No idea if this is a bug, but you should post it to Mantis so we can get an official answer, and it can be fixed if it isn't intended.
No idea if this is a bug, but you should post it to Mantis so we can get an official answer, and it can be fixed if it isn't intended.
Now that it's in, bug or not, Toady would kind of look like an arse if he took it out, calling it a bug, wouldn't he?
Frankly, at this point I would just call it a "happy little unintended feature." Say that in a Bob Ross voice in your head, you'll see where I'm coming from.
No idea if this is a bug, but you should post it to Mantis so we can get an official answer, and it can be fixed if it isn't intended.
Now that it's in, bug or not, Toady would kind of look like an arse if he took it out, calling it a bug, wouldn't he?
Frankly, at this point I would just call it a "happy little unintended feature." Say that in a Bob Ross voice in your head, you'll see where I'm coming from.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.
(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)
It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
The dwarves live in a socialist utopia where, apart from a personal cupboard containing spare socks and a bare, mattressless bed, they share all possessions in common.
The dwarves live in a socialist utopia where, apart from a personal cupboard containing spare socks and a bare, mattressless bed, they share all possessions in common.
To be fair, that's the result of the dwarven economy being so unspeakably broken it had to be thrown in the bin.
I don't see any cultural reason why dwarves would be opposed to that kind of thing, unless they worship a god of pregnancy or something, I suppose. It's kind of a useless discussion until culture, religion and personality is fleshed out more, though.+1
If a gay couple in worldgen had a child, that would make it a bug, and unless this is intentional, it's entirely possible that weird behaviors along those lines would occur.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.
(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)
So there are actually tags then. I would love to see where they are and how they are used. Context should be able to clarify if it is a bug or not.
So there are actually tags then. I would love to see where they are and how they are used. Context should be able to clarify if it is a bug or not.
Elfs and Humans are getting married too, which suggests it's just that the game has forgotten to check first, just grabs two characters and bam.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.
(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)
All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.
Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?
And to gain what? 'inclusiveness' as forgetaboutit says. To throw aside any consideration for the setting to shove in allegorical modern politics? To go, aha, it's 2014 therefore all games must be set in 2014 in our society with our views, bugger immersion, because it's tolerant to suggest locking up anyone who doesn't share a single narrow view, but intolerant to suppose that conditions and objective reason be applied. It's not inclusive to demand that all things reflect one set of views and one set of values, that's pretty much the exact definition of exclusive.
To deny simulation to shove in allegory is excluding all other possibilities for the same of one. That's not inclusion, to include one more would be inclusion, not to replace all others with one.
But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.
If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.
(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)
All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.
Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?
And to gain what? 'inclusiveness' as forgetaboutit says. To throw aside any consideration for the setting to shove in allegorical modern politics? To go, aha, it's 2014 therefore all games must be set in 2014 in our society with our views, bugger immersion, because it's tolerant to suggest locking up anyone who doesn't share a single narrow view, but intolerant to suppose that conditions and objective reason be applied. It's not inclusive to demand that all things reflect one set of views and one set of values, that's pretty much the exact definition of exclusive.
To deny simulation to shove in allegory is excluding all other possibilities for the same of one. That's not inclusion, to include one more would be inclusion, not to replace all others with one.
But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.
If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.
You are looking at this from our perspective, from our history and culture. All marriages in DF seem to be love marriages, always have been (at least in fortress mode). That means offspring could be a side affect.
Dwarves may have a completly different view on the subject, different reasoning, different standards. Not from becoming more open, but being like this from the beginning, so they would never have the discussions about gay marriage we have. It would just not occur to them, as it is perfectly normal and the way things have always been. They'd see gay couples and hetero couples and they wouldn't even look twice.
I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently,I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
Is it really though? As far as I can tell there's already pretty much perfect gender equality. All jobs are doable by both sexes with no difference inherently in quality (of course), and as far as I can tell there aren't even masculine and feminine distinctions in names. I mean, this isn't directly related to same sex marriage in dwarf culture but it's just an example of an area where there isn't any discrimination or social rules like that.
(Really hoping this thread doesn't get super political, I'm just talking about the game)
All of which heavily implies that dwarf society has no concept of gender identity. Which would put offspring as the function of marriage.
same sex marriage is a concept of social rules about what genders are and what each gender does, Homophobia and gay marriage would both be incomprehensible to a culture which didn't even have a concept of gender roles and sexual identity.
