Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

I thought that we had determined that the entire bug was that ethics are ignored when it comes to allowing individuals or civilizations to use sentient products?

Well, it does seem that way, but like I tried to explain, it looks like the ethics are intended to determine how a unit responds to dead_dwarf values. The behavior previously was in fact that all units acted like goblins do regarding dead_dwarf, you couldn't individually forbid an adventurer from being able to eat the brains of their friends, but you could keep a civ from embarking with prepared dwarf brain.

Now you can't enable an adventurer to eat the brain of their friends without untoggling that flag, even when they SHOULD be able to do so ethically, indeed even making obligate cannibals with [EAT_SAPIENT_x:REQUIRED] and so forth won't work, but you WOULD be able to embark with prepared dwarf brain or goblin brain or whatever.

But only outsiders are the only adventurers with any form of cultural sufferance (having no point of origin, unless they are from the 'outcast' group gathering in catacombs therefore coming from a civ site), since adventurers personalities are determined by the site (and therefore entity) they came from. From what i've seen i have no reason to believe that if dead_dwarf=true wasn't a issue, a goblin adventurers couldn't go around freely killing and eating every sentient other than their own kind they can see.

> As a point of reference, imported goblin products (finished goods like rings/amulets)$ whilst playing as goblins is a bug (the same way elves can have 'grown' wolf bones, because the hostile entity member fell dead on site and got added to producing materials)

> The distinction between AI & adventurers is only drawn with ethic restrictions on eating, given that all over upsetting (with tears trailing down the eyes) murder streaks is purely because the player is controlling them forcefully against the set of ethics put to them, turning pacifists who view violence as unthinkable into killing machines.

Then I did a bit of hypothesizing about why this change happened, and it seems plausible that the shakeup of tokens and such involved in allowing other races to experience moods and acquire dwarven ethics and whatnot plus the moving around of various creature/entity aspects back and forth. Values are an entity token but the data is stored in the unit personality, while ethics are only entity tokens without a presence in the individual unit, and it just happened that in the switchover from 40.24 to 42.01 we acquired a new default state regarding becoming a cannibal, probably some sort of equine virus that jumped the species gap...

This subject overlaps with my bug report here (0010059: Wild site animals have the same morale ethics [Kill_Enemy Neutral] as entity units if in the same local settled area) if you want a case study of abnormal behaviour being adopted onto creatures where they don't belong.

(Pet Trolls have a secret personality and set of values which would normally be locked behind DFtherapist, besides generally being culturally appropriate when they are embarked with in 43.05, but you can worm it out & investigate)

> Semi intelligents & animals respecting site rules like intelligents (namely lethal vs fist brawling by only scratching) & subject to emotional outbursts which is a flag you can locate easily & physically see in the creature's GM settings. A example is provided on the issue report's save on one of the troggs along with other observations.

> More precisely to your hypothesis, the only thing the new thoughts menu did to the whole cannibal & ethics crisis i've personally seen so far is only to provide negative/positive/neutral opinion maluses onto what they think of you. So somebody who thinks eating sentients is acceptable is instantly slapped with a huge opinion malus

Here is a chart from the DFwiki explaining the +/- relations

You can see this as a goblin adventuerer walking through dwarven settlements in peace-time and all the aggressive comments you will get about your race "how can you live so full of hate?" etc. etc. and your other qualities. Because you are exactly hated for being part of the civilisation, a babysnatcher plus holding your cultural beliefs.



Nothing new has happened to ethics since 42.01 compared to 40.24, as the goblin entity can eat sentients freely & use their ethics. The point im trying to make with the graveyard is that you've got the wrong end of the stick in identifying the barrier, the dead_dwarf is stopping them from being eaten, but the ethics without dead_dwarf would sort the meat into the correct stockpiles (wrong fresh meat = refuse, good meat = food pile) anyway and therefore is consistent & reliable in terms of how ethics is relayed upon the game.

> The graveyard stockpile steals & protects corpse objects zealously & rejects them from being crafted. Imported sentient products like crafts already have dead_dwarf disabled but the graveyard stockpile is exclusive to the corpses of the creature (and summary body parts whether butchered or not) to stop them running up the production chain which can be done exploitatively by slaughtering them alive (sending the products as the replacement corpse object to the corpse pile)

Personal mattering doesn't have any forseeable implication for the thought screen (setting to acceptable offers the same result as all creatures affected will lean towards accepting it)

• A seperate subset of values of what a creature thinks of its own ethics would be required to make 'personal_matter' work on a individual basis and is a incomplete defunct tag.

