Print

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

[se05239]

I am currently in the process of making my own custom race with its own civilization and I got some questions regarding ethics. Some of them makes great sense, like how ACCEPTABLE means that the race is OK with something and UNTHINKABLE being that the race wouldn't imagine ever doing that. But there are some I'd like help with..

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

[NOT_APPLICABLE] - I am guessing it means N/A. Not capable of doing it.

[PERSONAL_MATTER] - Dwarves got LYING set to PERSONAL_MATTER. Does that mean that if a Dwarf lie to another, they fight over it? What'd happen if you put it on things like "EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER" or "MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT"?

[JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS] - It's okay to do if no one saw it happen?

[JUSTIFIED_IF_GOOD_REASON] - It's okay to do if it was for a good cause. What's a good cause?

[JUSTIFIED_IF_EXTREME_REASON] - What's an extreme reason, even?

[ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED] - How would one even sanction something?

[MISGUIDED] - ?

[SHUN] - Race doesn't think too much about it but rather do not do it?

[APPALLING] - Disgusted by something?

[PUNISH_REPRIMAND] - Slap on the wrist?

[REQUIRED] - Necessary? Kinda like ACCEPTABLE?

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

Could people help me with some more accurate descriptions on what each of these mean? Or help me understand them, at least..

[Loam]

This would be better asked in the Modding board. However, I'll give what info I can here.

As far as I know (and I haven't really tested it) most of the different ethics levels don't really translate to anything specific in terms of gameplay; they just set what kinds of things the civ is willing to do, as well as its disposition to other civs. The exceptions are PUNISH_SERIOUS and PUNISH_CAPITAL, which do have immediate gameplay effects: they allow punishments for various crimes, a beating in the first case and an execution in the latter.

Going case-by-case:
     PERSONAL_MATTER: civ members will do this if they want to. I don't think it looks much different than ACCEPTABLE in practice.
     JUSTIFIED_IF_X: I'm not sure these do anything specific. Maybe SELF_DEFENSE restricts initiating hostilities, but I haven't seen that.
     ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED: maybe this allows the player to designate neutral targets to be attacked by a squad--but now that I think about it, can't you attack your own merchants as well? which would be ENTITY_MEMBER, not NEUTRAL...
     MISGUIDED/SHUN/APPALLING: MISGUIDED seems to be the cut-off for whether a civ will accept something at all or not; other than that it (and the other two values) don't correspond to any specific behaviors.
     PUNISH_X: SERIOUS and CAPITAL dealt with above. Pretty sure the others have no effect in gameplay (or in world-gen for that matter).
     REQUIRED: means that civ members will always do this whether they want to or not. This is why Goblin bards in the current version always end up attacking their hosts, because Goblins have KILL_NEUTRAL set to REQUIRED.

In more detail, however: it all depends on the particular Ethic these values are applied to. Generally a value between MISGUIDED and UNTHINKABLE means a civ is unwilling to perform those kinds of actions. A lot of the Ethics only apply in world-gen: TREASON, TORTURE, THEFT, SLAVERY, eating sapients, and making trophies - all of these (I'm fairly sure) have no gameplay actions that correspond to them. The ones that do affect gameplay are: all the KILLs, ASSAULT, OATH_BREAKING, VANDALISM, and possibly TRESPASSING.

Like I say, you're better off asking the Modding board, as they test this stuff more stringently. I could be wrong about some of these, but this is what I have (casually) observed.

[se05239]

Like I say, you're better off asking the Modding board, as they test this stuff more stringently. I could be wrong about some of these, but this is what I have (casually) observed.

Thank you for your comment!

It makes sense now when I think about that this post should be in the modding forum. I have contacted the moderators to see if it can be moved.

[Larix]

Apart from moving the thread to the modding forum, it might also be useful to consult the DF wiki on "ethics" .

As i understand it, ethics have few effects in fort mode: they prescribe punishments for some actions (punish_severe, mainly) and make the relationship with elven civs a bit more complicated. I'm not sure concepts like "justified with a good reason" are implemented in actual in-game behaviour, they're probably more verbal approximations of the "degree of acceptability" when comparing with the values of other civilisations. They have rather limited effect on actual actions you witness in fort and adventure mode, beyond generally tolerable (acceptable, personal matter or justifiable) and generally intolerable (only punishment-threatened stuff is notable in fort mode, although misguided/shunned behaviours may provoke negative reactions in adventure).

In the current state of the game, ethics mostly influence world-mode relations between different civilisations. When civs have similar ethics, they get along; if their ethics differ, tensions exist between them which may result in war. Apart from the influence on inter-civilisation relations, ethics dictate what members of your civ will or will not do in worldgen/post-worldgen history - murder is a common event in goblin civs, elves may eat the corpses of slain foes, humans can take prisoners and enslave them.

[se05239]

it might also be useful to consult the DF wiki on "ethics" .

I have consulted it as it's my go-to when I got Dwarf Fortress related questions. I am fairly new still and there are plenty of information there.
However, there is a lack of descriptive information regarding most Ethics. I guess its because people assume people understand from the get-go what each means.