Print

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

[HenAi]

The Swastika is a better example of that. Since before it was not only a religious symbol but one of luck that was pretty much in common use world wide INCLUDING The United States.

Mostly in western countries only. It's still very commonly used in Asia.

[Skullsploder]

The Swastika is a better example of that. Since before it was not only a religious symbol but one of luck that was pretty much in common use world wide INCLUDING The United States.

Mostly in western countries only. It's still very commonly used in Asia.

EXACTLY! So, since it was a more widespread symbol in Asia to begin with, the stigma that got attached to it was reduced/diffused greatly, or, at least, reduced much more than in western countries. More commonality = less stigma

[HenAi]

The Swastika is a better example of that. Since before it was not only a religious symbol but one of luck that was pretty much in common use world wide INCLUDING The United States.

Mostly in western countries only. It's still very commonly used in Asia.

EXACTLY! So, since it was a more widespread symbol in Asia to begin with, the stigma that got attached to it was reduced/diffused greatly, or, at least, reduced much more than in western countries. More commonality = less stigma

That's definitely one part of the reason. Another is that the Nazis don't have quite as bad a reputation over there. Mein Kampf somehow became a really well selling book in India, even. I guess not having been on the receiving end of the war may have something to do with that.
So yeah, that fits in really well with the idea.

Edit: Which makes me think it would be cool if attitudes of a civ's members towards a given race would be affected by past experiences that civ has made with them.
I.e. if a human civilization has been at war with an elven one for a hundred years, the humans of that civ may get a negative attitude towards elves in general, whether they belong to the specific one they're fighting with or not.
Could also go the other way, like if they've been at peace with a goblin civ somehow, they might be more friendly towards goblins.

[Skullsploder]

That was sorta part of the system I suggested... hate would be generated within a civ toward known traits of antagonists. If that antagaonist is a whole civ then the hate would be shared equally between aspects of that civ as I suggested would work for individuals - i.e. percentage of population that is human, percentage of population that has blonde hair, percentage of population that wears a certain uniform, etc. Also see >opinions degrade over time, so like you suggested, if humans were at peace with goblins for a long period each races opinion of the other would slowly increase to a neutral point, and trade may give a bonus to opinions or something.

[Romegypt]

I think hating gays should be perfectly acceptable for a civ, AS LONG AS they have an equal chance to like them more. So a civ may be biased either way towards gay (liking them more or hating them more). That way, no one can complain, because it's not gay bashing anymore, as they have a chance to like gays. It should also restrict itself to races so that a human civ that hates gays won't hate gay dwarfs or elves.

IRL I don't care if your gay. Not really. I still don't think gay marriage is right, but It's there choice, so I say nothing and let them do whatever they want.

[Romegypt]

I think hating gays should be perfectly acceptable for a civ, AS LONG AS they have an equal chance to like them more. So a civ may be biased either way towards gay (liking them more or hating them more). That way, no one can complain, because it's not gay bashing anymore, as they have a chance to like gays. It should also restrict itself to races so that a human civ that hates gays won't hate gay dwarfs or elves.

IRL I don't care if your gay. Not really. I still don't think gay marriage is right, but It's their choice, so I say nothing and let them do whatever they want.

EDIT: spelling

Not sure why it sent my message twice there. Anyone know???

[Skullsploder]

Nope. Probably an error in your internetz. But I think you're zooming in on 1 possible aspect of the moral system a bit. I agree, it should be equally possible for a civ to hate or love homosexuals. However, I don't think it should be limited by race - dwarves that dislike homosexual dwarves should also dislike homosexual elves... why would they see them any differently? - and I don't think that's the only aspect that should be hateable/lovable by a whole civ.

[ShadowHammer]

[snip]
TL;DR: hate or love of a civ should apply to any trait they know about, up to, including, and going beyond very silly things like colour of socks worn.

I like this suggestion, in addition to this one:

There should at least be an easy way to mod it in or out of the game depending on their personal opinion if this IS implemented. I mean, the new [ORIENTATION] tags are super easy to fiddle around with to provide whatever level of homosexuality you would prefer in your game. If stuff in a similar vein is added, it should be similarly accessible and simple to change. That way, everyone wins except the elves.

[newjrmint21]

I was thinking atheism more in a way of forgetting that they used to be gods, monsters, etc and only focusing on the day-to-day problems.

then we probably wont be seeing very much atheism in dwarf fortress lol

[Starmantis]

Do deities really play an obvious role in day to day life for dwarf fortress? I would like to see some variety in religion, not all religions have to worship "gods" and not all religions have to "worship" it might be cool to see some antitheistic groups who might say "Cursed be the name of Deurist, god of things we dont like"

[Visus Draconis]

What I really want to see are dwarves going to war over each other because they don't break the same side on their eggs.

[GavJ]

This is interesting, but I don't really see how it adds much interest or fun to gameplay. It would dramatically increase time spent squinting at text descriptions of dwarves and micromanaging their social lives and not actually running the game.

[mate888]

These attributes can only be hated if they are the minority of the population,

What happens when the minority becomes the majority but the people who used to be the majority still hold all the political and financial power?

Then there will be a lynching party.

[newjrmint21]

it would just mean civs would go to war over something a little more in depth than the treatment of fish.
i feel like the worship of gods is pretty lacking in purpose or importance.

[Dirst]

This is interesting, but I don't really see how it adds much interest or fun to gameplay. It would dramatically increase time spent squinting at text descriptions of dwarves and micromanaging their social lives and not actually running the game.

I think we could get the lion's share of the intended effect just by having cumulative relations between civilizations that filter down to individual encounters (which then cause more incidents in a feedback loop).  The precise mechanism ("they wear wool socks!") is abstracted away.  There should, however, be some indication that this is happening in Legends Mode (and rumors accessible to an Adventurer/Liaison).

In 1969, relations between El Salvador and Honduras became strained over trade issues.
In 1969, El Salvador and Honduras went to war over a dispute involving a football match.