Print

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

[Josephus]

Okay. So currently, we've got our entity ethics tags, which are understood to be the ethics of an individual civilization, which define their laws, their relationships with other nations, so on and so forth.

I have a problem with this system. Not because it's not working (it works fine), but it basically defines ethics from the top-down sense, rather than how it normally works.

I suggest that, as a tag for individual sapient creatures, personal ethics be implemented.

Basically, this would be near the same thing as the general ethics tags, except rather than the old style of UNTHINKABLE/SHUN/ACCEPTABLE/EXILE or so on, which would be defined in the entity entry for violating that civilization's general position on an issue, they would be something like the personality tags, having an attribute range. This would basically allow for criminal behavior, which is impossible in fort mode unless a dwarf goes insane or someone fails a mandate.

It'd ideally make for more interesting Legends Mode entries - for example, someone with a positive attitude towards theft might steal from his own civ and be jailed, someone with a positive attitude towards murder might go on a killing spree (rather than the blanket MURDER EVERYONE ethic all goblins seem to have) and so on. It'd basically inject a lot more personality into individual people within the world.

Additionally, though this bit should be harder, it would allow the Civilization's ethics, their laws, to develop naturally from the ethics of its people. This makes for another interesting possibility: say one entity conquers another. The conquered people would most likely be "oppressed" due to the clash of their ethics with the conquerors' ethics. Or, a goblin civilization that is entirely human due to kidnapping and breeding would eventually tend towards less violence, because the personality range and ethical disposition of the people becomes less prone to violence.

Of course, the civilization a creature is raised in should alter its ethical tendencies somewhat.

Any thoughts, people?

[UnLimiTeD]

Rather like it.
Later, sure, but a good concept.
Races could have modifiers ranging from -2 to +2, with the average prevalent, and a civ could be generated wtih +-1 on specific values.
Then, the ruling people would create the laws of that civ, and if too many people dislike it, there is a random chance of an uprise.

Might get way complex, though.

[Rowanas]

Is complex bad?

[eerr]

Is complex bad?

yea.

[Fourdots]

Sounds like a good idea. Complex, sure, but the entire game is. Would have to go along with improvements in dwarven justice, and knowledge limitations (only dwarfs who witnessed a theft would know that it happened, in fortress mode, at least; they would notice that an object was gone, but wouldn't know where it was. Dwarfs could then be punished if stolen objects were found in their quarters, and unethical individuals with grudges could plant objects. Various skills/attributes could be tied into it, so that dwarfs would potentially be able to argue their way out of punishment).

[Josephus]

Frankly, I was just frustrated that all my dwarves that get Justice'd in fort mode are either innocent or not in their right minds at the time of the crime's commission.

This way, dwarves or humans (or whatever) commit actual crimes for which they can be found culpable.

Plus, you know. A human caravan guard with a [STEAL_STUFF] of 100 might swipe a priceless artifact from your fort, justifying the utter destruction of the human race.

[Libelnon]

It'd make an ideal expansion from the religion system ingame. Perhaps the entity's god could influence these ethics?

[Sfon]

Culture has a huge impact. Also, don't forget we are dealing with different intelligent creatures whose minds are physically different. That, and because it is more fun imo to keep them different, I think the race ethics should not become mild in effect. Also I'd hate to have to constantly comb over individual traits when selecting dwarfs for jobs, trying to figure out who should do what can sometimes be a headache already.

All that, and to reduce needed memory to keep track of all this (500 megs of ram and slow saving are already common): Each individual could only have a random number of ethics between 0 and 2 defined, with undefined ethics assumed to be the norm for their race.

Good idea or not, I'd not want to see this implemented until the distant future when at least dwarf behavior bugs have all been ironed out, folded, starched, and stacked in the dresser of forgotten times.

[ed boy]

Is complex bad?

yea.

OBJECTION!

I would argue that it is only bad if it requires the player to go through the complex actions. If the complex calculations and the like happen completely seperate from the player (like in world generation), it is good. I would therefore say that complexity in a matter like this can be good: You just need to make it so players can safely ignore it (be it through limiting the impact it would have or disabling in altogether) and all will be good.

[hostergaard]

Interesting, you could potentiality alter the ethics of an civilization as an adventurer by simply murdering however docent have the right traits... 

[Hugna]

Altering the Ethics sounds sorta of like what i suggested. Not fully like it, but close. Basically editing the laws would mean changing the ethics of your fortress, regardless of a civilization's ethics.

Personal ethics do sound good though. Having ones ability to place ones ethics into play would make it more realistic.

[Josephus]

Something else, though.Toady mentioned that he would (at some point) make it possible, as an adventurer, to order your people around - tell them to handle tasks around your lodge or stronghold, so on and so forth. In theory, you could probably tell them to kill someone. So asking an underling who is disinclined to killing to assassinate the mayor of Beardgravel would be a bad idea; asking the resident psychopath would be a good idea.

[Josephus]

Hell, it's bump time.

[StephanReiken]

Culture has a huge impact. Also, don't forget we are dealing with different intelligent creatures whose minds are physically different. That, and because it is more fun imo to keep them different, I think the race ethics should not become mild in effect. Also I'd hate to have to constantly comb over individual traits when selecting dwarfs for jobs, trying to figure out who should do what can sometimes be a headache already.

All that, and to reduce needed memory to keep track of all this (500 megs of ram and slow saving are already common): Each individual could only have a random number of ethics between 0 and 2 defined, with undefined ethics assumed to be the norm for their race.

Good idea or not, I'd not want to see this implemented until the distant future when at least dwarf behavior bugs have all been ironed out, folded, starched, and stacked in the dresser of forgotten times.

Exactly. Although, you could consider that a civilization's Ethics are not a static thing. Culture changes over time, and isolated communities tend to differ from the general populace if they aren't in constant contact.

[Josephus]

Yes, I do rather want the in-game civilizations to have a more fluid evolution. After all, when you're dealing with 1050+ years of history, a lot can change - Elven attitudes towards cannibalism, for example. And these would begin from the ground up, with large numbers individuals who are most predominantly inclined towards a certain behavior causing the change.