Print

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

[Red Diamond]

I know Toady is a open minded individual, theres full configurability already with the understood sensitivity that DF is a international product and the laws of different countries interpret acceptable relationships differently (hence you can configure total straight cut heterosexuality throughout the entire game for instance).  But even still, having it be a free-for all doesn't seem intuitive to the player, and there would be a lot of redundant childless marriages. It could be configured more as a means of `attraction` which kind of plays into the infrastructure of relationships dwarves have already, where when at a certain level of friendship the make or break moment may be that said dwarf makes a romantic gesture infront of the elf and ends up completely rebuked in a one sided relationship.

Dwarves might have a naturally normal range for themselves and some other what may be seen as relevant choices in different values, dwarves with a particular preference-interest in a sentient being may have some sort of unnatural fixation on the appropriate gender of it for themselves. A dwarf who admires humans for their height or ambition is likely going to romantically approach one with varied results even if the chances of mutual attraction are small.

I don't know of any countries that presently have a legal problem with inter-racial relationships, I think that was only old America that ever had a legal problem with that.  Redundant childless marriages are already in the game (homosexuals) but really the problem is that it draws attention to the lack of hybrids in the present game.

The real problem is the problem that food preferences have; if we decide randomly what our dwarves are into then the more appropriate creatures we have in our game the lower the probability that we will actually encounter anyone so the more useless junk preferences we end up with (and unhappy dwarves in the case of food preferences). 

Rather than shouting "no sex in my game" in a game full of sex already, try discussing.

Yes, we could discuss divergent points of view in an atmosphere of tolerance, free from stereotypes and personal attacks. Wouldn't that be nice?

Do you truly not see a difference between a game that includes reproduction and a game that includes erotic content? How would you react to a proposal to add rape, prostitution, and bestiality?

Slippery-Slope-Fallacy here we go.  There is one erotic element of the game therefore all of them must go in even the very nasty ones and a hot-coffee game for adventure mode as well (not so nasty perhaps, just pornographic  ). 

...you mean several things which seem to be somewhat short of the complete mutual consent of a love-across-the-divide situation as is being discussed?

Is that what's being discussed? I thought we were discussing OP's risque boundary-pushing suggestion of "a dwarf female who gets really hot thinking about those sexy sexy kobolds." (Half-breeds and interspecies breeding have already been discussed extensively.)

I stated that some types of content fit better in some narrative settings than in others, and DF is not an appropriate place for erotic content. Instead of leading to a discussion of which types of content would best fit DF, this led to some harsh, insulting, and incoherent responses. People got triggered.

Looking through the archives, this whole sex conversation has already been worked through here, and probably elsewhere. So we could work over the same ground again: Can this hypothetical dwarf also get aroused thinking about a gorlak? A sheep? An antman? And where did this "complete mutual consent" idea come from? But let's not go there.

I've spent years in the real world studying narrative. So I thought that I was making fairly obvious points about the connections between settings, moods, and plots. Some people found my comments confusing and upsetting, and for that I apologize.

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't know of any countries that presently have a legal problem with inter-racial relationships, I think that was only old America that ever had a legal problem with that.

Um, there have been a lot of others.

[Starver]

(@Leonidas) There is no in-game sexual abuse (not in Vanilla, anyway, and I don't know if you're aware of the Modding discussion that got expunged), nor indeed any actual "Tab A goes in Slot B" stuff in the procreation side of thing, that gets revealed to the player, anyway.

So if that dwarf female takes it any further than merely emoting on the subject, it would have to be a reciprocal relationship, as things stand

Which you then suggest is a step on the path to rape (assymetric consent), prostitution (can be consensual[1] but often isn't, at least by ideal circumstances) and bestiality (totally assymetric consent if it it involves a non-sentient 'partner'[2]).


If you think there's eroticism involved (beyond mere words of preference in a dwarf psychology, and perhaps a rather tame Lover/Spouse entry in the relationships table if it is reciprocated, perhaps leading to a child magically appearing with (horror of horrors) parents.... Well, you're easily satisfied. Or repulsed. Either way, it was your trigger that seems to have been fingered, from what I read of this thread before I eventually decided to post.

