Print

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

[Telgin]

Fair enough, particularly the bit about people caring more about the kittens.    I'm surprised I didn't read about that instead of the elves, honestly.

As I said, I'd actually like to see all of this sort of thing implemented.  Even down to the level of homosexuality being a crime in some civilizations, or being completely open and celebrated.  Or any other number of possible marriage concepts, such as plural marriages.  It's all extra flavor, and you almost can't have too much.

It's just a very polarizing issue (even if it shouldn't be such a big deal), and Toady is going to have to handle it carefully when / if he gets around to it.  Not that I have any doubt that he would.

For that matter, has he ever commented on the subject before?  I recall the comment on waste and sex, but not this.

[Mormota]

I most definitely support the notion. One of the greatest appeals of DF is, for me at least, the deep personalities of the dwarf. Even when my fortress is huge, I take the time to look after ten or so of my dwarves, see how their life goes, what they think what they feel what they do... I think adding homosexuality would only increase this aspect of the game.

[NW_Kohaku]

For that matter, has he ever commented on the subject before?  I recall the comment on waste and sex, but not this.

I can't find the quote on it, but I remember an old Toady quote that said something along the lines of how he would have to make a decision on how it would be implemented eventually, and that right now, there just plain isn't such a thing as homosexuality in DF, which is a decision he wouldn't want to keep around.

Basically, he doesn't want to be someone who just plugs his ears and pretends gays don't exist, but hasn't felt like taking the time to properly implement them yet, and there is a whole slew of other things that would need to be done to pave the way, like more complex internal social dynamics and relationships in order to make interdwarf relations actually matter.

You need to wait until the game is more like The Sims before this stuff starts to become important enough to players to actually be able to sit down and see and watch and meddle in the development of inter-dwarf relationships first.

There's also the whole can of worms of other forms of potentially "taboo" relations, like inter-species marriages or relations (Is gay marriage the pathway to man on dogman marriage?), or the aforementioned polygamy type stuff.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's also the whole can of worms of other forms of potentially "taboo" relations, like inter-species marriages or relations (Is gay marriage the pathway to man on dogman marriage?), or the aforementioned polygamy type stuff.

Well, the Goblins probably wouldn't have a problem with inter-species relationships. There was that whole thing where their kidnapping was so effective but their sieging so ineffective that all the actual goblins died and got replaced by the kidnapped raised as goblins.

The Elves strike me as the kind who would see that as defying nature or something, as is fitting with their reputation as bastards.

We already know what Humans are like.

And no one cares about what the Kobolds think.

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, in the previous threads, I mentioned that goblins would probably have the ironically most permissive attitude to gay marriage, inter-species marriage, or whatever else.

All their ethics are "PERSONAL_MATTER" - they believe in, essentially, "might makes right", and that if you can get away with it, it's fine for you to do it.  Of course, that includes things like torture, as well, and they have basically zero empathy for other living beings, so I wouldn't want to set that up as a model society for individual liberty.

[Amwap]

We already have gay dwarfs. They live in forests and refuse to trade with you if you try to sell them wood. They have poiny ears, no beards, and ride unicorns into battle.

[Eagleon]

It wouldn't exactly be hard to throw in (at least if I understand the way things are set up, which is of course an assumption), so the "other things to do first" doesn't work well, except that there are hundreds of other little things that would be just as easy. I'd like to see some time set aside to work on those. The more factors involved in interactions between entities during worldgen (even if it's just the occasional gay ruler picking out a peasant as their heir), the more interesting the story becomes.

We already have gay dwarfs. They live in forests and refuse to trade with you if you try to sell them wood. They have poiny ears, no beards, and ride unicorns into battle.

No. Just no.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The more factors involved in interactions between entities during worldgen (even if it's just the occasional gay ruler picking out a peasant as their heir), the more interesting the story becomes.

Well, Toady did say one of the countless objectives of DF was to be a stereotypical fantasy world generator, so this fits pretty much perfectly. You don't even really need the whole gay thing for the idea of dartboarding an heir to the throne, but it fits nonetheless.

