Relationship baseline should be based on compatible precepts/memes

[zgrssd]

Currently stuff like "Raiders hate you" is hardcoded into the game.
I do not think it should be. I think that should be the result of having incompatible Memes and Precepts - or having compatible Memes and Precepts.

A Raider Nation (one with a Religion that supports raiding) should be at odds with all non-raiders. But at least start neutral will all fellow raiders.

Several Precepts that lack a balancing factor (like "Cannibalism: Allowed") could be balanced simply on everyone else thinking you are a crazy cannibal for even consiering it allowed.

[GoblinCookie]

I disagree, there are other reasons why people might hate you aside from simply ideology.  Historically most vicious enemies were ideologically speaking quite similar.  You could even argue they were such enemies because they were so similar.  Why would raiders be neutral and not raid each-other for instance?

The main argument for this is dashed by how we can now create worlds with no natural enemy factions if we wish. 

[zgrssd]

I disagree, there are other reasons why people might hate you aside from simply ideology.  Historically most vicious enemies were ideologically speaking quite similar.  You could even argue they were such enemies because they were so similar.  Why would raiders be neutral and not raid each-other for instance?

The main argument for this is dashed by how we can now create worlds with no natural enemy factions if we wish.

You could always decide to go after a naturally neutral faction. Just few people do it, because aside from those hardcoded ones there is very little

That the raiders are friendly should be oversahdowed by the fact that all non-raiders hate your guts.
The wierdest thing is that this would be a logical continuation of your suggestion Actually take ethics into account when trading stuff at settlements
Why would Vegetarian Farmers trade with the Cannibal Raider Player tribe in the first palce?

[GoblinCookie]

You could always decide to go after a naturally neutral faction. Just few people do it, because aside from those hardcoded ones there is very little

That the raiders are friendly should be oversahdowed by the fact that all non-raiders hate your guts.
The wierdest thing is that this would be a logical continuation of your suggestion Actually take ethics into account when trading stuff at settlements
Why would Vegetarian Farmers trade with the Cannibal Raider Player tribe in the first palce?

It isn't the logical continuation of anything, obviously the Vegetarian farmers will trade with the Cannibal Raider Player if they have something to trade that isn't meat which the Vegetarian farmers want.  People can trade with each-other and 'agree to disagree' on ethical issues, that is what happens all the time.  That works as long as the ethics are not directly relevant to what is being traded, which when you consider slavery is involved here is a tricky question, can a non-slaver faction ever justify buying anything produced by a slaver faction?

But why would raiders ever like eachother?  Everyone to the raiders that isn't them is their prey, this is what the raiding meme implies and there is no reason why it would not include other raiders.  You obviously don't have to have the raiding meme in order to raid.  If you consider everyone who isn't you to be prey and everybody else knows it, you cannot really be at peace with anyone because nobody trusts you enough to allow you near them.  The most you could manage is a kind of frosty neutrality which rules out visits or trade (basically we are at peace only for as long as you stay a long way away). 

That leads me to think that the game requires a fourth diplomatic state called wary, in which the faction does not send raids to you but also does not send visitors or traders either nor allow you trade in any of their towns. 

The reason I support the idea of natural enemy factions is that a lot of the time people hate for reasons that aren't even true.  People do not necessarily have accurate information about their enemies, so maybe you and they are really quite compatible but they believe stuff about you that isn't true.  Having to base natural relations solely on actual memes, rules out a situation where the enemy faction is actually hostile only because they are misinformed about your nature.

[zgrssd]

You could always decide to go after a naturally neutral faction. Just few people do it, because aside from those hardcoded ones there is very little

That the raiders are friendly should be oversahdowed by the fact that all non-raiders hate your guts.
The wierdest thing is that this would be a logical continuation of your suggestion Actually take ethics into account when trading stuff at settlements
Why would Vegetarian Farmers trade with the Cannibal Raider Player tribe in the first palce?

