Hello everyone, long-time lurker, first-time poster here. I recently read the September FotF reply, and amidst
it all found something that I feel should be addressed.
So we'll be entering that room with the embark scenario release, and it's not clear where we're going to
go. In a non-earth world, we don't need to necessarily grapple with racism and sexism, but on the other
hand, DF has humans, and humans have a track record. That said, if it starts generating prejudices
based on, as you listed, appearance, is this even going to be a game people want to play? If you are
playing adventure mode and the game says you are the wrong color or sex etc. to speak to somebody, or
your dwarves start spitting no certain people, or worse, I think we incur a deeper obligation with our
players out there in the real world than just saying "oh the generator did that, no big deal".
There are a few notions in the paragraph that got me thinking. What I read in on is the supposition that
any form of cultural bias would have no place in the fantasy worlds generated by Dwarf Fortress. This, I
think, would be a huge misstep in terms of the worlds and emergent gameplay generated, and here are
some thoughts as to why this is.
We can observe the detrimental facts of unwarranted prejudice, and can observe the effects it has had on
humanity throughout history. We have to still account for the fact that Dwarf Fortress is not real, and
part of the intrigue in it comes from the fact that we can explore unsavory themes and see their causes
and effects in a contained sandbox environment. If we were to completely shy away from the notion of
cultural prejudice, preferrential treatment of in-groups and by proxy discrimination in the generation, politics,
and social dynamics of the world of Dwarf Fortress we would be making a mistake and gloss over those harsh
realities in favor of being oblivious to them. They are not comfortable things, very much so to someone who has to
experience them, however choosing not to allow the option of including these dynamics would be detrimental to
the overall experience. The effect of these tribalistic notions would have on nations, civilizations, the entities
and how they interact would add depth to their interactions, and even give the opportunity for heroes to rise,
championing their cause, and putting players in to a position where they could see, feel and experience those
concepts directly inside their world. These trivialities have an impact on the world, and glossing over the fact
just seems off.
Imagine a scenario where you generate a world where during the early years, a homogenous civilization of
humans with cultural values that enabled cruelty and glorification of the destruction of elves caused a divide
between human civilizations and elves that lasted for hundreds of years, all starting from one disgruntled elf
ruler insulting a particularly sensitive king's intelligence after trying to advocate him to accept a proposal to
restrict logging in the area in effort to preserve nature.
During this period, elves and by association elvish features in fellow humans, prompted a shift in cultural norms.
Humans would not deal with elves, and those with elf-like features in more prejudicial communities were shunned,
forcing elves and people who happened to have the misfortune of being born in the wrong place and wrong time in
the wrong type of way to leave these areas in favor of more open and welcoming pastures. The elves affected by
this civ, and their human brothers in exile, then began to speak of these acts of senseless cruelty to other
civilizations, some of which listened and chose to ally themselves against them, and some who refused out of spite
or indifference. Some of the victims who felt them and their people wronged rose in to positions of power and began
levying armies against the civilization, while those who took more kindly to peace and forgiveness searched for less
destructive means such as a trade embargo, art and literature, whatever means possible to shift the hate away.
This all ended with this human civilization crumbling from the inside out: the more neutral proponents realizing that
there is no merit in staying here and move out causing a production crisis, the more radical opposition forming plans
and educating the neutral masses of these horrors with some extreme radicals even attempting to assassinate the
governing officials, and those who held their civilizations beliefs grabbing the sword and sparking a civil war that
destroys the civ and leaves it as a footnote in history, to be read, engraved, acted out in plays, and used as an
example that shaped the notion of evil for all the rest of history.
Everyone did what they thought was right and justified to their values, and it ended up how it ended up because of
the generation and variables being a certain way. Imagine seeing this in your game, hearing of it and seeing how it
shaped the world and the people, drawing parallels of it to life and thinking of the vapid context of such acts.
Without prejudice in-game, this would not have ever happened.
Prejudice is an incredibly impactful mechanic on how civilizations interact with their citizenry and one-another. It
bands people together, forces people to choose sides, and most of the time it all started from one stupid thing
happening to someone powerful enough to cause a ripple that echoes to this day. Leaving it out would make the
experience more hollow in a way. Regardless of ideological or political alignment, we can all agree that to know evil,
we need to see evil.
Of course, if someone wants to play without it, make it a world-gen option. I've said my bit, and I hope this prompts some level of discussion on the subject.
Author
Topic: The Importance of Prejudice (Read 36521 times)