living on a generous allowance with room and board, from a ruler who wants the prestige of having such an esteemed philosopher in his court.
4. Life goes on.
The only real point is to explain where philosophers come from. You could just as easily say that they are titleless noblemen who spent a few years at a university, so they wouldn't have to dirty their hands to live, like commoners.
--and yeah, I don't really see dwarven philosophers as providing valuable counseling for the mentally disturbed, not most of them anyway.
If philosophers do take up debating as a passtime, I could see their high persuasion skills being useful for talking down tantruming dwarves, but once you've gone mad, really high quality intimidation is probably the only thing that should be able to keep you in line.
-
Relativity is a specific concept in physics, the kind of physics we had no way to measure or even really consider until very recently...
And I don't know about berserk dwarves, but maybe this'd work better on melancholy ones.
The personality and mood of the philosopher should influence the efficacy of their counseling though. I can't really see a nihilist helping a depressed person get better.
Although quantum mechanics boil down to the age-old philosophical question: if a tree falls in the wood and there's no one there, does it make a sound?
A nihilist would certainly help! It's impossible to disappoint a pessimist. A sense of failure quite commonly has its roots in unrealistically high goals.
-
Relativity is a specific concept in physics, the kind of physics we had no way to measure or even really consider until very recently...
And I don't know about berserk dwarves, but maybe this'd work better on melancholy ones.
The personality and mood of the philosopher should influence the efficacy of their counseling though. I can't really see a nihilist helping a depressed person get better.
Maybe not "better". Maybe they stay melancholy, they just don't ever jump of a bridge or anything. They keep drinking your booze, they just don't do work, they just mope around all emo-like (what does an emo beard look like?) and drink. ANd maybe create an artifact book of their "theories".
oh... and their moping of course makes dwarves around them depressed. it'd be an anti-social skill. ;)
-
"If a tree falls in the wood and there's no one there, does it make a sound?"
As sound is quantifiable as a wave, and as the tree falling produces sound waves, then yes, it does make a sound.
Sound, as an object, has more qualities than just a noise that's picked up by our ears. The right frequency can shatter glass, for instance. If sound can do that, then it can have a discrete and measurable effect on atoms and sub-atomic particles, etc. thus rendering it as having as valid an existence as any other applied force.
That's what I think, anyway :P
-
<shakes head>
No, like... Shroedinger's cat... You can't observe quantum mechanics without affecting the outcome.
That is, just because it makes a soundwave when you are listening doesn't mean that it still makes a soundwave when you aren't. There's no possible way to measure without you affecting the system.
It's like trying to measure the length of a car, but everytime you put the ruler up to it, it changes size.
As far as the koan goes, if you define sound as being the same as pressure waves in the air, that's true. The riddle is that it sound doesn't really exist unless it's percieved. Until then it's just vibrations in the air. (as one possible answer, there's lots)
-
In regard to the OP, the idea of the philosopher doing something useful is awesome. Perhaps the noble himself doesn't so it, but based on personality traits and such a dwarf might occasionally join the "circle" of the philospher and be assigned an office/work area and be granted access to a unique profession like doctor or psychologist. Granted dwarves don't sound like they would have shrinks necessarily, but the idea is cool.
Seperate idea: religious ceremonies could cure some forms of insanity with purifying rituals, which would cost money or resources or both, and might even be paid for by the congregation, the dwarf's friends or lover/wife or maybe even by him or herself if he/she had enough money built up before going wacko.
I love the idea of police force actually doing something, but there is definitely the issue that since we only have 100 dwarves to work with, having 15 of them bound up in a psycho cult might be a problem, especially if one of them happens to end up being your legendary armorsmith.
-
I like the cult idea.
a problem? it would be FUN!
And the "Philosopher's Circle" idea... wow. just wow. I like it.
Makes me think of an old book I wuite liked called Westmark - in it, of course, the Philosopher's circle happens to be a secret cabal of revolutionaries... but hey, offing the nobility isn't necessarily a bd outcome, is it? You might have to thwart/help them depending on how ridiculous the demands of the nobles are.
-
Allow me to be more precise: secret cults would be *awesome*, I just would like to have a larger population base to work with so that they *can* murder people occasionally and be ruthlessly and bloodily purged without completely destroying the fortress. =D Well, there has to be some chance or it wouldn't be DF, but I wouldn't want guaranteed destruction.
-
While a melancholic dwarf should be able to dodge suicide through comforting counseling (--though I see this as more the mayor, manager and happy care dwarf's positions than the philosopher's. Why does the philosopher have to do anything beside philosophy?), and maybe even recover, thorough rituals, medicine or simply finding his way in life, a mad dwarf is a different proposition.
