Print

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

[CaptainNitpick]

But I fail to see how things like necrophilia really contribute to the game at all. Other than making elves even creepier, of course.

You say that like creepier elves is a bad thing. I'm only half-joking. Having more ways to make various cultures see each other as weird helps define the relationships between them.

Although having elves practice necrophilia in addition to cannibalism might be going too far.

[Hungry]

Things like necrophilia are a physcological condition not a cultural condition. It would need a personality trigger that would activate the necrophilia when the individual comes into contact with a corpse, or has a burial job...

Accepting the Necrophilia is a cultural condition...

[The Architect]

Whether something is accepted and widespread very much affects whether an individual will participate. The "icky" factor only goes so far to stop an individual if it is what is expected of them, and praised by their peers.

I don't want to see necrophilia in the game, but it could very much be a matter of culture. Undoubtedly some people would be strong-minded and disagree with their peers, refusing to be a part of it. That in itself could have various consequences, including shunning/exile/murder.

[Nadaka]

I would rather talk about the controversial elements removed from DF.

Namely, the ability to mod intelligent species to be butcherable to use their skin for leather and meat for food. At the same time elves were given an ethic allowing them to eat intelligent species. In v38c I had modded dwarves to be brutal, butchering, skinning and eating goblins and elves. I can no longer do this effectively.

There are ways to make things butcher-able, but the hides can not be tanned, nor can the meat be cooked or eaten. Oddly enough this only applies to fortress dwarves, I can import all the elf leather and dwarf meat I want (goblins remain an elusive target).

[Lord Dakoth]

I think that it would be very interesting if ethics were determined at worldgen. After all, aren't a culture's ethics determined largely by the surroundings?

Of course, this could have some possibly unwanted side effects, such as Elves living underground and drinking booze, and Dwarves sitting in trees and smoking Rope Weed.

[LordZorintrhox]

This game will get very interesting if this suggestion is implemented. I can't wait to see [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:IF_GOOD_REASON] in the raws. 

Well, if you're gay, there is always a good reason...that being you are gay.

Sorry to return to this, but...I felt I couldn't not say something.  Yeah, good joke, but, I don't know...

Frankly I find it personally offensive.  Sorry, I normally don't care and shrug such things off as forum banter.  Hell, I make gay jokes all the time with my friends, but it really isn't okay this time, especially in a thread seriously discussing "controversial elements" that could be added to DF.  I know this is a joke, but I can't get the bad taste out of my mouth, and I really don't want to be offended, but I am.

Given that most social species show homosexual tendencies, and that DF simulates things down to individual teeth and what manner of earrings a person likes, it would be reprehensible not to include homosexuality in what are by most accounts fantasy's most social of races (among themselves at least).  Pile on the civilizations that exile homosexuals, etc., but model the ethics in an interesting way that can mirror the real world issues faced by gay people both historically and contemporaneously.

You know, raping lesbians to "fix" them, the death sentence, forced sterilization, as well as "personal matter," "who the hell cares? (I guess that would be "acceptable")," and full marriage rights.  The options in the raws cover most of that, but at least one would need to be added for marriage rights.

However, it doesn't exactly cover it properly: I am unaware of the decision mechanism behind the DF creatures actions, so I do not know how the ethics interact with what creatures do.  If murder is "unthinkable," does that mean a murderer is wrong in the head in terms of how the game logic made him murder?  Did the creature "decide" to go against their culture's ethics?

If so, the homosexuality tag would only treat the civ's reaction to the act of, in DF terms, taking a same-gendered spouse, because it is unavoidable in a human-esque fantasy species.   Civ's will have to deal with it no matter what.

So please don't make jokes like I have no other choice, because I don't.

[Neonivek]

There is a triad IMO when it comes to such things

1) Murder is wrong against two people
2) Murder is wrong as capital punishment
3) Murder is wrong against people outside our society

Though you could even extend it to war.

Though I assume for all game purposes that "Murder" only refers to one person to another (or a group to an individual... though some societies had legal loopholes if someone was Lynched because no individual "Killed" the person.).

[The Architect]

LordZorintrhox, I really hope we can avoid going through something like that again. I didn't realize a joke was made at the expense of our gay forum members, and I'm sorry that it took place. Thank you for keeping your rant very civil and well-reasoned.

