Print

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

[The Architect]

First I would like to say that I have been against the inclusion of some controversial elements in the past, mainly questioning what they would add of substance to the game.

My argument being: in what way do the benefits outweigh the problems these topics present, is there any way the DF community can handle them, and in many cases "why can't we just pretend?"

I believe that I now understand the purpose of DF as a simulator for a "real" fantasy world, and that while it is possible for a brilliant individual to create such a world, dictate its rules, tell a story therein and even share it, DF is meant to allow anyone to actually participate in such a world free of the encumbrance of any creator or GM! This, I believe, is the true brilliance of the scope of the idea of Dwarf Fortress, and is what leads to all of the wonderful side effects like unpredictable events that we often mistake for the genius itself.

Any such project, or "fantasy-reality simulator" as it might be called, must necessarily include all elements where possible, good or evil, disgusting or mundane. Incest, slavery, violence, petty individualism, patriotism, nationalism, and pagan religion included. While we might pretend any part or even the whole of Dwarf Fortress, its purpose and the inclusion of these elements cannot be supplanted by mere pretense and imagination. DF's job is to bring them to life, to make them real for the player. They are indispensible.

I do, however, believe that many things should be left to be "manually enabled" by the player, and should not be default settings.

[SSBR]

Aside from such features slowing DF down further, increasing the complexity of the source code, increasing the complexity of the UI, increasing the steepness of the learning curve, and taking time away from other features that may be less controversial and do less of these things, there's not much I can think of, no-- some or all of these seem to tend to be present in controversial ideas. As a game design principle, adding anything anybody wants is bad.

On the other hand you're being awfully vague despite appearing to have some particular feature in mind. I can't argue the specific case for reasons that I guess should be obvious, but in general, controversial ideas are controversial for a reason, and adding them only because some people like them is silly.

[The Architect]

While I agree with you that some things are controversial for a reason, I think the purpose of DF is to provide an immersive world with the options to create an environment with whatever degree of realism you wish (within its capabilities).

I really do believe that some such things should be so far down the list of priorities that they may never even be addressed. But my main purpose is to put to rest some of the very belligerant controversy over these topics, not to discuss the practicality of including specific features.

You're right, it is vague. That is because its purpose is not to discuss the viability of any specific idea, but the importance of these controversial elements as a part of the Dwarf Fortress world. Other than the intentional nonspecificity of this, I don't see any of your objections that would not be satisfied by the suggested requirement of manual activation. No, I take that back, the source code will become more complex. But I don't see that as an ill effect, rather a necessary byproduct of the type of in-depth integrated work that Toady does.

You are right: you can't add anything anyone wants at any time; everyone wants different things. My point is that these controversial elements are actually a necessary part of DF's mission as it currently exists.

[Safe-Keeper]

Goblins invading your town to kill you all? Rare occurrence in real life. Rape? Happens to every third/fourth girl in the US, and probably more often in many other countries. Incest? Ruins more lives than you can imagine. Hence, I consider it incredibly bad form to include such things in games just because some random guy might want it "just for it to be there".

I have too many friends who have been raped or subjected to incest to ever want to see it in a game meant to entertain me.

Either way, there's far more pressing matters to attend to than "let's add {insert controversial feature here} just cuz it exists in real life".

You are right: you can't add anything anyone wants at any time; everyone wants different things. My point is that these controversial elements are actually a necessary part of DF's mission as it currently exists.

Yeah, DF is so incomplete until I can drag a pre-teen girl behind a shed and rape her  ...

[The Architect]

Well, you've got a valid point of course. And many of your arguments are ones I used in the past against it. No one can argue against them, and I don't think anyone will seriously defend the idea that programming should support rape. I suppose it is inevitable that things must come down to specifics. Some things are plausible, some are just too far. And who makes the decision? In order for something to be controversial (and thus fall under the jurisdiction of this post) there has to be someone on both sides. I haven't heard anyone advocate rape.

However, I did feel that since all the arguments I'd gotten for the inclusion of controversial elements were "you have some kind of outdated concept of what is right and wrong, and you just need to grow up", I would need to think carefully about it myself. And this is what I came up with.

The Dwarf Fortress world should not be focused on all of the ugly things people can do to each other. But I must ask: who draws the line and by what standard? I don't see any of this going in as specifics, such as player actions, notifications and so forth. For instance we know that dwarves breed and possess sexual organs, but there was no point in including them specifically. Their function is served, without crudeness. I think the same can be done with these other topics.