[Max™]

I'm not saying the ethics changed, I'm saying the way they are attached to the units changed, the way values get acquired from your civ and the effect they have on your unit is new, plus there were several links that got shaken up, moving the tokens for local heroes/populations/outsiders into the creatures and adding in the links so any race can function in a fort appropriately seems like a plausible explanation for the change here.

It doesn't seem like an intended effect, having goblins dream of ruling the world is intentional, having goblins behave with arbitrarily dwarf-like limits on certain behaviors is not intentional, but there is no unit-side flag or link which controls this in a way which could have it set like ethics based values normally are.

Thus we are stuck with the workaround methods of toggling a flag (or removing [CAN_LEARN]) to engage in this behavior.

[FantasticDorf]

I'm not saying the ethics changed, I'm saying the way they are attached to the units changed, the way values get acquired from your civ and the effect they have on your unit is new, plus there were several links that got shaken up, moving the tokens for local heroes/populations/outsiders into the creatures and adding in the links so any race can function in a fort appropriately seems like a plausible explanation for the change here.

It doesn't seem like an intended effect, having goblins dream of ruling the world is intentional, having goblins behave with arbitrarily dwarf-like limits on certain behaviors is not intentional, but there is no unit-side flag or link which controls this in a way which could have it set like ethics based values normally are.

Thus we are stuck with the workaround methods of toggling a flag (or removing [CAN_LEARN]) to engage in this behavior.

I made a suggestion thread to address this problem of ethics being reliant (via personal matter, the personal beliefs of a individual) but not actually having the values in the thought screen like you're saying to be there implemented in the game. ([Bugfix/Incomplete feature fix] Ethic values to complete [PERSONAL_MATTER]'s)

> Most wars are battled out on truthfulness because its the only ethic/opinion correlation they have which is personally dictated by the Monarch [WAR_GOALS] noble because [LYING] is a value (along with some others like scholarship with a effect but none of them impact ethics in anyway as directly as lying)

I agree with you visitors are the problem, yes. Have you played with any intelligent common domestic animals lately in testing? They are all added to the citizen (like i showed with my troll pasturing pic a few back) so the rules did change, intelligent creatures now in the current 43.05 version don't behave like livestock at all and from my own anecdotal evidence overwrite on intelligent behaviour. (*EDIT- disproved below, that was prior 42.01 behaviour i think i was referring to)

Pet trolls can work at occupations & join squads funnily enough

In this test here to show you in the 43.05 version i have modded serpent men to be common domestic (not defined pets) and [EVIL] so that they qualify for gobbo civs. I have also cut out the outdated [CAN_LEARN] and [CAN_SPEAK] tags for [INTELLIGENT] which covers both bases

> Generate new world and they dont turn up on embark as a pet option despite being available & common domestic. (this is my own build, beak dogs are common domestic with pet_exotic and trainable & fine, as are the trolls with no altered tags from the current [CAN_LEARN] and [SLOW_LEARNER]. Trolls & evil semi intelligents are gathered up because [EVIL] entities automatically domesticate them.


> So i jump back out, change them to PET_EXOTIC, with common domestic tag & [EVIL] still nothing. Common domestic overrides availability and yet there's no snakepeople materials in the entire embark menu either suggesting that a new blockade on *EXOTIC* intelligent pets has been made without telling us (I dont think its ethics, i think its the visitor relation as you pointed out)

I have also noticed that no intelligent meat (from dead animal men intelligents) or products, its hard capped at embark for semi intelligents. I can't believe it took me this long to notice, i just didnt think about it at the time. Though it may be the case my civ isn't on a savage biome to start harvesting wild population intelligent entities.


