Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

How sad are you that a simple issue can bring out the worst in people?

It makes me sad. So very very sad.
- 58 (49.6%)
I think it's great!
- 26 (22.2%)
I'm indifferent.
- 33 (28.2%)

Total Members Voted: 115


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21

Author Topic: 2014: Equal rights  (Read 54075 times)

Melting Sky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2014, 04:42:04 am »

So there are actually tags then. I would love to see where they are and how they are used. Context should be able to clarify if it is a bug or not.

 Elfs and Humans are getting married too, which suggests it's just that the game has forgotten to check first, just grabs two characters and bam.

It could still very well be intentional. If the tags only appear in the night creature raws rather than in the other entities that are being effected then it definitely suggests a bug. Prevalence would also be a good clue. If it seems to be far more common that real world rates of homosexuality then it would also be a good clue to it being a bug.
Logged

Rince Wind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2014, 04:52:09 am »

Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'
 On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.

Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.

(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)

 All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
 same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.

 Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
 What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
 It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?

 And to gain what? 'inclusiveness' as forgetaboutit says. To throw aside any consideration for the setting to shove in allegorical modern politics? To go, aha, it's 2014 therefore all games must be set in 2014 in our society with our views, bugger immersion, because it's tolerant to suggest locking up anyone who doesn't share a single narrow view, but intolerant to suppose that conditions and objective reason be applied. It's not inclusive to demand that all things reflect one set of views and one set of values, that's pretty much the exact definition of exclusive.
 To deny simulation to shove in allegory is excluding all other possibilities for the same of one. That's not inclusion, to include one more would be inclusion, not to replace all others with one.

 But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
 If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.

 If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.

You are looking at this from our perspective, from our history and culture. All marriages in DF seem to be love marriages, always have been (at least in fortress mode). That means offspring could be a side affect.
Dwarves may have a completly different view on the subject, different reasoning, different standards. Not from becoming more open, but being like this from the beginning, so they would never have the discussions about gay marriage we have. It would just not occur to them, as it is perfectly normal and the way things have always been. They'd see gay couples and hetero couples and they wouldn't even look twice.
Logged

AMTiger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2014, 05:02:52 am »

Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'
 On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.

Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.

(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)

 All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
 same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.

 Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
 What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
 It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?

 And to gain what? 'inclusiveness' as forgetaboutit says. To throw aside any consideration for the setting to shove in allegorical modern politics? To go, aha, it's 2014 therefore all games must be set in 2014 in our society with our views, bugger immersion, because it's tolerant to suggest locking up anyone who doesn't share a single narrow view, but intolerant to suppose that conditions and objective reason be applied. It's not inclusive to demand that all things reflect one set of views and one set of values, that's pretty much the exact definition of exclusive.
 To deny simulation to shove in allegory is excluding all other possibilities for the same of one. That's not inclusion, to include one more would be inclusion, not to replace all others with one.

 But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
 If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.

 If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.

You are looking at this from our perspective, from our history and culture. All marriages in DF seem to be love marriages, always have been (at least in fortress mode). That means offspring could be a side affect.
Dwarves may have a completly different view on the subject, different reasoning, different standards. Not from becoming more open, but being like this from the beginning, so they would never have the discussions about gay marriage we have. It would just not occur to them, as it is perfectly normal and the way things have always been. They'd see gay couples and hetero couples and they wouldn't even look twice.

 And so are you.
 But mostly, so are those saying 'wee inclusions'.
 I did say simulation not allegory, that is asking, what would that society in this situation do, not what would our society in that situation (our history) or what would our society in our situation (it's inclusive) do.
 But what would they in theirs, which is alot harder question, but its the way the game and pretty much all good fictional settings approach every other issue.

 But really I'm not looking at this from a modern perspective, I'm looking at this from a perspective of liking how you can reclaim mountainhome ruins, which makes dead-civ worlds brilliant (as they have all those dwarf ruins) and so wanting them to be playable.
 Also as someone who currently is Therapistless and so having a small population, born in the fort rather than migrating to it is alot easier to manage, and care about, than waves of faceless immigrants.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 05:04:39 am by AMTiger »
Logged

Melting Sky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2014, 05:10:54 am »

I've been looking through the human and dwarf entity files looking for new tags relating to this behavior and I haven't seen any tags for it. I'm not very experienced with going through the raws so I could have missed something.
Logged

Deus Asmoth

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bland, but sensible.
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2014, 05:28:02 am »

I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.
Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.
Logged
Look elsewhere, reader. There is nothing for you here.

whatever1works

  • Bay Watcher
  • *Flips table*
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2014, 05:29:03 am »

I've been looking through your fort, and sure enough there's gay marriage.

