Print

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

[Telgin]

The only people talking about political correctness are you and Sock, and frankly I think you guys are the ones bringing your politics into this.

I don't think you understood what I meant to say. I think adding sexual orientation would give some filter to kill dwarfs by to some players and that bothers me.
DF has the potential to do some cruel and violent things already, but player-induced gay killings is where I would draw a line.
I worry about headlines like "DF added homosexuality and this is what people did with it". Because I'm certain there will be people who will make "LOL this migrant is gay, down into magma with him!" posts and that will shape the public image of DF far worse than atomsmashing children.

I argued this once, and I was pretty well convinced in the end that it's a nonissue.  Killing every gay migrant in the end isn't worse than killing all of the kids.  It has different connotations, but not really worse, I'd say.

[XXSockXX]

Killing every gay migrant in the end isn't worse than killing all of the kids.  It has different connotations, but not really worse, I'd say.

But it is the connotations that I worry about. Killing all the kids is cartoon violence without any connection to current social or political issues. It is like dwarfs killing each other about fantasy religions would be non-controversial, while making most dwarfs explicitely christian and a few explicitely jewish would bring a real-world controversy into a fantasy game with a huge potential for player-induced mass murder.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not comparing sexual orientation to religion, it's about the potential to bring sensitive real-world issues into a pretty violent fantasy game.

[Volour]

This is why things like this should not be in the game or on the forums. It's too highly political, it causes many flame wars, and the thread should be locked.

I have no problem with what Sex people are etc, but we are all here because we play dwarf fortress. The system seems fine to me as it is now, is there any real reason why it should be implemented? Other then the fact some individuals would like it in the game.

Ps. How is it going to change the outcome of your fortress or adventurer anyways. In what way would it be significant. You play df, and you have little to no control on how their "emotions" pan out.

You can't stop and say let's add that, if one thing is implemented about orientations bring it all, fetishs etc

[G-Flex]

You can't stop and say let's add that, if one thing is implemented about orientations bring it all, fetishs etc

Thank you for comparing sexual orientation to sexual fetishes. That really helps. I mean that.

[EnigmaticHat]

We can't separate homosexuality from the political, because at the end of the day, that's part of homosexuality.

This is... I don't know.  I mean, I know its a political issue to a lot of people on the forums, but at the same time, I live in a tiny pocket of America where homosexuality is entirely acceptable (emphasis on tiny).  I don't think politics is a part of homosexuality, any more than its a part of anything else; which is to say, people will have their opinions, but it won't necessarily be a source of major political conflict everywhere in all time periods.  Because it isn't in the community I'm in currently.

I guess I have been a source of conflict here, but its frustrating to me that people seemingly can't imagine a world (even an already gender equal fantasy world!) were homosexuality isn't a political battle.  To me, social conflict and homosexuality ARE separate things, so a lot of the comments here read like someone said "we can't (re)add the economy because we'd need to make an occupy mountainhomes movement, and that would be too much trouble/controversy!"  I've been saying this for a while though, so I'll let up.

[Reelya]

We can't separate homosexuality from the political, because at the end of the day, that's part of homosexuality.

This is... I don't know.  I mean, I know its a political issue to a lot of people on the forums, but at the same time, I live in a tiny pocket of America where homosexuality is entirely acceptable (emphasis on tiny).  I don't think politics is a part of homosexuality, any more than its a part of anything else; which is to say, people will have their opinions, but it won't necessarily be a source of major political conflict everywhere in all time periods.  Because it isn't in the community I'm in currently.

I guess I have been a source of conflict here, but its frustrating to me that people seemingly can't imagine a world (even an already gender equal fantasy world!) were homosexuality isn't a political battle.  To me, social conflict and homosexuality ARE separate things, so a lot of the comments here read like someone said "we can't (re)add the economy because we'd need to make an occupy mountainhomes movement, and that would be too much trouble/controversy!"  I've been saying this for a while though, so I'll let up.

Really, there are a group of inter-related, yet separate issues being brought up, and we do each other and the discussion no favors by conflating them all together:

#1 add same-sex attraction
#2 add in-game social conflict over said attraction
#3 external controversy issues (i.e. controversy OVER the addition of #1 and/or #2)

pisskop was addressing #3 in his argument, not #2, so using a metaphor of economy = "occupy mountainhomes" doesn't quite work, since it's pretty clear pisskop wasn't talking about in-game conflict over homosexuality. The people calling for in-game conflict to be added were the ones advocating the whole idea, not rejecting it.