Conservative/Liberal doesn't come into it, those are temporary, I like the status quo v I want to change the status quo. Whats conservative in japan would be in england, why would what is in america be in a mythic age dwarf society?
What do we know about dwarf society? it's that duty to the many outweighs personal desire, except for nobles who are fishheads when it comes to mandates. But even that shows that your role is to serve the fort not be fulfilled. I.e. It's more reasonable to assume that dwarfs would see marriage as medieval and ancient people would, as a compact to fulfil the duty to have and raise children, not as the modern west does as a personal ambition or legal contract. Dwarf Fortresses, especially in dead-civ worlds (where this is a vital issue as breeding is the ONLY way to get new dwarfs) putting sexual predisposition ahead of duty would get you as heavily thumped as it would have in the dark ages.
It's not like dwarfs are so resilient that increasing the population wouldn't be a political concern. Even the whole focus of the game is go out and increase the dwarf civilisation by establishing new settlements. And yet they'd have the entirely modern attitudes towards reproduction as to see marriage in such a way as to make gay marriage conceivable, and yet NOT have modern attitudes towards the same as to make it so unmarried dwarfs could happily have kids no problem?
But really and back to the main problem which is mechanics, it screws the viability of generation forts and eugenics. It's a bug and it shouldn't be a feature.
If dwarfs are as likely to link up in non-reproducing matches as they are otherwise, then worlds where the dwarf civs died out will just be unplayable.
If it's restricted by rare tags, maybe, it's just the game can't tell the difference when it comes to associated romances, which is what the cross-species trouble seems to heavily suggest is causing this, then it's not only a bug, but a devastating one.
Well, if she's one of the starting seven that'd mean that it's almost definitely not limited to world gen, since they'd have to have become lovers in fortress mode.That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently,I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.Spoiler (click to show/hide)so i'm going to hope that she shows up again.Turns out she was one of the founding seven who just somehow got promoted to queen status, but still, i'm going to see if she is eventually married to her lover.
Well, if she's one of the starting seven that'd mean that it's almost definitely not limited to world gen, since they'd have to have become lovers in fortress mode.That's what I was planning to do eventually, but the game crashed and I hadn't saved recently,I had the Queen show up after a year(I only have 16 dwarfs,) and guess what gender her lover is? yup, her lover is also a female.Have you tried locking them in a room together to see if they get married? If they don't it'd suggest this is a world gen only thing.I honestly think its pretty neat that this exists, even if it is a bug.Spoiler (click to show/hide)so i'm going to hope that she shows up again.Turns out she was one of the founding seven who just somehow got promoted to queen status, but still, i'm going to see if she is eventually married to her lover.
If the problem is with the fortress population, surely a higher priority should be given to making sure that babies survive when their mothers die via adoption or daycare? The vast majority of fortress dwarves that I've seen don't ever get married, whether because of larger populations or just not having enough idle time to build relationships, so there's no children either way.
It could still very well be intentional. If the tags only appear in the night creature raws rather than in the other entities that are being effected then it definitely suggests a bug. Prevalence would also be a good clue. If it seems to be far more common that real world rates of homosexuality then it would also be a good clue to it being a bug.
[SPOUSE_CONVERTER]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
[CONVERTED_SPOUSE]
[ORIENTATION:MALE:0:0:1]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:1:0:0]Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.This. An option in the init.txt for this would be great. It is better to have the choice than forcing it on everyone else.
The argument for "conservative" dwarves being necessarily straight is totally anachronistic.Wait, are people still arguing this?
Yes. If this is intentional, please make it optional. My guess is it's part of the post-worldgen marriages not checking properly.Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.This. An option in the init.txt for this would be great. It is better to have the choice than forcing it on everyone else.
Sodomy has been illegal in Catholic-derived states (including Protestant ones, since they are an offshoot) since at least the 16th century. You can't generalize the entire Western world from the Ancient Greeks, as though they set the foundation for many things in the West, they had several unique facets of their culture that did not survive. Their attitudes towards sexuality amongst them. Many centuries separate the Illiad from 14th century Europe.
Though bawdy references were common, and people probably got up to stuff all the time (as they probably have done for all time), people were generally repressive towards sexuality in their public lives. Any unmarried sex would be potentially scandalous (and potentially punishable by law), much less homosexual relations. Again, they probably happened, but it was far from an open or accepted thing.
