Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd like to repeat my current views: It wouldn't make sense to add homosexuals yet, and depending on how well the current gameplay represents dwarven values perhaps not ever (for dwarves).

Romance is really limited. It's pretty much limited to two dwarves deciding that they're the only ones they want to spore with, and eventually living together and sporing. Obviously, the sporing bit isn't permanent, but perhaps dwarven values on romance are sufficiently practical that a dwarf's homosexual romance would be all but an oxymoron. Either way, this definitely needs to wait until heterosexual romance is more fleshed-out or even existent.

[weenog]

It's interesting how all the special interests people bring up are irrelevant drivel except for your own personal special interest group, which is of utmost importance and would really add a lot to the game.

It's also interesting how people like to refer to the thoroughly discredited Alfred Kinsey whenever his BS seems to agree with them.

Gay dwarves? Sure, whatever.  But let's not pretend it's important or a high priority.  It matters about as much as recreational drug use in dwarves.

[misko27]

Gay dwarves? Sure, whatever.  But let's not pretend it's important or a high priority.  It matters about as much as recreational drug use in dwarves.

That's actually a interesting idea, Since it would actually affect the productivity of your dwarves. It would suck if you axe-lord needed to go to the hospital because he's addicted to Dimple Brew.
 
But I agree. We really should be focusing on more relevant things. Like boats. Or sites.

[Altruist]

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.

I would be massively in favor of this, and childless dwarven couples "adopting" an orphan. I'd probably set it up where dwarves were bisexual by default and 1 in 10 would refuse to marry someone of the opposite gender [gay only] and 6 in 10 would refuse to marry someone of the same gender [straight only]. But I'd also like dwarves to be randomly assigned a "childless by choice" token, where they don't have natural children if heterosexual and don't adopt if homosexual.  I'd probably still be happy if this was merely the human method, when humans become playable in fortress mode, and dwarves stayed straight and spore-reproducing (for fluff reasons).

Also, I want marriage to happen more often (I almost never get an actual marriage, only married couples arriving with a litter of kids), I want married couples to sleep at roughly the same time or hang out together when they're both off work, or something that reasonably approximates a relationship, I want heterosexual couples to have a randomly assigned maximum number of children per couple, and I want births spread out, something like female dwarves cannot get pregnant (or get pregnant rarely) if they have a baby.

Honestly, I want to populate my fort slowly, and would jump at the chance to toggle allow dwarves to fill it with reproduction alone (but not 50 children born a year) rather than having waves of migrants with useless skills, or even cap the wave size. And that's far more important to me than the sexual orientation of the pixels on my screen.

[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?

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.

I like how you think that racism "makes a lot more sense considering darwinism", but apparently sexual selection doesn't mean anything, and sexual/romantic behavior is unimportant to you despite it being a fairly central part of most cultures.

It's interesting how all the special interests people bring up are irrelevant drivel except for your own personal special interest group, which is of utmost importance and would really add a lot to the game.

It's also interesting how people like to refer to the thoroughly discredited Alfred Kinsey whenever his BS seems to agree with them.

Gay dwarves? Sure, whatever.  But let's not pretend it's important or a high priority.  It matters about as much as recreational drug use in dwarves.

What special interest groups? Who said anything about special interest groups? What's my personal special interest group, if I may ask?

Also: The Kinsey scale isn't terribly great, but it's at least better than binary/ternary sexual orientation. Even now it would be a step in the right direction from how most people envision orientation.

[therahedwig]

Uhm, there's a love entry in the old devgoals, so I'd assume it be natural to expect intricate relationships to appear?
I mean, we can make a thread for that too :x

@weenog. Kinsey isn't known for anything else but his scale. You're acting like it's preposterous that people refer to Leonardo's Vitruvius Man whenever trying to explain generic human proportions. Or praise Charles Dodgson for his children books.

[AutomataKittay]

Why is racism considered sensible from darwinism? Only people I've seen seriously arguing for it nowadays seems to consider forced eugenics to be a good idea.

Racism makes no sense in darwinistic sense, maybe you're thinking of tribalism, which can end up being expanded and rationalized into racism because it's them, not us, it's them that's the enemy and it ends up that they are everyone not our color. After all, if only thing we got in common is what we looks like, it's easy to tell who to lynch.

Hell, just different language could just as easily be used as basis of racism, not just eye or skin color, it's all them dirty foreigners trying to take our job cuz they be barbarians

( Sorry if I offended anyone with above, I'm trying to express how ridiculous that it's darwinistic to be racist, so-called aryans actually performed worse than european mutts as Nazi found out )


On Kinsey's scale, while it's not very accurate ( or overly coarse in term of selectiveness) in modern sense of sexuality, it's still decent mechanism to consider because of it's simplicity and relative lack of current relationship development in other aspects.

