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

[Button]

So it was all intended, after all.

But there's something I don't understand. I thought dwarves became lovers before marrying. What would happen if you made, say, male dwarves uninterested in being in affairs with female dwarves but interested in marrying them? Would that be posible?

The middle number isn't the chance of becoming lovers - it's the chance of being interested in romance but uninterested in marriage. The ones interested in marriage will still become lovers if the "lovers" number is 0.

[greycat]

Experiment setup:
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]

<disinterested chance>:<lover-possible chance>:<commitment-possible chance>

If you added those two tags within the MALE caste, then you have given each male dwarf a 1% chance to be willing to commit to marriage with a female, but a 0% chance of forming a lover-relationship with either males or females.  And since I believe they have to become lovers before they can become married, 0% lover means 0% marriage also.

Although it appears Button has a different take on it.

[Toady One]

(marriage includes lovers.  also chance was a bad word for me to use -- it works more like the other sum-totals in the raws, so that if you do something like 3:6:1, that is actually 30%,60%,10% -- this is also set once upon generation to give a unit an orientation, and after that, they never look at these numbers again, and use their regular socializing code, only finalizing what would be a relationship if the orientation of both parties allows it.)

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Toady, I absolutely love you for that change.

[Loud Whispers]

Toady, I absolutely love you for that change.

Not so much a change as an addition to the depth of Dorf relationships, should be interesting to see where this goes once relationships start resembling more and more what you'd expect to happen in real life... With Dwarves.

[Rokh]

The middle number isn't the chance of becoming lovers - it's the chance of being interested in romance but uninterested in marriage. The ones interested in marriage will still become lovers if the "lovers" number is 0.

(marriage includes lovers.

It's clearer now. Thanks!

[Broseph Stalin]

So they'll share a bed and they'll never have children? Homosexuality is now mandatory in all of my forts.

[slothen]

Eh, we have elves and goblins to hate. We don't need homophobia.

Despite the usual convention we have around here that dwarfy = awesome, homophobia certainly seems like something that would go along with dwarf culture.  But AFAIK the topic was never touched upon by Tolkein.

Also, considering how this topic has gone in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if this is a stealth-feature that we'll get no further comment on.

If I could have my way regarding the future of DF development, I think tolerance of homosexuality should be a defined civ ethic, to later be a part of the procedurally generated civs.  Complete with the possible persecution of a civs own members.  Its horrible, but I also feel its appropriate in the dark-and-dirty world DF is attempting to simulate.  I think it could also be a good source for internal conflicts, with citizens hiding their own sexuality, holding different personal ethics than those of their society, and maybe tying into the justice system, relating to leadership position successions, etc.  Just ideas for years down the road.

[inspiredsimji]

Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".

[Rokh]

Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".

The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...

[Dyret]

I wouldn't like to see any witch-hunts or anything that stupid, which doesn't even make sense in a world with necromancers and night creatures to blame for your troubles, but I'd be perfectly okay with organizations like say a fertility cult and diverse invividuals being mildly petty about it, the same way I would like to see some of them being opposed to mining adamantine or eating seafood. If anything it would make playing a gay adventurer even more satisfying. Well, a successful one at least.

[Broseph Stalin]

Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".

There's murder, kidnapping, and cannibalism in the game. I cannot begin to understand why you've chosen this hill to die on.

[inspiredsimji]

Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".

The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...

So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.

[Broseph Stalin]

So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.

Again, kidnapping, cannibalism, and murder. What constitutes good to have in the game does not necessarily mean "good thing".

[WillowLuman]

Both tolerance and repression of many things exist in real life. To create a better simulation and provide interesting conflicts, I'd say both attitudes should be possible in the raws (and for the RNG once that goes in).

Including unpleasant things in a simulation isn't promoting them or encouraging them. Including homophobia wouldn't make DF a platform of the WBC. You may as well not include violence, or negligence, or incompetence, which while horrible in real life, provide compelling stories in DF. If such things did not exist in the game, you would not have the chance to conquer them.

I hope one day for there to be many kinds of procedurally generated prejudice, so that a viable goal for an adventurer is "Civil rights leader."