Talk:Sapient

!SCIENCE!

The only reference to this I found on the wiki was explicit that [CAN LEARN] is the defining tag, but there is at least one implicit suggestion that [CAN TALK] is also a requirement (both combined in [INTELLIGENT]). Couldn't find anything further clarifying this in the raws. Can anyone confirm if sapience is defined exclusive of the [CAN TALK] tag? –Alpacalypse (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I modded [CAN_SPEAK] onto a tamed giant bat in v47.05, and for the sake of the test, removed its [PET_EXOTIC]. (though this was before the steam release, the actual mechanics should have remained unchanged since then, as the last update that introduced anything related to sapience was the Visitors release in v42). Even though it was assigned labors (using DFHack) and the giant bat has hands in its wings so it could technically do jobs, it still acted like an animal and wouldn't do any work. The only difference was that it now showed up in the Citizens unit list, although still as Tame. --DarklingArcher (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding jobs, in the past I tried assigning labors even to unmodded animals (specifically monkeys) and the only one they did actually do was fishing. --DarklingArcher (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I noticed something that seems to contradict many references on the wiki regarding [CAN_LEARN], including the token definition: On my vanilla test fortress, I've realised that my alpaca, and all other domesticated animals, have values (presumably only cultural; "Like others in her culture...") and traits (She doesn't fall in love easily, but changes her mind and is amitious). Everyone knows alpacas are very refined, but this seems a bit much. Wanted to check before adding (im)pertinent info here at least; is this just an oddity on my end? –Alpacalypse (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I found something presumably pretty definitive (though I think it predates v50?); courtesy of Quietust on the person discussion page:

"Looking at a disassembly, all creatures select random values for the 50 personality traits, but only creatures with CAN_LEARN will pick values, needs, and goals. --Quietust (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)"

There are some contradictory or misleading references to this that do need correction at some point it seems.–Alpacalypse (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The traits you described that alpaca had aren't exclusive to sapient creatures, as the giant bat from earlier had them as well, even though it was caught fully wild and unintelligent (though it didn't have cultural values since all wild and formely wild creatures don't have any culture). However, before the Steam release these traits simply weren't visible to the player without modding in [CAN_SPEAK]. Regarding that, these get generated at the moment the creature is spawned, so adding that token later on (or any other creature token, for that case) doesn't change them in any instant way. --DarklingArcher (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Related topics

There is already an article on a very similar topic: Learning. --GeloMor (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's certainly similar as far as the game is concerned, but not very tautologically intuitive as such. I've stumbled upon that page by coincidence once or twice, but never in trying to actually find information about sapience and the explicit mechanics that relate to the concept (sapience is a term used explicitly by related token IDs). I think about 20% of the few links to that page are ones that I've added, and they've generally come up specifically in the literal definition of the word; it was one of the few pages that used a gerund form of a word, and until recently didn't even have a redirect from the simple noun form. As a result it's not been very intuitive to search for, or for editors to know they can link to, even when discussing the common definition. Given how critically distinct the mechanics between learning and sapience are, despite sharing a raw tag, I think it would be genuinely useful to have two distinct pages. Though with that in mind I will tidy up both pages and make sure the distinctions are clear, easily navigable, and that redundant information is kept to the minimum. Unless, despite the similarity not being immediately apparent, you think there is a particularly pressing need not to have two pages on similar topics in this instance? Amalgamate and redirect is always a relatively simple solution in that case. —Alpacalypse (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thought it might be relevant to update: As a redirect wouldn't be a major issue, I went ahead an linked the most explicitly unambiguous references to "sapient" I could think of. I was surprised to find that it seems that, in the sense of the wiki using a term in a context that directly relates to tangible game mechanics and gameplay, this page name seems to actually have more utility than "learning". That, and the break there with suggested naming guidance means that not having a page for "sentient" is actually quite unconventional. If sentient and learning were to be combined, I'd argue that it would be more intuitive and stylistically consistent to have the redirect point to this page name, rather than vice versa. –Alpacalypse (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that, from a gameplay perspective, "learning tokens" are effectively "sapience" in practice, and the definition of sapience is these learning tokens. The "Learning" article also touches upon the implications of having sapience, the influence of other tokens and ethics. It seems sensible to me to merge the two articles; the direction of the merge can be either way. The other way is to shift the focus of the "Learning" article from intelligence to mere "ability to learn", but then the article would remain rather devoid of substance. --GeloMor (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

We could lean more towards the layman's understanding of these terms, over the internal/technical meanings. In the case of this page they are both the same really, and that is already the focus, but for the learning one, we could drift into the more tangential concepts around learning in general, such as teachers and students, and the ability to research and gain knowledge through reading and artistry. "Learning" as a stand-alone term gives it quite a large remit, unlike the simpler "Learn" or "Learns". It would take some restraint to make sure it isn't just a repetition of pages already more specifically focussed on "learning"-adjacent topics, but if done right I think it could be a decent net gain to the wiki. It doesn't have to be exhaustive; we already have quite a few exceptional quality articles that are only a couple of paragraphs long. Sapience and learning are referenced so frequently on the wiki, in markedly different contexts, that I can't help but lean towards wanting to make two clearly distinct pages, rather than one large but conceptually meandering one.—Alpacalypse (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)