Print

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

[Phreak]

Yeah Flex your right, and put it better then i put it :p.

[Jeoshua]

I definitely think that sexual orientation should wait until dwarven socialization in general actually matters.

After looking over the thread, I think even the dissenters to this suggestion could agree with this statement.  Homosexuality is taboo enough a topic that just throwing in some gay dwarves 4 teh lols would be highly inappropriate and would add nothing at all to the game except yet another reason for war between the elves and everyone else (cause you just know they're cool with it... they're literally faeries).

The moment that complex and somewhat meaningful interpersonal (or interracial or interspecial)* relationships are possible, that's when being gay will actually matter.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

On a societal communicative basis, what did you think I meant, Pervy McGee?

So since it's been brought up...

Elves - Like, totally cool with it.  Queen of the elves, indeed.  [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:ACCEPTABLE]
Goblins - Would not be cool with it.  This means they get to kill more elves.  [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:UNTHINKABLE]
Dwarves - "Does it make ye work slower? Then what do I care?" [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:PERSONAL_MATTER]
Humans - Generally not really all that cool with it. [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:APPALLING]
Kobolds - Only if you were the last Kobold on The Planes Of Enchanting [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:ONLY_IN_SELF_DEFENSE]

[knaveofstaves]

I definitely think that sexual orientation should wait until dwarven socialization in general actually matters.

After looking over the thread, I think even the dissenters to this suggestion could agree with this statement.

Seeing people described as lovers, spouses, fathers, and mothers -- labels springing exclusively from opposite-sex relationships in the game -- matters to me. The having of children -- an exclusively opposite-sex occupation in the game, which given its bloody nature provides opportunity for adoption in even very small populations, and could attach to same-sex or opposite-sex couples, or even motivated singles -- matters to me.

I will accept a lesser claim, that these problems exist but that fixing them must be put off until Toady reworks this whole section of the game. That claim is acceptable to me because Toady owes me nothing, and I am grateful for the efforts he gives freely. That was my default mode before my perception of stifled discussion flipped my social justice switch.

I continue to dissent in general, and would like to thank this thread for giving me the impetus to read or reread the following materials:
The Combahee River Collective Statement
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack II: Sexual Orientation

I began to understand why we are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way. I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned ... privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.

[Jeoshua]

But if it's just a name tag that means nothing, what does it matter? We don't even have SEX in the game at this point, let alone same-sex relationships.  And if it's thrown in, slapdash, as no more than just a name and a few bites, never to be updated again... do you really want that?

[knaveofstaves]

But if it's just a name tag that means nothing, what does it matter? We don't even have SEX in the game at this point, let alone same-sex relationships.  And if it's thrown in, slapdash, as no more than just a name and a few bites, never to be updated again... do you really want that?

If there are lovers, spouses, fathers, mothers, and children, then there is sex. And opposite-sex relationships. Asking for a representation of same-sex relationships is not creating an exception, it is more fully representing the range of behavior. Not just sexual, but emotional and familial.

Did you read the pages I linked to before? It seems to me you're carrying around an invisible knapsack of heteronormative privilege:

Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack II: Sexual Orientation

And asking people not to call for equal privileges because it'll start an acrimonious thread (not saying you did this, Jeoshua) is offensive.

[catoblepas]

I wholeheartedly support fleshing out biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender orientation. As the game currently stands, we don't even have basic gender identity stuff like gender/caste specific clothing, or relationship aspects like divorces, remarriage, or adoption. There is definitely room to improve in these areas, why not add complexity in the form of alternative alternative sexual orientations? Entity ethics and individual ethics should definitely play a role. In a repressive society, there could be a higher proportion of closeted individuals and individuals making use of beards. In more tolerant societies, there would be no bias about homosexual couples, and there might even be marriages. In some societies, homosexuals/transgender individuals might even be attributed with having special qualities, perhaps something similar to the status of transgender shamans in some native american cultures.

[NW_Kohaku]

But if it's just a name tag that means nothing, what does it matter? We don't even have SEX in the game at this point, let alone same-sex relationships.  And if it's thrown in, slapdash, as no more than just a name and a few bites, never to be updated again... do you really want that?

We don't need sex (the act) for relationships, though. 

If we have boy dwarves that like being with other boy dwarves and can have their relationships go into more-than-friends territory, rather than just having things stop at friends if they aren't opposite genders, we have "gay dwarves", even if it doesn't really do much right now.

Did you read the pages I linked to before? It seems to me you're carrying around an invisible knapsack of heteronormative privilege:

At the same time, I don't think threatening to slap someone with a label (much less an odd, not-terribly-well-recognized label) is a good way to persuade someone.

[NW_Kohaku]

So since it's been brought up...

Elves - Like, totally cool with it.  Queen of the elves, indeed.  [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:ACCEPTABLE]
Goblins - Would not be cool with it.  This means they get to kill more elves.  [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:UNTHINKABLE]
Dwarves - "Does it make ye work slower? Then what do I care?" [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:PERSONAL_MATTER]
Humans - Generally not really all that cool with it. [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:APPALLING]
Kobolds - Only if you were the last Kobold on The Planes Of Enchanting [ETHIC:HOMOSEXUALITY:ONLY_IN_SELF_DEFENSE]

Actually, I would point back to the ethics of goblins, and the way that goblins in general are represented.

Except for treason, everything is a personal matter to goblins.  They literally don't care what you do, so long as it doesn't affect them.  Their motto is Might Makes Right, and if you are strong enough that nobody will stop you from doing what you want, you can do whatever you damn well please.  If you're gay, if you like inter-racial relationships, if you have an unnatural affection for pig tail socks, whatever, so long as you keep the HFS away from MY socks. 

