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

[10terrapin01]

As an observation, 3/4 of this thread is people talking about dwarvern society and the other quarter is trying to figure out if it's a bug or not.

I've not seen it occur, so I can't say whether it's a bug or not.

However I will say, that it should at least be less than a 50/50 chance.  Dwarves, or really any civilized race, is hardly sexually dimorphic.  Not in their names, their jobs, their preferences, their clothing.  I personally hope they become more distinguished, because right now gender is sort of an invisible thing that could almost be completely removed, if not for birthing children.  Removing the need for them to be opposite genders means they meld together even more.  Perhaps after the two are somewhat differentiated, but for now all it does is reduce population and make them more similar instead of a pseudo-genderless species.

[llasram]

I think it's not a 50/50 chance, because if it was, then I would have more than just two in a fortress of 16, it's probably a more rare occurrence, like a 5% chance per dwarf or smaller. At such a low probability, there would be no problem having a fortress that was migrant-independent, because there most likely would only be a few homosexual marriages for every, say, 20 or 30 hetero ones. This is show in reality, there is only about 70,000 same-sex marriages in America according to one source I found, compared to over 2 million total.

[Arclacke]

Holy shit, not even DF is safe from SJWs.

[Urist McVoyager]

It's fantasy, not non-fiction. Keeping everything in line with our real-world history is completely missing the point in the first place . . .

Fantasy is about escapism for EVERYONE. And if that means some people want to be able to see same sex marriages even in a medieval setting, fine. Just make it an option in the raws or Init files, and let it stand.

[Loud Whispers]

i think you're exaggerating a bit

Not at all. Get any busy dining hall going and all Dwarves will talk to one another pretty equally. In which case there's an equal chance of a gay marriage happening as a straight marriage, and Dwarves are all for until 'death in the afterlife do us part' so first chance = only chance and you've just removed two Dwarves from the Fortress gene pool.

[llasram]

_{Sorry, i just thought it was an interesting feature, didn't want to get so involved.}

[Putnam]

i think you're exaggerating a bit

Not at all. Get any busy dining hall going and all Dwarves will talk to one another pretty equally. In which case there's an equal chance of a gay marriage happening as a straight marriage, and Dwarves are all for until 'death in the afterlife do us part' so first chance = only chance and you've just removed two Dwarves from the Fortress gene pool.

There isn't a single indication that this is a 50% thing, so I think you're exaggerating a bit.

Holy shit, not even DF is safe from SJWs.

gay people = SJWs who knew

[dwarf_reform]

Personally, as a fan of Dwarven Eugenics, I'd be pissed if something beyond my control prevented me from breeding two perfectly viable dwarves. ... What have I become?

We just need man-dwarves to be able to get knocked up.. Then you can breed any two perfectly viable dwarves :> Lets just say.. that.. dwarven babies crawl forth from the bristly beards of their sires..

[Urist McVoyager]

Or Toady could just get a bi-sexed tag working and allow us to create hermaphroditic species. I like to modify races when I'm not playing anyway, so I know I'd use that too.

Suddenly, there really is no difference between the sexes.

[Putnam]

Or Toady could just get a bi-sexed tag working and allow us to create hermaphroditic species. I like to modify races when I'm not playing anyway, so I know I'd use that too.

Suddenly, there really is no difference between the sexes.

Plus, you'd get to play as slug men who shoot darts at each other before mating.

[dwarf_reform]

Plus, you'd get to play as slug men who shoot darts at each other before mating.

Hahahahaha, NOW we're getting somewhere! :> In all honesty, I don't delve into my DF this deeply anymore.. I could have thirty married males and I'd never know it :> I generally only pay attention to individual dwarves when they hit a mood or do something idiotic, or head into a battle they're probably going to violently lose

Overall, though, and in all honesty, I don't see how adding (or removing) this would highly help or harm the game.. Well.. harm?? Potential? It may, very likely, lead to tales of "OH, my homosexual man-dwarf did (INSERT ACT HERE) and that is hilarious, or brave, or whatever, because they're "gay" when homosexual people (and dwarves) are no different than the next person.. Seems like something a mature person would generally ignore/accept while the hate-filled or immature would possibly use it as an unhealthy joke.