I think the only valid point to be gleaned from the comment you quoted is: people will only do things based on a cost. This is a simple evaluation of human nature, and of course all kinds of interference take place, but normally we make every decision on a choice of good for ourselves versus bad for ourselves. We evaluate everything based on its positive and negative connotations as we perceive them at the time we make the decision. So what we would likely see, from a code point of view (taking my cue from Toady's description of the new raws system) is something along the lines of a scale of sexual desire (how strong of a decision-making factor sexual desire is in a creature's thought processes), a scale of social responsibility, several personality factors such as the need to feel accepted (peer pressure, leaning the creature toward whatever accepted behavior there may be), and many other scaled personality factors and possibly situational influences such as availability.

In terms of programming, dwarves and other social creatures will in fact choose their mates based on these factors. So they will, quite literally, be homosexual "for a good reason". It will be what their personality and situation incline them toward. In this way, the poster does have a valid point. The reason for the smiley eludes me. I hope that you didn't take this... "joke" as a suggestion that real homosexuals don't have a good reason, and I really don't believe that was the meaning.

[LordZorintrhox]

S'okay, I get edgey late night.  Though it would be grinding at any time of day.  Thanks.

If that is indeed how the guts of DF work, then I am perfectly okay with whatever Toady does if he should ever burn precious Rawifying or Mechanics Arc time making sure that creatures can be gay.  I mean, let's face it, the Fantasy genre isn't exactly a place to find representative levels of homosexuality in general.  Though it is still a "nice to have...," like most gay issues.  Comes with the territory.

I'm happier the conversation didn't take a wicked right into lumping homosexuality and bestiality into the same category, because then I'd have been ripshit.

ANYWAY, the point made about the media never picking up on DF's "gritty realism" is very valid.  Since the game is in ASCII, and if it ever evolves past that it would merely be sprites and isometric, there is no way the media would bother.  There is no two-second clip they can play to get parent's dander up, merely text.  It would be news that wouldn't sell.

My personal preference is that there is nothing wrong with including any element in a game one could call "controversial," as long as it is included in a manner that fully represents why it is controversial in the first place.  For instance, GTA makes all that horrible stuff fun and with only minor, paper-thin consequence.  In contrast, Mass Effect requires at least 8 hours of game play devoted to merely hanging out with the girl to get a 15 second clip of barely R-rated side-boobage.  In game terms, that is an eternity.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On top of that, if you sleep with Ashley, there's that whole who dies business and things get REALLY complicated.  There is a visceral reaction in the player.

So if you want to include rape (Armok knows why...) or torture, make the repercussions believable and tangible.  Have the act have some effect on the character's psyche that makes gameplay change.  The system already is in some limbo between the player is in charge and the the character is in charge, so maybe depression effects from transgressing your race's ethical rules could kick in.  Depression does have that element of "wanting to do something, but just can't seem to get out of my own way," and your little adventurer refusing to do things you tell them to for a few turns every time they see someone with red hair because you once had them brutally murder a person with red hair would be interesting and impart a true, realistic, and gameplay relevant cost for their actions.

Descriptions can go a long way there, too.  For torture, the game mechanics would have to be transparent.  No minigaming or "close to talking" bar.  No, you must needlessly beat up someone and carefully intersperse interrogation until they crack or die.  That way, you have to have the sickening knowledge that you have practiced and carefully thought about how to break someone's will.

[SSBR]

There is no two-second clip they can play to get parent's dander up, merely text.  It would be news that wouldn't sell.

Some news sells that way, others doesn't. Some of the weirder game-changing arguments were derived from things that were total lies, and so certainly couldn';t have video clips. Jack Thompson in particular didn't play the games he talked about, let alone provide evidence to his claims. Given, he didn't do as much damage as, say, the Hot Coffee mod, which could provide clips. I'm not convinced the news wouldn't sell, and I'm certainly not convinced a video clip couldn't be come up with. Even isometric art gets kind of weird if you see a line of dwarves forming to a cute little dwarven child for the purposes of rape, or whatever (that scenario is rather unlikely to pull off, depending on how it's implemented-- it'd be easier, perhaps, to show rape and subsequent beating death or something). It's a scary image, and isometric rendering would make it much easier to visualize.