It isn't the logical continuation of anything, obviously the Vegetarian farmers will trade with the Cannibal Raider Player if they have something to trade that isn't meat which the Vegetarian farmers want.  People can trade with each-other and 'agree to disagree' on ethical issues, that is what happens all the time.

Last I checked:
- wheter to eat animals is a "agree to disagree" ethical issue
- cannibalism is classified as it's own criminal offense

But why would raiders ever like eachother?  Everyone to the raiders that isn't them is their prey, this is what the raiding meme implies and there is no reason why it would not include other raiders.

And you having the Raiding meme would mean you are "one of them". Even if your faction name is slightly different, you are a fellow raider. As long as you do not attack them, they have no more reason to attack you then any based on their own faction.

[GoblinCookie]

Last I checked:
- wheter to eat animals is a "agree to disagree" ethical issue
- cannibalism is classified as it's own criminal offense

I am confused, you are talking about reality here?  A legally neutral stance of some issues (like eating animals or slavery) is effectively supporting one side of the equation.  Neither slavers nor non-vegetarians seek to ban the not-keeping of slaves or the not-eating of meat. 

And you having the Raiding meme would mean you are "one of them". Even if your faction name is slightly different, you are a fellow raider. As long as you do not attack them, they have no more reason to attack you then any based on their own faction.

Since there is no functionality to join pre-existing factions, no you are not "one of them". 

I see yet another example of the logical error of confusing classifications and entities pop up again on the internet.  Raider is a classification, it is a set of things grouped together theoretically based upon common attributes.  It is not an entity, so there is no reason why because you are also a raiding entity the other raiding entity would not destroy you.  You are not them, which means you are a potential target. 

[zgrssd]

Last I checked:
- wheter to eat animals is a "agree to disagree" ethical issue
- cannibalism is classified as it's own criminal offense

I am confused, you are talking about reality here?  A legally neutral stance of some issues (like eating animals or slavery) is effectively supporting one side of the equation.  Neither slavers nor non-vegetarians seek to ban the not-keeping of slaves or the not-eating of meat. 

Wait, is your argument: "In the current game Vegetarians have no issues with Cannibals, so that should never change"?
Because I fail to see the logic in that.

[GoblinCookie]

Wait, is your argument: "In the current game Vegetarians have no issues with Cannibals, so that should never change"?
Because I fail to see the logic in that.

I am quite confused as to how you came to that conclusion, as I never mentioned that issue.  Vegetarians do not exist in the game as such, only Animal Personhood exists, though Vegetarians should exist as a pawn personality trait but somehow don't.  It isn't possible in Rimworld apparently to be personally against eating meat without being part of a sect that asserts animal rights religiously. 

My argument was that just because two parties are similar it does not mean that they will get along.  In the case of raiders, raiders simply have no reason not to raid other weaker raider groups, so why would raiders be neutral to a player unless the player has actually joined them; which isn't currently a thing. 

This is related to what I call the game's Theocracy problem.  There isn't any distinction between the political faction and it's religious leadership, so it is effectively impossible to truly adopt any other faction's religion.  That is because as a politically independent entity, you effectively create your own rival 'church hierarchy' for that religion the moment you adopt it.  If another faction were say Catholic (to use a real-life analogy), if your group were to become a Catholics themselves they would be effectively creating an Anti-Pope, so they really technically aren't Catholics at all.  Given it works this way, there is a good reason *not* to assume having the same beliefs equals friendship as some hierarchies will be threatened by your creating a clone of their hierarchy. 

The other part of the Theocracy problem, is that it isn't possible to determine what exactly of the religious beliefs of the faction are actually legally mandatory.  In real-life, even in most actual Theocracies (maybe not the Taliban) there is a difference between the full moral teachings of the religion and what is legally mandatory/prohibited.  The actual law is pretty much always more leniant than the full moral teachings of the religion itself, even if pretty strict.