Of course, in a fantasy game with fantasy cultures, it doesn't matter too much what medieval cultures IRL thought. Especially as some of these cultures aren't even human. I personally believe both repression and tolerance should be options in the raws, because both attitudes occur in real life and it helps the simulation. You could even have some kind of amazonian culture that views heterosexual relationships as disgusting. But it's not like the real world was a tolerant place right up until the 18th century.
Similarly, we can tell easily from the Illiad that same sex elationships were quite common and not at all stigmatized (if Achilless is the exemplary warrior and he has a lover who is a younger man, and no one comments on this as unusual, we can safely treat him as representative of other warrior mores)Patroclus was older than Achilles and their relationship status was being argued even back then. Moreover the Greeks had different views on homosexual relationships; much like Saudi Arabia today, 'homosexuality' as such did not exist, rather it was the acts themselves that they viewed with contention. So for example, sodomy was not something to be proud of if you were on the receiving end, unless you were having sex with Alexander the Great or something.
Similarly, I am curious as whether ethics will also be unique to historical figures, to aid in the loyalty cascades...So you're essentially stating that you want hate crimes in Dwarf Fortress? There's already enough ways for forts to die. Plus, right now racially-based ethics are essentially the main motivation for worldgen conflicts, and along with weapon use are the main difference between races in the first place.
If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purges
If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purges
I don't get what you're arguing here - births are not affected by pop cap anyway, so "unreproductive" dwarfs don't limit population. And even if you're shooting for a high reproduction rate, having absolutely everybody coupled off won't really do that much: dwarfs reproduce at roughly one child per year per married couple, which means nine couples will already bump into the standard baby cap all the time if you don't increase the limit. Of course you can basically remove all limits, but not everybody enjoys having a fort with 220 dwarfs, 60 of them adults.
The argument for "conservative" dwarves [...]
4.- Do you guys really believe the fact that dwarven society doesn't seem to have gender rules is intended? I don't. I think the lack of differentiation between males and females is just a placeholder, so to speak. And if it is really intended, I guess I understand it, as it certainly makes the game much easier and straightforward.Minimal dimorphism is a recurring theme in modern depictions of dwarves. For example, in most settings the females have beards (though not by default in vanilla DF, the instructions for including this are right in the raw file). A more extreme example is Discworld, where the dwarven genders are indistinguishable and it's impolite to ask someone his/her gender in public.
4.- Do you guys really believe the fact that dwarven society doesn't seem to have gender rules is intended? I don't. I think the lack of differentiation between males and females is just a placeholder, so to speak. And if it is really intended, I guess I understand it, as it certainly makes the game much easier and straightforward.
In fact, I dare you guys to find a single pre-industrial society which allowed and celebrated gay marriages.
3.- I don't know what Toady would do if it is a bug. If he fixes it, he is liable of being stoned to death by the SJWs.This is an aside, but, it generally makes me smile that Toady himself would actually be described as an SJW by some in certain contexts . . .
This to the point. For any Fortress where reliance on migrants is to be kept minimal (vampires, evil biomes and perpetual sieges come to mind) you have to rely on tens of couples to produce many offspring who in turn can produce their own. The longer the Fort goes on, the more marriages will take place. Given enough time you'd end up with a Fort that becomes sterile either through diverse lines stopping at a gay marriage or inbreeding. And god damn, I want my strongest workers and soldiers to carry on their strong genes to their children; when a baby is born with superdwarven toughness there is pride there!You've completely missed the point. Point is with a strict pop-cap you only have so many dwarves that are going to become parents. With this bug, the amount of said dwarves dwindles, therefore the time in which you'll get to a big enough dwarf number increases highly.If this is a feature there better be a way to get Dwarves remarried, trying to build an eternal Fort around the pop cap that isn't reliant on migrants is hard enough without having to run purgesI don't get what you're arguing here - births are not affected by pop cap anyway, so "unreproductive" dwarfs don't limit population. And even if you're shooting for a high reproduction rate, having absolutely everybody coupled off won't really do that much: dwarfs reproduce at roughly one child per year per married couple, which means nine couples will already bump into the standard baby cap all the time if you don't increase the limit. Of course you can basically remove all limits, but not everybody enjoys having a fort with 220 dwarfs, 60 of them adults.
Given how hard and slow breeding dwarves is already, it's hardly 'happy'It also doesn't make a vast amount of sense for dwarf culture - which so far has been established as fairly conservative.
