This thread was marked as Locked by user-6840779.
Villager/Illager Soldiers, Piglin Mercenaries for Diverse Village Creation/Roleplay End-goal (Addresses pacifist Villagers)
This thread was marked as Locked by user-6840779.
I think there is missed opportunity in villager soldiers or hiring piglin from the nether that could add a lot of content.
Why should we have villager soldiers and pigmen mercenaries?
The initial excuse that villagers are peaceful and so they need an iron golem doesn't make sense for all villages. Sure the villages with an iron golem might make sense for there to not be villager soldiers, but that shouldn't be the case for all villages because not all villages have iron golems. Or maybe there is a chance a village will spawn that have villagers assigned weapon rack job blocks where they defend themselves because not all villages have iron golems. Plus villagers have weapon smiths and fletchers, so it make sense they would use the weapons against evil monsters. You would think at least villages started by yourself as the governor, you can have the ability to arm the villagers because you are the governor of your village.
Addressing the fact that devs only want pacifist villagers
Minecraft has three main features, creation, role-play, and exploration. Right now we have an exploration end-goal of slaying the dragon. There is a lack of a creation/role-play end goal, and this can be fulfilled by having players create a diverse society of villagers, Illagers, Piglins, and other future races in the game. I feel like forcing any type of villager soldiers out of the game is limiting the role-play aspect. I can understand if the Minecraft designers want peaceful villagers, but you can at least add a culture of villagers who are not peaceful and are willing to arm themselves instead of having all villagers be the same culture wherever they are. E.g., you can start a village by curing a zombie and for the village you started this way, you can make say, two villager soldiers per 10 villagers, but only with cured villager/illager zombie or something like that. This does not go against the devs wanting villagers to naturally be pacifists. Or you can cure an Illager zombie and they will fight for your village, etc. The implication here is the cured villager/illager forgot their past and no longer exhibit their pacifist/violent traits, at least for naturally spawning zombies because as a reply pointed out that villagers who turned into a zombie and get cured still retain their old profession. Just gotta open your mind a bit. The end-goal here is hopefully Mojang sees potential in the player crafting a diverse civilization by recruiting Villagers, Illagers, Piglins, or even some new Villager race to be introduced, into a player-made village civilization, and specifically having one of these villager types being able to become village soldiers. From here on out, I will refer to "villager soldiers" as just some type of NPC that the player can manage to help defend villages with the mechanics listed below.
I also think you should be able to hire piglin by offering gold bars, e.g. a chance instead of dropping an item, you hire the piglin to fight for you. But after a certain amount of trades, the piglin runs out of items and the chance you hire it as mercenary increases until 100%. They would follow you around like wolves do, but you can do more with them, such as equipping them.
This reply offers some suggestions for piglin villages: https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/suggestions/3027192-villager-illager-soldiers-and-piglin-mercenaries?comment=36
All of the mechanics for fighting and armoring NPCs are already there, so this suggestion shouldn't be difficult in that regard. The new things this introduces is NPC inventory system and NPC stationing system, which works as follows:
For the piglin mercenary and villager soldiers, you can give them horses, armor, and weapons by maybe shift + right clicking them or some other combination to access their inventory and equip them with whatever armor, weapon, arrows you have. About riding horses, so a villager soldier with a saddle will try to ride the closest tamed horse without a saddle. If your town has an appropriately leveled weapon smith, fletcher, armorer, and etc, then the soldiers will be able to replace their broken armor and the player no longer has to replace the appropriate equipment on villager soldiers. Basically this means there is no longer durability on the armor and weapon worn on villager soldiers once the village has someone performing the appropriate jobs for replacing those equipment.
The player has to equip the piglin mercenaries themselves since villagers are not familiar with piglins. Piglin cannot ride horses, but they can ride tamed hoglins. But hoglins cannot currently be tamed. There should be a new feature to tame hoglins and allow the players to ride them. Hoglins are not as fast and cannot jump like horses, but they can run over one block high terrains and do the upheave tusk attack when space bar is pressed that launches mobs into the air. Piglins can ride hoglins the same way villager soldiers ride horses, you put a saddle in the piglin's inventory and they will try to ride the closest tamed hoglin without a saddle. To make up for having to supply piglin equipment yourself, the piglins would have more hitpoints and base damage than villager soldiers.
You should then also be able to equip the horse with armor without having to ride it, by say, shift + right clicking the horse. Having manageable NPCs mount horse is a good way to use up extra saddles you find, but you ever only need one of.
