40d Talk:Goblin

Thieves & cage traps

Not sure that Goblin (master) thieves /can/ evade traps. I've caught a bucketful in cage traps. Didn't know what to do with them, mind... Runspotrun 09:23, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I've noticed that when i melt down Narrow Steel Equipment, all i get is Copper! can someone verify this as a bug or intentional? -- Bullion

I would think that that would be a bug. Mindsnap 18:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Does adding [CURIOUSBEAST_GUZZLER] actually semi-fix sieges? I thought that it didn't. Mindsnap 18:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Uh, surely this isn't a real tag? --Geofferic 17:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's used on gnomes, so that they can drink your booze if they find it. Strangely, it's also used on bears. Mindsnap, try [CURIOUSBEAST]. It's not anywhere in the default raws, but it's in the program text so it may be recognised. —0x517A5D 17:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Snatchers / pedophiles

Why not just leave it as pedophiles "snatchers"? I think it's funny. --Peristarkawan 13:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Why not deal with it as "civilized" people? I mean have some sort of a voting with an argumented discussion on the talk page before a wiki admin say his final word. Those who reverted the change were at least stating something in the summary field. I myself don't think that this bit of humor is appropriate to this article and the user who did it again and again seems to be a vandal for me.--Another 15:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Whatever you do or say, pedophiles are no laughing matter. What's wrong with you Peristarkawan? >:( --Eagle of Fire 15:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

There are about 30 episodes of Family Guy that would beg to differ. However this turns out, please stop the edit war. --Peristarkawan 15:51, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I'm very confident that if it continue, it will result in the ban of Billdauterive. --Eagle of Fire 15:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I support the word "snatcher" over "pedophile", for three reasons. First, it's more likely to be immediately understood by all wiki readers. Second, we're not talking same-species kiddy snatchers here - these are goblins, and goblins enslave and/or eat dwarf children. Third, why suggest nastiness and smut (as though dwarven kids a la carte wasn't horrid enough!) in a wiki without firm grounds? Fedor 16:07, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I wasn't suggesting removing the word "snatcher" at all. You've got to agree that it seems a bit peculiar that the snatchers only target children. Why is it that murderous carp are funny but pedophile goblins are sick? Seems like a double standard to me. --Peristarkawan 16:27, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Nothing strange at all about targetting only children. They're easier to catch, easier for goblins (who are no great size themselves) to carry, can't resist as well, are much more tender when cooked, and can be permanently enslaved more easily. There's just flat-out no reason to bother with any mention of pedophilia. --Fedor

Why is it that murderous carp are funny but pedophile goblins are sick?: Because it's the truth. --Eagle of Fire 16:42, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Meh. As long as it stays fantasy I don't have a problem with them. Much. I don't subscribe to the notion of thoughtcrime. It's the pederasts, who act on the urge, that are the criminals.
—0x517A5D 17:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)

For the record, it's not just boys that get molested, girls do too. --Gotthard 17:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Well, if I keep with the current "for the record" trend, I have to say that I would have no problem with having goblin pedophiles in game. It's a simulation afterall. Thing is, the current discussion is related to the article page, which is used in real life by humans and not dwarves. There is also no proof at all that goblin snatchers are pedophile, so not only it is a false entry but, as I said, since it's read by real life humans then the comment can also be considered offensive. Which is my case, I do find it offensive and there's no good reason to justify it. --Eagle of Fire 18:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Certainly. I know that. Pederasty is the closest word we have, though. Statutory rape, while applicable, is a broader term. —0x517A5D 18:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)

The only reason I made the distinction is that girls are far more likely to suffer long term damage from sexual abuse. Pederasty refers only to males. Anyway, Eagle of Fire I don't think the term should be in the article unless for some reason it is in the game. My 'for the record' comment was more off topic on the definition of the word than an attack. 0x517A5D and I seem to be on the same page anyway. --Gotthard 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