On worlds with no surviving dwarf civilisations, so no migrants, but lots of lovely reclaimable fortresses, it'd pretty much mean no game if you dwarfs didn't couple up in breeding pairs. You need alot of luck to get couples as it is without adding in the chance they'd couple the wrong way.
As someone pointed out, breeding in DF is simply "is there a male on the map? Is there a female on the map? Out of cages? BOOM" and then there's babies. So all your dwarves could be gay and equally "productive."
-snip-
As someone pointed out, breeding in DF is simply "is there a male on the map? Is there a female on the map? Out of cages? BOOM" and then there's babies. So all your dwarves could be gay and equally "productive."
This isn't true either, though; dwarves and other sentients have to be married first.
In fact, I dare you guys to find a single pre-industrial society which allowed and celebrated gay marriages.
In fact, I dare you guys to find a single pre-industrial society which allowed and celebrated gay marriages.
1. This game doesn't support lysenkoism1. It does, it works with all physical attributes for both animal husbandry and Dwarven eugenics.
2. A small subset of the population not breeding is really no different from how it was before
i think you're exaggerating a bitNot at all. Get any busy dining hall going and all Dwarves will talk to one another pretty equally. In which case there's an equal chance of a gay marriage happening as a straight marriage, and Dwarves are all for until 'death in the afterlife do us part' so first chance = only chance and you've just removed two Dwarves from the Fortress gene pool.
i think you're exaggerating a bitNot at all. Get any busy dining hall going and all Dwarves will talk to one another pretty equally. In which case there's an equal chance of a gay marriage happening as a straight marriage, and Dwarves are all for until 'death in the afterlife do us part' so first chance = only chance and you've just removed two Dwarves from the Fortress gene pool.
Holy shit, not even DF is safe from SJWs.
Personally, as a fan of Dwarven Eugenics, I'd be pissed if something beyond my control prevented me from breeding two perfectly viable dwarves. ... What have I become?
Or Toady could just get a bi-sexed tag working and allow us to create hermaphroditic species. I like to modify races when I'm not playing anyway, so I know I'd use that too.
Suddenly, there really is no difference between the sexes.
Plus, you'd get to play as slug men who shoot darts at each other before mating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_dart).
1. This game doesn't support lysenkoismThe third one is the important thing here, as two Dwarves of the same sex will normally at most become friends or grudges, meaning you can allow your Dwarves to freely socialize and expect a new generation of Dwarves to be spored. When there is a risk of same sex marriage you have to micromanage your Dwarves or fully expect a very sizeable portion of your breeding stock to become as worthless as widows. It turns Fortress breeding from a natural process that occurs in all dining halls to a megaproject requiring creches and mandatory socializing cabins.
2. A small subset of the population not breeding is really no different from how it was before
My testing has shown that the following makes the majority of elves (9 out of 11, to be exact) gay:How did you test? With world gen?
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:1:9]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:9:1:1]
If I were to guess, the ORIENTATION token means the following:
ORIENTATION:CASTE:female_chance:bisexual_chance:male_chance
So you can make your dwarves all straight easily by simply adding the following tokens to your dwarves:
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
So don't y'all worry about your eugenics.
Yep, searched a few elven names in legends mode and took note of the married elves. All of them I found were gay, but the orientation stuff should make some of them not.So without the [ORIENTATION] tag, elves are all heterosexual? I would try to do a control group also to make sure it's not just world gen pairing people on a whim. Maybe try the tag with dwarves on fortress mode. I'm no expert, just ideas that might not even be possible.
Yep, searched a few elven names in legends mode and took note of the married elves. All of them I found were gay, but the orientation stuff should make some of them not.So without the [ORIENTATION] tag, elves are all heterosexual? I would try to do a control group also to make sure it's not just world gen pairing people on a whim. Maybe try the tag with dwarves on fortress mode. I'm no expert, just ideas that might not even be possible.
EDIT: Also, who edited the wiki? We shouldn't be throwing this out there unless enough testing/science is done. That's just jumping the gun.
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Creature_token
Yep, searched a few elven names in legends mode and took note of the married elves. All of them I found were gay, but the orientation stuff should make some of them not.So without the [ORIENTATION] tag, elves are all heterosexual? I would try to do a control group also to make sure it's not just world gen pairing people on a whim. Maybe try the tag with dwarves on fortress mode. I'm no expert, just ideas that might not even be possible.