In retrospect the position I've taken in the first post needs reconsideration. When you consider how overly far something like this could be taken (extrapolated beyond considerations of civilization ethics to horrible acts by adventurers) it needs very careful handling. I must ask: does it trouble you greatly to think of an elven child being beaten mercilessly and tortured, ripped limb from limb? I admit that I don't get a sadistic pleasure out of the idea of doing it like some people do, but the flat truth is that I just don't care. It's not a person, and I won't be playing that way. It's none of my business how others choose to play.

[SSBR]

I haven't heard anyone advocate rape.

You're lucky. There are people out there that think that rape is made up by feminists or some such thing. They essentially advocate it.

The Dwarf Fortress world should not be focused on all of the ugly things people can do to each other. But I must ask: who draws the line and by what standard?

Well if that's the question, the answer is surprisingly simple: Toady draws the line, and his standard is probably his opinion on how well the feature goes with the rest of the game, and how hard it is to code, and so on. It's possible he just flips a coin or something, though.

I must ask: does it trouble you greatly to think of an elven child being beaten mercilessly and tortured, ripped limb from limb?

Er, yes. The image is fairly disturbing.

I admit that I don't get a sadistic pleasure out of the idea of doing it like some people do, but the flat truth is that I just don't care. It's not a person, and I won't be playing that way. It's none of my business how others choose to play.

It's your business if it affects how you will play, and it will. Case closed, it's your business. After all, work that goes into the child-beating simulation is taken away from, say, a bugfix or an optimization or that weapon you thought was cool, or the ability to make lunar bases using steam-powered rockets and fishbowl helmets. Not to mention it can introduce new bugs, blah blah blah.

[The Architect]

Ah, yes. Like I said: any such modifications belong at the bottom of the list. I have frequently stated that even an hour wasted programming incest is an hour to be used for something better.

When I really think about it, a child being ripped apart makes me sick. But I don't see the world of DF that way; it's merely symbolic. For instance: we have the pure "evil" of the goblins, a race we are not given the ability to reason with. Trying to translate that to the real world, I simply come up against the fact that goblins aren't a reality, aren't human, and thus are beyond anything I know. It is a philosophical blank wall. There is simply a point where it doesn't cross over. I think adding evil elements in order to make the reasons we choose to fight the enemy real (goblins as murderous incestuous slave drivers, for instance) makes sense. While I would be unlikely to play a truly evil civilization practicing such things, and I would be unable to ever take them lightly or in "good fun", I do see their eventual inclusion as a part of Dwarf Fortress's direction. If only as an ethics code, they seem like an important consideration.

All of this considered, if DF were to go certain places then I would no longer play it. Perhaps even were I given the option to turn such elements off.

[The Architect]

I haven't heard anyone advocate rape.

You're lucky. There are people out there that think that rape is made up by feminists or some such thing. They essentially advocate it.

Here comes the double-post.
This is the sort of thing a forum can't address. And the sort of thing likely to make me very, very mad. I think it has traditionally been known as "righteous anger". Even anger and hatred have their place when applied to such ideas. (not hatred of a person, but of their actions and/or beliefs)

I think any human being must know at some level the reality that men (and people in general) are supposed to protect and serve women (and other individuals in general), not abuse them for their own desires. Any saying to the contrary is simply justification for selfishness. But a forum can't address that, as people have complete anonymity to let their nastiness out and such discussions quickly degenerate.

If anyone doesn't understand this basic social (and religious) rule, just consider how you feel when another person does something you don't like (lies to you, for instance, and you tell them it's "wrong"), and the lengths you will go to in order to prove yourself "right" when you need to justify yourself. We are all hard-wired to recognize these polar opposites, and even our basic language is tailored to absolutes. But as stated: a forum can't address these issues, and neither can a game.

Edit: I felt the need to point out that the last paragraph was meant for anonymous readers, and NOT directed at either of the current posters.

[Euld]

So... essentially, the discussion is about which negative actions should be allowed in DF?

I would say that rape definently doesn't belong in the game.  The murdering and dismemberment of children is definently unusual for a video game (most games don't even have children present), but on the other hand, many people are mature enough to "take joy in the slaughter" while understanding they are playing a game, and those actions in the real world would be very, very wrong.  I suppose rape could be viewed in the same light, but I would perfer that rape not be allowed regardless of my ability to think of a good logical argument against it.  It just seems like something that nobody should be entertained with. 

