Print

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

[Moddan]

Seems like a great way to add another degree of freedom for civilizations to the game. There could be different cultural policies how to treat minorities or a certain ethniticy/race. A dwarven kingdom declaring war a human empire because of the mistreatment of their dwarven citizen would be fun. It would also make the world more diverse with having some civs with ghettoficated cities with racial quarters and some not. Open socities without racial constraints would probably be more susceptible to espionage and sabotage from outside forces but could profit from better access to technologies and crafting methods as well as a strong military mix.

Conflicts arising from a multi-racial anti-apartheits religion spreading into a traditional xenophobic civ with repressed minorities would be interesting.

[Iä! RIAKTOR!]

DF may have really races into species. Two goblin races - gray-skinned igva and green-skinned rarruga, four races for humans and some races of elves (taiga elves? pygmy elves?) and dwarves (hillock dwarves with tan? deep dwarves with pale skin and ginger beards?). Sun radiation must have influence to skin color, like in real life. There also are possible ways to do this without adding direct, pre-defined races, but they will be harder to code.

[Hamsmagoo]

Criticizing intolerance of diverse races is OK. But apparently criticizing intolerance of diverse viewpoints is "out of control." So, let me try and re-word my suggestion:
I like the idea of humans clamoring for larger clothes, but maybe we should also have pseudo-intellectuals clamoring for dominance of their pompous ideologies.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult anyone here. I'm just saying racial tension is less an organic thing and more of an excuse for the powerful to justify the suppression of ideas that are politically dangerous to them.

[Strik3r]

Its part of human nature to look for reasons to discriminate and hate others. Some think they can change that by preaching tolerance and diversity. Ironically, they'll scream bloody murder at anyone that doesn't agree with them. It's just part of human nature, i guess.

[Hamsmagoo]

Its part of human nature to look for reasons to discriminate and hate others. Some think they can change that by preaching tolerance and diversity. Ironically, they'll scream bloody murder at anyone that doesn't agree with them. It's just part of human nature, i guess.

Sorry if I made anyone mad, but what you're saying is all I'm saying. Somebody says:this idea should not be implemented because it could potentially represent a subjective idea I personally think is wrong. I feel compelled to stand up to that way of thinking, as it promotes more hate and tension than any vague example of racism. It is true intolerance.
Let's have no confusion: I've never looked at an opinion on a forum I disagreed with and thought "this is out-of-control and needs to be completely deleted." I can't fathom such intolerance.

In many ways we are still fighting the war of ideals that began when Jan Hus was burned at the stake: individualism versus collectivism, and that actually would be interesting in the game. Enough dwarves decide, we'd rather have the freedom to choose our own professions than the simple security this feudal mountainhome provides and so they behead all the nobles and form a republic.

[sanchezman]

Historically, discrimination has been fed by a ruling class looking to divert attention away from any perceived failings.  The capital city burned down in a raging fire?  I saw a member of group X with a match, it must be them!  Widespread famine across the countryside?  It's those greedy Y's hoarding all the food!  Rampant economic instability?  You know it's the Z's with all the money who are behind it!  Whether the ruler was actually at fault or not, their legitimacy derives from their ability to keep a stable country functioning.  The best way to save that legitimacy is to shift the blame and punish some "other" group.  In that way, the non-other subjects can feel a sense of justice or rightness in the world, while the ruler does not have to answer any hard questions about what actually went wrong.  The "other" group that is targeted is usually not a coincidence.  They might be politically troubling to the current ruling class, or have property that is desired by the non-other subjects.

Without these dynamics in the game, I see little reason for such tensions to exist.  The closest thing I can think of would be to tie it in to villainous plots.  I imagine it manifesting in historical events like these:

"In the Spring of 149, "Mountainhome: Fact or Fiction?" the leather-bound codex was stolen from Hatedrashes.  Despite having no evidence, King Snodub LanguishedBuckets blamed dwarven collaborators for the theft, inflaming tensions between dwarves and goblins".
"In the Winter of 263, Urist McChild was kidnapped from Abbeycrystals.  When witnesses reported a coincidental visit by monks of the Lilac Council at the same time, an angry mob razed the temple to Dunem as the militia stood by"

Of course, the events to precipitate such public outrage against the "other" must be sufficiently severe.  Maybe when sufficiently valuable artifacts are stolen, a check could be made for groups that the ruler may want to blame.  Maybe the same for when important people are kidnapped.

However, until such tensions are modeled in the game, I see no reason for there to be minority groups gathering in an enclave.  With nothing to fear from the ruling class, the minority has no reason to separate itself.

[Hamsmagoo]

The capital city burned down in a raging fire?  I saw a member of group X with a match, it must be them! 