Once you've gone mad, the city guard should gang up on you, wrestle you to the ground, and lock you in a sanitarium. Whether you scrawl under appreciated manifestos on the walls with your own blood, after that, is your own affair. Not that it wouldn't be awesome, but I just don't see society suddenly deciding that your ravings are actually brilliant and letting you out, until after you die.
Fifty years after you kick the bucket your works can be appreciated, by people who weren't alive to see you rip out your son's spleen and eat it.
E: Oh, and cult's should love demented ravings. Your maifesto could get copied down into an actual book, once you've been carried out of the blood smeared cell, and that book could become an artifact warred over by demon worshipers and the cults of the gods of Outside.
The churches of the gods of your world should work to destroy these books, both for the damage he cults that grow up around them, and just maybe, for the things they might call out to.
-
The churches of the gods of your world should work to destroy these books, both for the damage he cults that grow up around them, and just maybe, for the things they might call out to.
I would think that "Manifesto Incineration" would likely fall under the same "user-decided" heading as "Noble Incineration". Until dwarves can get grudges agains artifacts (or artifacts with SOULS, mebbe... hmmmmm), a church going after Manifestos blindly is a little boring for my tastes.
-
I like the idea of philosophers being able to help dwarves recover from depression, we definitely need ways to make nobles more useful. That being said, I had an idea of my own: Tutors. There is some historical precedent for philosophers teaching, such as Aristotle. It would also turn children into something more then just potential peasants. By attending classes, children could learn 'noble' skills like management and appraisal. Of course, a philosopher wouldn't do teach the entire child population of a 140 dwarf fort. Possibly this could be linked to the economy, so the children of nobles could be guaranteed a privileged upbringing and a good position after reaching adulthood, while poorer dwarves would have a hard time improving their offspring's station in life.
-
Watching philosophers debate was one of the ways a budding politician could pick up tips on how to be a convincing speaker.
If multiple philosophers can debate, or lone philosophers can give lectures, anyone hanging out in the meeting hall at the time should be able to pick up some minor pointers on persuasion and judging intent.
Perhaps a philosopher could acquire disciples, some of which he is paid to instruct by a noble, and some he just adopts, who grow up to be new philosophers. Some sort of hard limit on the percentage of the populace that can become philosophers might be necessary, to prevent situations where you have a city full of dwarves who are too well educated to work.
Perhaps only orphan commoners are adopted, and only by compassionate philosophers.
To balance things out, philosophers of a steelier mindset could take on insane dwarves. Maybe a healthy dose of stoicism could keep a dwarf from acting on his madness or melencholy until his biorhythm goes back into an up-cycle and his bad memories have faded a bit.
It doesn't have the raw emotional potency, or the historical accuracy of them being locked up and poked with sticks by tourists, though. Cops might need more options than "talk him down" and "lethal force" though, as capture rates for Ax Murderers seem to be nil.
I figure, if caged madmen are naturally vulnerable to being influenced by the Outside, and the things that exist there, the gods are going to know that, and instruct their followers in the path of not listening to crazy people.
Gods of chaos and murder probably wouldn't give a rip, one way or the other, so long as the Outside only destroys all mortal life.
Dwarves need to be smarter about fire, before they can be permitted to burn books, but chucking the thing in a chasm or lava pit should do for now.
-
I like the idea of philosophers being able to help dwarves recover from depression, we definitely need ways to make nobles more useful. That being said, I had an idea of my own: Tutors. There is some historical precedent for philosophers teaching, such as Aristotle. It would also turn children into something more then just potential peasants. By attending classes, children could learn 'noble' skills like management and appraisal. Of course, a philosopher wouldn't do teach the entire child population of a 140 dwarf fort. Possibly this could be linked to the economy, so the children of nobles could be guaranteed a privileged upbringing and a good position after reaching adulthood, while poorer dwarves would have a hard time improving their offspring's station in life.
Drawback of this is that you're imposing notions of social order and perpetuation of economic stratification on the game, notions that aren't there at the moment. Though it is natural for us to think of social stratification in terms of feudal history, in fact, today's Dwarf Fortress is actually quite socialistic, and that's very pleasant. Though such a society as you describe might be a possible one, I'd dislike defining or narrowing dwarves into such.
In fact, dwarf "nobles", as I see them, are mighty elders or legendaries. They might come from prestigious and recognised lineages but their position and authority is not automatically bestowed.
-
Your king inherited the title from one of his parents, dude.
I think you might be projecting, just a little.
Not that I don't project my own ideals onto my own dwarves. ::)
-
Your king inherited the title from one of his parents, dude.
I think you might be projecting, just a little.
Not that I don't project my own ideals onto my own dwarves. ::)
I'd prefer you not to use "dude", thank you very much. Well, though the word "king" certainly implies inheritance, yes, it doesn't absolutely mean that. We also use the work "king" for any monarchic rules of a country, city etc. Also, in my view dwarves might be conservative and respecting of traditions, but they are also quite (superficially paradoxically) individualistic and not very deferential, and wouldn't automatically accept a "king" that wouldn't live up to their (demanding) standards.