As for incest, I'm willing to walk out on a limb and say that in DF, I'm able to tolerate it.  True, there are people who are forced into incest, but apparently in DF that isn't the case at all... perhaps it's a last resort, but there's no genetic problems that come up and no forced marriages.  And I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's such thing as incest jokes, but not rape jokes... at least in my country (the US).  Of course I wouldn't tell an incest joke to someone who was forced into incest, but I wouldn't dare tell a rape joke to anybody.

[Gnoll Fortress]

I think any human being must know at some level the reality that men (and people in general) are supposed to protect and serve women (and other individuals in general), not abuse them for their own desires.

well theres a big difference between what we are supposed to do and what we actually do.
As for convtroversial material in df I havent actually met anyone who was against child beating in df most just seemed to think killing elven children infront of their parents is pretty funny, if it were however not already in the game and it was brought up you might think its controversial but becuase its been there since day one noone seems to care. Unless perhaps violence simply isnt controversial?
In anycase it all comes down to what toady decides he wants in I'm all for sewers wich some people for reasons I cannot understand detest but in the end its not my game.

[Vester]

Look, I really think that beating someone's mother to death with her own arm is a lot worse than incest. Sure, it doesn't happen everyday, but fact of the matter is, murder is a lot worse than squicky incest.

As for rape? I really don't think it would add anything much to the game.

EDIT:

I haven't heard anyone advocate rape.

You're lucky. There are people out there that think that rape is made up by feminists or some such thing. They essentially advocate it.

Here comes the double-post.
This is the sort of thing a forum can't address. And the sort of thing likely to make me very, very mad. I think it has traditionally been known as "righteous anger". Even anger and hatred have their place when applied to such ideas. (not hatred of a person, but of their actions and/or beliefs)

I think any human being must know at some level the reality that men (and people in general) are supposed to protect and serve women (and other individuals in general), not abuse them for their own desires. Any saying to the contrary is simply justification for selfishness. But a forum can't address that, as people have complete anonymity to let their nastiness out and such discussions quickly degenerate.

If anyone doesn't understand this basic social (and religious) rule, just consider how you feel when another person does something you don't like (lies to you, for instance, and you tell them it's "wrong"), and the lengths you will go to in order to prove yourself "right" when you need to justify yourself. We are all hard-wired to recognize these polar opposites, and even our basic language is tailored to absolutes. But as stated: a forum can't address these issues, and neither can a game.

Edit: I felt the need to point out that the last paragraph was meant for anonymous readers, and NOT directed at either of the current posters.

Hate the sin and not the sinner?

[Cyx]

 .

[Cheeetar]

I think we're forgetting that this nearly certainly won't change Toady's mind on whether or not he wants these sorts of things in his game.

[CaptainNitpick]

While I've argued for the inclusion of some of these "controversial elements", I'd also like to argue that they should be way down the priority list. Like, so far down that they never actually get implemented because Toady dies of old age at 102 because there were far more interesting things to do first.

I think that these little "powergoals" demonstrate well what rape could add to the game, when combined with other, more detailed elements.

Take rape and incest, and you've got powergoal Genesis 19. Plus you've got travelers, prophecy, refugees, and some good old-fashioned divine wrath thrown in. The Bible's actually a good source for of possible things the game should be able to do. The various curses inflicted upon Egypt in Exodus easily come to mind. Of course, randomly generating the birth of a dwarfly savior would be controversial in itself.

[The Architect]

I really like the way this discussion is going, in the sense that: no one is being crazed over the subject nor becoming overly upset. It's a nice change.

I am truly interested in the more logical arguments for and against the inclusion of such material which people are presenting. Most of these options seem like viable plot elements, if the goal is to create an immersive world for the player. I would really hope that no programming goes in to support the player committing sexual crimes, but a world completely lacking them will likely seem a little odd as DF becomes more complete.

Now we are up against a very important point: other than creating a more complete medieval-fantasy world, are there purposes which sexual crime could serve in DF that aren't served just as well or better than other already present or less disturbing elements? For instance: hunting down a criminal who raped the mayor's daughter is not really any different than hunting a criminal who committed murder.

I am well aware that we are unlikely to influence Toady's decision. As stated before, the purpose of the discussion is to put to rest some flaming and immature "shouting matches" that have gone on over various topics addressed here, and allow for rational discussion of its relevance to the game.

The purpose of the "hate the sin, not the sinner" comment was to quell the rush of "OMG why do you hate people who are incestual!" etc. Hopefully we can also avoid a discussion of the morality of various acts and just focus on what is appropriate or meaningful for the game.