EDIT: Also, who edited the wiki? We shouldn't be throwing this out there unless enough testing/science is done. That's just jumping the gun.
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Creature_token
So without the [ORIENTATION] tag, elves are all heterosexual? I would try to do a control group also to make sure it's not just world gen pairing people on a whim. Maybe try the tag with dwarves on fortress mode. I'm no expert, just ideas that might not even be possible.
Come to think of it, do these tags also apply to non-sentient creatures? I suspect, they would, as "gay" animals are a documented phaenomenon.I think it's just to do with marriage. Animals reproduce via spores with no concern for marriage. Basically non-sentient creatures are all heterosexual sluts.
If the ORIENTATION tag does what I think it does, it might not need to be an init option at all as it would already be a raw option. I'm testing it right now by attempting to make elves gay.Does this mean we could alter it to such a degree that every elf dies in world gen from fucking each other fruitlessly? Because I don't think we've had death-by-sex as a method for killing elves here, even in Dwarf Fortress.
Elves are immortal, so making their population 100% homosexual would only serve to halt population growth until the other civs and horrors get to them and slowly kill off their kind. I'm kind of curious about how a race with a completely gay population would be handled at worldgen; where did the first elves come from?If the ORIENTATION tag does what I think it does, it might not need to be an init option at all as it would already be a raw option. I'm testing it right now by attempting to make elves gay.Does this mean we could alter it to such a degree that every elf dies in world gen from fucking each other fruitlessly? Because I don't think we've had death-by-sex as a method for killing elves here, even in Dwarf Fortress.
Does this mean we could alter it to such a degree that every elf dies in world gen from fucking each other fruitlessly? Because I don't think we've had death-by-sex as a method for killing elves here, even in Dwarf Fortress.
I'm kind of curious about how a race with a completely gay population would be handled at worldgen; where did the first elves come from?
Where does one find the night-troll raw file? Ctrl-F does nothing for me lol.
It's a by-caste tag, so you'd use it twice for each caste if you want to set all the numbers. <male/female>:<disinterested chance>:<lover-possible chance>:<commitment-possible chance> It uses the chances to put an individual critter into any of the 9 possible configurations. Defaults are, if I remember, 75:25:5 for the same gender, and 5:25:75 for the opposite. That leads to a 3x3 grid, with numbers in it. I'm not invested in the current ones if there are better ideas, but it's probably not all that easy to make a good selection when the categorization is ad hoc anyway. I would have used caste instead of gender to allow more interesting outcomes for many-casted critters, but the optimizations would be a nightmare (already had to jump from 2 to 6 relationship pools...). Of course, all relationships are still eternal, so the lover thing is kind of broken now (sometimes it won't advance beyond lover because one of the parties is not interested in committing, but still neither ever breaks it off, ever... not unrealistic in individual cases, but strange overall).
And you can make all your dwarves unable to be gay by adding this to males:
[ORIENTATION:MALE:100:0:0]
And the same for females, but with FEMALE instead.
They're relative numbers, so both would work the same way if I'm supposing right.
As for the migrant-independent breeding stuff, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem at all from what I'm seeing, since the defaults settings still favour heterosexuals as the majority (as in real life)
... Oh. Well then. -thunks head against wall- Never mind!They're relative numbers, so both would work the same way if I'm supposing right.
As for the migrant-independent breeding stuff, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem at all from what I'm seeing, since the defaults settings still favour heterosexuals as the majority (as in real life)
They're not relative numbers, toady said that they were:
<disinterested chance>:<lover-possible chance>:<commitment-possible chance>
This also begs the question of if you're playing with no dwarven civs why you want to lower the difficulty after increasing it greatly?
Fantastic feature IMHO, now I don't have to worry about women in the militia nearly as much. It always disappointed me when Lady Urist McMurderMachine decided it was time to raise a family, and I had to kick her out til the parasite had left its host. Now I'll just have to make sure to select sparring partners carefully. Thanks Toady :D
| Opposite-sex disinterested (5%) | Opposite-sex lover (25%) | Opposite-sex marriage (75%) | |
| Same-sex disinterested (75%) | 3,75% | 18,75% | 14,06% |
| Same-sex lover (25%) | 1,25% | 6,25% | 4,69% |
| Same-sex marriage (5%) | 0,06% | 0,31% | 0,23% |
... I don't understand where all those numbers came from. I mean, I understand the logical mechanics of how maths works, but not why you made the numbers do this particular thing. What was your thought process, samanato?
