Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dwarven love seems to be a practical affair. They sleep in the same bed, have children, and feel sad when the other dies. Homosexuals don't seem to be something that would happen, it's just a different type of friendship which the church probably frowns on.

My first response is an obvious one.  Church?  What church?  As far as I can tell my dwarves are Pegans.  The diety's worshiped tend to be multiple, not singular, and tend to represent generally naturalist (trees, flavors, emotions etc..) states, rather overarching concepts of god.  Goddesses and Gods (the multiple's being key) exist for many races, and each race worships their own.  As I understand it these are randomly generated each game?  Now my own arguments may fall to this same bias, but why are we assuming that a dwarven culture follows human norms in the first place?

The dwarven church is planned to be more important later, "pagans" are just as religious as monotheists, and we don't have anything to go on so we base it on the nearest RL culture we have. Besides, under my "marriage is practical" Theory of Dwarven Love, marriages are mainly for childbearing, which would provide societal pressure away from marriages which cause two fertile people to be removed from the gene pool.

"out-of-the-closet" homosexuals are more common nowadays than in the time DF strives to emulate.

I would argue against this based on scope.  A Vanilla game allows from year 0 to year 1050.  That is 1000+ years of history.  Am I to believe that at no time, EVER in 1000 years of history, did a single homosexual individual come out to their community?  That a greek empire NEVER existed in any of some 100s of randomly generated worlds?  This seems odd considering the frequency with which homosexuality has occurred in our own timeline.  Which is to say, more or less all the time.

Did they ever actually make a big deal of it until recently?

So far the best argument I've seen against this is the Gameplay one, which I can't really fault - having gay dwarves doesn't add much game play wise.  Then again neither does having them love osprey leather.  Except.. well.. they do love that osprey leather..

Having them like materials does add something, actually. It's usually ignored, but dwarves prefer furniture and the like of preferred materials, and once the economy is in a dwarf that likes osprey leather will pay more for osprey leather stuff.

Anyways...
It's not that I have an objection to homosexuality in DF, it's that I'm not sure if dwarves would have practicing homosexuals. They don't really have practicing heterosexuals right now. Once such things as affairs and lust are in the game, then homosexuality will be more than a special friendship.

[tyrannus007]

I'm not sure how strict dwarves would be in regards to homosexuality. They are very gender-equal, and Toady says he wants to keep it that way. It's worth noting that sexuality is very fluid (see Kinsey scale).

[Robosaur]

[ETHIC:HETEROSEXUALITY:DIE_CIS_SCUM]

[Cool Guy]

I'm not against it at all but I think the topic is much too hot right now. It might alienate a large population of people¹, maybe in the future but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. It'd probably take a little tinkering with as well because it wouldn't be too common (As it is in real life). Especially since if it was too common I might end up with a fort with nothing but same sex couples and then die of no more baby dwarves being made.

Spoiler: Superscript Refrences (click to show/hide)

¹Even if these people are huge bigots

[G-Flex]

I don't really think "it would alienate backward-thinking bigots" is a good reason to not include something in the game. Acquiescing to their ideals is probably not smart now or in the long term. If anything, people getting mad about the game being progressive in that sense might make for useful publicity.

[Euld]

How about this:  give every dwarf a rare chance (1 in 10, or less for gameplay purposes) to be born gay.  They refuse to marry a dwarf of the opposite gender, and if they encounter another gay dwarf of the same gender within the same fortress (and if they like each other), they marry.  They don't have children, legends take note, and that's pretty much it.

[Xantalos]

Does this mean adventurers will get hit on by gay peasants now?
Because the idea of adventurers being hit on in general is cool.

[Escapism]

Meh. Just seems unnecessary. What would it add to the game? I don't think it falls in the scope of this project by any measure, and would just be some politically correct gimmick thing. Possibly as some kind of extension to culture.

[G-Flex]

Meh. Just seems unnecessary. What would it add to the game? I don't think it falls in the scope of this project by any measure, and would just be some politically correct gimmick thing. Possibly as some kind of extension to culture.

I already noted how this, and things like it, can be relevant to the game and add something meaningful to it. Hell, it's a lot more meaningful than skin or eye color, and that's included. Sexual and romantic behavior is an extremely important part of personal and family history, and culture in general, and those are a big part of DF, particularly during worldgen.

I'm really curious: Why is implementing sexual orientation without homophobia a "politically correct gimmick", but implementing different skin tones without racism isn't?