On an unrelated note however, i pierced down into the 2 cavern (cus why not), and found FLYING CRUNDLES! I'm not sure if that's a bug, or toady changed Crundles somehow. Or maybe they're just holding onto the walls... but i'm not sure how they would get there in the 1st place because they're dangling over the cavern lake...
Logged
"Do you want some fish balls?", "No thanks I'll have a steak please"

Dyret

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2014, 05:36:49 am »

'Crundles dangling over the cavern lake' needs to be a folk ballad of some description.
Logged

llasram

  • Bay Watcher
  • raising the dead since 1103
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2014, 05:41:14 am »

I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.
Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.
That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently, so i'm going to hope that she shows up again. Turns out she was one of the founding seven who just somehow got promoted to queen status, but still, i'm going to see if she is eventually married to her lover.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 06:01:52 am by llasram »
Logged
Friendship is magic
Necromancy is magic
∴Necromancy is Friendship.
Don't worry -- it still makes no sense whatsoever.

Innocent Dave

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2014, 05:52:49 am »

This is awesome.  And not just because it'll mean fewer children running round my fort, drinking all the booze, getting in the way, and then inexplicably leaping to their death in the magma pits.
Logged
Reaching one's life goal shouldn't come with a happy thought.  It should come with a sudden existential crisis.

Spacespinner

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2014, 05:57:49 am »

This could explain why I'm seeing a LOT fewer civs survive world gen, if it's a 50/50 chance of a dwarf even having kids. My last gen only had two dwarf civs, one of which had no map representation.
Logged
Most people's relationship with Dwarf Fortress is akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

Blastbeard

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2014, 06:02:50 am »

Please, for the love of all that is decent, if anyone quotes me, edit this to cut down the size or put in a spoiler. The size of this post is TOO DAMN HIGH.

Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'
 On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.

Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.

(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)

 All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
 same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.

No culture has any form of gender roles at the moment. Men wear dresses and the women fight even if they're lugging triplets around. Nobody says a word about the naked outsiders running around their settlements. In an environment like that, I suppose you could say this development was inevitable. The definition of marriage's function is up for debate as well. Let's just skirt any and all mention of religion to keep this civil and say that:
- a) you can have children without being married. Although strangely absent from DF, this has been prevalent since time out of memory and was likely omitted due to game limitations)
- b) Marriage doesn't have to solely be for children. It can be a political or financial move, and marriages have been arranged for that purpose well before the medieval time period the game attempts to simulate. It can even be about love, if you're not a soulless machine like me and capable of such things. (*sniff* So ronery...)

Quote
Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
 What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
 It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?

The fact of it is we know jack about dwarven society in DF. We players only interact with dwarven society through killing everything that looks at us funny and ordering a fortress population to do the same while churning out high-quality trade goods. Dwarves tend not to vary much between depictions, but that's no reason to assume they're carbon copies of a version from some better-understood source. We can't go by ethics either, they're just a very broad set of guidelines regarding what's worth going to war over at the moment. Eventually, even that may become fluid, so it's entirely possible no two dwarven civilizations will be alike in some far-flung release.
The behavior we invoke can be considered player contamination, we're imposing our own will on them, and can't base any concept of their society on that. If we have anything to go by for a look at their society, it's the behavior they partake in when not under your command. Taking long breaks at inconvenient times, throwing massive parties in unusual locations whenever they feel like it, not getting up off their asses to close the front gates to repel the siege because they're at such a party, demanding excessive and extravagant trinkets when in positions of power, possibly even seeking such positions for just that purpose...
That's the gist of what a dwarf does when left to its own devices. If that's anything to go by, they're hedonistic slackers, motivated only by an invisible god-thing in the sky telling them what to do, fear of getting beaten for not fulfilling the noble's mandate, and sudden onsets of spontaneous and irresistable urges to create artifacts out of random items.
In short, dwarves probably do not marry out of any sense of duty or obligation to raise a family.  Relations progress from friend to lover to spouse, meaning they feel strongly enough over a long period of time until they're ready to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. In other words, they marry out of passion, not duty.

Quote
But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
 If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.