A through search of the games strings turns up no occurances of pedo, pede, or rape. Sex occurs only in the word sextuplets, and in the programming term RegisterClassEx. For what that's worth. I will add my personal opinion that I also think it doesn't belong in the article. —0x517A5D 20:03, 12 December 2007 (EST)

To be fair, 'rape' is a word in the in-game goblin language, and often appears as a surname, or civilization name. I do agree that this oughtn't be in the article, though; I suspect that children are probably taken for eating, not raping. —Captain Epix 22:51, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Besides, murderous carp aren't real to life the way pedophilia is. A large zombie fish attacking a mythological creature is a bit more abstract than the a pedophile (traditionally viewed as human) molesting a small child. Frankly, I like the lack of swearing and general offensiveness of the wiki, it's a nice change compared to most of the internet. Why spoil that for the ones that like it, for information that is unclear and doesn't help understanding the article? --Gotthard 17:50, 12 December 2007 (EST)

A thought: assume, arguendo, that the children are stolen for such a purpose. This implies not only rape and statutory rape, but also sex outside one's species. (Not quite bestiality, but similar. We don't have a word for sex with a sapient that is not of one's own species.) And since there are many snatchers, this must be sanctioned by goblin society. How warped they must be! Comments? —0x517A5D 18:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)

We don't have a word for sex with a sapient that is not of one's own species. Isn't that more or less what the word yiffing means? --Peristarkawan 19:19, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Point. Though I think it hasn't entered the mainstream. Another one: in the Ringworld series, there's the concept of 'rishathra', ceremonial inter-species (though all descended from homo erectus) sex for the purpose of sealing trade agreements and alliances. —0x517A5D 19:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I find it surprising that such a large debate has resulted from the actions of an obvious vandal. --Jackard 20:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, that comment's not scoring him any points. Although at least he appears to have stopped editing the page. --Peristarkawan 21:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's not like I like to talk about those things, but I thought it was important to have a discussion against the idea of having pedophilia added to a page when it's unneeded... Read above. --Eagle of Fire 23:18, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I don't believe there was a chance it would be added, discussion or no. At best it was a crude, immature attempt at humor. --Jackard 06:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Peristarkawan started this discussion, and I've taken his first comment as a suggestion to consider it. It was enough for me. --Eagle of Fire 22:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Goblin Siege

it´s the year 1059 and I stillwaiting for a goblin siege. the kitnappers are comming since 2 years already...

I have the newest verison (0.27.169.33g) so what´s wrong?

Are you sure goblins have access to your fortress? You should be able to see that on the embark screen. If goblins used to raid you all the time (like me) and you don't see them at all since the new version (like me), goblin sieges might be broken again... (I'm very happy to have been able to play almost two years now without invasions... I now have almost double amount of dwarves and I can trade now!) --Eagle of Fire 07:47, 27 December 2007 (EST)

sorry. that waqs just a bad timing. (10 minutes later the goblins came. late but now they are here)

bad luck ^^;

by the way...since the first dig in the mountain I am waiting for the goblins (I have over 400 traps) and a bridge-system with fortifications...so it was a little bit boring without goblins. no matter >:D

thank you for your help!

No problems... I've seen so many people complaining about the lack of gobling sieges since 33g that I was wondering myself if they were broken or not. They're supposed to attack you now instead of sitting on the edge of the map, can you confirm that? --Eagle of Fire 08:42, 27 December 2007 (EST)

of course they do. but they came in where no connection was (okok...it was a bridge)

so I had to dig a new way...and yes they are very agressive! I wondered why the goblin force came exacly at the beginning of 1060...coincidence?

Depends if you're playing a game from a fortress ported from lower versions like me or not. Hard to say when you're playing an old game and didn't start the fortress on a world generated on the same version. It could be anything that Toady ajusted and you're simply over a certain limit by far and it takes a while before they raid you again... From that point on, it's only speculation unless some specific corrolations can be made. --Eagle of Fire 09:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)