DF is never going to be "about sex". It can (and is) about legacy and descendents, which is indicative of sex, but then so is your very existence in The Real World™. I hate to break it to you, but your parents[3] had sex. Which makes you the embodiment of erotic? Your grandparents even had sex with each other (or maybe not each other, but someone had sex with someone else, maybe not necessarily (always/forever) the appropriately paired grandparent. And so it goes on.

What's more, there's a good chance at least one of your Greatⁿ Grandmothers didn't just have sex, but she had sex with a Neanderthal... Or if she didn't, it's overwhelmingly likely she was the Neanderthal in that relationship. And it is ironic that it is descendents of such lineages tend to be the "not one drop" ideallists who would forever condemn a 'mixed-race' marriage with the group of humans less likely to be genetically part-Neanderthal.


So, sorry, but I think you're completely off-base with this one.  No, I'm not looking for DF to turn into a pure FurryFic Fantasia, or even "Leisure Suit Larry with Elves". (The thread title doesn't even hint at that, and that which is written within is no Penthouse Letters page) Not that it couldn't be, but it wouldn't become that with just this change. Like the Took family of Hobbits having a tale told of Fairie blood in their veins, there may be a suspicion (by the time history is progressed to game-time) that an ancestor took on a wife of some other kind than what they ostensibly are, maybe. Or you do find a half-Kobold, half-Dwarf, but that's just an interesting character, not an erotic/kinky/perverted^{delete as inapplicable} scene playing out in real time on your monitor in glorious ASCII.

But if you're still thinking otherwise, I'll leave you to your thoughts.


[1] And involves a form of sexual polygamy that doesn't exist at the moment, plus an Economy of some kind (currently out of the game) to make it a viable trading proposition.

[2] If you're extending to Animal People, then it's just exactly what is suggested. Mixed-race attraction, only actual 'race', rather than the melanin-prejudice kind.

[3] The biological ones, at least, if you had any other kind who did the co-parenting but for some reason didn't/couldn't entertain the thought of the initial step in the process.

[Azerty]

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

Furthermore, we cound introduce taxonomy to ensure only related creatures could mate or at least produce offspring.

[Shonai_Dweller]

...you mean several things which seem to be somewhat short of the complete mutual consent of a love-across-the-divide situation as is being discussed?

Is that what's being discussed? I thought we were discussing OP's risque boundary-pushing suggestion of "a dwarf female who gets really hot thinking about those sexy sexy kobolds." (Half-breeds and interspecies breeding have already been discussed extensively.)

I stated that some types of content fit better in some narrative settings than in others, and DF is not an appropriate place for erotic content. Instead of leading to a discussion of which types of content would best fit DF, this led to some harsh, insulting, and incoherent responses. People got triggered.

Looking through the archives, this whole sex conversation has already been worked through here, and probably elsewhere. So we could work over the same ground again: Can this hypothetical dwarf also get aroused thinking about a gorlak? A sheep? An antman? And where did this "complete mutual consent" idea come from? But let's not go there.

I've spent years in the real world studying narrative. So I thought that I was making fairly obvious points about the connections between settings, moods, and plots. Some people found my comments confusing and upsetting, and for that I apologize.

Again, the OP's tone is irrelevant. It's not his game. Toady doesn't implement suggestions according to the demands of random forum people. The subject is inter-species sex and how it would work in Dwarf Fortress.

And yes, it's been discussed before. Someone should have done the boring thing and stated the Suggestion forum rules on adding ideas to existing threads rather than starting new ones. But here we are.

So do you actually have any ideas? What do your years of narrative study tell you is the best way to approach this? In order to procedurally generate a tragic human-elf love story, the simulation needs to know that some humans for some reason are going to want have sex with an elf. Is that a personal thing? A natural result of living together (in which case it's going to be happening way more often than in "normal" fantasy settings considering how mixed most DF civs are)?

To generate Threetoe's story of the half-goblin requires cross-civilization relationships, so likely not just based on "living near each other".

[FantasticDorf]

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

Furthermore, we cound introduce taxonomy to ensure only related creatures could mate or at least produce offspring.

Does that extend outwards towards non-sentient creatures? (trying not to derail) because eventual hybridization of sentients may end up being realized as a system alternatively to justify some limited scope of crossbreeding as long as the results are defined like the very much elusive and import only mule.