Villager soldiers: stationed using soldier job blocks, the weapon rack. One weapon rack can be used by, say, three villagers. The villager soldiers will sleep during the day and wake up at night for three nights maximum (to avoid phantoms), then they would have vacation time and spend one day sleeping during the night and waking up during the day. The villager soldiers will patrol near their job blocks. You can also get the villager soldiers to follow you like wolves by right clicking them after a villager soldier has been in enough fights with mobs when they become a Ranger (like Aragorn), some maximum level for their job. They no longer need a job block and you can get them to follow you like wolves. Right clicking a ranger causes them to either follow you or patrol a specific location. Obviously they would initially patrol their weapons rack job block.
Piglin mercenaries: they follow you around like wolves and can leave the nether with you. You can station them in a specific location by right clicking them, and they will patrol around that location like villager soldiers near their weapon rack job blocks (unlike the wolf that just sit down). They don't need sleep because you can't sleep in the nether. Piglins don't know how to ride horses, but they can ride the tamed hoglins (see above).
Addressing arguments against villager soldiers from the replies
1. "Golems exist, so no need for villager soldiers"
Well, diamond armor exist, so we should just remove all other armor, right? The existence of one thing is not a valid argument against another thing unless you can point out the fact they are too similar. And if you are capable of reading, you will see from my suggestion above that villager soldiers are not a "re-skin" of iron golems.
2. "Devs want pacifist villagers"
As I pointed out above, villagers can still be pacifist. In that case, you can only make villager soldiers out of, say cured zombie villagers/Illagers. The idea is villager/illager zombies forgot their past after living as zombies for a long time, for the villager/illager zombies that naturally spawn. Or add different villager cultures where some are pacifist and others are not.
3. "Just make a mod for it"
This is not a valid argument either because it applies to all suggestions. Mods also get outdated and can no longer work. Heck, most old texture packs are outdated. It also makes sense in the context of the game to at least have a few villagers willing to fight for you or a village given the threats in the minecraft world and that weaponsmiths and fletchers exist.
4. "Villager soldiers make the game too easy"
First of all, the game is already too easy. Villagers face no threat 99% of the time as they just run in-doors. Secondly, adding villager soldiers who patrol at night will make the game harder because now villagers can actually die. Although, villager soldiers should be programmed to run in-doors at low HP, and save themselves, if they can make it. However, the goal of my suggestion is not to make the game easier or harder, but to introduce a creation/roleplay end-goal where you can build your own diverse society with different races from all over minecraft, e.g., a village that only a player can create containing Villagers, Illagers, and Piglins.
They have confirmed that they will not add violent villagers.
Yea, I am saying that should be revisited because it makes sense and makes the game more fun. Not sure why the designers are so adamant about it. This "vision" of making all villagers across all of minecraft peaceful and exhibit the same characters is vanilla and uninteresting. Would be better if the player can create diverse village of villagers, Illagers, piglins, and future races or cultures to be added. There is a missed opportunity to appeal to the creator/roleplayer type of gamers.
There's been a lot of discussions on this topic already, so it may be a good idea to read through those.
Ahhhh, the clichéd, rejected fighting villagers idea returns once more. -____-
People really need to learn how to use a forum's search function to see why these ideas have been rejected since 2015. There's a reason why effort was put into brand new villager-based mobs but no effort on making cross-armed pacifist villagers fight. Having Iron Golems and fighting villagers is re-implementing what was already there but in a super cheap way.
lolno. You're trying to prop up an opinion and wrap it up in a badly-torn fact blanket. Simply saying "it makes the game more fun" is an empty, flimsy statement that never works with suggestions. Remember that the opinion of the person posting the suggestion (and hoping to get support of others) is always the weakest one. A person can say that about any suggestion they post, it doesn't convince anyone of anything.
There is nothing "shortsighted, vanilla and uninteresting" about how villagers are. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's flawed. That's what makes villagers unique, they make trades and are passive. There's already a hostile version of them and there's already a golem that protects them. This idea just turns villagers into upgraded wolves.
lolno. you didn't offer a valid criticism either against having villager soldiers. Nothing wrong with having villages with golems, and having villages with no golem have one or two villager soldiers. Why does a village have an armorer, fletcher, and weaponsmith but no one who uses them? Villages currently are vanilla and uninteresting. Every village across different cultures are peaceful and does the same thing. The only difference is cosmetic. No need to get triggered, I am new here.
Villages have various professions for the player's convenience. They're "uninteresting" (your opinion) because they are blank canvases for you to work on. And if the "difference is cosmetic", then there really isn't a need for it, it's just your preference. And, the devs prefer it to be golems over a new variant of villager.
