Print

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

[G-Flex]

I don't think a small percentage of homosexual dwarves would matter for reproduction... you know, just like it doesn't in the modern world. And again, to your second point, I do not think it would be a good thing for Toady to cave in to bigots by making it optional, or should he make dark-skinned dwarves optional too?

Well, this truly depends on the size of the population. If you only use your startout dwarfs of 7, you will often find only two people of one gender... if these happened to be homosexuals, you wouldn't get any babies at all. Comparing forts with 20-40 or even 200 dwarves to 6 billion people isn't really working.

You only have those seven dwarves for a year or two before getting additional migrants, and it takes dwarves 12 years to mature to adulthood, plus however long the gestation period is, plus however long it takes for married dwarves to get pregnant, plus however long it takes for a given pair of dwarves to get married. It really wouldn't make a difference.

think you have misread me. No where were I equating nor comparing these things. Perhaps I should refrase it then. What I was trying to say was the argument "homosexuality should be included since it would add more realism to the world" isn't really a good nor waterproof argument. We do not need nor want excessive realism in the game as doing so tends to add more problems than they solve. I think someone mentioned excrements which thankfully hasn't been implemented either. (yet)

What constitutes "excessive realism"? It seems to mean "things I personally find distasteful". There are reasons to exclude things like sexual assault and human (dwarven?) excrement, but is there a good reason to exclude homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not ethically neutral in a dwarven society where everything that moves outside your little mountain is an enemy and the survival of your species depends on your reproduction capability.

The survival of any species depends on reproductive capability, dwarves seem to be able to move throughout their own civilization fairly readily (at least as readily as those in humanity's past), and if homosexuality were that much of a threat to reproduction, it probably wouldn't even still exist in the real world.

So, what can we learn? That your opinion is not a a universal one and that everyone has different opinions on things. Don't try to force you views on others with misguided assumptions and wrong facts but make a valid argument instead.

I think I already have? I (and others) have explained in the past how more varied dwarven relationships could improve the game, and why the arguments to exclude it aren't very good ones.

OMG, must unsee! Yup, that is definitely one of the things I fear.

How's that gay panic treating you?

[BlackDevil]

I don't think a small percentage of homosexual dwarves would matter for reproduction... you know, just like it doesn't in the modern world. And again, to your second point, I do not think it would be a good thing for Toady to cave in to bigots by making it optional, or should he make dark-skinned dwarves optional too?

Well, this truly depends on the size of the population. If you only use your startout dwarfs of 7, you will often find only two people of one gender... if these happened to be homosexuals, you wouldn't get any babies at all. Comparing forts with 20-40 or even 200 dwarves to 6 billion people isn't really working.

You only have those seven dwarves for a year or two before getting additional migrants, and it takes dwarves 12 years to mature to adulthood, plus however long the gestation period is, plus however long it takes for married dwarves to get pregnant, plus however long it takes for a given pair of dwarves to get married. It really wouldn't make a difference.

The smaller the population, the larger a difference it will make. Especially when number of dwarves is smaller than x, where x is the total number of dwarves for every homosexual.

think you have misread me. No where were I equating nor comparing these things. Perhaps I should refrase it then. What I was trying to say was the argument "homosexuality should be included since it would add more realism to the world" isn't really a good nor waterproof argument. We do not need nor want excessive realism in the game as doing so tends to add more problems than they solve. I think someone mentioned excrements which thankfully hasn't been implemented either. (yet)

What constitutes "excessive realism"? It seems to mean "things I personally find distasteful". There are reasons to exclude things like sexual assault and human (dwarven?) excrement, but is there a good reason to exclude homosexuality?

Excessive realism in a game could be defined as: "When the game gets so realistic that it either A) ruins the gameplay or B) offends people to such an extend that they may/will stop playing. I could probably add more if you wanted.

Homosexuality is not ethically neutral in a dwarven society where everything that moves outside your little mountain is an enemy and the survival of your species depends on your reproduction capability.

The survival of any species depends on reproductive capability, dwarves seem to be able to move throughout their own civilization fairly readily (at least as readily as those in humanity's past), and if homosexuality were that much of a threat to reproduction, it probably wouldn't even still exist in the real world.

There isn't dragons or trolls in the real world ready devour any dwarf setting foot out of the colony either. The fact that there doesn't seem to be a problem for the dwarves when moving around is likely due to the world being somewhat static. And humans in the real world has always been considered the top predator as opposed to dwarfs in DF.
Homosexuality isn't a problem for a large society, and many do sire children even while being homosexual to continue their "legacy"

I (and others) have explained in the past how more varied dwarven relationships could improve the game, and why the arguments to exclude it aren't very good ones.

I am not opposed to the idea of having more varied relationships. I think it is a great idea tbh, as long as they keep popping out children, I am all for it. Dwarves having affairs, bastard children and all that sounds awesome. Even sireing children while being homosexual is fine as long as it is kept at a realistic level like 3 dwarves out of 100.

[Scelly9]

I (and others) have explained in the past how more varied dwarven relationships could improve the game, and why the arguments to exclude it aren't very good ones.

I am not opposed to the idea of having more varied relationships. I think it is a great idea tbh, as long as they keep popping out children, I am all for it. Dwarves having affairs, bastard children and all that sounds awesome. Even sireing children while being homosexual is fine as long as it is kept at a realistic level like 3 dwarves out of 100.

Why do you think that's a realistic level, though?

