Print

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

[KittyTac]

We have plenty of time post-1.0. And Toady's child/designated successor could take his place if he dies of old age, so GC's argument is flawed.

We're still mortal KittyTac.

We have plenty of time post-1.0. And Toady's child/designated successor could take his place if he dies of old age, so GC's argument is flawed.

Are you even reading my stuff or are you just looking for keywords?

To be fair, you behave much better than before your little hiatus.

[GoblinCookie]

Are you even reading my stuff or are you just looking for keywords?

To be fair, you behave much better than before your little hiatus.

I meant that yes Toady One's successor could carry on the work, but we (as in the two of us) are still going to die. 

[KittyTac]

Are you even reading my stuff or are you just looking for keywords?

To be fair, you behave much better than before your little hiatus.

I meant that yes Toady One's successor could carry on the work, but we (as in the two of us) are still going to die.

That is a non-sequitur that has no relation to DF development.

[GoblinCookie]

That is a non-sequitur that has no relation to DF development.

It does have a relationship to our interests as players however. 

[KittyTac]

That is a non-sequitur that has no relation to DF development.

It does have a relationship to our interests as players however.

I'm more interested in playing villains (more exciting). Anything else?

[GoblinCookie]

I'm more interested in playing villains (more exciting). Anything else?

This thread is not about playing villains.

In truth however, the reason not to implement this idea is that there is a far simpler way to do it, that is also soft-coded.  We add in citizen statuses along the lines of what we will need to implement for the sake of for instance the prison scenario (guardsVSprisoners) then with minimal effort the devs can allow an entity to decide who belongs to which status based upon caste. 

All I (or the devs) need to do is create a citizen status for 'man' and 'woman', tied to male and female caste and we can potentially also have thoughts about gender, as a side-effect of having thoughts about other citizen statuses in general.

[KittyTac]

I'm more interested in playing villains (more exciting). Anything else?

This thread is not about playing villains.

In truth however, the reason not to implement this idea is that there is a far simpler way to do it, that is also soft-coded.  We add in citizen statuses along the lines of what we will need to implement for the sake of for instance the prison scenario (guardsVSprisoners) then with minimal effort the devs can allow an entity to decide who belongs to which status based upon caste. 

All I (or the devs) need to do is create a citizen status for 'man' and 'woman', tied to male and female caste and we can potentially also have thoughts about gender, as a side-effect of having thoughts about other citizen statuses in general.

I agree.

[happy face]

I'm more interested in playing villains (more exciting). Anything else?

This thread is not about playing villains.

In truth however, the reason not to implement this idea is that there is a far simpler way to do it, that is also soft-coded.  We add in citizen statuses along the lines of what we will need to implement for the sake of for instance the prison scenario (guardsVSprisoners) then with minimal effort the devs can allow an entity to decide who belongs to which status based upon caste. 

All I (or the devs) need to do is create a citizen status for 'man' and 'woman', tied to male and female caste and we can potentially also have thoughts about gender, as a side-effect of having thoughts about other citizen statuses in general.

can you explain to me better how that works?

[Putnam]

also, previous statements implied a lot more procedural gender and stuff than "man" and "woman"

[GoblinCookie]

I'm more interested in playing villains (more exciting). Anything else?

This thread is not about playing villains.

In truth however, the reason not to implement this idea is that there is a far simpler way to do it, that is also soft-coded.  We add in citizen statuses along the lines of what we will need to implement for the sake of for instance the prison scenario (guardsVSprisoners) then with minimal effort the devs can allow an entity to decide who belongs to which status based upon caste. 

All I (or the devs) need to do is create a citizen status for 'man' and 'woman', tied to male and female caste and we can potentially also have thoughts about gender, as a side-effect of having thoughts about other citizen statuses in general.

can you explain to me better how that works?

Okay, let's say we have a prison.  In order to have a prison we have to have two fundamental types of citizen, the guard and the prisoner.  The prisoners have to have a set of restrictions as to what they can do, these restrictions can be defined by tokens, for instance the prisoner has a token that keeps them from going within a certain distance of the map-edge and another token the causes them to attempt to escape the map altogether. 

We also presumably have to have restrictions on government positions and occupations.  Prisoners should not be able to be elected mayor of our prison site and prisoners should not do jobs that imply going out into the wilderness (so hunter, fisherman and herbalist). That way we now have the tools to effectively set up gender roles, all that we need is to be able to define who is what role based upon our caste. 