... I don't understand where all those numbers came from. I mean, I understand the logical mechanics of how maths works, but not why you made the numbers do this particular thing. What was your thought process, samanato?
Literally multiplying the percentages together gets you those numbers. It's math!
... I don't understand where all those numbers came from. I mean, I understand the logical mechanics of how maths works, but not why you made the numbers do this particular thing. What was your thought process, samanato?
Literally multiplying the percentages together gets you those numbers. It's math!
I understand that, just not how these new percentages are relevant to... anything. What do these new numbers mean?
I understand that, just not how these new percentages are relevant to... anything. What do these new numbers mean?
I was going for something to the likes of "how likely is a dwarf's sexual orientation, and the outcome from it" (that is, a relationship). So, the column with "opposite-sex disinterested" will only enter gay relationships, and the row with "same-sex disinterested" will only be straight couples (with asexuals being in the upper-left corner), while the other cells take bisexuality in account. The lower-right corner probably doesn't mean much though, since lovers are eternal and divorce never happens.
Though since I'm working in that 3x3 grid Toady described, it doesn't take into account single dwarves' sexual orientation, only active relationships.
There isn't a single indication that this is a 50% thing, so I think you're exaggerating a bit.We're doing science on new ground Putnam, we need to cover every possibility.
My testing has shown that the following makes the majority of elves (9 out of 11, to be exact) gay:I'm going to add these tags and gen some worlds and see if I can force gay Dwarves into straight marriages and straight Dwarves into gay marriages to see if the tags work on an absolute basis.
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:1:9]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:9:1:1]
If I were to guess, the ORIENTATION token means the following:
ORIENTATION:CASTE:female_chance:bisexual_chance:male_chance
So you can make your dwarves all straight easily by simply adding the following tokens to your dwarves:
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
So don't y'all worry about your eugenics.
Either an unintended feature or a feature.If there's a tag for it, it's a feature.
Do the two tags necessarily have to be flipped? Would it be possible, without breaking the game, to make your dwarves primarily bi-sexual so that each one could go either way? Not that it matters as much with the current monogamous set-up, but I'm sure when the Romance arc comes up that we'll be seeing that replaced with something more complex.
So it was all intended, after all.
But there's something I don't understand. I thought dwarves became lovers before marrying. What would happen if you made, say, male dwarves uninterested in being in affairs with female dwarves but interested in marrying them? Would that be posible?
Experiment setup:
[ORIENTATION:MALE:1:0:0]
[ORIENTATION:FEMALE:0:0:1]
Toady, I absolutely love you for that change.Not so much a change as an addition to the depth of Dorf relationships, should be interesting to see where this goes once relationships start resembling more and more what you'd expect to happen in real life... With Dwarves.
The middle number isn't the chance of becoming lovers - it's the chance of being interested in romance but uninterested in marriage. The ones interested in marriage will still become lovers if the "lovers" number is 0.
(marriage includes lovers.
Eh, we have elves and goblins to hate. We don't need homophobia.
Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
Again, kidnapping, cannibalism, and murder. What constitutes good to have in the game does not necessarily mean "good thing".
The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I reiterate:
Such terrible things, and their better opposites, exist in real life. As such, they should exist as possibilities in the game. We're not talking about making everyone in DF homophobic, sexist, and racist. We're talking about allowing the game to make some people like that, as some people are in real life. The existence of such people makes in DF would make it more realistic, and provide more compelling drama. Without adversity, how can there be tales of overcoming it?
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
People choose to kidnap, murder, and be cannibals. Supporting the hatred of something people can't change is just plain wrong. I suppose you want racism in Dwarf Fortress, too? How about sexism? Get all the female dwarves to stay in the kitchen and make you a sandwich, eh?
The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I could say the exact same of you. But since the majority of DF players are straight white males, that makes them more important than everyone else, I guess. Just like, I dunno, everywhere else in the world.
I reiterate:
Such terrible things, and their better opposites, exist in real life. As such, they should exist as possibilities in the game. We're not talking about making everyone in DF homophobic, sexist, and racist. We're talking about allowing the game to make some people like that, as some people are in real life. The existence of such people makes in DF would make it more realistic, and provide more compelling drama. Without adversity, how can there be tales of overcoming it?
