Topic: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability?? (Read 1500 times)

Bohandas · « **on:** January 10, 2011, 11:52:34 pm »

What are the ranks of the various ethic (response) tokens in terms of how unacceptable a race finds a given action? Am I correct in surmising that the order that they appear in the string dump is in ascending order of severity (from most acceptable to most unacceptable)?

The order they appear in the string dump is as follows:

NOT_APPLICABLE
ACCEPTABLE
PERSONAL_MATTER
JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS
JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON
JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON
JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE
ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED
MISGUIDED
SHUN
APPALLING
PUNISH_REPRIMAND
PUNISH_SERIOUS
PUNISH_EXILE
PUNISH_CAPITAL
UNTHINKABLE

Is this roughly in order?

----------------------------

Also, while on the topic of entity tokens, what known in game effects do changing the (reaction) settings on the various entity (action) tokens have other than altering the chances of civilizations going to war with each other in world-gen.
I've already determined that setting [ETHIC:THEFT: to ACCEPTABLE makes it so that you can just grab things from that Civ's stores without paying and not get attacked. Has anybody out there noted anything from changing any of the other settings?

3 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2011, 12:53:02 am »

Your list looks right. There should be a post with the hard numbers somewhere, but it's regarding an older version.

Ethics do have various ingame effects... the ones I know of are KILL_ANIMAL/KILL_PLANT (determines elflike behaviour along with some of the other entity tags, such as WOOD_PREF), EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER/EAT_SAPIENT_KILL (makes speaking/intelligent creatures butcherable), and MAKE_TROPHY_SAME_RACE/MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT (allows you to make skull tropies/crafts from sentients). Besides theft, the other law tokens might also have an effect (they may affect crime sentences in Fortress mode, among other things), but I'm not entirely sure on that.

Grimlocke · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2011, 01:33:28 am »

That, and worldgen civs with different ethical parameters have wars a lot more often.

Aarik · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2011, 01:40:07 am »

What's the difference between NOT_APPLICABLE and ACCEPTABLE?

3 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2011, 01:43:33 am »

In one case the action is acceptable (there's no ruling against it); in the other it isn't applicable (the action has no relevance or will never conceivably occur). LYING is NOT_APPLICABLE for kobolds as they have no language, and THEFT is the same as they're all kleptomanics and have no concept of ownership.

Bohandas · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2011, 12:16:57 pm »

Which one (ACCEPTABLE or NOT_APPLICABLE) would be more likely to result in a war during world gen with a civilization who considers the same action UNTHIINKABLE?

Bohandas · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2011, 12:39:23 pm »

Quote from: 3 on January 11, 2011, 12:53:02 am

Your list looks right. There should be a post with the hard numbers somewhere, but it's regarding an older version.

Ok, I think I found the thread that you're talking about

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22151.msg239689#msg239689

Bohandas · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2011, 05:53:50 pm »

Quote from: Toady One on August 02, 2008, 09:06:45 am

I haven't put a lot of work into this since the whole system is likely to become more detailed with some more inputs and splits (aka gutted). I also don't have a lot of specific historical events related to these at this point, so it just does general evaluations (in a sense abstracting some horrible faux pas or other dip/hist event which will later be made more explicit). What they do now is check the

ETHIC_KILL_ANIMAL ETHIC_KILL_PLANT ETHIC_TORTURE_FOR_FUN ETHIC_TORTURE_ANIMALS ETHIC_OATH_BREAKING ETHIC_LYING ETHIC_EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER ETHIC_EAT_SAPIENT_KILL ETHIC_MAKE_TROPHY_SAME_RACE ETHIC_MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT ETHIC_MAKE_TROPHY_ANIMAL