In a way, it's basically the same thing as the Roman system - a patriarch of society could do whatever he wanted to do, and so long as no major laws were broken, he had the privilege to buy slaves and use them in orgies of any kind he could imagine.  Some of the most notorious emperors would even demand the right to use the wives of senators as prostitutes (for himself, and for public use).   If you had the social power to get away with it, nobody could really say no (although they could ready their knives, and wait for you to turn around...)

[Jeoshua]

Did you read the pages I linked to before? It seems to me you're carrying around an invisible knapsack of heteronormative privilege

So you assume that because I want homosexuality to be a good thing, several degrees above the very simple system we have now... That makes me one of the bad guys?

Please understand, it's not that I don't want Homosexuality in the game, by a long stretch.  I want the game to be able to handle more than just "Husband", "Wife", and "Spore baby".

Let's assume that right now, today, Toady put the ability into the game for Dwarves to prefer the company of their same gender.  And for them to get married.  So Urist and Rakost get married, forgo any kind of public ceremony, and now they're husband and husband.  Do you know what would happen next?

Nothing.

Married couples do not have sex, spend time together, comfort each other, or any of that.  Legally their possessions can be shared, like their bedroom, but this is where their special privileges begin and end.  And while I'm not gay, I do know that a homosexual coupling isn't just "let's say we're married".  Theres alot of emotional stuff, physical sexual stuff, etc etc.  It's not just a title.  Dwarf Fortress's interpersonal coding isn't robust enough to handle marriages in a good way, they're just tags.

The marriage system as it is now is merely a placeholder put in place because every creature reproduces "by spores".  If marriage wasn't required before birth, we'd have Dwarfsplosions just like we do with cats.  Every woman would get pregnant whenever they were on the same map as a male, and we'd quickly be swamped by mewling meatshields for each and every one of our female Dwarves.

So I understand why marriage was put into the game, even tho none of the emotional content is there.  It was a necessary game mechanic.  But now that it's in, it needs to be improved greatly so we CAN have things like sexless marriages, homosexual unions, legal marriages of convenience, and simple unmarried sex.  Theres lots of things we need in this game.  We just need it to be better than the simple crap that could be coded now.

[devek]

But now that it's in, it needs to be improved greatly so we CAN have things like sexless marriages

Been there, done that, don't need to experience it in a video game too

[Reelyanoob]

It always comes back to variable ethics.

Which I am 100% on-board for.

It would let the people who love torturing and slavery and murder have what they want, and the game could respond more naturally to that by shifting your group's personal ethics.  And then other races and maybe even the Mountain home could respond accordingly, either shifting themselves, or attacking you for being too deviant from their own ethics.

I can imagine playing a Goblin Tower, making them be goodie goodies, and having the rest of the Goblin world attack you for treasonous behavior.  Fun times.

Maybe even so far as variable personal ethics between dwarves, on top of the civ variations throughout time/space.

Your fortress would get a "reputation", based on events there. Some dwarves would like/dislike your policies, and I think if they're unhappy enough with your ethics, some would start to emigrate away, unless you gave them an incentive to stay.

Other dwarves with similar ethics/personality to your reputation would be more tempted to emigrate to your fortress, so if you were known for cruelly murdering prisoners, then you'd get rougher and meaner dwarves turning up as immigrants.

[Reelyanoob]

Also... gay what? war what? That's absolutely rediculous and you know it

I think you're doubting whether this being a game feature would wreck the boards, as IT 000 suggested?

It would attract all sorts of trolls here, in addition to any and all debates between existing members.

I'd say one way to give everyone the options they want and not attract the wrong sort of media/right wing attention to the game in general is for Toady to move relationships to be a Caste-level rather than Species-level phenomena, and expose in the raws the marriage / relationship system. e.g. the default vanilla relationship would link MALE / FEMALE castes for marriage and reproduction. Any two Castes defined as "compatible" could "hook-up"

Modders could then create new Castes and give them POP_RATIO's however you like e.g. :-

GAY_MALE, GAY_FEMALE, which would each be defined as only compatible with the same Caste, and GAY_FEMALE would have the reproduction turned off (or the game could just check the gender tag on a couple and only spawn children for male/female pairs)

That one change in the code would allow this sort of modding (and my dwarven apartheid mod would work )

Or, you could just allow all possible combos and have a free-for-all system, maybe by having a weighting system on how likely each possible combos are, for greater control.

[G-Flex]

So Toady should acquiesce to the homophobes just because they might cause a ruckus? Should we also remove skin color now, since there might be racists on the forums?

[Jeoshua]

Theres alot to think about for homosexuality.  There shouldn't be a compatibility tag.  What about non-reciprocal relationships, where one dwarf is in love with another dwarf, but that other dwarf just isn't interested because they're straight or gay or whatever.  How does the dwarfs react to the situation?

And no we shouldn't take out skin color, stop being silly G-flex.  It's obvious that the people causing a fuss over this just can't wait until there is a GOOD option for it, so they want ANY option, even if it's nothing more than window dressing at this point due to the fact that relationships don't currently mean a damned thing in this game except breeding.

I'm actually getting sick of being told I'm anti-gay somehow because I want it to go in at a time in which it matters, rather than being slapped in as a kludge.

[G-Flex]

And no we shouldn't take out skin color, stop being silly G-flex.

I was being satirical.

I'm actually getting sick of being told I'm anti-gay somehow because I want it to go in at a time in which it matters, rather than being slapped in as a kludge.

I agree with this, and I don't think that makes you anti-gay.