Yes, but as so many of the obviously-straight people in this thread have said, some of us play video games to escape reality. Just once I want a game that doesn't make sexuality an issue. Skyrim did it. Anyone can marry anyone else. I don't see why other games can't do that. It's simple.
Then you could mod it out. But I don't think DF is a very good candidate for escapism, given what's in it already. There's some highly depressing stuff...I reiterate:
Such terrible things, and their better opposites, exist in real life. As such, they should exist as possibilities in the game. We're not talking about making everyone in DF homophobic, sexist, and racist. We're talking about allowing the game to make some people like that, as some people are in real life. The existence of such people makes in DF would make it more realistic, and provide more compelling drama. Without adversity, how can there be tales of overcoming it?
Yes, but as so many of the obviously-straight people in this thread have said, some of us play video games to escape reality. Just once I want a game that doesn't make sexuality an issue. Skyrim did it. Anyone can marry anyone else. I don't see why other games can't do that. It's simple.
I like how everyone's okay with roasting unwanted children in a bath of molten stone, but the minute someone doesn't like the presence of a different opinion, all red flags go up.The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I could say the exact same of you. But since the majority of DF players are straight white males, that makes them more important than everyone else, I guess. Just like, I dunno, everywhere else in the world.
The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I could say the exact same of you. But since the majority of DF players are straight white males, that makes them more important than everyone else, I guess. Just like, I dunno, everywhere else in the world.
I'm pretty sure the majority of DF players are autistic nerds first and foremost, the most opressed minority there is, so HAH I WIN!
I like how everyone's okay with roasting unwanted children in a bath of molten stone, but the minute someone doesn't like the presence of a different opinion, all red flags go up.The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I could say the exact same of you. But since the majority of DF players are straight white males, that makes them more important than everyone else, I guess. Just like, I dunno, everywhere else in the world.
And that's quite a generalization about whites. Stop blaming everything on someone because of their color, rather than by their character.
You guys are making too much fuss over this. Really.
Gay dwarves are a thing, and that's OK. It is neither good nor bad, it just is now. Thats fine with me.
(Will never understand why sexual preference makes people lose their minds like this.)
Conversely, since this kind of thing DOES, INVARIABLY happen in real life (People going apeshit over what somebody else finds preferable in the bedroom-- and people going apeshit over people going apeshit about what people find preferable in the bedroom) I think it should also be a thing in the game.
I think we need to calm down and focus on discussing the issue, rather than attacking each other. Ad hominem only leads to bad places.
It most certainly does not exist to cater to my beliefs; you make a rather assumptive statement. Toady's desire seems to be to create a complex world/history simulator with complex personalities and cultures. As of now, clothing differs slightly from one civilization to another. The community—minus, of course, you—merely sees the new addition of orientation in the civilized beings as a gateway to more complex cultural system regarding sex and the associated values. If such things should be implemented, the customization that Dwarf Fortress is known for would likely allow you to edit the game and create a little queer-paradise of toleration.The community and this game does not exist to cater solely to your whims and beliefs.Honestly? I'm gay and I would be devastated and quite offended if homophobia were implemented. There's more than enough of that in the real world, we don't need to put it in fantasy worlds under the guise of "realism".
The key is 'customization'. As long as Toady allows players to set and modify this kind of stuff...
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
I could say the exact same of you. But since the majority of DF players are straight white males, that makes them more important than everyone else, I guess. Just like, I dunno, everywhere else in the world.
I reiterate:This precisely illustrates my point.
Such terrible things, and their better opposites, exist in real life. As such, they should exist as possibilities in the game. We're not talking about making everyone in DF homophobic, sexist, and racist. We're talking about allowing the game to make some people like that, as some people are in real life. The existence of such people makes in DF would make it more realistic, and provide more compelling drama. Without adversity, how can there be tales of overcoming it?
I think we need to calm down and focus on discussing the issue, rather than attacking each other. Ad hominem only leads to bad places.
I'm not using ad hominem, I'm stating facts. Straight, white people are oppressive. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I think we need to calm down and focus on discussing the issue, rather than attacking each other. Ad hominem only leads to bad places.
I'm not using ad hominem, I'm stating facts. Straight, white people are oppressive. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Not all of them. Stereotyping is just as bad. The few give the majority a bad name.
