Consent Integrity is a quantifiable, emergent property of any Agreement reached in the Social Arena. It is a measure of the degree to which all parties entered into the agreement freely, willingly, and without undue pressure. It is not a direct stat, but a quality that is calculated at the moment an agreement is finalized, and which has profound, lasting consequences on the relationship between the agents and the durability of the agreement itself.
This system is designed to be felt through its consequences, not observed on a meter. The goal is to make the player feel the difference between a joyful alliance and a resentful submission.
A Spectrum of Agreement
When an agent accepts a proposal in the Social Arena, the system calculates the Consent Integrity of that agreement, resulting in a value from +1.0 (Enthusiastic) to -1.0 (Violated). This score is determined by the context and tactics of the negotiation.
Factors Influencing Consent Integrity
-
Leverage Disparity: This is the primary factor. The more an agent uses raw Leverage (from Threats, intimidation, or overwhelming power) to force an agreement, the lower the Consent Integrity will be. An agreement where Leverage was the deciding factor is, by definition, coerced.
-
Need Satisfaction: The criticality of an agent’s Needs heavily influences the integrity of their consent. An agent who agrees to a terrible deal because they are starving is not consenting freely. This is Transactional Consent, which has low integrity.
-
Belief & Faith Alignment: If the agreement strongly aligns with the agent’s core Faith and Beliefs, Consent Integrity is high. They are not just agreeing to a deal; they are affirming their worldview.
-
Social Disposition: The pre-existing relationship matters. An agreement between trusted friends will naturally have higher integrity than one between bitter rivals.
Outcomes
The final Consent Integrity score categorizes the new Agreement and dictates its narrative and mechanical consequences.
| Consent Integrity Score | Category | Description & Mechanical Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| +0.8 to +1.0 | Enthusiastic Consent | A truly mutual, desired outcome. Both parties feel they have gained. Consequences: Creates a powerful [Bond of Trust] Belief. The Agreement is tagged [Resilient] and is very difficult to break. Generates high-value [Harmony] or [Joy] Eidos. |
| +0.2 to +0.8 | Willing Consent | A standard, healthy agreement. The terms are seen as fair and the process was respectful. Consequences: Strengthens positive relationship modifiers. The Agreement is stable. Generates positive [Satisfaction] Eidos. |
| -0.2 to +0.2 | Transactional Consent | A neutral, often reluctant agreement of convenience. Driven by practicality, not desire. Consequences: The Agreement is functional but has no emotional weight. It will be upheld only as long as it remains convenient. Generates neutral [Pragmatism] Eidos. |
| -0.8 to -0.2 | Coerced Consent | The agent has agreed under duress, due to threat, desperation, or overwhelming leverage. Consequences: Creates a [Bond of Resentment] Belief. The Agreement is tagged [Brittle] and the coerced party will seek to break it at the first opportunity. The coerced agent’s disposition becomes [Hostile]. Generates powerful [Resentment] and [Humiliation] Eidos. |
| -1.0 | Violated Consent | This state is not achievable in the Social Arena. It is the outcome of a conflict resolved through non-consensual Violence (e.g., physical assault, enslavement). Consequences: A permanent [Enemy] relationship status. The creation of a deep [Trauma] psychic flaw. The generation of the most potent and volatile negative Eidos: [Violation], [Rage], [Hatred]. |
Integrating Consent into the Player Experience
The player is never shown a “Consent Meter.” They experience this system through the rich feedback of the Subjective Interface and the long-term narrative consequences.
-
During the Social Arena:
- If you are applying pressure, the UI will reflect the target’s distress. Their portrait might show a fearful or resentful expression. Their dialogue lines may become terse and monosyllabic. The
Leveragebar filling up is a clear visual indicator that you are pushing them towards Coerced Consent. - Conversely, a negotiation with high mutual trust might see both participants rendered with a warm, receptive aura.
- If you are applying pressure, the UI will reflect the target’s distress. Their portrait might show a fearful or resentful expression. Their dialogue lines may become terse and monosyllabic. The
-
After the Agreement:
- The
Agreementitself in your log or memory will be qualitatively described. Not “Deal with Joric,” but “A Brittle Peace with the Scavenger” or “A Joyful Alliance with the Freedom Fighters.” - The narrative consequences become the primary feedback. A coerced NPC will not be a loyal ally. They will perform their duties with a resentful slowness, have a high chance of “accidentally” failing at critical moments, and may actively plot to betray you, creating new emergent quests.
- The
Application to Sexuality and Relationships
This system provides the perfect, non-preachy foundation for modeling complex relationships. A sexual or romantic encounter is a high-stakes Social Arena interaction that results in an Agreement (to form a bond, to have a sexual encounter, etc.).
- A Healthy Relationship: Built on a series of
Agreementswith high Consent Integrity. These generate[Intimacy]and[Trust]Eidos, strengthening the bond. - A Toxic Relationship: Characterized by
Agreementswith low Consent Integrity. The dynamic is one of coercion and control, generating[Resentment]and leading to eventual, often dramatic, collapse. - Sexual Assault: Is not a social interaction. It is an act of Violence. Its outcome is always
Violated Consent, resulting in the most severe psychological and social consequences the simulation can produce.
By mechanizing consent in this way, we are not lecturing the player. We are simply building a more realistic and consequential social simulation. The game doesn’t tell you that coercion is “bad”; it shows you, by making the coerced agent a resentful, unreliable, and ultimately dangerous part of your world. It respects the player’s intelligence by allowing them to discover, through direct experience, that a foundation of willing agreement is the only path to a stable and lasting social structure. This is a system, not a sermon.
The Needs of Consent
Depending on one’s Beliefs, they may view Consent through a variety of lenses, each reflected in the form of a core Social Need, such as the AgencyNeed or the ManipulationNeed.