So the female caste leads to the woman social status, the male caste leads to the man social status and all this is defined in the raws for the civilisation.  We can now define what jobs the genders do, just as we defined that prisoners can't hunt.  By default there is no social status for man and woman, so things work as they do at the moment. 

also, previous statements implied a lot more procedural gender and stuff than "man" and "woman"

More complexity can be established by stacking up multiple gender-based statuses on top of eachother.  Not that gender is generally that complicated in most societies, but there are a few exceptions.  I don't actually think that we can really have procedural gender as such, I think it should all be soft-coded in the raws as nobody knows how gender came about but it is also totally consistent, as in women are *never* in charge and the only differences are how close or far away the women are to being slaves in a given society. 

[Putnam]

I think it should all be soft-coded in the raws as nobody knows how gender came about but it is also totally consistent, as in women are *never* in charge and the only differences are how close or far away the women are to being slaves in a given society. 

can you elaborate on what you mean by this

[Rowanas]

I think it should all be soft-coded in the raws as nobody knows how gender came about but it is also totally consistent, as in women are *never* in charge and the only differences are how close or far away the women are to being slaves in a given society. 

can you elaborate on what you mean by this

It's straight up incorrect.

[GoblinCookie]

can you elaborate on what you mean by this

I mean the origins of gender roles are so far in the past that nobody knows how to model their arising, because there are no reliable historical records then as to how they arose.  That being so, it is pretty much impossible for the game to have realistic procedural generation of gender, because no historical knowledge exists as to how gender was 'generated' in RL. It is also possible that there was no arising at all, that gender was simply inherited wholesale from the creatures humans evolved from, by that token gender is actually older than the human race itself.

Another complication occurs in vanilla DF.  There are actually no inherent differences in abilities, skills or personality between the sexes in DF, which means that there is basis for inequality between them.  Without pre-existing gender roles, the genders are uniform and therefore there is no rational basis by which a society presently having no such roles would ever invent them.  That leaves us with randomness as the only criteria to establish the gender roles, but as already discussed, gender roles are essentially consistent across nearly all societies, that is to say men are in charge, women are not in charge (Patriarchy). 

A random system does not do any kind of justice to the concept, but with no rationality to the arising of gender roles that is what we are left with.

[Cathar]

That being so, it is pretty much impossible for the game to have realistic procedural generation of gender, because no historical knowledge exists as to how gender was 'generated' in RL.

No but we can make educated guesses. The most likely is gender are a social technology, and we know how technology develops : society A discovers something that gives it a leg up. Its neighbour, society B, has to copy the technology to resist conquest by society A or be conquered and have that technology applied to it.

Safeguarding women from danger in general is an obvious one, because the growth of the society is tied to the number of women in age of procreation. Agnatic legacy is maybe less obvious, but is understandable when you take into account that giving birth and child rearing is a process that ties women to a land, whereas men are not tied to anything unless there is something to be gained from staying in the place. For a man, owning your children becomes a social technology that ties them to the land and allows a society to defend itself against other societies.

You will also note that societies without competition (isolated in small island) never develop this kind of technology.

Another complication occurs in vanilla DF.  There are actually no inherent differences in abilities, skills or personality between the sexes in DF, which means that there is basis for inequality between them. 

For gender roles to arise you only need one difference : one gender gives birth and the other does not. Even if women were twice as strong as men, medieval times would still be patriarchal because no society will send its women to war.

[GoblinCookie]

No but we can make educated guesses. The most likely is gender are a social technology, and we know how technology develops : society A discovers something that gives it a leg up. Its neighbour, society B, has to copy the technology to resist conquest by society A or be conquered and have that technology applied to it.

Safeguarding women from danger in general is an obvious one, because the growth of the society is tied to the number of women in age of procreation. Agnatic legacy is maybe less obvious, but is understandable when you take into account that giving birth and child rearing is a process that ties women to a land, whereas men are not tied to anything unless there is something to be gained from staying in the place. For a man, owning your children becomes a social technology that ties them to the land and allows a society to defend itself against other societies.

You will also note that societies without competition (isolated in small island) never develop this kind of technology.

There is no particular reason not to send the warriors (regardless of gender) off to war and give the babies to the civilians (regardless of gender). 

For gender roles to arise you only need one difference : one gender gives birth and the other does not. Even if women were twice as strong as men, medieval times would still be patriarchal because no society will send its women to war.

Only a tiny minority of the women at any given time are giving birth.  If women were twice as strong, you would send the women to war and give all their babies to the men to look after.