Print

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

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

[WillowLuman]

Sodomy has been illegal in Catholic-derived states (including Protestant ones, since they are an offshoot) since at least the 16th century. You can't generalize the entire Western world from the Ancient Greeks, as though they set the foundation for many things in the West, they had several unique facets of their culture that did not survive. Their attitudes towards sexuality amongst them. Many centuries separate the Illiad from 14th century Europe.

Though bawdy references were common, and people probably got up to stuff all the time (as they probably have done for all time), people were generally repressive towards sexuality in their public lives. Any unmarried sex would be potentially scandalous (and potentially punishable by law), much less homosexual relations. Again, they probably happened, but it was far from an open or accepted thing.

Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.

[Sumyunguy]

Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.

This. An option in the init.txt for this would be great. It is better to have the choice than forcing it on everyone else.

[Orange Wizard]

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

Wait, are people still arguing this?

[Veliq]

I'm just waiting for the report that Sakzul Logemvod and Shorast Likottirist have had a child together.  If he's added this into the game than the easiest fix would be that dwarves were not necessarily monogamous, purely for survival of generational forts.  No cuckolded dwarves to be found yet?

[palu]

Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.

This. An option in the init.txt for this would be great. It is better to have the choice than forcing it on everyone else.

Yes. If this is intentional, please make it optional. My guess is it's part of the post-worldgen marriages not checking properly.

[therahedwig]

Sodomy has been illegal in Catholic-derived states (including Protestant ones, since they are an offshoot) since at least the 16th century. You can't generalize the entire Western world from the Ancient Greeks, as though they set the foundation for many things in the West, they had several unique facets of their culture that did not survive. Their attitudes towards sexuality amongst them. Many centuries separate the Illiad from 14th century Europe.

Though bawdy references were common, and people probably got up to stuff all the time (as they probably have done for all time), people were generally repressive towards sexuality in their public lives. Any unmarried sex would be potentially scandalous (and potentially punishable by law), much less homosexual relations. Again, they probably happened, but it was far from an open or accepted thing.

Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.

Aye. It probly will come up with ethics generating anyhow. For example, homophobia in both Rome as Viking culture finds it's roots in that both considered the position of the man as the giver true expression of masculinity. That is, taking it up the butt was to these cultures equivelant to being a woman. Which is why they thought it was disgusting because why would a man want to give up being a man. Even the Greeks thought that as soon a man grew a beard he really had to stop being the receiver.(Which should probly give you an idea of how rather alien Greek sexual and romantic practices were compared to modern nuclear family ideals)

So, I had been thinking this before because all these lovely plants are now in the game. Probably a lot of ethics will relate to how Civs relate to the world. For exampale, right now Dwarves are not cool at all with cannibalism, but in a ethics fluid thing, they might rarely generate a believe that cannibalism is a proper and respectfull way of handling your dead.(I was thinking of plant symbolism, hence me making this connection)

Similarly, I am curious as whether ethics will also be unique to historical figures, to aid in the loyalty cascades... We already have prefferences for historical figures for certain aspects of life, such as family or hard work. It may be that a historical figure will at one point have to choose behind standing behind his king, banding with his friends, or fleeing with his family. Which of these will he love the most, what kind if love is the most important to him, etc.

[Loud Whispers]

If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purges on gay dwarf couples AND migrants. Having the majority of your breeding stock of Dwarves marry and produce no offspring forever would be devastating, because the bastards are too moral to have extramarital affairs.

*Edit

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)

Patroclus was older than Achilles and their relationship status was being argued even back then. Moreover the Greeks had different views on homosexual relationships; much like Saudi Arabia today, 'homosexuality' as such did not exist, rather it was the acts themselves that they viewed with contention. So for example, sodomy was not something to be proud of if you were on the receiving end, unless you were having sex with Alexander the Great or something.

[arcturusthelesser]

Similarly, I am curious as whether ethics will also be unique to historical figures, to aid in the loyalty cascades...

So you're essentially stating that you want hate crimes in Dwarf Fortress? There's already enough ways for forts to die. Plus, right now racially-based ethics are essentially the main motivation for worldgen conflicts, and along with weapon use are the main difference between races in the first place.

[HunterBlackLuna]

Bug or feature, it's neat. Personally I think it should be just another aspect of the civs that get genned; like, an ethics flag where it's considered a personal matter, or a crime, or whatever, by society. And societies that disagree strongly on this, and other ethical issues, should totally have conflicts over it. Perhaps with racial overtones.

"The knife-ears claim to practice free love and 'tolerance of all living things', and yet their society adopts tyrannical laws against..."

Also yeah, adoption and divorce/adultery/remarriage should totally be systematized too, it would make for more social dynamics. And potentials for a tantrum spiral when the adopted son of the adamantine-clad milita captain marries a guy and he goes nuts and destroys the fortress.

[Larix]

If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purges

I don't get what you're arguing here - births are not affected by pop cap anyway, so "unreproductive" dwarfs don't limit population. And even if you're shooting for a high reproduction rate, having absolutely everybody coupled off won't really do that much: dwarfs reproduce at roughly one child per year per married couple, which means nine couples will already bump into the standard baby cap all the time if you don't increase the limit. Of course you can basically remove all limits, but not everybody enjoys having a fort with 220 dwarfs, 60 of them adults.

