Print

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

[puke]

[quote Toady One]You can argue over differing values (or if you want, put forth an argument you don't agree with just to start trouble), and there are a few options, including ones that can make people angry. You can change people's values (or change your own if you choose to acquiesce yourself), and it uses some of the conversation skills. I fixed an old issue where brawls would automatically elevate to "non-lethal" status. I also cleaned up some of the performance text.[/quote]

So if you have a fort running along, and some dwarfs with incompatible / undesirable values...

Then you can retire, bring in an adventurer, and argue with them / provoke them into fights / beat them down until they begin to acquiesce and eventually change their values?

So after un-retiring your fort, behavior therapy will have taken effect and you'll have a bunch of happy right-thinking dwarfs?

I wonder how many values you can change?  Can you alter civ ethics and cure gobbos of their murdering and snatching?  Can you convince dwarfs that cutting trees and butchering animals is unethical? 

I wonder if you can pressure the founding seven to all be argumentative violent evangelists, such that they in turn spread their own values to migrants, and your fortress becomes some sort of horrid re-education center?

[Avnas]

I wonder how many values you can change?  Can you alter civ ethics and cure gobbos of their murdering and snatching?  Can you convince dwarfs that cutting trees and butchering animals is unethical?

These sorts of things are in the entity files. So unless Toady changes the way these work entirely, it shouldn't be possible to change the way civs work. It sounds like this is more of a 'diplomacy'/alignment thing than any kind of magical doohickey so I don't imagine anything that extreme would be possible.

[puke]

I dunno, its already possible for individuals to adopt the ethics of conquering civs.  there might be existing hooks for it.

[Jay]

I dunno, its already possible for individuals to adopt the ethics of conquering civs.  there might be existing hooks for it.

That's just because, in .40 and prior, the ethics/values are set by civilization and not tracked by individual. When you get conquered, you immediately become a member of the new civ for all intents and purposes.

These sorts of things are in the entity files. So unless Toady changes the way these work entirely, it shouldn't be possible to change the way civs work.

That's, sortof, exactly what he did?
Values are now tracked by the individual. People can have views that differ from their parent civs. And other people can influence them. Hence the thread.

The important question is scale. Is it possible to convince the ruler of the civ that their ways are wrong, and have that propagate down to the civilian level? Maybe?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

BIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE THAT SHOULD BE KNOWN TO ALL:

1. Ethics: Things like "slavery = bad", "trophies of animals = okay", "lie = punish by death".  These are tracked by civilization, so are never changed (unless a conquering civ takes over another site).

2. Values: Things like "craftsdwarfship = good", "family = detestable", "values honesty", and so on.  These are, for a given species (elf/human/dwarf/goblin), usually the same, but each individual may differ (and usually does).  This just means one dwarf might like war, while another doesn't, but they both value the law.

[Knight Otu]

Not quite.

Ethics essentially are what passes for law right now, and they are set from the ETHIC tokens in the entity files. Right now, they don't vary from those settings (but could, in theory), and as far as we know, they can't be changed by argument.

Values are how society as a whole feels about certain things, with individual variations, and they are set from the VALUE tokens in the entity files. We know that human civilizations will have some manner of randomized values in the next version, and that individual values can be changed by argument.

Personality facets affect how people think about and react to certain circumstances, and they are set from the PERSONALITY tokens in the creature files. They vary by individual to a certain degree, and can clash with a civilization's and individual's values (such as a coward dwarf who still values martial prowess).

[GoblinCookie]

Personality facets affect how people think about and react to certain circumstances, and they are set from the PERSONALITY tokens in the creature files. They vary by individual to a certain degree, and can clash with a civilization's and individual's values (such as a coward dwarf who still values martial prowess).

They are also inherant, defined by the creature raws rather than the entity ones within certain parameters.

[miauw62]

It is important to note that individual civilizations can already have ethics that differ from the raws, as pointed out by somebody with a DFHack script in another thread. (IIRC, the title was "king is a serial killer?"?)

[Knight Otu]

Personality facets affect how people think about and react to certain circumstances, and they are set from the PERSONALITY tokens in the creature files. They vary by individual to a certain degree, and can clash with a civilization's and individual's values (such as a coward dwarf who still values martial prowess).

They are also inherant, defined by the creature raws rather than the entity ones within certain parameters.

Which is why I said "in the creature files."

It is important to note that individual civilizations can already have ethics that differ from the raws, as pointed out by somebody with a DFHack script in another thread. (IIRC, the title was "king is a serial killer?"?)

As I recall, that king somehow had gotten goblin ethics mixed into his mind and didn't get dwarf ethics back when he became king? So there's individuals that follow other ethics, and I think there is some minor adaption of "kill neutral" ethics at least to avoid marketplace massacres.

[Dirst]

Craft an adventurer to be very charismatic and argue with anyone who will listen that Loyalty is disgusting.  Take on those you convince as followers, so they can hear your continued arguments about how bad loyalty is.

Before long, you should have a sizable group following you around everywhere you go, getting less and less loyal to you by the day.

What could possibly go wrong?

[miauw62]

It is important to note that individual civilizations can already have ethics that differ from the raws, as pointed out by somebody with a DFHack script in another thread. (IIRC, the title was "king is a serial killer?"?)

As I recall, that king somehow had gotten goblin ethics mixed into his mind and didn't get dwarf ethics back when he became king? So there's individuals that follow other ethics, and I think there is some minor adaption of "kill neutral" ethics at least to avoid marketplace massacres.

i do not mean the ethics of individuals, the ethics of individual civilizations.

[Knight Otu]

It is important to note that individual civilizations can already have ethics that differ from the raws, as pointed out by somebody with a DFHack script in another thread. (IIRC, the title was "king is a serial killer?"?)

As I recall, that king somehow had gotten goblin ethics mixed into his mind and didn't get dwarf ethics back when he became king? So there's individuals that follow other ethics, and I think there is some minor adaption of "kill neutral" ethics at least to avoid marketplace massacres.

i do not mean the ethics of individuals, the ethics of individual civilizations.

Interesting. That looks like a reverse case of adapting the kill neutral (and enemy) ethics thing I mentioned.