[G-Flex]

Frankly, I don't know why people say "darwinism" anymore. Evolutionary theory has moved on. At any rate, shitty ingroup/outgroup behavior probably is an evolutionary adaptation of some kind, not that it's terribly relevant to discussion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dimple Brew

Seeing as dimple cups are currently used to make dye...that sounds foul.

Why is racism considered sensible from darwinism? Only people I've seen seriously arguing for it nowadays seems to consider forced eugenics to be a good idea.

Because some people are morons who heard all they know about evolution from Creationists.

Frankly, I don't know why people say "darwinism" anymore. Evolutionary theory has moved on. At any rate, shitty ingroup/outgroup behavior probably is an evolutionary adaptation of some kind, not that it's terribly relevant to discussion.

Again, Creationists. It's easy to attack just one person. It's harder to admit that the theory you're attacking has been accepted by most scientists for over 100 years and to attack every biologist who contributed to it in the meantime, as well as Mendel, who contributed heabily to heredity and was a monk.


But let's get away from Creationism v. Science and back to homosexual dwarves. If anyone cares, my views are still the same as last time I posted: Should be in eventually, but it should wait for more romance to be present.

[weenog]

Dimple Brew

Seeing as dimple cups are currently used to make dye...that sounds foul.

I'm thinking of it as something like a vodka and kool-aid. Annoyingly sweet, and if you spew your clothing will never forget it.

[C27]

Dimple Brew

Seeing as dimple cups are currently used to make dye...that sounds foul.

I'm thinking of it as something like a vodka and kool-aid. Annoyingly sweet, and if you spew your clothing will never forget it.

And it turns the drinker's tongue black over time, too. It's just like Thunderbird.

[Escapism]

I like how you think that racism "makes a lot more sense considering darwinism", but apparently sexual selection doesn't mean anything, and sexual/romantic behavior is unimportant to you despite it being a fairly central part of most cultures.

Because it generates conflict, which makes the game more interesting.

Why is racism considered sensible from darwinism? Only people I've seen seriously arguing for it nowadays seems to consider forced eugenics to be a good idea.

Racism makes no sense in darwinistic sense, maybe you're thinking of tribalism, which can end up being expanded and rationalized into racism because it's them, not us, it's them that's the enemy and it ends up that they are everyone not our color. After all, if only thing we got in common is what we looks like, it's easy to tell who to lynch.

Hell, just different language could just as easily be used as basis of racism, not just eye or skin color, it's all them dirty foreigners trying to take our job cuz they be barbarians

( Sorry if I offended anyone with above, I'm trying to express how ridiculous that it's darwinistic to be racist, so-called aryans actually performed worse than european mutts as Nazi found out )

I think you misunderstand the whole concept of evolution/darwinism. It can be a perfectly viable "reproductive strategy" (keep in mind evolution is mindless, thus the word strategy doesn't really make sense) for a species/tribe/people to eliminate it's competitors. Whether it is "instinctual" or "intellectual".

I don't think anyone will gain anything more from this discussion, and will leave it at this.

[misko27]

Dimple Brew

Seeing as dimple cups are currently used to make dye...that sounds foul.

I'm thinking of it as something like a vodka and kool-aid. Annoyingly sweet, and if you spew your clothing will never forget it.

And it turns the drinker's tongue black over time, too. It's just like Thunderbird.

Yes. It's actually a running joke I have.

[G-Flex]

I like how you think that racism "makes a lot more sense considering darwinism", but apparently sexual selection doesn't mean anything, and sexual/romantic behavior is unimportant to you despite it being a fairly central part of most cultures.

Because it generates conflict, which makes the game more interesting.

Conflict comes from a lot of things, and needs to exist within a cultural framework when we're talking about people (and fantasy races). More interesting framework is good. Different races and civilizations having different frameworks for marriage and family life is interesting, variation in sexual/romantic orientation and lifestyle can make for more interesting personal histories as well, and all of that ties into conflict that arises even if the conflict isn't directly related to those things in question. A fight could occur over who has succession rights if the king is homosexual and has no children, for example, and what sort of family and other relationships a person has can play a role in what sort of zany adventures they choose to have, and their motivations for doing so. Also, romantically and sexually oriented conflict is a large theme in both folklore and real human history.

I do agree it shouldn't really be implemented until any of that stuff actually matters, though. It would make sense for it to be integrated into a broader update of how the game handles social dynamics and relationships.

[weenog]

I think unhappy dwarves being able to tell the difference between sad and angry and reacting accordingly is a somewhat more pressing concern.