values against each other, and stick that number in with their personal leader evals and their historical event evals. The exact numbers are (leftmost are the evaluator, indented are the target's ethics):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON +2 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON +1 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND PUNISH_SERIOUS PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL UNTHINKABLE -1 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON +1 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON +2 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND PUNISH_SERIOUS PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL UNTHINKABLE PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -1 JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON +1 JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE +2 APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND PUNISH_SERIOUS PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL UNTHINKABLE JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -1 PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -2 ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED +2 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON +1 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS UNTHINKABLE APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND PUNISH_SERIOUS PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL -1 PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -2 MISGUIDED MISGUIDED +2 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND UNTHINKABLE +1 PUNISH_CAPITAL PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -1 SHUN SHUN +2 MISGUIDED APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND UNTHINKABLE +1 PUNISH_CAPITAL PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -1 APPALLING PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -5 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -3 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -2 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -1 SHUN PUNISH_REPRIMAND PUNISH_SERIOUS MISGUIDED PUNISH_EXILE UNTHINKABLE +1 APPALLING +2 PUNISH_REPRIMAND PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -5 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -3 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -2 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -1 SHUN PUNISH_SERIOUS APPALLING MISGUIDED PUNISH_EXILE UNTHINKABLE +1 PUNISH_REPRIMAND +2 PUNISH_SERIOUS PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -10 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -7 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -3 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -2 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_EXILE UNTHINKABLE PUNISH_CAPITAL 1 PUNISH_SERIOUS +2 PUNISH_EXILE PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -10 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -7 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -3 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -2 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_SERIOUS UNTHINKABLE PUNISH_CAPITAL +1 PUNISH_EXILE +2 PUNISH_CAPITAL PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -15 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -10 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -5 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -3 APPALLING PUNISH_SERIOUS UNTHINKABLE PUNISH_EXILE +1 PUNISH_CAPITAL +2 UNTHINKABLE PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE -15 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS -10 JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED -5 JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON JUSTIFIED_IF_SELF_DEFENSE -3 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_SERIOUS PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL +1 UNTHINKABLE +2 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE MISGUIDED -1 SHUN APPALLING PUNISH_REPRIMAND UNTHINKABLE -2 PUNISH_SERIOUS -3 PUNISH_EXILE PUNISH_CAPITAL -5 JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS PERSONAL_MATTER ACCEPTABLE +1

Probably made some mistakes there. I think -16/-20 is what you get over a perfectly opposed sphere hatred and some of the worst fresh historical events also get you anywhere from -10 to -20. Once that number is negative enough compared to some of the leader's personality facets, it'll also do a risk assessment (which the humans often fail against a stronger demon/gob opponent, and thus never start wars -- they let the gobs continue on snatching because they don't think they can win -- probably should have some world gen adventurers respond in that case), and if the risk assessment goes through, they'll start a war. Roughly anyway, and this is all subject-to-change-as-fuck.

i2amroy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2011, 07:43:13 pm »

Quote from: Bohandas on January 11, 2011, 12:16:57 pm

Which one (ACCEPTABLE or NOT_APPLICABLE) would be more likely to result in a war during world gen with a civilization who considers the same action UNTHIINKABLE?

NOT_APPLICABLE means that that particular ethic is never checked against for purposes of sieging for or against. Therefore a civ with all NOT_APPLICABLE tokens should never go to war (for ethics reasons at least).

Untelligent · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2011, 07:51:25 pm »

Here's Toady's post made into a handy-dandy table!

http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Ethics

It's for 40d but I don't see any reason for that to have changed yet.

Bohandas · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2011, 12:59:46 am »

Quote from: Untelligent on January 11, 2011, 07:51:25 pm

Here's Toady's post made into a handy-dandy table!

http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Ethics

It's for 40d but I don't see any reason for that to have changed yet.

That is awesome!

Farseer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 12, 2011, 01:09:23 am »

Am I the only one who read this "Eth(n)ic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??" as if to say, "I WANT TO ADD IN BLACK MEN WHO ARE STUPID LOL"?

News:

Author Topic: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability?? (Read 1500 times)

Bohandas

Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

3

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Grimlocke

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Aarik

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

3

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Bohandas

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Bohandas

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Bohandas

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

i2amroy

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Untelligent

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Bohandas

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??

Farseer

Re: Ethic Tokens. What degree of (un)acceptability??