-
socialistic, and that's very pleasant.
wait, what?
-
socialistic, and that's very pleasant.
wait, what?
I meant that the fortress is a place without wide social differences, and where everyone principally can do anything.
(Also, market-oriented socialism as a political system, which I wasn't referring to, is among the more successful economic systems in the world: the Scandinavian countries and Germany are examples of that. But that's not what I meant above).
-
What I meant by all that was that with nobility, comes privileges, as we can all see from how nobles abuse mandates and (mostly) don't have to work, so I thought that it would make sense if their children were raised to be nobles too, or at least to have a better education then the average urist, as opposed to instantly becoming another faceless peasant upon reaching adulthood. If a dwarf's offspring could gain appraisal skill or somesuch, they might potentially be mayor or broker or something instead of just another miner or soldier. Upon further consideration, I think my suggestion probably has more to do with making the dwarven economy more interesting then with philosophers, perhaps this was the wrong place to post my suggestion.
-
We are getting a noble caste. How much that's going to limit our ability to assign labors to the children of nobles is yet to be seen.
There are practical reasons for nobles to be more frequently educated than haulers. A noble in a hereditary position knows one of his offspring will succeed him, and will want to make sure that his job is done well, even after he's not around to do it. A hauler should probably be more interested in apprenticing his son to a legendary weaponsmith, than to one of those useless word slingers.
Philosophy might be a cool inroad for peasants to improve the status of their family. You apprentice yourself to a philosopher, you make some convincing arguments in debate, you found your own school, and your offspring are born into the noble caste.
Say, his family is prolific and the royal one is ... less so. How do new kings get chosen, when you run out of royalty? --from the remaining nobles? Does Urist McPoorboy's ennobled grandson have a shot?
Also, what are all those extra noble brats going to be good for? Making soldiers and priests out out extra heirs might should be an option. That's how many feudal societies dealt with spare noble children, as it's important for them to have a career in a field other than plotting against their older siblings.
We don't want the city to get flooded with philosophers' apprentices.
Theoretically, the existing replacement nobles from the mountainhomes, could be pushed into the position of a backup system, and a new tax collector could be chosen from the ranks of your homegrown nobles, if you have any to spare.
-
took the words right out of my mouth, and said them much more eloquently then I ever would have. Right now, there's no real way to 'train' a dwarf for a noble position like broker or manager without having him start out as a total incompetent, but if dwarves are raised from childhood to learn the ways of being a noble, their usefulness upon reaching adulthood would be increased. Of course, it would make more sense for the average dwarf to apprentice their offspring to a weaponsmith or something similar, but It would make sense for philosophers to be better at teaching whatever it is they would teach, likely conversation skills, management. And maybe things like alchemy and even mechanics. Of course, a philosopher can't teach axedwarfship to a noble or potential general, so perhaps that would be the domain of the captain of the guard?
-
Drawback of this is that you're imposing notions of social order and perpetuation of economic stratification on the game, notions that aren't there at the moment.
They are there, they're just very partially implemented. There are nobles which suggests social stratifications, and since there is a system of crime and punishment (the fortress guard) it means there's also some kind of social order. It seems nobles and commoners are equal before the law though.
As for economical stratification there are the legendary craftsdwarves who don't need to pay rent for example, making them an economically privileged strata compared to the common dwarves.
-
<shakes head>
No, like... Shroedinger's cat... You can't observe quantum mechanics without affecting the outcome.
That is, just because it makes a soundwave when you are listening doesn't mean that it still makes a soundwave when you aren't. There's no possible way to measure without you affecting the system.
It's like trying to measure the length of a car, but everytime you put the ruler up to it, it changes size.
As far as the koan goes, if you define sound as being the same as pressure waves in the air, that's true. The riddle is that it sound doesn't really exist unless it's percieved. Until then it's just vibrations in the air. (as one possible answer, there's lots)
sigh......
For simplicity sake:
sound wave = energy
noise = sound wave passing through an auditory appendage (ear)
all things produce energy/are energy
when a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, it still produces sound/energy. This is proven in the effect it has on its surrounding enviroment, which is observable after the fact.
when a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, it does not make a noise. Noise is simply sound/energy as it is interpreted by the human ear.
not philosophy related at all.......crap im wasting forum memory.
-
I once thought as you do, MacGrymm.
You're assuming that the empirical universe continues to exist in a single state, without conscious observation. That is a valid and robust assumption to base a worldview on, however philosophy comes in when you admit it is an assumption.
No one has observed that the universe exists when no one is observing it. This lack of disproof is not proof of the absence of an unobserved reality. In fact, there is considerable evidence that the universe may be concrete, and continue existing in a normal fashion when unobserved.