It'd certainly be aggravating when you only have four dwarfs and they decide to pair off in same-sex couples; but that'd only be a concern for forts with extremely low population.

[Z1000000m]

If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purges

I don't get what you're arguing here - births are not affected by pop cap anyway, so "unreproductive" dwarfs don't limit population. And even if you're shooting for a high reproduction rate, having absolutely everybody coupled off won't really do that much: dwarfs reproduce at roughly one child per year per married couple, which means nine couples will already bump into the standard baby cap all the time if you don't increase the limit. Of course you can basically remove all limits, but not everybody enjoys having a fort with 220 dwarfs, 60 of them adults.

You've completely missed the point. Point is with a strict pop-cap you only have so many dwarves that are going to become parents. With this bug, the amount of said dwarves dwindles, therefore the time in which you'll get to a big enough dwarf number increases highly.

[Rokh]

1.- I doubt this behaviour is intended. I recall Toady saying somewhere (maybe in an AMA) that he had no plans of introducing gay couples any time soon. Although that might have been quite a while ago...

2.- If this really is intended, then make it optional. Period.

3.- I don't know what Toady would do if it is a bug. If he fixes it, he is liable of being stoned to death by the SJWs.

4.- Do you guys really believe the fact that dwarven society doesn't seem to have gender rules is intended? I don't. I think the lack of differentiation between males and females is just a placeholder, so to speak. And if it is really intended, I guess I understand it, as it certainly makes the game much easier and straightforward.

5.-

The argument for "conservative" dwarves [...]

Er, what?

Nobody is discussing homosexuality per se here. Homosexuality is older than dirt. Attitudes towards it have varied wildly depending on the time, place and situation. The End.

The problem is with gay marriages. I'm sorry to say this, but they truly are a modern invention. I am simply unable to picture a pre-industrial society imagining and much less accepting the posibility of people of the same sex marrying up. So, no. They add nothing to the game. Just make them optional.

In fact, I dare you guys to find a single pre-industrial society which allowed and celebrated gay marriages.


Well, that was that. Sorry for being annoying. Gotta get my helmet... 

[Dirst]

4.- Do you guys really believe the fact that dwarven society doesn't seem to have gender rules is intended? I don't. I think the lack of differentiation between males and females is just a placeholder, so to speak. And if it is really intended, I guess I understand it, as it certainly makes the game much easier and straightforward.

Minimal dimorphism is a recurring theme in modern depictions of dwarves.  For example, in most settings the females have beards (though not by default in vanilla DF, the instructions for including this are right in the raw file).  A more extreme example is Discworld, where the dwarven genders are indistinguishable and it's impolite to ask someone his/her gender in public.

That said, the game does allow for nearly arbitrary differentiation using castes.  You can mod in a culture that only allows female brokers and male cooks.  What we can't mod, at the moment, is marriage.  I hope that's coming before too long, to get remarriage and harems and bastards and takes-three-to-make-a-baby and whatever else the modders can come up with.

[samanato]

4.- Do you guys really believe the fact that dwarven society doesn't seem to have gender rules is intended? I don't. I think the lack of differentiation between males and females is just a placeholder, so to speak. And if it is really intended, I guess I understand it, as it certainly makes the game much easier and straightforward.

I would actually find it more plausible, that they'd have minimal gender roles, for reasons stated above. Even the biology as dictated in the raws would change everything.  As I've mentioned before, child-rearing takes up only a fraction of a female dwarf's very long life (one year even, they just let the big kids run about free in the fortress), which is bound to lead to different sex roles than a species, who in real life lived an average of 50 years if you were lucky to survive past childhood.

There's also the issue of sexism actually being "realistically" implemented, which would open up a massive can of worms with the gameplay, especially in fort mode.

In fact, I dare you guys to find a single pre-industrial society which allowed and celebrated gay marriages.

Bear in mind, though, that these aren't even humans we're talking about here, so any reference to a human pre-industrial society is at best unreliable.  The little that we see of dwarven society already shows, it's far different to the standard of agrarian humans.  Marriage for love was already mentioned, and that happens always in dwarf fortresses - there's nothing resembling arranged marriages even among nobles, which was by far the norm in human societies of past times.  That's not even getting into how capricious dwarves can be, even when you, as the voice from the sixth dimension, are telling them what to do (take a look at the Note to Urist thread...) Clearly is their way of thinking very different to ours.

I haven't much of an opinion on this particular case, but I do think, real-world history is too narrow of a reference here.  It would need to be tied to generated ethics (possibly drawn from the raws as a template, with procedurally generated variation here and there), if it's ever considered as a feature.

[Willfor]

3.- I don't know what Toady would do if it is a bug. If he fixes it, he is liable of being stoned to death by the SJWs.

This is an aside, but, it generally makes me smile that Toady himself would actually be described as an SJW by some in certain contexts . . .

Anyway, I don't think this is actually a bug, but the long awaited relaxing of certain placeholders that were in place because of the old way relationships were setup, their death now heralded by the new underlying personality code that allows for a more indepth person-to-person variance. It wouldn't surprise me if he included it under the radar, or just forgot to mention that this could be a thing now.