Print

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

[LMeire]

I do not think that it is very realistic for non-civil wars to be fought over differences in ethics in the first place.  As much a hypocrisy is quite realistic as a mechanic at a game level, since it adds a whole element of uncertainty, we cannot take anything about a civilization for granted.  That would be the main function of hypocrisy, to make things more unpredictable and create issues in a civilization, hence reasons for internal conflict.

Wars between civilizations should usually be about something more tangible, most likely territory.  Hypocrisy in this context is not really very relevant, the civilizations care about the actual deeds of the other civilization in regard to their own people in so much as this results in incidents.  They are unlikely to care much about what they abstractly believe about a matter, unlike with civil wars where issues of 'ethics' are potentially cause of conflict.

Well yeah, there's always an ulterior motive in there somewhere on the international stage. But establishing a casus belli is important to make sure your supposed allies don't fear that they'll be next and gang up on you before you're too strong, declaring that your target is inherently immoral is a pretty good way to do that.

[Salmeuk]

I do not think that it is very realistic for non-civil wars to be fought over differences in ethics in the first place.  As much a hypocrisy is quite realistic as a mechanic at a game level, since it adds a whole element of uncertainty, we cannot take anything about a civilization for granted.  That would be the main function of hypocrisy, to make things more unpredictable and create issues in a civilization, hence reasons for internal conflict.

Wars between civilizations should usually be about something more tangible, most likely territory.  Hypocrisy in this context is not really very relevant, the civilizations care about the actual deeds of the other civilization in regard to their own people in so much as this results in incidents.  They are unlikely to care much about what they abstractly believe about a matter, unlike with civil wars where issues of 'ethics' are potentially cause of conflict.

Well yeah, there's always an ulterior motive in there somewhere on the international stage. But establishing a casus belli is important to make sure your supposed allies don't fear that they'll be next and gang up on you before you're too strong, declaring that your target is inherently immoral is a pretty good way to do that.

I wish that Dwarf Fortress had a system of intrigue similar to CK2. I'm not quite sure how that would be handled, but browsing a single nation's history might be all the more interesting with assassins and spies.

[exdeath]

I think you're going to need IRL examples to prove this ever happens. Individuals can hold double standards, but I don't think written laws ever have.[...]

Actually...

"Smart people and foreign influence are things killing our country, we should go back to a agrary era"
"You are smart if you use glasses, knows other languages, gone to university"
"Foreign influence include people that know other languages, love other country cultures...."

[Bumber]

I think you're going to need IRL examples to prove this ever happens. Individuals can hold double standards, but I don't think written laws ever have.[...]

Actually...

"Smart people and foreign influence are things killing our country, we should go back to a agrary era"
"You are smart if you use glasses, knows other languages, gone to university"
"Foreign influence include people that know other languages, love other country cultures...."

Relevance? Not seeing anything about laws here.

[exdeath]

Relevance? Not seeing anything about laws here.

Wut?
The guy is pol pot, from khmer rouge, this stuff (and more) were laws under cambodja at some moment.
read more here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

[Bumber]

Relevance? Not seeing anything about laws here.

Wut?
The guy is pol pot, from khmer rouge, this stuff (and more) were laws under cambodja at some moment.
read more here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

Okay, but how does any of that relate to hypocrisy of foreign policy? The Cambodian–Vietnamese War did not start as a result as a result of Vietnam executing "subversives".

Granted, laws can get pretty weird when insane dictators get involved.

[catoblepas]

It would be interesting if ethics/laws could be applied differently depending on an individual's caste, species, or position within or without an entity. Like nobles being able to ctake objects they desire from non-nobles without compensation, or having the option to challenge those of equal or standing to a duel if insulted, but not those of higher status. Things like that would be neat, and could lead to interesting situations:

A tantruming dwarf assaults another dwarf, but since the first dwarf was a noble, it is not treated as a crime.

Your legendary mason feels insulted by something a visiting human traveler says in the tavern, and she promptly breaks his leg. This is completely legal by Dwarven law as the assaulted is viewed as a crude barbarian and not entitled to demand justice. But next summer the human diplomat arrives and demands justice for this crime....perhaps attacking a visitor, particularly one who has been given food under ones roof-is seen as a heinous crime by the human nation, a crime that demands the exile of the offender. The player would have the option of accepting the diplomat's demands and exiling the mason, suggest a middle ground where the crime is treated as if both parties were dwarves, or refusing outright.