[DrPoo]

Lets keep this cooled down before we have a thermonuclear meltdown.

[Hyndis]

In my experience with long running forts, there may be at most 10 dynasties running. Couples will form early on in fortress and continue to produce enormous amounts of children. Its not uncommon for a dwarf to have 40+ siblings.

Nearly all of the children will come from these few massive families. Due to the default child popcap of 100, these early dwarves will tend to crowd out the popcap for children, preventing any other couples from having children.

So you really don't need to have more than 10 or so breeding pairs of dwarves in any fortress. That would be only 20 dwarves in total, and assuming you keep these dwarves safe and happy, they can produce so many children that you're getting a few peasants coming online every year.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Well, this truly depends on the size of the population. If you only use your startout dwarfs of 7, you will often find only two people of one gender... if these happened to be homosexuals, you wouldn't get any babies at all. Comparing forts with 20-40 or even 200 dwarves to 6 billion people isn't really working.

If I do one Dwarf embarks... MY DWARVES WILL BE INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN
TOADY MAKE DWARVES ASEXUAL PLOX
This is honestly more convincing a reason to put homosexuality in the game to be frank.
And Frank is very honest.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You missed my point entirely, but indeed the argument does go both ways. Since it is a fantasy society, there is no real life example nor any factbook that dictates "this is how dwarves live and act" and thereby whatever toady chooses to do will be a "natural" dwarven society.

It's not natural! Heh.
That argument only says that the malleability of Dwarves and their attributes is evident. It's not convincing either way.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why are you comparing homosexuality, an ethically neutral thing, to things we consider significantly harmful?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think you have misread me. No where were I equating nor comparing these things.

"You wouldn't add rape and pedophilia -therefore- homosexuality shouldn't be added either."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Perhaps I should refrase it then. What I was trying to say was the argument "homosexuality should be included since it would add more realism to the world" isn't really a good nor waterproof argument.

I myself was arguing for the sake of the quality of the stories the RNG makes and character depth. The realism is a box to check, not a motive to pursue when not involving physics.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Homosexuality is not ethically neutral in a dwarven society

[CITATION NEEDED]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

where everything that moves outside your little mountain is an enemy

[CITATION NEEDED]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

and the survival of your species depends on your reproduction capability.

...After their spouse is dead they never marry again and never have kids again - if they had kids to begin with at all. They are fond of romance and melancholy over survival, and they tend to be able to survive on migrant power alone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And lots of people in our own society would even say that it wasn't ethically neutral - that is why it is such a controversial subject I reckon.

*Depending on where you live in the world.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And child marriage is not considered harmful in many parts of the world,(not that I don't find it repulsive). Just look at the countries in the middle east.

Yes and starving kids in Africa means cakes should be shunned.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So, what can we learn? That your opinion is not a a universal one and that everyone has different opinions on things. Don't try to force you views on others with misguided assumptions and wrong facts but make a valid argument instead.

Agreed! You should probably apply this to yourself.

[GoombaGeek]

and pædophilia

It's just not respectable if you leave the "æ" out of "dirty, rotten, pædo scum".

[Hyndis]

Dwarves do come of age at 12, and at the age of 12 they can get married, have children, and make chunky salsa with goblins and battleaxes.

[DrPoo]

And we also already have transevestites. The dwarven females also have beards and wears mens clothes.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

females haven't had beards since after 40d, with the implementation of castes
we also have night creatures that takes spouses against their will

[DrPoo]

females haven't had beards since after 40d, with the implementation of castes
we also have night creatures that takes spouses against their will

Wich is rape.

[GoombaGeek]

females haven't had beards since after 40d, with the implementation of castes
we also have night creatures that takes spouses against their will

Wich is rape.

For all we know, they kidnap them so they can take them out to dinner and a movie and get to know each other.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

but none of that matters because it doesn't compare to homosexuality in any way other than it might offend people, but offending bigots shouldn't be a concern for anybody, and i know it isn't a concern for toady

[Nonsequitorian]

Dwarves do come of age at 12, and at the age of 12 they can get married, have children, and make chunky salsa with goblins and battleaxes.

And we're on...

Bay12...

My conspiracy senses are tingling!

WE'RE ALL ACTUALLY 12 YEAR OLD TERRORISTS THAT HELPED ALIENS BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT BRING DOWN THE WHEN GOD WAS PASSING OUT INSIGHT, YOU THOUGHT HE SAID THAT WHEN GOD WAS PASSING OUT HOLY PROPHETS HE SAID OILY FAUCETS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DHIARREA OF THE MOUTH FAUCET.

That's my conspiracy theory. Read it and understand. May yoghurt rest his spoon on your hair and your days forever be gluey.

[Babylon]

Well for one, this game is about dwarves, and being gay has NOTHING to do with this game at all, so what would it add? It will add arguing for no reason, if you want to add homosexuality mod it if you want it so hard.

I keep asking how to do that.  Can you tell me?  Becuase I don't believe it is possible.  Marriage is hardcoded, not in the raws.

As far as it having NOTHING to do with the game marriage is a pretty important part of the game.  Maybe you don't feel like it has the flavor that you want to see in the game, but that is an entirely different matter.  Dragon Age includes gay dwarves, so it wouldn't be the first appearance of gay dwarves in a videogame.  The Sims, which Dwarf Fortress has a lot in common with, has a fairly complex range of sexuality, from completely gay to completely straight, with most sims falling somewhere in the middle.