Print

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

[Telgin]

But I think that the most pc move for toady would be to let a competent modder add it.  Whatever Toady does is scrutinized, after all.  And some modders know the game very well.

This hinges on that sort of thing even being possible to mod in at some point in the future.  It could be possible, but Toady would pretty much have to release the source, provide some sort of DLL API, or a proper scripting system.  Not that I wouldn't love to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It would probably be easier to just implement homosexuality. Maybe include an init option to disable it.

[pisskop]

This thread is hardly an adequate sample size.  I know several people have decided not to get involved.  and its not going to be added anytime soon, so its not like toady asked us to vote.

It's not a good sample, but it's the only one we have. What makes you think that the sample is horribly biased?

But I think that the most pc move for toady would be to let a competent modder add it.  Whatever Toady does is scrutinized, after all.  And some modders know the game very well.

I'm not sure what personal computers have to do with this, but I seem to recall someone quoting Toady about how he was planning to (eventually) add sexual orientation earlier in the thread.

I start a thread about My Little Pony, and tge majority of poster's are going to like MLP, with a smaller portion hating it or having no opinion.  Same with any subject.  The title cues interest, and is a part of if somebody even decides to look.  this thread is not even a accurate sample of bay12, because only those who post are counted.

As for the mod-piece, I'm hoping Toady does allow his work to be customized for specific needs.  Its a great indicator the modder approves of the game, if they are willing to put time into changing it.

An init would probably work. . .

[GreatWyrmGold]

Difference here is, with a title like "Should Dwarves Have Sexual Orientations," people on both sides are going to show up. People who don't like MLP are unlikely to come into a MLP thread to just say that they don't like the ponies, but a thread like this is different because it encourages both sides to share their thoughts. Indeed, the neg side might have stronger reasons than aff, like moral or religious considerations, which could shift the balance the other way.
I'm not saying the thread's not biased, I'm saying we shouldn't assume bias.

[G-Flex]

It would probably be easier to just implement homosexuality. Maybe include an init option to disable it.

Should there also be init options to disable dark-colored skin, women being in the military, or polytheism?

[lordcooper]

It would probably be easier to just implement homosexuality. Maybe include an init option to disable it.

Should there also be init options to disable dark-colored skin, women being in the military, or polytheism?

The latter two would be great for occasional roleplay purposes.

[Telgin]

Or at least as randomly generated qualities for civilizations that were configurable in the raws.

[G-Flex]

Sure. My point is that I do not agree with acquiescing to bigots by implementing init options specifically catering to them.

[Cassandra]

There should be ingame options to disallow it, though.

Which would give certain dwarves happy thoughts, and other dwarves unhappy thoughts, just like reality.

[lordcooper]

Sure. My point is that I do not agree with acquiescing to bigots by implementing init options specifically catering to them.

Totally with you on that one.  Being able to toggle homosexuality off could be pretty useful if you were taking on a no immigrant challenge though.

[GoombaGeek]

Sure. My point is that I do not agree with acquiescing to bigots by implementing init options specifically catering to them.

"Why is the population cap finite and editable? You're overlooking the poor real-life people who have no protection or support for their families. Don't deny your privilege. Ignoring these problems by editing the cap is bigotry. If there is anyone who disagrees, xer needs to face facts."
I'm saying you've gotten a bit too social justicey. If anyone wants to play a simple game of DF like in the old versions and make a new feature optional (where it would join the heinous and controversial ranks of temperature, weather and invaders), they sure as hell aren't irreversably changing politics for the worse by typing in [SEXUALITY:NO] in a text file.

[Necromunger]

OP... son, just don't.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It would probably be easier to just implement homosexuality. Maybe include an init option to disable it.

Should there also be init options to disable dark-colored skin, women being in the military, or polytheism?

Have there been threads discussing if such things should even be in the game?
Anyways, there's a few other considerations.
1. Homosexuality has notable effects in-game, specifically on birth rate and such. Skin color and number of deities haven or minimal effect on the game, and militiawomen are hardly required--many people already leave women out of the military (to keep them from going berserk over the death of their infants, but still).
2. There's plenty of controversy over homosexuality. Racism and sexism are pretty much universally frowned on these days, and religious differences mostly matter to the more religious of people--most Jews can get along with most Hindus, for instance, barring other interpersonal issues.
3. Are you familiar with what "maybe" means?

[Alpha Dwarf]

The main issue would be the absolute chaos of a million Dwarves going about their own needs and nothing getting done in the game. The end result would likely have a massive god list of init yes/no options, but when do we actually get to play a game that functions?

[pisskop]

DWARF FORTRESS: HEDONISM