Print

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

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Hoo boy. In my view, the only "story-wise" element that would argue for adding rape to the game is that, if invaders could commit rape but fortress residents could not, it would make goblins capable of being more cruel than the Overseer, which would be interesting by its very novelty. Apart from that, it just adds flavor to goblin towers & Legends mode, and gives extra justification to waging a war of revenge.

Those would be some examples, yes. I think there are more things that could happen story-wise, but we don't need to go into the details.

Wait, why are we talking about intentionally limiting what modders can do? I was under the impression that PC gaming culture as a whole was for the opposite of that.

Yeah, I would hope that wouldn't happen. I don't know how it works with responsibility and such, but I would hope if modders added something, this would not be likely to cause problems for Toady in terms of the general reception of his game, by the art world and so forth. Given that, there would be little reason to block something explicitly. For crying out loud, we can murder children and all that in this game.

Anyway, I will reiterate: I would be happy with just sex, for starters. It turns out, from some of the comments here, that apparently it's already in. I didn't know that; I guess I haven't played enough of the recent versions to notice. I'll see if I come across it at any point. I guess it's probably the sort of thing you're unlikely to notice, however.

[Starver]

I would be happy with just sex, for starters.

(Quoting things out of context, for fun and profit.)

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I would be happy with just sex, for starters.

(Quoting things out of context, for fun and profit.)

Haha, nice one

[Random_Dragon]

I would be happy with just sex, for starters.

(Quoting things out of context, for fun and profit.)

So tempted to sig that. >.>

[Madmachine]

I think the best way to deal with this is, as other people in this thread have mentioned, abstraction.

Units have an eros value for one another, and that influences how they act around each other. As the eros value of two of your dwarves for one another grows, they start to spend more of their free time with one another. They might eat together, go on dates together, eventually sleeping near each other, etc. As they spend time together, their eros value for one another grows further. The higher the eros value between the two dwarves gets, the more they start to desire more privacy for some of their quality times, until it's implied that the two have had sex, but only implied. Whenever two heterosexual dwarves spend private quality time with one another, there's a chance that conception will happen.

If the eros value increases above a certain level, one of the dwarves may propose. What level that is depends on how comfortable the dwarves in question are with commitment. Other dwarves may raise eyebrows if the eros value gets too high without the marriage happening, depending on how conservative the values of said onlooking dwarves are (Love and marriage, love and marriage/Go together like a horse and carriage/This I tell ya, brother/You can't have one without the other!).

Eros values are not necessarily mutual. Unrequited love can occur, and if one dwarf is too pushy in requesting to spend time with another, rejection is a distinct possibility, depending on the temperament of the other dwarf. If one dwarf gets way too pushy, perhaps resorting to coercive means, then rape may be implied.

But only implied.

Again, abstraction is the way to go rather than granularization. Granularity is usually how Dwarf Fortress rolls, but as the saga memoriae damnata testifies, in this case, granularity is not what we want.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I quite like that, Madmachine. Keep things vague enough to allow certain elements in without being upsetting or triggering or anything like that. Even aside from the unrequited eros stuff, though, I like the suggestion.

So tempted to sig that. >.>

You have my blessing, but perhaps that will make it less fun. In which case, I forbid it categorically!

[Dirst]

There is a whole thread in the lower boards dedicated to out-of-context quotes.

[Starver]

There is a whole thread in the lower boards dedicated to out-of-context quotes.

What's the use of an out of context quote if it can't be seen in the context it is out of..?

[Random_Dragon]

Don't tempt me. >.o

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Don't tempt me. >.o

;Q

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

I think the best way to deal with this is, as other people in this thread have mentioned, abstraction.

Units have an eros value for one another, and that influences how they act around each other. As the eros value of two of your dwarves for one another grows, they start to spend more of their free time with one another. They might eat together, go on dates together, eventually sleeping near each other, etc. As they spend time together, their eros value for one another grows further. The higher the eros value between the two dwarves gets, the more they start to desire more privacy for some of their quality times, until it's implied that the two have had sex, but only implied. Whenever two heterosexual dwarves spend private quality time with one another, there's a chance that conception will happen.

If the eros value increases above a certain level, one of the dwarves may propose. What level that is depends on how comfortable the dwarves in question are with commitment. Other dwarves may raise eyebrows if the eros value gets too high without the marriage happening, depending on how conservative the values of said onlooking dwarves are (Love and marriage, love and marriage/Go together like a horse and carriage/This I tell ya, brother/You can't have one without the other!).

Eros values are not necessarily mutual. Unrequited love can occur, and if one dwarf is too pushy in requesting to spend time with another, rejection is a distinct possibility, depending on the temperament of the other dwarf. If one dwarf gets way too pushy, perhaps resorting to coercive means, then rape may be implied.

But only implied.

Again, abstraction is the way to go rather than granularization. Granularity is usually how Dwarf Fortress rolls, but as the saga memoriae damnata testifies, in this case, granularity is not what we want.

This. This is the best.

It has rape, but painted with the most subtle strokes! It doesn't stand out, and anyone could deny that it exists, but in the same sense, anyone could notice it if they want to! It's like an abstract painting that from one perspective looks like someone raping someone.

So if you don't want to see it, you don't, and if you do, you do!

[Madmachine]

I'm flattered you like my idea but that's a pretty creepy way of putting it tbh

[Random_Dragon]

So you could say your post feels violated. o3o

[Madmachine]

K-kyaaa! Yamete!

[Putnam]

So you could say your post feels violated. o3o

You are really quite good at attempting to escalate and bait people into getting banned

Could you, like, go away?