Print

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

[Javier]

Hey everyone!

Long time lurker now (so even if "Escaped Lunatic" I don't mean to start a flamewar), just decided to add this suggestion to the voting list which I'm surprised hasn't been added yet (though I realise it's been discussed extensively in other sections of the forum). Why? Well, for the sake of realism, and because I find the absence... not sure which word should I employ. The way I see it, there's little or no difference between the current situation and an hypothetical one in which DF had started development a few decades ago and featured no colored people at all. I remember someone in Bioware claiming not long ago that "gay relationships would be out of place in the Star Wars universe" talking about SWTOR. Correct me if I'm wrong, but blacks are completely missing in Tolkien's Legendarium, yet not in Star Wars. Just trying to show how, depending on the moment where a given universe or fantasy world is come up with, this or that minority will not feature because "they wouldn't fit". They're at the moment, quite unfortunately, still seen as something queer, never better said. Yet we can all agree real people in the real world have now and always been characterized by a wide variety of skin colors and ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, faiths...

Well, there it is. Crossing my fingers I actually searched the forums well enough and that this hasn't been posted in here before.

PS. And yeah, apologies, English is evidently not my mother language.

[Nonsequitorian]

Believe us when we say that this is one of the more debated topics. No offense to you, dear new member, but to keep latter people from keeping this debate going: We've had this thread before, so thusly it is redundent to post in this thread.

[toomanysecrets]

This got discussed/flamed to death very recently

[Bloax]

If I'm to voice my opinion, then honestly, does it even matter? Edit: Ninja'd while Wall-Of-Texting

I mean honestly, currently what we see is a description of the character, how they are and how they look.

But how would it contribute to a picturing of someone if there was this one appendix to it;

"Urist McHammerer is a towering figure among dwarves, with a bottomless patience and he doesn't anger fast. With a good understanding of social relations, but a bad memory.
He has deeply sunken eyesockets, and his eyes are a deep shade of brown. He has a broad head and his beard is long and splits in two along the bottom."
Oh, and he has a fuzzy feeling for Urist McGuyManson. Yeah just so that you'd know.

I mean while it's somewhat on the topic, I don't really see how sexual preferences have any effect on the picturing of the imaginary character.
The only true "feeling" that we see of the dorfs is that they don't like it when a ghost comes and pulls their legs off.

Maybe at some point where processing power will be in abundance it might be worth investing in actual relationships, for the surprising occasion where an overseer would catch two dwarves hanging out.
But until then, I don't really see the point of having this. It has no true substance in the picturing of the character. Unless you imagine them with relations in the fortress, in which case you might as well imagine their sexual attractions while you're at it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Searching is good.

I think that the general consensus was that, at this point, certain features needed to be added before adding homosexuality made sense. There was...debate...on what those features were and how much being homosexual should "matter," but we all agreed the game isn't ready for it yet.

[blaster339]

With all of my respect, I disagree for obvious reasons
Sorry comrade

[Putnam]

With all of my respect, I disagree for obvious reasons
Sorry comrade

Obvious to you, maybe. Saying that makes people assume the worst. It's pretty big flame bait.

[GreatWyrmGold]

With all of my respect, I disagree for obvious reasons
Sorry comrade

Obvious to you, maybe. Saying that makes many people assume the worst. It's pretty big flame bait.

FIFY. I just assume that he's uncomfortable talking about it and too stupid to bring that up.
...Not that that's a good assumption, but it's not the worst.

[Sutremaine]

I'm all for it. Fewer babies this way.

[Scoops Novel]

I'm all for it. Fewer babies this way.

[Vlad]

Im all for it as long as they are pretty rare. I dont want it to end up being that most of your fort is homosexual because that would be unrealistic  and lame. they also should be persecuted or looked down upon as i imagine they were in Medeval times. so alot of them might pretend to be straight.

[Chagen46]

This is one of those suggestions that endlessly comes up and always causes wars. As a bisexual man, I have to say this: I don't want homosexuals unless they actually impact the game. Like, there's ethics about them, and they impact the game world in a meaningful way.

Im all for it as long as they are pretty rare. I dont want it to end up being that most of your fort is homosexual because that would be unrealistic  and lame. they also should be persecuted or looked down upon as i imagine they were in Medeval times. so alot of them might pretend to be straight.

Homosexuals being persecuted mostly happened in areas where Abrahamic religions were practiced (Europe and the Middle East). In other place, they were tolerated or simply not cared about. Ancient Japan thought that love between two men was "purer" than love between a man and a woman, for example, thought that is also misogynistic....for another example, the ancient Greeks thought that too. The people with big sticks up their asses were the Europeans, and that was mainly after Christianity was brought to them--pagan Europeans (who the humans in DF seem to actually be based off of) didn't really care, AFAIK.

[Dyret]

Everything Changen said. In any event, as long as sexuality is limited to 'if you have a partner babies will fall out of you occasionally' there really isn't any point in touching on its finer aspects.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Everything Changen said. In any event, as long as sexuality is limited to 'if you have a partner babies will fall out of you occasionally' there really isn't any point in touching on its finer aspects.

And there's also the issue of "If homosexuality is just there, even with romance implemented, it's not really doing anything."
And I'm stopping there because I got chewed out last time this came up for suggesting that homosexuality should be a point of conflict like it is IRL.

[Vlad]

When toady makes civs and religions have different ethics generated then everyone will different oponions about them in game. I agree that its best to wait until society and relationships get developed more. cause right now it wouldnt mean anything except they wouldnt have kids.