By uninteresting, I mean all the villages of different cultures have the same pacifist philosophy and culture. It would be a blank canvas if we had more freedom to chose what kind of village culture the player wants, whether they are pacifist or willing to defend, and not forcing a philosophy on the player. This is a sandbox game by large, it should not be a pacifist philosophy game. If you don't want villager soldiers, just break the job block for villager soldiers. Unless, you're saying you would like to use villager soldiers if they exist. This allows more freedom than whatever you're suggesting.
Villagers have various professions for player's convenience and I think it would help if we can get villagers to help fight raids or zombie invasions instead of running and hiding. It also adds to role-play experience, because it doesn't make sense a village will make weapons, armors, arrows, but no one uses them.
The only argument I have read against villager soldiers is "because devs don't like it". You guys are just parrots at this point. That's not a good reason at all. Why don't the devs like it? Because they are impossible to implement or are they forcing some pacifist philosophy on us that has nothing to do with game design?
Also, if villagers are pacifist, why do they have weaponsmiths?
We're just telling you what the devs have said again and again, so if you want to insult people who are just telling you the truth, you can just log out. Sorry you're not hearing what you want. You don't have to come back. And no, this isn't some philosophy being forced upon players, it's just game mechanics.
Right, and I am saying what is the justification? And people like you don't have anything other than "the devs don't like it". I already know the devs said they don't like it. At this point there is no real argument against villager soldiers and this is definitely some non-game design related philosophy being forced on players. I am just trying to bring attention to this by bringing in my own suggestions with a compromise for both sides. If you don't actually want villager soldiers, just break the villager soldier job blocks or don't make them in the first place. If you want them, then leave them. Also, devs are not some kind of robots incapable of changing minds.
Villagers can naturally spawn as being pacifist, but the players can craft a weapon rack job block to create villager soldiers.
'People like me' are just telling you the truth, but you don't want to hear it.
1. Devs have decided they are not defensive, likely due to the following reasons.
2. Golems serve the purpose of defending villagers; defensive villagers are not needed, and arguably pointless if one of the strongest mobs in the game already fills this role.
3. Defending villagers is also the player's responsibility if they want to have villagers.
And, no, this isn't some attempt at indoctrination. This isn't propaganda endorsed by Big Brother Mojang. If they wanted to brainwash people like you claim, then why are there swords, bows, and other weapons, and creatures not only for killing, but try to kill the player.
I am arguing that you can have golems and soldier villagers. The existence of golems in the game is not an argument against having a different flavor of villager defense. E.g., why implement a crossbow when there is already a bow? There are so many areas where alternative flavors exist, it's part of the gaming experience. The crossbow and bow are different ways of archery, just as villager soldiers and golems offer two different ways of defense.
I never said anyone is brainwashing anything lol, just saying the devs are forcing a play style, when this is supposed to be a sandbox game. A lot of people want villager soldiers, why not add an option for players who want it to craft a weapon rack job block to create villager soldier, and for those who want golems only, well golems are already in the game. Heck, you can even at least let all villages spawn without villager soldiers but let weapon racks soldier job blocks only be craftable by the player. If you really don't want it, don't craft it. In this case, the player is still the one helping to defend since only the player can craft soldier job blocks.
I, and others, are just saying what the devs have said. We're not parroting, as you dismissively accuse us of, we're just telling you what they have officially stated. It's not what you want, but what you want doesn't matter. If it doesn't fit their vision of the game, it doesn't get in the game. I doubt you'll manage to change their mind, but sure, go ahead, write a manifesto. Maybe then you would let this thread die.
Also, you were stating that their pacifism effected a lot more than just playstyle. You said it was a philosophy being "forced on players". Yet, the game directly rewards you for killing, even needlessly.
I already acknowledged that the devs want peaceful villagers in my original post. So the fact that you and the other guy come in and say "devs don't want this, so no", is just parroting, it does not provide any new input. I think you are focusing on the wrong things with the pacifism thing. I am not writing a phd thesis and so I am just typing as I go, wherever I say along the lines of "dev forcing pacifism on us", I mean they are forcing all villagers to be peaceful when villager attitudes can be more diverse than that. There is an opportunity to satisfy the people who want to be able to defend villages using the villagers. It's not an outlandish idea. If you don't want it, don't use it. There is literal nothing to lose other than dev time. In fact, you only add a fun factor to the game for all of the people who keep suggesting this idea but have never got it. This would add more content than a lot of other things added to the game so far.
My point has been made.