Ok, Emperor Nero.
(I completely agree though)

[Pillbo]

I vote lock the thread, this isn't the place for crusading against "intolerance".

Paradox of Tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." The paradox of tolerance is an important concept for thinking about which boundaries can or should be set.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[Hamsmagoo]

I vote lock the thread, this isn't the place for crusading against "intolerance".

Paradox of Tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." The paradox of tolerance is an important concept for thinking about which boundaries can or should be set.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

"I vote we lock this thread now that I've posted my position on the topic. Quick! While I still have the final word!"
Your "paradox of intolerance" is subjective and based off of a palpable prejudice promoting a hivemind mentality and that's what my point was.
If you disagree with a viewpoint, debate it intelligently. Don't demand it be banned. Are you familiar with the concept of fascism? And if you truly believe that the intolerant should not be tolerated. I mean in an honest and equal way, then you should request the banning of everyone who reports an opinion they don't like. And you should request the banning of anyone who requests a thread be locked because it contains an argument they don't like.

The corrupt always thrive in societies that take that narrow-minded philosophy.

[Strik3r]

Just as easy for someone to disregard it all as just blind hate and stereotypes, regardless of the actual validity of said stereotypes, as is for someone to always blame someone else for all their problems.

Now it's been taken to new heights with a subset of a single race being blamed for all the social problems in the world, largely being blamed by themselves... heh, i wonder who is to blame for this happening? Either way, someone's always blaming someone else for something.

[Iä! RIAKTOR!]

I vote lock the thread, this isn't the place for crusading against "intolerance".

Paradox of Tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." The paradox of tolerance is an important concept for thinking about which boundaries can or should be set.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

"I vote we lock this thread now that I've posted my position on the topic. Quick! While I still have the final word!"
Your "paradox of intolerance" is subjective and based off of a palpable prejudice promoting a hivemind mentality and that's what my point was.
If you disagree with a viewpoint, debate it intelligently. Don't demand it be banned. Are you familiar with the concept of fascism? And if you truly believe that the intolerant should not be tolerated. I mean in an honest and equal way, then you should request the banning of everyone who reports an opinion they don't like. And you should request the banning of anyone who requests a thread be locked because it contains an argument they don't like.

The corrupt always thrive in societies that take that narrow-minded philosophy.

I agree with this position.

[Hamsmagoo]

Just as easy for someone to disregard it all as just blind hate and stereotypes, regardless of the actual validity of said stereotypes, as is for someone to always blame someone else for all their problems.

Now it's been taken to new heights with a subset of a single race being blamed for all the social problems in the world, largely being blamed by themselves... heh, i wonder who is to blame for this happening? Either way, someone's always blaming someone else for something.

I'm more concerned with politicians and pundits who push some insidious initiative for personal gain, suppress all protesters who see the consequences of it, prevent them from getting their argument out there, and justify it by labeling them as some form of bigot or another. Not to get specific because it happens in a number of ways.

[MaxTheFox]

Isn't such marginalization a common theme and trope in fantasy fiction? Remember that this game aims to be a "fantasy world generator", not a reality simulator. While we could have, as sanchezman described, reasons for intolerance, some things could also be set during worldgen and otherwise not justified. E.g goblin societies (or goblins themselves) innately hate dwarves and elves.

[Cathar]

Wow this thread glows in the dark.

This idea is bad altogether, simulates nothing of value, adds no gameplay, and is just the right wing equivalent to posts asking for transgender dwarfs.
Most of the people who posted in this thread can do better than that.

Edit :
How do you define a race, in the game ? If that's human/elves/dwarfs/gobs, fine, that already exist. Racial civilizations are a thing already. If that's down to the phenotypical level, the game does not track those. The idea is dead in the water already. I *assume* it coule be feasible to add trackers to entities to keep track of their ethnic background, at the price of development time and CPU power, but for what ? To simulate fantasy segregation ? Seriously...

Dwarven cavalry in fortress mode. That's a better idea.

[Hamsmagoo]

Wow this thread glows in the dark.

This idea is bad altogether, simulates nothing of value, adds no gameplay, and is just the right wing equivalent to posts asking for transgender dwarfs.
Most of the people who posted in this thread can do better than that.

Edit :
How do you define a race, in the game ? If that's human/elves/dwarfs/gobs, fine, that already exist. Racial civilizations are a thing already. If that's down to the phenotypical level, the game does not track those. The idea is dead in the water already. I *assume* it coule be feasible to add trackers to entities to keep track of their ethnic background, at the price of development time and CPU power, but for what ? To simulate fantasy segregation ? Seriously...

Dwarven cavalry in fortress mode. That's a better idea.

Also furry dwarves.