Violence is a high-consequence physical resolution vector within the broader Conflict system. It is the attempt to resolve a state of Conflict by forcibly and permanently removing an opposing agent or entity from a Tapestry.

Within ATET, Violence is rarely the first or best option. It is a profound narrative act, often representing a failure of communication, empathy, or imagination. It is the choice made when an agent’s worldview determines that the only way to protect its own Thread is to sever another’s.

The Trigger for Violence

Violence is not random. It is a calculated (though sometimes poorly calculated) choice made by an agent’s ActionAppraisalSystem. An agent commits to Violence when its internal logic concludes that the potential benefit of eliminating an opponent outweighs the immense costs. These costs include:

• Physical Risk: The high probability of taking damage or being killed.
• Social Ruin: Being branded with a persistent, negative reputation (IS_MURDERER, IS_VIOLENT) that poisons future social interactions.
• Eidic Stain: The act generates powerful, often negative, Eidos (Trauma, Guilt, Rage), which can haunt the agent’s Thread and future Incarnations.

An agent typically only chooses Violence if it believes it is necessary for survival, essential to its core Faith, or if it has a Belief that violence is, in itself, a valid tool for power.

The Social Fabric of Violence

Agents rarely engage in ideological violence alone. They are social creatures who seek safety, justification, and strength in numbers.

Formation of Combat Groups

When a Conflict escalates towards the physical, agents will attempt to form ad-hoc or formal Combat Groups. This is driven by shared:

• Goals: A group of survivors banding together to fight off a predator.
• Faction Allegiance: A squad of Hegemony soldiers moving to suppress a rebellion.
• Faith: A group of zealots banding together to destroy a perceived heretic.

An agent’s willingness to join such a group is determined by its Beliefs about the cause and its trust in the other members.

Dynamic Hierarchy and Leadership

Leadership within a Combat Group is not static; it is situational and emergent, determined by the group’s collective assessment of the current context.

• In Times of Stability (Planning/Strategy): Leadership often defaults to the agent with the highest relevant skill, experience, or formally recognized Rank. This is the Experienced Leader. They are trusted to make sound, logical decisions.
• In Times of Crisis (Chaos/Fear): When plans fail and fear takes hold, leadership can shift dramatically. The group may rally around the agent who is most charismatic, most fanatical in their Faith, or simply the Loudest Leader. Their conviction, however irrational, provides a focal point in the chaos.

This dynamic system allows for rich emergent narratives. A brilliant strategist can lose control of their troops to a rabble-rousing zealot mid-battle if morale breaks. An incompetent noble might be given command, leading their faction to ruin. An agent must always be aware of who is actually in charge.

Role and Context Awareness

An agent in a Combat Group is aware of its place. Through perceiving the skills and status of its allies, it understands its Rank (e.g., Veteran, Grunt, Specialist). This Rank informs its behavior. A Grunt will follow orders and provide covering fire. A Specialist (e.g., a medic) will prioritize their unique role. An agent who knows it is alone will behave far more cautiously than one surrounded by allies.

The Psychology of Participation

An agent’s choice to fight is a deeply personal one, driven by its unique internal state.

• The Naive and The Zealous: These agents fight because their Faith or ideology is so strong that it overrides their sense of self-preservation. They believe their cause is just and victory is assured. These are often the first to charge, and the first to die.
• The Desperate and The Fatalistic: These agents fight because they have nothing left to lose. Their Needs are critical, or they have a Belief that their death is inevitable. They fight not for victory, but because it’s the only action left available to them.
• The Altruistic and The Self-Sacrificing: These agents fight despite knowing they may die, because their Belief in protecting others (their family, their community, an ideal) is stronger than their own SafetyNeed.
• The Sadistic: In rare cases, an agent may possess a personality or Belief that assigns a positive emotional valence to inflicting harm. For them, violence is not a means to an end; it is the end itself.

The Distinction of Routine Violence

Not all killing is a profound narrative act. The system distinguishes between ideological Conflict and pragmatic survival.

Routine Violence refers to acts like hunting animals for food, culling dangerous pests, or slaughtering domesticated creatures for resources.

• The Trigger: This is driven by a simple, non-ideological Goal, such as SeekSustenanceGoal.
• The Eidos: The Eidos generated is neutral. It might be tagged Survival or Harvest, but it lacks the Trauma, Guilt, or Rage of killing a sapient being in a Conflict.
• The Social Consequence: Within most cultures, Routine Violence has no negative social repercussions. It is a normal part of life.

This distinction is crucial. An Incarnation’s Beliefs determine what it considers a “sapient being” versus an “animal.” A human killing a cow is routine. An insectoid killing that same human might also consider it routine. This allows for complex and alien worldviews without bogging the player down in constant moral crises over basic survival.

The Player’s Experience

The player is subject to the same social rules as any agent.

• You Are Not Always the Leader: If the player joins an NPC-led Combat Group, their role will be determined by their skills and the NPCs’ perception of them. A player might be a simple Grunt, forced to follow the orders of a reckless or fanatical NPC commander, creating incredible narrative tension.
• The Weight of Choice: The UI will reflect the gravity of initiating lethal violence, perhaps requiring an extra confirmation or shifting aesthetically to highlight the moral and Eidic consequences.
• Living with the Consequences: A player who leaves a trail of bodies will find the world reacting accordingly. Doors will close to them, factions will hunt them, and their own Thread will be forever stained by the Eidos of their actions.