Print

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

[MDFification]

Humans do frown on torture of animals. Or torture for pleasure in general. Nobody likes a psychopath except for goblins.

Eh, not so. Animal baiting was practically Europe's most popular sport up until the late 19th century. Large human civilizations still practice animal bloodsport for kicks. Seeing as the human ethics are based off historical European ethics according to Toady, there's no reason that animal torture should be frowned upon.

[Sirbug]

I thought animal torture is when you tie it down and whip it or something. Bloodsport is bloodsport.

[Dirst]

Humans do frown on torture of animals. Or torture for pleasure in general. Nobody likes a psychopath except for goblins.

Eh, not so. Animal baiting was practically Europe's most popular sport up until the late 19th century. Large human civilizations still practice animal bloodsport for kicks. Seeing as the human ethics are based off historical European ethics according to Toady, there's no reason that animal torture should be frowned upon.

I think its some hairsplitting between animal cruelty (which includes bloodsports, tiny cages, force-feeding, etc.) and animal torture (which is pretty much directly harming the poor creatures for fun).  There is also considerable disagreement on where the bar is for these categories.  Is "necessary evil" treatment (animal testing, hunting, etc.) in the animal cruelty category just because an uneconomic alternative exists?

Since the game doesn't have any sports at all, let along animal bloodsports, it's hard to imagine the game's concept of animal torture includes cockfights.

[LMeire]

I thought animal torture is when you tie it down and whip it or something. Bloodsport is bloodsport.

A popular activity of the era was to stick a bunch of cats in a sack and light them on fire, because cats were considered to be the root cause of witches and the plague.

[Graknorke]

I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?

[smeeprocket]

yea cats got it bad in the middle ages.

Honestly, even if I could play a human fortress, being forced to make my women cooks and gatherers and my men metalsmiths and hunters would be limiting and annoying. It's not like almost every other game doesn't enforce gender roles and stereotypes. It's predictable and as a woman, it gets stale really fast. Maybe for men it's a cool feature, I don't know. I have to live that in real life so playing a game with it is somewhat unpleasant.

Personally I'd like to see the ability to have beards added for dwarven women. That's a totally dwarf thing and it would be a better use than marginalizing a gender within the game.

It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?

No, you need to add [] still to fix it.

[Graknorke]

It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.

If anything wouldn't that make non-binary dwarves not really a thing? It's of so little consequence to them socially that the only classification they need is their reproductive ability.

I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?

No, you need to add [] still to fix it.

Aww. That's a shame. That bug's been around for a shockingly long time.

[Dirst]

I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?

No, you need to add [] still to fix it.

Aww. That's a shame. That bug's been around for a shockingly long time.

It's not a bug, it's an intentional design choice.  But it is literally the easiest raw modding change possible.  I can see why it is a raw thing rather than an init thing, but maybe a toggle on the LNP would be appropriate.

[Orange Wizard]

Personally I'd like to see the ability to have beards added for dwarven women. That's a totally dwarf thing and it would be a better use than marginalizing a gender within the game.

Ahem, raws, ahem.
For that particular addition, Toady already has the necessary tags in place, you just need to put square brackets around it.

It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.

Maybe because that doesn't actually add anything to the game? Well, technically, in terms of flavour, but I can see many issues arising when people discover that their soldiers who they thought were male start flinging babies at the goblins because they only identify as female. Also what Graknorke said.

[Badger Storm]

Definite no from me.  I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world.  I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.

Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.

[Dyret]

I'd like religion and subfactions to have silly demands and opinions. Only women can be clerics in this religion, only men can be holy warriors in this, only children can speak for this force, crippled miners are the chosen of the god of fortresses. That kind of thing. Would be a wonderful source of schisms and emergent fortress politics. That being said traditional gender roles don't even make sense in terms of fortress life. Medieval peasant women did all the things men did, because that's how farming communities fed themselves. It seems like the same would be true for fortress life, regardless of entity ethics. with 100-200 able bodies when lucky telling people what they can and can't do seems fairly silly.

[Sirbug]

Definite no from me.  I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world.  I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.

Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.

How can you find your god's will "everything bad"? Some believer you.

But enough for the offtop. It would clutter game with unnecessary mechanic hard to manage in text-based game this is.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Definite no from me.  I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world.  I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.

Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.

It should never become a feature for dwarves, because they are gender equal. It is one of their "ethics" which they actually follow.

Among humans, though, males are stronger and generally dominate is a way which is not, and never should be true for dwarves. For humans, though, there should be some kind of gender roles system in place, though remember that in reality a female metalsmith would not have been astounding because wives often helped in their husbands' businesses. Armies should be male dominated unless they are defending settlements against overwhelming odds or the civilisation is so martial that everyone learns to fight (the ancient Scythians were like this, and women also learned horse archery and fought to defend camps from the enemy, hence the Amazon stories. One Scythian queen, Tomyris, led her army to defeat King Cyrus the Great of Persia and kill him.) Nonetheless, men should dominate most human societies. Animal torture should also be common.

If you do not want to play with gender roles, stick to playing dwarves, who should not have them.

[smeeprocket]

Personally I'd like to see the ability to have beards added for dwarven women. That's a totally dwarf thing and it would be a better use than marginalizing a gender within the game.

Ahem, raws, ahem.
For that particular addition, Toady already has the necessary tags in place, you just need to put square brackets around it.

It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.

Maybe because that doesn't actually add anything to the game? Well, technically, in terms of flavour, but I can see many issues arising when people discover that their soldiers who they thought were male start flinging babies at the goblins because they only identify as female. Also what Graknorke said.

I don't think you quite understand how nonbinary and transgender work.

Having gay dwarves also "doesn't add anything to the game" except make non heterosexual people feel included. I know that seems stupid and a waste of time, but it certainly is nice if you start considering wanting to include other people besides cis-gendered heterosexual males.

If you are a transfemale you, btw, don't actually have the capacity to have babies. I think you need some sort of biology lesson on this. Also, that seems like a rather petty concern.

Not having gender roles does not mean you wouldn't have genders other than cis-male and cis-female. There just wouldn't be the kind of stigma attached.

I'm always surprised by how upset the idea of being more inclusive is to some people.