Apart form the odd world filled with nothing but necromancer towers, worlds have been genning just fine for me and civilizations don't appear to be dying out more than usual. It doesn't seem like this is affecting world populations enough to cause a problem, and I don't think same-sex marriage is going to affect the population as adversely as you think. It's not a 50/50 chance for someone to hook up with someone with the same gender, it's completely random during world gen and dependent on who someone spends enough time with after. If civilizations are dying out, it's probably less about who's marrying who and more about which generated monster made of metal and/or nation of immortal tree-jihadis are kicking their asses.

Even in the smaller scale of a fortress, this still isn't an issue if you care about it enough to do a little (extra) micromanaging. You can't do anything about same-sex couple that migrate in, but you can decide who hooks up with who by isolating couples through burrows. It's similar to how eugenics projects and isolation to avoid excessive friendships work.

Quote
If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.

Honestly, I don't see a big deal about it. It isn't a high-profile bug, even when not compared to things like blocking causing crashes or every npc being a giant wuss. For all we know, this was an intended feature that Toady didn't mention because he knew it would trigger an argument, or maybe it was supposed to be so rare almost nobody would notice. Either way, at the very most it's an interesting turn of events that I don't really care about one way or the other. It's nothing to get worked up over.
Logged
I don't know how it all works, I just throw molten science at the wall and see what ignites.

Deus Asmoth

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bland, but sensible.
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2014, 08:20:43 am »

I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.
Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.
That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently, so i'm going to hope that she shows up again. Turns out she was one of the founding seven who just somehow got promoted to queen status, but still, i'm going to see if she is eventually married to her lover.
Well, if she's one of the starting seven that'd mean that it's almost definitely not limited to world gen, since they'd have to have become lovers in fortress mode.

If the problem is with the fortress population, surely a higher priority should be given to making sure that babies survive when their mothers die via adoption or daycare? The vast majority of fortress dwarves that I've seen don't ever get married, whether because of larger populations or just not having enough idle time to build relationships, so there's no children either way.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 08:33:12 am by Deus Asmoth »
Logged
Look elsewhere, reader. There is nothing for you here.

AMTiger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2014, 09:00:07 am »

I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.
Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.
That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently, so i'm going to hope that she shows up again. Turns out she was one of the founding seven who just somehow got promoted to queen status, but still, i'm going to see if she is eventually married to her lover.
Well, if she's one of the starting seven that'd mean that it's almost definitely not limited to world gen, since they'd have to have become lovers in fortress mode.

If the problem is with the fortress population, surely a higher priority should be given to making sure that babies survive when their mothers die via adoption or daycare? The vast majority of fortress dwarves that I've seen don't ever get married, whether because of larger populations or just not having enough idle time to build relationships, so there's no children either way.

 It helps to lock everyone in a very small dinning room every now and then.
Logged

samanato

  • Bay Watcher
  • @ Gardevoirite
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2014, 10:49:06 am »

It could still very well be intentional. If the tags only appear in the night creature raws rather than in the other entities that are being effected then it definitely suggests a bug. Prevalence would also be a good clue. If it seems to be far more common that real world rates of homosexuality then it would also be a good clue to it being a bug.

For the record, the night creatures have:

Code: [Select]
[SPOUSE_CONVERTER]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
[CONVERTED_SPOUSE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:1]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:1:0:0]

Which is seemingly excluding one caste in favour of the other for the purposes of the changeling mechanic.  Might be, that this isn't the "default" orientation? Needs to be scienced more.
Logged

thegoatgod_pan

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: 2014: Equal rights
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2014, 12:31:00 pm »

The argument for "conservative" dwarves being necessarily straight is totally anachronistic.

The categpry of homosexual is a 19th century invention, in the 18th century a man in Europe who had sex with other men was simply considered a libertine. Furthermore sexual orientation was not considered a factor of identity, it was something that men did for funsies.

Similarly, until the 19th century reformation in Japan, it was considered more noble for a man of high birth and especially samurai to A. be married B. have sex with male actors dressed as women or young men. This was, again, the macho thing to do and had no reprecussions on gender or sexual identity.

Similarly, we can tell easily from the Illiad that same sex elationships were quite common and not at all stigmatized (if Achilless is the exemplary warrior and he has a lover who is a younger man, and no one comments on this as unusual, we can safely treat him as representative of other warrior mores)

Tl:Dr gay people have always existed and only in the 19th century did we decide that "conversative" meant hating gays. Don't impse your anachronisms on a fantasy game
Logged
More ridiculous than reindeer?  Where you think you supercool and is you things the girls where I honestly like I is then why are humans on their as my people or what would you?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21