But, oh, wait, you're trying to go back on what you said about it being something more than just game design? That's just so weird, considering the fact you said:
Oh! And I found this one too.
So, yeah, let this one die. Or, go out and actually find the dev's reasons for not implementing such features, and make a well structured argument for why it could work, and all possibly for nought.
Or, just let it die.
I said it is a non-game design related philosophy being forced on the players as in they are forcing us to play one way, which is the case if the decision was made without consideration of making the game more fun for a lot of people who want this feature. Whereas, people who don't want this feature don't have to use it and they don't lose anything. Most people probably would enjoy this feature just like with most minecraft major updates. That is not the same thing as saying the devs are brainwashing us. I already clarified this. Keep bumping my thread though, thank you.
Minecraft isn't reinforcing philosophical pacifism like it seems you're saying. The fact of the matter is, iron golems were added specifically to protect villagers. When villages were revamped and the threat of attack became more important than ever, Mojang buffed their spawn rate and made them repairable. It's pretty clear that'll always be their stance and that no amount of revisiting the idea will result in a different outcome. It's been brought up so many times that it's listed in the official Feedback site's list of "these will always be immediately rejected by developers" ideas. In fact, there's an entire section on Villagers.
"Villagers are pacifists. They don't want to fight. This is why golems exist. (Let's improve golems!) Villagers do not want to be guards, knights, soldiers, fighters, defenders, warriors, or protectors."
"They don't want to build things, or do anything but live and let live. They're pretty chill. No builders."
Villagers are pacifists by choice. Fighting villagers are called illagers.
As headgames stated, villagers are meant to be blank slates for players to carve into whatever profession they want. At this level of moldability, they're balanced by ultimately tasking the players with their safety. Having villagers fight hostile mobs themselves would take away one of their very few balancing negatives. Not even extreme prices are a real downside of villagers since they can be negated through curing, positive gossip and Hero of the Village, which in and of itself has farming potential. And then comes the problem of their player interaction. If the villagers themselves attack players with bad reputation (as Iron Golems do), it'd be impossible for a player to rebuild a positive reputation.
If you've really read through that many forum posts while developing this idea, then you should know that "make it entirely optional" is an abysmal way of backing up your idea. It negates any and all balance issues by saying "just don't use it." I could suggest making Wooden Pickaxes have infinite durability and instantly mine everything. And with the addition of 1.16's Gamerule menu in the World Creation menu, there could just be a gamerule to toggle it. But it doesn't add anything to the game and goes against Mojang's ideas for how the game should develop.
Even if it somehow was optional, the game would have to be balanced around one or the other. If it was balanced around golems, fighting villagers would become severely overpowered. If villagers were the center, then golems would become too weak to be worth using.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
I am not claiming that, as I have clarified above. What I meant was they are effectively forcing a mechanic out of the game for "villagers must be pacifist" reasons.
Nowhere did I say to negate all balance issues, that is something that has to be implemented. "Just don't use it" is directed at people who don't want villager soldiers. A wooden pickaxe with infinite durability is a bad analogy. That's obviously god-mode. Having villager soldiers that can fight is not god-mode, they can still die but be replaced. You can press F3 to see coordinates, you can type /seed and check online for fortress location, who cares? It's in the game, but not everyone will use it.
Except, it would be more of a blank slate if the option was there to hire villagers to defend their own village. Right now, you can't, which is less of a blank slate. So "for players to carve into whatever profession they want" is ironic. The player is still responsible for the villages' safety when there are villager/piglin/illager soldiers fighting by your side. I don't see how you are no longer responsible once a single villager knows how to fight. Iron golems exist, they fight, and you can still be responsible for the safety of the village, correct?
I think most people here are missing the point of my suggestions. Villagers can still be pacifist, that is part of my argument. Add some special villager with a different culture who are not pacifist, they don't have to be the same villagers that currently exist. Or allow villagers for villages started by you to be non-pacifist. Or allow us to hire piglin as mercenaries with gold. Or add an ability to convert Illagers to fight for your village.
To just outright cut off a mechanic with such a huge potential because all villagers must be the same and are pacifist is not a good idea.
You are really exaggerating how big of a feature this would be. It's just weaker golems with a different skin.
Also, just because the game lacks this one minor feature, which is just a reskinned version of another, doesn't mean the game is horribly limiting, like you say. The act you wish to be done, protecting villages, is already being done, just not by who you want it to be done by.
And, did you ever think maybe Mojang doesn't want you to just be managing your own private army? Maybe instead they want you to, you know, do most of the fighting yourself.