[Telgin]

It wouldn't exactly be hard to throw in (at least if I understand the way things are set up, which is of course an assumption)

From what I've gleaned by poking around in DF's internals, he'd only have to either disable the gender check or just give a chance a given dwarf ignores it.  Homosexual couples work just fine in the game from my testing.

Haven't tested if two females will get pregnant though... keep meaning to do that.

Heck, it's probably not all that difficult to make a binary patch allowing it, although I'm not sure where to start there.

[Babylon]

I can easily imagine an anti-straight genocide actually, since straight dwarves have babies and lots of people hate babies.

I'm in favor of gay dwarves, but I don't see it as a really important addition.

[Nonsequitorian]

I support the idea for reasons other than just having support for gays and gay rights.

As it stands, there are WAY too many children being born. I use newborns as a method of pausing my game at regular intervals so I don't ever get caught with a hundred dwarves dead due to a jabberer or the like. I also rarely notice the gender of dwarves. They all look exactly the same save for a color difference, so I don't really care if they're men or not. Seeing two men married wouldn't even register in my brain because it doesn't really say what gender the dwarf is in an outright spot and I don't really have the motivation to click on the husband to see if they are a male too.

[NTJedi]

And the drama elements are a useful purpose.  You have to learn to respect that people have playstyles other than your own. 

Any elements should arrive woven with other game aspects for a deeper game value...  has nothing to do with playstyle preferences.  Nothing about my preferences were even posted.  It would be the same as if I requested different types of spears be introduced into the game just because it's available in other games... by itself such a suggestion is a shallow request.

[kaenneth]

Semi-related, do vampires form relationships, get married, have children, etc?

Curious if there may already be a type of dwarf that has relationships but does not reproduce.

[NW_Kohaku]

And the drama elements are a useful purpose.  You have to learn to respect that people have playstyles other than your own. 

Any elements should arrive woven with other game aspects for a deeper game value...  has nothing to do with playstyle preferences.  Nothing about my preferences were even posted.  It would be the same as if I requested different types of spears be introduced into the game just because it's available in other games... by itself such a suggestion is a shallow request.

It has to do with playstyle preferences if you try to stop conversation on any arbitrarily selected topic for the reason that you think sieges should be top priority, and no other topic can be discussed until you get that thing.  If you are going to pop into random threads and talk about how we shouldn't be talking about the topic of the thread, and that we should be talking about the suggestions you want to talk about, or how they should "play with Barbies" instead of trying to focus on underdeveloped aspects of the game, it's not useful, productive, or respectful.

There will always be some topic someone else thinks is more important than what you want to talk about.  If we made personal priorities the measure of what could be discussed, we wouldn't have a forum at all.

And if you recognize that depth comes from weaving multiple elements together into a harmonious whole, you should use the time you spend on the suggestion forum finding ways to do that weaving, rather than attacking the suggestion.

[NTJedi]

It has to do with playstyle preferences if you try to stop conversation on any arbitrarily selected topic for the reason that you think sieges should be top priority, and no other topic can be discussed until you get that thing.  If you are going to pop into random threads and talk about how we shouldn't be talking about the topic of the thread, and that we should be talking about the suggestions you want to talk about, or how they should "play with Barbies" instead of trying to focus on underdeveloped aspects of the game, it's not useful, productive, or respectful.

I merely stated my simple and brief point of view regarding the topic.  I also listed other items of importance in my view, for example goblin sieges play a huge role during the course of a game and thus I feel they should be improved.  The fact is you're trying to turn this into something much more which is quite sad, yet typical of your unfriendly behavior.  Not once have I ever posted that people should "play with Barbies"... evidence you're just trying to cause conflicts/attacks. 

There will always be some topic someone else thinks is more important than what you want to talk about.  If we made personal priorities the measure of what could be discussed, we wouldn't have a forum at all.

And if you recognize that depth comes from weaving multiple elements together into a harmonious whole, you should use the time you spend on the suggestion forum finding ways to do that weaving, rather than attacking the suggestion.

Everyone posting their likes or dislikes for ideas should be completely acceptable.  I do provide ideas of game depth for ideas or mods which I like.  I haven't made any attacks at all about this idea, you're just taking any dislikes for the idea as personally which is very unprofessional and immature.