Very interesting discussion, but I see a few points of play that work against the Armok and Social Conscience arguments.
In the Armok case, the player in practice does not have total control over the dwarves. For instance, when an item is declared to be dumped, without excessive micro-management, which dwarf does the task is not determined by the player. Even with total micro-management (only one dwarf selected to dump), the route or timing is not up to the player. This is a trivial situation but applies to nearly all, with the military encounters being the most out of player control. The player also has no control over dwarf preferences, likes, elections, artifacts, brawls, religion, children, or, dare I say it, cat adoption. The player's actions only are reactionary to these aspects, which highly suggests that there is a power greater than the player. As a result, for the player to be Armok, Armok cannot be an omnipotent god, which is contrary to the fundamentals of dwarven thought.
In the General Will case, the argument rests on the player providing necessary provisions and actions for the dwarves that otherwise they would overlook in their lifelong pursuit of beer and industry. This is done for the betterment of the fortress. Alas, as a player, I do not always work for the betterment of the fortress and I strongly suspect most players do not. I am not referencing the mindless torture of dwarves and kittens, which may or may not have occurred in my forts, but I rather am referring to the meticulous construction of complex structures in a fort. Is it really for the betterment of a fortress to have fifty individual bedrooms made only out of diorite? Would a little bit of microcline in the constructed walls of one or two of bedrooms reduce the quality of life of the dwarves? Or, are the dwarves really better off if the surface fortress that they never go into is 5 z levels instead of 4 z levels? Or, does quality of life really increase when you carefully count out the size of rooms before digging for the only purpose of making the entire z level look symmetric? I think the answer is obviously, nay-nay. The player does these tasks not for the betterment of the dwarves and the fortress but rather for some obsessive compulsive, megalomaniac purpose. No dwarf is better off in purely a diorite fortress or a surface fort supported by a single bar of kangaroo soap.
That means the player is something else. What we know:
1. The player has a lot of power of planning and ordering in a general sense
2. The player typically does not have power over individual's actions
3. A lot of times dwarves do not act according to the desire of the player's orders, causing "fun"
4. Goals and purposes of the player vary according to the player's whims, and this can have huge effects on the fate of the fortress and dwarves
5. Consideration of the preferences of individual, or even all, dwarves is rarely considered by the player
6. The player often does not notice, care, or even think about the most basic facts about the majority of their dwarves, such as gender, sexual preference, personnel ambitions, or family relationships
7. Players often select dwarves for positions of power, such as mayor or nobles, that share similar preferences to the player, such as liking short swords, green glass, or diorite
8. The player often is more concerned with the military, war, and punishing dwarves that have done actions contrary to the player's wishes than dealing with issues that would increase the happiness of the dwarvish majority
9. The player tends to build structures with extreme gaudiness and using the most precious metals and gems in its construction
10. The player tends to horde wealth for seemingly no other purpose than hording wealth
11. The player was never elected to his/her position and cannot be removed without extreme violence or boredom (aka, death of a fort)
Based on the above, I am thinking the closest comparison of the player is to a 'want-to-be all powerful' dictator.
Author
Topic: Who is the player? (Read 2390 times)