EDIT - Everything that is beside gremlins who are a [PET] creature


> So now i set the snakepeople to [PET] and voila here it is


Turns out i was wrong about my projection of them being civilians (unless i am thinking of intelligents in a prior version instead)


Now it turns out that these sentients work correctly actually & cannot be set to jobs since they are livestock (which means that specifically the problem is with Semi-Sapients leading back onto my issue report of animals & semi sapients experiencing emotions) and that the dead_dwarf is a overlapping issue not a prime cause or applicable to intelligent creatures primarily, the prompt to slaughter exists in these full intelligent pet snake men when compared directly to a prior image of a non-pet troll (bottom picture)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

> there is the probability that the troll is not a pet therefore subject to these issues, but the game doesn't know how to sort them into the game so slots them in as a residential but not recognised civilian member. Trolls are enslaved anyway, and must contradict the new 'No intelligent pets' rule but toady hasn't cross checked or forgot how dark tower civs work.

• its not great either having intelligents as non exotic pets because it means that civilisations will ship you new intelligent members with random professions like hunters & production specialists that cannot actually be unset from a role, plus the thought menu like on gremlins is obscured.(Plugging a shill on that issue here)
  
  > All parts still went to corpses stockpile when a snake person was slaughtered.
  
  > Pet snake people can apply to be nobles & military soldiers/leaders but cannot work in occupations, which is a huge contradiction to semi-intelligents working in occupational roles.

[Max™]

Oh good lord I just now figured out there are supposed to be images in your posts, I don't know what's up with puu.sh but they aren't showing on my side.

I've seen battles over slavery too, but in cases where there's an acceptable/unthinkable conflict you get these pretty regularly:

[Fleeting Frames]

For what's it is worth, I see 4 images in FantasticDorf's post fine.

[FantasticDorf]

Oh good lord I just now figured out there are supposed to be images in your posts, I don't know what's up with puu.sh but they aren't showing on my side.

I've seen battles over slavery too, but in cases where there's an acceptable/unthinkable conflict you get these pretty regularly:

No worries, there are lots of images in my posts on my half of the thread, maybe you have a plugin for your web-browser auto blocking it (if you are running firefox, run in safe-mode)

Thats how battles are supposed to be (the eating sentients has no basis on personal monarch opinions) they will fight until a diplomat makes peace (or be generally ongoing until one capitulates the other) I mod in my raws to each race to have working diplomats so that they settle the wars & have conquer site nobles, often they will settle the battle after fully pillaging the opposite civ by conquering or razing the sites.

2 major war types very common, truthfulness & eating sapients.

> Eating sapients might be slightly derived from world-generation interactions of eating sapients or other unknown reasons but its not valued, usually triggers on Humans vs Elves and Goblins. Dwarves don't have natural war tags so can't declare offensive wars (easily fixable) but really aren't inclined to attack anybody without explicit reason anyway.

> Lying is a checked against what the war goals noble personally believes (as i understand it) as war reasoning.

(Some more documentation on war types & the conditions of the current monarchs/values in the civ using a legends viewer would be helpful given humans are variable)

• Humans often also declare war on other human groups under the listed reasons of "Fishing rights" or "Farming rights" in minor 10/15 men skirmishes against each other between two hamlets with pitiful armies. Vampires might be a contributor to that, Goblins can also declare war on other seperate Goblin civ towers but i see that uncommonly between world generations.

> No recorded succession wars, though they technically can happen, but family members of importance usually don't leave the home civilization.

Neither side is very invested & attackers will pull out of a fight early if the defenders are successful or the attackers sufficiently weaken the civ and the enemy white peaces out *because we dont have proper peace deals that demand terms & conditions* (unless via successful pillaging or the war tilting you have 1000 goblins to a 100 elves and a total wipeout of defenders each battle/no defence) in which the attackers will ignore peace requests, press the attack and conquer sites using a [CONQUERED_SITE] noble.

Here is a war declared by the goblins, per-chance the goblins aren't being mobbed by humans constantly declaring wars weakening them (so goblins have free reign to declare their own wars)

> I don't particularly know what factors into formalised agreement casus belli, but its likely its goblins professing their values versus dwarves on the value of (law / eloqence / loyalty *which would technically be treason & oaths but isnt represented in the game meaningfully* are a few that it might be)

• its important to note that a demon's own values and statistics if it isn't uniform with the civ might have its own inbuilt creature file ideas.

> It may be a case that the goblins just asked the dwarves to formally step down (because power goals) and take up a new leader but they refused in a non declared world generation way
.