In contrast, Mass Effect requires at least 8 hours of game play devoted to merely hanging out with the girl to get a 15 second clip of barely R-rated side-boobage.  In game terms, that is an eternity.

What? As far as I recall it just meant visiting the character in-between missions and choosing the right conversation options. I did it entirely by accident.

There is no good way to pull it off, really, because people will always think you did it tastelessly no matter how hard you try to do it tastefully. People think that the start of Saving Private Ryan is too long. People complain about the "No Russian" mission in Modern Warefare 2. I thought those scenes were powerful and epic. Nyeh to the lot of them. And people say that ME's romance subplots were intricate and realistic and difficult, not just a shoddy way to see some porn, and while I agree it's not the latter, I don't think it's the former either. They don't seem particularly deep to me.

[Neonivek]

I think what you mean SSBR is that Mass Effect didn't do it like Dragon Age where you just shower your potential love interest with trinkets and she/he decides to sleep with you just there and then.

Or like Indigo Prophacy where the Female Lead falls inlove and has sex with the corpse main character with practically no previous romantic involvement whatsoever (Though in their defense. They are basically fitting 2 sequels in after half the game)

[The Architect]

Once again, Neonivek leaves me completely perplexed.

[LordZorintrhox]

Or Fable where all you need to do is 1) be awesome and 2) give them one gift and they start asking you to marry them.  Shags are generally a dime a dozen in games that bother to include them.

The point is at least Mass Effect tried and made you work for it.  There was an investment in the whole scenario and the characters, at least if you bothered to pay attention.  Plus the whole interchange was kinda cute.  Some of the things Sheppard says are...awesomely corny.

SSBR, that was in a spoiler block for a reason you know.  It is supposed to be an important and jarring part of the game...

[Lord Dakoth]

If I offended anyone with my little joke earlier, it was never my intent to hurt anyone, but if I did anyways I apologize.

As for torture, I think that it would be a very interesting (even if twisted) addition to the game. Regarding torture for information, I think that it would make a use for many of the frequently ignored skills.

For instance, if your adventurer is captured and tortured, you could use a combination of the Persuader and Negotiator skills to help yourself get free, the Pacifier skill to offset the captor's malicious intents, or the Liar skill to supply false information. The captor could use Intimidator to get information without having to resort to torture or Judge of Intent to see through a lie.

Of course, the effectiveness of different methods would vary depending on the race/personality traits of both parties. Pacifier would be rather ineffective against goblins, for example.

[SSBR]

SSBR, that was in a spoiler block for a reason you know.  It is supposed to be an important and jarring part of the game...

Christ, you scared me for a second. I thought you were saying I accidentally posted your spoiler block. I still suspect you are, but I can't be sure, and anyway I haven't.

The point is at least Mass Effect tried and made you work for it.  There was an investment in the whole scenario and the characters, at least if you bothered to pay attention.

Oh, I do. I was carefully cultivating relationships with all my team members. And I threw in sexual jokes once in a while when they were available, because they're kind of funny. And suddenly there's this girl asking me about my relationship with some other girl and I'm going "wait what?". Obviously after that I realized I was supposed to pursue a relationship, but it felt artificial.

It seemed really hard to try to make them like you while at the same time correcting any flaws (bigotry in Ashley, oppressiveness in Garrus, that sort of thing). On the plus side I succeeded marvelously with all my characters, even kept Wrex through the end on my first go (which apparently is quite troublesome for some). It was good.

I found the romantic interactions in GTA IV a lot more interesting, to be honest. The characters were often more interesting (they all had serious problems, to start with), and there was that whole have-to-maintain-relationship oh-shit-race-to-her-house-for-date thing. As far as I'm concerned, as a plot element and game mechanic, the final relationship stuff felt so much less forced, or something. It seemed natural, didn't catch me by surprise, and involved a lot more interaction, of sorts (it wasn't interactive for the player...). And this is a GTA game. Man, what's gotten into Rockstar? Or maybe the question is, what's gotten into me? I must be out of my mind.