Unicorn
           ---> Fairy Steed
Horse
           ---> Mule
Donkey

So do you actually have any ideas? What do your years of narrative study tell you is the best way to approach this? In order to procedurally generate a tragic human-elf love story, the simulation needs to know that some humans for some reason are going to want have sex with an elf. Is that a personal thing? A natural result of living together (in which case it's going to be happening way more often considering how mixed most DF civs are)?

For one thing we can definitely say, elves were lonely enough before Toady extended the acceptable age range a bit more so that they can find more suitors. Eventually a human and even a dwarven lifespan is going to become eclipsed and they'll have no interest in them anymore because the relationship will be seen as innappropriate to engage in except to maybe goblins who don't really have a purpose to lie about how old they are.

A vampire might be a good choice for a immortal spouse, but only say they are a 100 years their senior to keep up appearances.

[Starver]

Well, Angel was 224ish years older than Buffy when they met. And that turned out well.

Well, apart from the bit where... And the other bit where... Oh, and that time when...

[Shonai_Dweller]

Yeah, pretty sure if elf-human love is ever implemented, the rules on age will be expanded. Simple "dog years" rule would work. 30 year old human is the equivalent of 400 year old elf, etc.

Or it would probably be better just to remove the age thing for adult immortals altogether. I had a necromancer queen who ruled the humans for centuries and had a long string of lovers, at least until the local population were unable to produce anyone old enough. Seems like it wouldn't really matter to her in a "normal" fantasy story.

[Red Diamond]

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

Furthermore, we cound introduce taxonomy to ensure only related creatures could mate or at least produce offspring.

That would be necessary for generated creatures in the myth generator but not for raw-generated creatures.  I think for creatures simply defined in the raws we should not assume they CANNOT reproduce unless they share a raw defined tag that defines them as the same species (or potentially several ).  I am not sure that attraction should be restricted to those who can reproduce, but there probably should be an increased probability of being attracted to those of the species as yourself. 

Yeah, pretty sure if elf-human love is ever implemented, the rules on age will be expanded. Simple "dog years" rule would work. 30 year old human is the equivalent of 400 year old elf, etc.

Or it would probably be better just to remove the age thing for adult immortals altogether. I had a necromancer queen who ruled the humans for centuries and had a long string of lovers, at least until the local population were unable to produce anyone old enough. Seems like it wouldn't really matter to her in a "normal" fantasy story.

There we need to divide up chronological and biological age, Rimworld style.  An immortal creature never adds any biological age, so elves will be mostly likely to end up with teenage humans rather than old ones forever.  A necromancer/undead is frozen at the biological age it was when it became undead, so necromancers/vampires end up with mortals about the age they were when they became necromancers/vampires.

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

Furthermore, we cound introduce taxonomy to ensure only related creatures could mate or at least produce offspring.

Does that extend outwards towards non-sentient creatures? (trying not to derail) because eventual hybridization of sentients may end up being realized as a system alternatively to justify some limited scope of crossbreeding as long as the results are defined like the very much elusive and import only mule.

Unicorn
           ---> Fairy Steed
Horse
           ---> Mule
Donkey

I think that there should be predefined hybrids between two things but in the absence of said hybrids but with hybridization being possible the game should make up hybrids on the fly if no such creature is defined.  The real problem is hybrids-of-hybrids, the best way to cull this is to track both ancestors to the hybrids and randomize offspring breeding with their purebred ancestors, so if a half-elf breeds with an elf we have a 50% chance of get an elf, 50% of getting an half-elf.  So we only get a new hybrid creature if you are not breeding with either of the creatures you are a hybrid of.

Another issue is populations.  I am not sure if it would be good idea to throw together hybrids with their ancestors into a single pop figure that has a % componant of each creature rather than track the hybrids as a whole new population. 

[FantasticDorf]

I think that there should be predefined hybrids between two things but in the absence of said hybrids but with hybridization being possible the game should make up hybrids on the fly if no such creature is defined.  The real problem is hybrids-of-hybrids, the best way to cull this is to track both ancestors to the hybrids and randomize offspring breeding with their purebred ancestors, so if a half-elf breeds with an elf we have a 50% chance of get an elf, 50% of getting an half-elf.  So we only get a new hybrid creature if you are not breeding with either of the creatures you are a hybrid of.

Another issue is populations.  I am not sure if it would be good idea to throw together hybrids with their ancestors into a single pop figure that has a % componant of each creature rather than track the hybrids as a whole new population.