This sounds like childish babble and talking in circles, but it's actually quite important when dealing with immaterialism, certain postulated metaphysical principles (For example: God or gods), quantum mechanics (see Schrodinger's Cay), and what constitutes a reasonable doubt or a reasonable assumption (a cornerstone of law and investigation).
It's quite possible that the energy waves both do and do not exist, until someone hears them, causing them to exist, retroactively. It's probably safe to assume that quantum uncertainty does not extend so completely into macro scale physics, since what difference does it make if you're wrong, if no one can ever know? --but there is no known way to prove that it does or that is does not.
-
No one has observed that the universe exists when no one is observing it.
Put stuff in a box
Predict how stuff in a box will act over the next 24 hours
Open box, notice that stuff in the box acted exactly the same while you weren't observing it as it would if you WERE observing it
Either things continue to exist and act the same when we aren't observing them, or the universe is really good about TRICKING us into thinking they do, and there's no real difference.
I'd prefer you not to use "dude", thank you very much. Well, though the word "king" certainly implies inheritance, yes, it doesn't absolutely mean that.
Except in Dwarf Fortress, rulership ACTUALLY IS inherited. At least as far as I know; pretty sure I've seen it in legends mode.
-
That sounds nice and intellectual Fellblood, but the concept your going for is a known philisophical trap. If it may not exist unless its observed, but the observer may not exist either because no one can observe the observer without themselves being observed.....mean nothing is ever real. It is a philisophical dead end. All real philosophy must use something as real/concrete/existing to base/begin (I think therefore I am - ack - maybe to derivitive) its philosophy upon, thereby theorizing/determining its possible natures. The argument that "but you cant prove it exists" ends all argument or debate and wont win any prizes with philosophers because there is no room for any other possibility.
Reasonable doubt does not carry any weight in your argument. Please try to tell a jury that its not reasonable to believe they didnt exist until you saw them in the court room and that a murder victim doesnt exist because the jury cant see him/her. But wait, you might say, there are pictures, but those are not real. Fabrications of something that cant be proven to exist based on your argument.
My statement about sound vs noise is basic. Ask any scientist.
My statement about the philisophical trap is basic. Ask any philosopher.
I could go on and on, but I gotta goto work (assuming I am real and my job actually exists).
GMcG
PS: I love philosophy, and I am not necessarily a realist/pragmatist. Like all people, I have many views/beliefs that may seem to be contradictory. I have often said that sometimes certain things dont seem real to me until I see/experience them myself. So, me=hypocrit :(
-
I think therefor I am is the only statement that CAN'T be doubted.
I can't prove you exist, I can't prove my body exists, I can't prove I existed yesterday and I can't prove I'll exist tomorrow.
Yeah Reductionism!!!
-
See. It looks childish and silly at first glance, but there's a lot of layers of subtlety to it, and lot's of takes and re-takes on these things.
You don't have to produce anything useful or even meaningful to be a very productive philosopher.
So long as the contents of the box exist during the periods you are observing them, the question of whether they exist between those periods is largely irrelevant to the common man.
-
1) Quantum Mechanics says that observing something changes its state--you cannot carry out the box argument if your box gets much smaller than a centimeter.
2) You can doubt that you think if you believe Nietzsche (IIRC). He said that thoughts could be like waves passing through the medium of your brain, which has been refined to "random chemicals floating around in your head" thanks to some new science.
Nihilism: Now you can doubt everything!
-
Now imagine us, as a group of dwaves
--sitting in the fortress arguing about this stuff for years on end, while the other dwarves try to figure out whether we're brilliant, crazy, or just trying to get out of doing any physical work.
-
whether we're brilliant, crazy, or just trying to get out of doing any physical work.
The latter.... YAY Programming Job!!!
-
Yeah....
I think we've demonstrated that philosophy and philosophers are far more likely to drive your dwarves to suicide or murder, than to pull them back from the brink.
-
Now imagine us, as a group of dwaves
--sitting in the fortress arguing about this stuff for years on end, while the other dwarves try to figure out whether we're brilliant, crazy, or just trying to get out of doing any physical work.
woot
I think I have decided to prove wether or not Urist McTouchypants (you know, the guy who keeps wanting us to go DO something, who keeps muttering about idle dwarves) is real buy strapping him to ye old ballista and pulling the lever.
"no, no, STOP, you gone crazy!"
*click*
(simulate bad TV sound of falling object)
*Kersplat!*
HA! I think I just proved the existence of other life! But lets double check to make sure. Anyone here doubt the existence of the Hammerer?
GMcG
PS: Fellblood, I have no idea where that wild hair I got up my butt earlier came from, but no biggie, cuz tomorrow it wont exist :P Sorry for the (very minor) flame.
-
No, problem.
Philosphy does that to people.