You clipped pisskop's quote. While I don't agree with it myself, mischaracterizing what's been said isn't helpful:

  We can't seperate homosexuality from the political, because at the end of the day, that's part of homosexuality. Sure you can, in the game. You'd have dwarves just chumming around.  that's it.  If you took out the taboo on alot of things itheyd qualitf yto put in the game.  But it'd still piss somebody off, out here.

"Sure you can, in the game", the bit of the quote you cut off, is pisskop saying they can be separated inside the game, the thing you claimed pisskop was denying.

"it'd still piss somebody off, out here" is pisskop appealing to external controversy, not in-game controversy. Whilst I don't agree with pisskop that just adding gay dwarves (#1) would be such a deal, my personal position is that in game politicization (#2), could cause some issues - gays did exist in the 14th century, as did homophobia. But did the gay rights movement really exist in the 14th century? It would feel unbalanced if there were homophobes, but no gay-rights movement in the game, and for me, including all modern-day social movements for "balance" would break the immersive feel. "Occupy mountainhomes" would probably piss more players off than any idea in this thread, because it's silly and out of place. Just because "Toady put it in LCS" doesn't mean it belongs in Dwarf Fortress. Whole different setting.

I'd prefer if Toady was to just add the gay dwarves and leave the baggage at the door.

[teloft]

My favorite genderbread sexualities

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Genderbread-2.1.jpg

here is an example using 8 variables for biology, identity, expression, attraction with two variables for each.

like if:
Attraction to M = 0
Attraction to F = 0
then -> Asexual.

[teloft]

Lets not have Gay bashing as part of the game. 

[Volour]

You can't stop and say let's add that, if one thing is implemented about orientations bring it all, fetishs etc

Thank you for comparing sexual orientation to sexual fetishes. That really helps. I mean that.

For you, anytime.

 a system of preferences will have to be present so there will also be a lot of traits likes or dislikes in df. So fetishes  or strong preferences etc would have to be present.

Which makes logical sense. As most people, only an assumption, is that they find individuals that are usually have the same preferences sexually or through personality.

As I said before, this thread brings up a lot of political views and will cause a high amount of feuds amongst us.

[Strife26]

I'd have to agree with Volour here. I mean, going full blown deviant sexual fetish A, B, C, and K in the game would be overkill and unfun, including homosexuality would at least require some other values besides the current "likes boastful/modest" ones. Stuff like hair color or size and the like.

[GoombaGeek]

I'd have to agree with Volour here. I mean, going full blown deviant sexual fetish A, B, C, and K in the game would be overkill and unfun, including homosexuality would at least require some other values besides the current "likes boastful/modest" ones. Stuff like hair color or size and the like.

But think of the minoritieeeeeeeees

On the other hand it would give "likes white fiends for their bloatedness" a whole new meaning.

[Xantalos]

What the hell happened to this suggestion thread?

[dei]

So, it seems that Toady has no problem with implementing it, which is fine by me.

That's good enough for me. If Toady wants to implement homosexuality in Dwarf Fortress then it shall be so. Sure, I have a different image of dwarves than Toady does that sees dwarves as largely heterosexual and shunning homosexuality due to their lawfully rigid stances on clan, faith and the patriarchy, but I'm not the one making Dwarf Fortress now am I? Either way regardless of what anyone wants, believes or thinks Toady will implement what he wants to implement and that is final.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with this post. I am simply being honest and stating what I am thinking right now.

[Xantalos]

Whatever the Great Toad In The Sky sayeth, so it shall be.

[Telgin]

Sure, I have a different image of dwarves than Toady does that sees dwarves as largely heterosexual and shunning homosexuality due to their lawfully rigid stances on clan, faith and the patriarchy, but I'm not the one making Dwarf Fortress now am I?

I think it's more a matter of you can shun homosexuality all you want in your culture but that's not going to make it go away in secret.  It won't change if a dwarf is homosexual or not, only if he or she is public about it.  One could argue that DF needs arranged marriages that would effectively circumvent it anyway, but that's an entirely different matter.  Once affairs are in the game there could be homosexual affairs behind heterosexual arranged marriages.

Another thing to consider is that while DF focuses on dwarves now, Toady has plans to make goblins, humans and elves playable in fort mode too a long way down the road.  Or he used to have that planned anyway.  In any case, modders can always introduce new civilizations, and homosexuality might not be seen as a horrible thing in all of them.  Humans have had mixed views on it throughout history, so who who is to say how some dwarven or elven civilizations might treat it?

Or goblins?  Where might makes right?  Imagine a homosexual goblin ends up being the big boss.  Now who's going to say it's bad?  Nobody in his presence.

Edit: I realize that the thread was originally just about dwarves, but this topic has wandered all over the place and I think it's worth considering the larger image of having the feature in DF at all.