If I had to bet (and I'd bet based on the "don't see how it'd help or immerse" opinion), I'd bet Toady is indifferent to the notion and would rather focus his Toad-power creating true features that actually add a new mechanic to the game.. Should we consider abortion, or dwarf-euthanasia next? :> I'm personally indifferent to the whole deal, but I'd be inclined to say (that old golden line) "Its probably better to put it in a mod" :|

[Melting Sky]

1. This game doesn't support lysenkoism
2. A small subset of the population not breeding is really no different from how it was before

The third one is the important thing here, as two Dwarves of the same sex will normally at most become friends or grudges, meaning you can allow your Dwarves to freely socialize and expect a new generation of Dwarves to be spored. When there is a risk of same sex marriage you have to micromanage your Dwarves or fully expect a very sizeable portion of your breeding stock to become as worthless as widows. It turns Fortress breeding from a natural process that occurs in all dining halls to a megaproject requiring creches and mandatory socializing cabins.

If its a bug where dwarves are simply failing to take into account the sex of their spouse then this would be true but if its an intentional part of the game then I imagine homosexual dwarves are born that way and no amount of micro managing will change the fact that they will never reproduce during their life time.

If its intentional then it is likely modeled after the real world and it probably doesn't even effect more than 5% of dwarves and really does nothing but add a bit more depth, realism and flavor to the world. I just fail to see how people are getting their panties all up in a bunch over this. It's hardly any sort of real game changer.

It's silly how most of this thread is busy arguing about whether or not this should be included in the game rather than whether or not it already has been. That is the only thing that matters here. If the behavior is intentional or not. If its not then we can expect this behavior to be buggy and disruptive to the game and Toady should be made aware of it. If its an intentional feature then all of this silly debating means absolutely nothing since its already a part of the game. This isn't the suggestions forum.

Anyway, for the small percentage of us who are actually trying to puzzle out if this is a bug or intentional, has anybody found the orientation tag in the raws? I've been looking through the entity raws and its definitely not there. I'm not an avid modder so my skills are rather lacking in this department. If somebody has found the context of where this tag is used would you be so kind as to fill us in? The context should be able to tell us if this is intentional or not.

What we know so far is that in the string dump of the raws there is an "orientation" tag. From what I have gathered, nobody has actually managed to find where this tag is actually used by the game other than a vague suggestion that it involved night creatures. From the observations of those who have seen same sex marriages, it is a relatively rare occurrence. The rarity of it and the existence of the tag both seem to indicate that this may be an intentional feature but without more information its impossible to be certain.

[Putnam]

ORIENTATION is in the creature raws for night trolls, which are generated and thus difficult to find the raws for. It's not a "vague suggestion", it's the actual generated raws. I'm going to do some tests on what it does.

It takes 4 arguments: a CASTE and 3 numbers.

[sal880612m]

Few thoughts:
 
I do have to ask if you really want to introduce same sex couples into the game and community that brings you such horrors as Obok and mermaid farms. Sometimes it's just better to leave things alone.

If it is a bug Toady should fix it. If it isn't I would really like there to be an init option, because when DFHack updates I am going to want to try and run a fortress going from starting seven to mountain home with no immigration and all it would take is a single homosexual couple to prevent this even if the RNG loved you.
7 dwarfs with fix/population-cap force
at best 4 male , 3 female of 3 male, 4 female
If the same sex couple happened in the group of 3 you would get a single couple. While they can give birth every year marriage conditions would prevent any further couples AFAIK. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to play this way and wanting it to be an option so that I can is a fair compromise.

Also I don't think that making it appear as if homosexuality is a choice is a good thing. Ie, if a dwarf is going to enter a same sex couple no amount of reloading or micromanagement should be able to sway that. I am not even going to bring bisexuality into it because that is a confusing mess that I don't want to see in the game, and because it is something I don't think DF is really capable of expressing well seeing as all relationships are monogamous.

massively ninja'd

As Melting Sky has pointed out though I have nothing productive to add to the Is it a bug or a feature? discussion so I will leave it alone barring being directly quoted or such.

[Putnam]

If the ORIENTATION tag does what I think it does, it might not need to be an init option at all as it would already be a raw option. I'm testing it right now by attempting to make elves gay.