Print

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

[Flaede]

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.

[catoblepas]

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.

[Felblood]

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.

[Mikademus]

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.

[Felblood]

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.

[Mikademus]

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.

[Granite26]

socialistic, and that's very pleasant. 

wait, what?

[Mikademus]

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).

[catoblepas]

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.

[Felblood]

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.

[catoblepas]

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?

[mickel]

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.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

<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.

[Felblood]

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.

[G-Flex]

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.