I disagree, Toady might cheat hybridization through archetypes of creatures like you said (like one mythgen molluscman template always creates a generated molluscbody hybrid) but if they are to exist they'll probably have to have the very real attention to detail so that are faithfully defined mainly basing everything off the care took to define mules. Including not least the typicial definitions of its body, habits, biome and expected population.

• It also raises the interesting prospect of defining creatures to reside in [GOOD] and [EVIL] biomes purely for the creation of other creatures, like some (un)/natural force-spirit that uplifts animals by w.g implying they have a hand in hybridizing the new creature, such as animalpeople seemingly spontaneously. That'd be fun to catch in a webbed cage and start pushing in close proximity to other animals to try and make them pregnant for some tame unnatural monsters.

Compared to the real world where there is a great measure of distance between taxonomical animal cousins, lions and tigers both sharing equatorial hot zones may occasionally end up near each other. It would be up to the combination of tags on a Liger or Tigron (really up to the player modifications how to sort that stickler out, unless there are two sets of castes for both outcomes) to determine how often they appear and whether they are [UBIQUITOUS] to the shared territory of lions & tigers seperate to nature..

Certain gameplay elements can also be brought into it, like surpassing the restriction on training wolves for war or hunting, by diluting them with tame wolves in order to get wolf dogs, and giant variations from each, until eventually by back-crossing them with dogs, you just end up with dogs again.

Based off the real canine taxonomy

Dog <=     
          --> Dogwolf
Wolf <=

Dog   ----------------- > Giant Dog
          --> Giant Dogwolf ^
Giant Wolf <=

By the same logic, back-crossing as a feature may be how populations become back on track again amongst sentient societies, as even though there's a particular half-dwarf ancestor, marrying back into dwarven families will pass over some familial traits, like if Toady can get round to doing attribute genetics, human tallness. I don't mean to re-iterate any of the points you made at me, but i did feel that the examples would help the discussion.

[Pillbo]

I think he should just make all hybrids come out as kobolds.

[Shonai_Dweller]

I think he should just make all hybrids come out as kobolds.

Well, that would save a year-long "hybrid-raw generation arc", yes. 

[Sajiky]

DF is best when it stays true to its setting and point of view, rather than trying to reflect modern sensibilities. It should not be a game about sex.

I ducked out for a bit, but didn't quite expect all this. On retrospect, I probably should have though.

How would it make the game more about sex than it already is? 

I'm not talking about adding some graphic depiction of coupling that's not in the game now. I'm talking about finding out the expedition leaders wife has been sneaking around with that visiting elf, or a female human warrior fell in love with the dwarfs militia leader and decides to stay in your fort. Along with the fallout of disapproval or whatever that comes with all that.

I would expect it would all be quite rare in any case. In a decent size fort, maybe once every several years at most. Mainly cause Dwarfs are rather conservative types, and disapproval should be strong.

My side not about Glen Cook's, Garrett Files also having all species combinations able to reproduce wasn't really my point either. I just kind of muddied my own waters there.  All unions could be unable to breed, and it could still raise some interesting situations

I do get that it would probably be quite a lot of work coding-wise, and if I were to set Toady's priorities for him (we should probably all thank God I don't) this wouldn't be very high on the list.

[Sajiky]

Just found this on the wiki page for quotes from the game.

"Kara Mase, the Glory of Amusing: Engraved on the wall is an image of a dwarf and an elf. The dwarf is committing a depraved act on the elf."

That whole page is hilarious btw. And proof all by it's lonesome that this is the coolest game ever made.

[Azerty]

I think we draw the line at sheep.  We restrict attraction to only creatures that [CAN_LEARN], so that rules out sheep and therefore bestiality.  We rule out the following creatures.

1. Exotic humanoids with little/no contact with the entity of the creature.
2. Non-sentient creatures.
3. Creatures that are inherently hostile to the creature.

Furthermore, we cound introduce taxonomy to ensure only related creatures could mate or at least produce offspring.

That would be necessary for generated creatures in the myth generator but not for raw-generated creatures.  I think for creatures simply defined in the raws we should not assume they CANNOT reproduce unless they share a raw defined tag that defines them as the same species (or potentially several ).  I am not sure that attraction should be restricted to those who can reproduce, but there probably should be an increased probability of being attracted to those of the species as yourself.

I posted here ideas about how taxonomy could be simulated, whch could enable the game to generate entirely new creatures.