[Rtyh-C]

I'm in favor of this suggestion, however I don't agree with social pressure from other dwarves on gay couples. Dwarven society doesn't seem to discriminate, at all. Both sexes perform the same roles, skin color doesn't matter (albeit there isn't much variance there, but it does exist), there is no racism (we hate elves and goblins because of their actions, not because they're not dwarves; we have nothing against humans, because they don't steal our children and rarely siege us), there is no discrimination against either the young or the old, we don't even discriminate agains vampires, werecreatures or demons (unless they become a threat, obviously).

I imagine dwarves just wouldn't care about the sexual orientation of others.

[Escapism]

Meh. Just seems unnecessary. What would it add to the game? I don't think it falls in the scope of this project by any measure, and would just be some politically correct gimmick thing. Possibly as some kind of extension to culture.

I already noted how this, and things like it, can be relevant to the game and add something meaningful to it. Hell, it's a lot more meaningful than skin or eye color, and that's included. Sexual and romantic behavior is an extremely important part of personal and family history, and culture in general, and those are a big part of DF, particularly during worldgen.

I'm really curious: Why is implementing sexual orientation without homophobia a "politically correct gimmick", but implementing different skin tones without racism isn't?

Hahaha, calm down.

I never said I didn't think of the other stuff as gimmicky as well (as things stand, at least), and I don't think that sexual and romantic behaviour has played an extremely important part of personal and human history. With today's focus on personal fulfillment and goals, I think we tend to forget that life before was a lot more focused on just staying alive. Racism makes a lot more sense considering darwinism and whatnot, as it gives a nice incentive to conflict that is very realistic.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to debate this here, or at all for that matter, as I think the amount I care about these matters badly matches with how much other people care.

[therahedwig]

I'm not against it at all but I think the topic is much too hot right now. It might alienate a large population of people¹, maybe in the future but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. It'd probably take a little tinkering with as well because it wouldn't be too common (As it is in real life). Especially since if it was too common I might end up with a fort with nothing but same sex couples and then die of no more baby dwarves being made.

Spoiler: Superscript Refrences (click to show/hide)

¹Even if these people are huge bigots

I would like to reiterate that the Sims has homosexuality. And the Sims is a ton more commercial, mainstream, and probably a ton more sensitive to public opinion than Dwarf Fortress.

[Robosaur]

I, for one would like to see someone's advances spurned in Legends mode due to the other party being incredibly gay.

[Telgin]

Just about anything that adds to the depth and realism of DF is welcome in my opinion, and that includes this.  Religious and civilization views on it would be tricky, yeah, but those need expanding anyway.

This has been suggested numerous times, by the way.    I suspect this thread will devolve into the pointless bickering those did before too long.

[misko27]

First of all, This is a terrible Idea, if only because players will genocide all the straight dwarves to prevent babies.

With that out of the way, Dwarven society is both quite homogenous, and quite liberal, according to Toady. They are thet are quite close to modern-esque ethics, ecluding (or including?) the genocide. I really don't see any scorn or homophobia happening. They are perfectly content with Elves who reject crappy short jokes and consuming the flesh of a sentient, and goblins who reject general dickery.
 
That said, It really doesn't strike me as somethign that should be largely relevant to the Overseer. So what, you're gay, good for you. Unless the Overseer is watching a particular dwarf for marriages, it really should never even be important.
 
Besides, the current system of marriages and friends and such are a little odd anyway. Perhaps a level of strength could be assigned, so that, say, a friend who've you've always known would be more important then a friend you made yesterday who was just eaten. It could include the homosexuals in certain manners, like allowing a secret value for relationships that are more then just "friends". Of course, I should be using Plato's definition of Friends here, under which level 1 is a relationship of utility, or base attraction, or something similar, i.e. dating, or being friends with the woodcutter when you are a woodworker. Level 2 being a signifacantly different one were you feel for them and try to help them, i.e. being genuine friends, sorta closer to what is labeled "friend" by the game now, and level 3 being true, honest, deep emotional attachment, almost being completely open with them, so say a best friend, or a spouse you truly love.

So, in concluision, if it is implemented, it should be part of a wider-sweep of things, to increase general relationship realism, and not a "lol gay dwarves are gay" gimmick. I am for this, but not as a "Toss gay dwarves in there for teh lulz,"

Does this mean adventurers will get hit on by gay peasants now?
Because the idea of adventurers being hit on in general is cool.

I have to agree I really want this. Badass adventurer comes to town bearing a few scars, big muscles, and the head of a dragon he just killed?