For another example, an elven caravan guard sees a nice *bismuth bronze short sword* and tries to walk off with it but is caught and confronted. Among the elves this might be cause by a stern talking to by their elder, and the return of the object and compensation of equivalent value. But the player, having caught the offending elf could choose to let them go and trust that compensation and an apology would arrive, or choose to administer a traditional 'dwarven' punishment where stealing from any dwarf by an outsider is seen as stealing from the group as a whole instead of an individual and punished harshly.

I'm hoping situations like this will emerge organically as diplomcy gets fleshed out further down the line, but it's interesting and exciting to think of situations where ethics and laws might be treated differently depending on the parties involved.

[GoblinCookie]

Well yeah, there's always an ulterior motive in there somewhere on the international stage. But establishing a casus belli is important to make sure your supposed allies don't fear that they'll be next and gang up on you before you're too strong, declaring that your target is inherently immoral is a pretty good way to do that.

That is true, however "so and so tortures people" is not a casus-belli in an international context though it is in a civil war context.  In order to war to happen we need to start to generate random incident that may lead to war or may be resolved.  Ethical differences could lead to war if a citizen of a civilization that does not believe in torture is imprisoned by another civilization that does believe in torture and the other civilization believes that they are torturing their citizen.  There are of course peaceful and non-peaceful ways that this could be resolved, the torturing party could sign a treaty promising not to torture prisoners from their civilization, they could immediately release the prisoner, the offended civilization could recognize the right of the other civilization to torture it's people or the two could go to war.

The treaty course is the optimal from the point of view of peace, but it relies on the torturing civilization being considered trustworthy by the other.  Releasing the prisoner requires little trust, but is more objectionable to the torturing civilization, especially if the foreign citizen imprisoned has committed great crimes.  The offended civilization is likely to back down if it is a lot weaker than the torturing party.  The interesting thing about this is the outcome could potentially cause them to challenge/question their own ethics, so an evil civilization will corrupt weaker good civilizations and a good civilization will reform weaker evil civilizations gradually over time as in order to avoid incidents that could result in war the weaker streamlines it's ethical standards to conform to the stronger.

It would be interesting if ethics/laws could be applied differently depending on an individual's caste, species, or position within or without an entity. Like nobles being able to ctake objects they desire from non-nobles without compensation, or having the option to challenge those of equal or standing to a duel if insulted, but not those of higher status. Things like that would be neat, and could lead to interesting situations:

A tantruming dwarf assaults another dwarf, but since the first dwarf was a noble, it is not treated as a crime.

Your legendary mason feels insulted by something a visiting human traveler says in the tavern, and she promptly breaks his leg. This is completely legal by Dwarven law as the assaulted is viewed as a crude barbarian and not entitled to demand justice. But next summer the human diplomat arrives and demands justice for this crime....perhaps attacking a visitor, particularly one who has been given food under ones roof-is seen as a heinous crime by the human nation, a crime that demands the exile of the offender. The player would have the option of accepting the diplomat's demands and exiling the mason, suggest a middle ground where the crime is treated as if both parties were dwarves, or refusing outright.

For another example, an elven caravan guard sees a nice *bismuth bronze short sword* and tries to walk off with it but is caught and confronted. Among the elves this might be cause by a stern talking to by their elder, and the return of the object and compensation of equivalent value. But the player, having caught the offending elf could choose to let them go and trust that compensation and an apology would arrive, or choose to administer a traditional 'dwarven' punishment where stealing from any dwarf by an outsider is seen as stealing from the group as a whole instead of an individual and punished harshly.

I'm hoping situations like this will emerge organically as diplomcy gets fleshed out further down the line, but it's interesting and exciting to think of situations where ethics and laws might be treated differently depending on the parties involved.

Nobles are not likely to realistically stay nobles very long if they simply openly exempt themselves from the dominant ethical rules in relation to non-nobles.  The role of hypocrisy is key for interesting conflicts here, because it creates uncertainty as to the motives/behaviors, so that the nobles can put on a good image even while misbehaving causing a strong loyalist/rebel faction, both of which blame the other for violating the key ethical precepts they both share.  The key issue here is allowing individuals to actually have ethical values that are *not* those of their civilization but *not* openly admitted as being divergent. 

This is crucial to crime in general, we cannot have the dwarven murderers immediately commit suicide as soon as they commit a murder because their ethics say that murderer deserves death.  We also cannot have them openly proclaiming that they believe that murder is a personal matter.  So we need hypocrisy, the murderous dwarves claim to believe in dwarven ethics but do not really believe in it at all and their real behavior follows from their actual ethics not their facade.  Thus we have hypocrisy in all contexts sorted out, you have actual ethics which you act by and you have an ethical facade you present to the world.

[Dunamisdeos]

I would like to see this as a feature. I think providing more options for civilization customization would be super cool, regardless of how things work IRL.