Whatever it was triggering 'Over formalised agreement' they didn't get the resolution they wanted after winning & the goblins declared again and again with the same war, I have a conquered dwarf (by goblins) site here. Well actually they took almost the entire civ besides probably some refugees.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In the above picture is a fortress, and quite justifiably the local 'ruler' the mayor of the fortress with little over 50 people and not even a barony ran out of the site (rather than be drafted eventally into the military in doomed 1 sided battle after battle) leaving the goblins free to take over, warband overseer is just the name i gave the [conquered_site] noble

There was no peace to be made because they had won, there was no seated monarch to rule or take diplomats, some bratty human had been put on the throne of the dwarf's ancestral home. What remained of the nobility that wasn't mutilated into grotesque giant statues like to a fortress in the north with no less than 15 dwarves glued together with their innards now 53 years later sit as prisoners inside the dark towers, as is the fate of geshud, a baroness prisoner of war.

Um did we get a bit off topic about world generations & wars? So yeah, vistors are not the finest tuned feature out there and intelligent were changed to no longer be exotic pets, only normal pets weirdly enough (though they are still treated so buggily by evil civs) its not a great situation.

[Max™]

Eh, derailing a derail is a fine bay12 tradition.

^That one also listed plant treatment, eating sapients, and something else.


^This one had torture, eating sapients, and I think a formal agreement.

Had several local territory/water rights/fishing/livestock disputes with little squads, though one of them rolled in a town which kept having sieges of 1400 or so dorfs attacking the 500 or so dorfs living in that town.

[FantasticDorf]

If i may ask a silly question, how are you extracting the additional reasoning? or is it speculation/observation based off *potential* conflicts from differing values (I haven't run my own through a legends viewer yet)

[Knight Otu]

As far as I'm aware, the reasons for war are (or maybe were) essentially fake - the reason for the war isn't always the same when you look at the same war again (though it seems to be more consistent than it used to be, or maybe it's just the worlds I'm looking at), based on the potential ethic conflicts of the combatants. I think the only war reasons that are real at the moment are worship conflicts where the gods worshiped have opposing spheres, but don't quote me on that.

[FantasticDorf]

As far as I'm aware, the reasons for war are (or maybe were) essentially fake - the reason for the war isn't always the same when you look at the same war again (though it seems to be more consistent than it used to be, or maybe it's just the worlds I'm looking at), based on the potential ethic conflicts of the combatants. I think the only war reasons that are real at the moment are worship conflicts where the gods worshiped have opposing spheres, but don't quote me on that.

I wouldn't quote you on that precisely, i have never seen a war erupt over religion but it'd be a interesting experiment to set up on a blank entity list. set up fire & respective water nation out of a identical race. War in itself isn't really meaningful (hopefully the artifact update will address this with artifact's being demanded as part of a peace deal) or 'real' anyway as its sort of a placeholder and something for civs to do in worldgen.

All the things suggest they are being triggered (lying as i point out is a value that directly converts into ethics, and if you had [PERSONAL_MATTER] the opinion of someone else ethically who is lying would rely entirely on the individual's opinion) from existing concepts in the world & not very well elaborated events.

Some other things that can trigger wars include in fortress situations (killed diplomats, seizing from traders causes a dwarf civil war vs the site government etc.), so triggering some wars might be interesting to read the legends text after retiring a short while (a year or so) later.

[Max™]

If i may ask a silly question, how are you extracting the additional reasoning? or is it speculation/observation based off *potential* conflicts from differing values (I haven't run my own through a legends viewer yet)

Reloading shows the other causes/reasons if there is more than one.

I've had my dragons with [POWER] lead wars against civs "due to dragonname the blahblah's natural aversion to the worship of water" type stuff.

[FantasticDorf]

If i may ask a silly question, how are you extracting the additional reasoning? or is it speculation/observation based off *potential* conflicts from differing values (I haven't run my own through a legends viewer yet)

Reloading shows the other causes/reasons if there is more than one.

I've had my dragons with [POWER] lead wars against civs "due to dragonname the blahblah's natural aversion to the worship of water" type stuff.

Thats interesting to know, it works like kobold names then. Noted.

Well the actual creature is a [FIRE] sphere, and therefore its the dragon itself as monarch using reasoning to declare war. Ill reload my wars and see what they say.

[Putnam]

If i may ask a silly question, how are you extracting the additional reasoning? or is it speculation/observation based off *potential* conflicts from differing values (I haven't run my own through a legends viewer yet)

Reloading shows the other causes/reasons if there is more than one.

I've had my dragons with [POWER] lead wars against civs "due to dragonname the blahblah's natural aversion to the worship of water" type stuff.

Thats interesting to know, it works like kobold names then. Noted.

I cannot see how.

[FantasticDorf]

If i may ask a silly question, how are you extracting the additional reasoning? or is it speculation/observation based off *potential* conflicts from differing values (I haven't run my own through a legends viewer yet)

Reloading shows the other causes/reasons if there is more than one.

I've had my dragons with [POWER] lead wars against civs "due to dragonname the blahblah's natural aversion to the worship of water" type stuff.

Thats interesting to know, it works like kobold names then. Noted.

I cannot see how.

Kobolds also reload names because of [UTTERANCES] from what i've heard, though that might only apply to the actual in fortress mode civilisation screen rather than legends, as i have tried to reload to alter the result but not to much success.

(unless the names change every time a player enters fortress mode and then if you retire & back out they would change.)

Im not personally sure, but reloading behaviour seems to be a lot more common for showing alternative details (like multiple war causes)

EDIT - OR its the personal name of the kobold. Really its not a really important feature to look into, so i wouldn't be devastated if i was mis-informed about it.

Back on topic, would you agree we have sufficient superficial evidence we can actually interact with to brief the mantis with properly? I can't personally see how much more testing of visitors, sentient pets or sentients we can do unless anybody has any specific ideas on how to take further investigation forward.

The rest of the behind the scenes stuff will probably end up being up to Toady to fix unless we could get a bin-patch or some kind of function to just disable graveyard stockpile queues for a bit and then seperate the vistor intelligents issues (with long term residents/petitioners code seemingly overlapping with everything) away from the graveyard material protectionism (which i profess repeatedly is not a issue with ethics, relevant materials that are unethical go to the refuse stockpile properly with dead_dwarf=true disable like it should)

A interesting bug report 0010124: Full citizen petitioning for citizenship just came through. This would be relevant to the visitor bugs & also the bugs surrounding retiring & resettling.

It suggests that the conditions for citizenship might be shaky.

There have also been other bugs mentioned where retiring & then resettling then retiring again to resettle the twice retired site will add the previously hostile members (whether they were on your side or not) to become full members of your fortress again or for the very first time force them to join your civilians/livestock

EDIT - Plus a new bug with intelligent pets is that kidnapper civilisations (like kobolds item thief traders) will incorrectly say that [PET] full intelligents have been 'kidnapped' when the traders arrive & leave with them.



This would be obstructive to any future function of selling away enemy units into the hands of ethic  correct traders, and also for the artifact release sending out groups to reclaim the 'kidnapped'. Whether they are actual imprisoned later is unknown. This also shows off the bugged behaviour i was telling you about with merchants bringing (and trolls having professions) pets with jobs.

The pets wouldn't be able to stop working at that job like gremlin hunters, and snakemen as full intelligents cannot be set as occupational scholars (while trolls are there because the [EVIL] & [SLOW_LEARNER] obliges [USE_EVIL_ANIMALS] civs to domesticate them) to practice, despite trolls having a inaccessible labour screen.

0005021: "Masterwork has been lost" when merchants leave with traded items same brand of merchant bug, also for kobold traders 'stealing' objects off the map too.

I further rest my case on graveyard protectionism, because in this puush screenshot i have successfully given a tomb to a live slaughtered snake person, identified who they were while i store the parts in the graveyard stockpile next door. Then after a short delay, the goblins begin to put the individual pieces of the snakeperson (a intelligent pet) into the coffin.

Burial preparation is the only time they will ever deem to handle sentient parts or haul them (besides taking them to the graveyard stockpile)

[Max™]

I'm still not sure what the burial thing has to do with anything, it's a different sort of bug, if you could have a goblin fort order elf meat, or an elf fort head out to eat the slain enemies I'd call it fixed and working properly, if you could have a dwarf raised by elves in adventurer mode eat the bodies of those they kill but not those killed by others, I'd call it fixed and working properly.

The war causes weren't random, it's always the same list of reasons when there are multiple, if the civ being warred with eats sapients, takes slaves, and mutilates their foes it will cycle through those if the one warring with them doesn't do them.

If another civ is also at war with the first one but they keep slaves, it will only list eating sapients/mutilating foes, etc.