I haven't seen any gay bashing occur in this thread or anybody suggest that including homophobia in ethics constitutes actual homophobia except for inspiredsimji. If nobody is interpreting this the way he is I think it would be a good idea to discount his opinion and stop responding to him.This. He
I haven't seen any gay bashing occur in this thread or anybody suggest that including homophobia in ethics constitutes actual homophobia except for inspiredsimji. If nobody is interpreting this the way he is I think it would be a good idea to discount his opinion and stop responding to him.This. He might even be trolling.
I know not all of them. You're crying "not ALL men" here. I already said, not all straight white people are oppressive, but that as a whole straight white people are privileged and that oppresses everyone else.I suggest that you take any further liberal rants to the General Discussion board. This board exists for the game; you will get no progress here.
I know not all of them. You're crying "not ALL men" here. I already said, not all straight white people are oppressive, but that as a whole straight white people are privileged and that oppresses everyone else.I suggest that you take any further liberal rants to the General Discussion board. This board exists for the game; you will get no progress here.
I like how we're on a board about a game where you can cut someone's arm off, then use the opportunity to gouge their eyes out, then slice open their belly and tear out their guts with your teeth, and THIS... THIS RIGHT HERE IS WHAT'S CAUSING A PROBLEM.This is not the problem, inspiredsimji is.
I think we need to calm down and focus on discussing the issue, rather than attacking each other. Ad hominem only leads to bad places.
I'm not using ad hominem, I'm stating facts. Straight, white people are oppressive. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Not all of them. Stereotyping is just as bad. The few give the majority a bad name.
I know not all of them. You're crying "not ALL men" here. I already said, not all straight white people are oppressive, but that as a whole straight white people are privileged and that oppresses everyone else.
How about Atheism.
I haven't seen any gay bashing occur in this thread or anybody suggest that including homophobia in ethics constitutes actual homophobia except for inspiredsimji. If nobody is interpreting this the way he is I think it would be a good idea to discount his opinion and stop responding to him.This. Hemight even beis trolling.
Yes, agreed.How about Atheism.
I would say atheism wouldn't fit too well, by the simple fact that Gods are actually visibly acting upon the world. Agnosticism may fit better because of that, since other pantheons with gods not of your own are also acting.
I haven't seen any gay bashing occur in this thread or anybody suggest that including homophobia in ethics constitutes actual homophobia except for inspiredsimji. If nobody is interpreting this the way he is I think it would be a good idea to discount his opinion and stop responding to him.This. Hemight even beis trolling.
For the fiftieth time in three days, I regret that this Forum does not have a "Like" button.
EDIT: Vegetarianism! That could "enhance" gameplay.I think that such a thing would be easily bypassed, what with plump helmet farms and such. But here's a real challenge to add: allergies!
How about Atheism.
I would say atheism wouldn't fit too well, by the simple fact that Gods are actually visibly acting upon the world. Agnosticism may fit better because of that.
Atheism in older worlds could be possible, since the gods are no longer involved in the world and most monsters are dead. One of the older ages even has this description "The Age of Civilization was a time when fantastic creatures were but mere stories told by travelers."How about Atheism.
I would say atheism wouldn't fit too well, by the simple fact that Gods are actually visibly acting upon the world. Agnosticism may fit better because of that.
Just wanted to say inspiredsimji is a troll from tumblr, his/her post is on the first page of #dwarf fortress tag highlighting this thread.
"wow
im trying my damnedest to convince people in this thread that their casual homophobia is NOT ok but i cant even get through their thick neckbeard skulls"
Just thought I would point it out so you guys wont feed the troll anymore, even with well constructed and though through arguments as he/she is just going to disregard it and continue spouting the whole tumblr dogmatic responses.
Nice, SJW's in Dwarf Fortress. There's literally nothing they won't attempt to inject their politics in.
Nice, SJW's in Dwarf Fortress. There's literally nothing they won't attempt to inject their politics in.
It is very irritating they they try to get niche games such as DF to try and cater to their ideologies.
OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)Yes, we need to re-rail the thread. Quick, how could we weaponise homosexuality?
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
inspiredsimji I think the problem is that dwarf fortress attempts to be a simulator, there is no real reason why homophobia or racism shouldn't exist. And really, considering that indiscriminate murder and genocide are common parts of the game, why is this such a big deal?
OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)The first thing I can think of is kill off all the elves, but, hey, that's just me.
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
Amazons I believe :)OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
Someone mentioned earlier an entirely gay race, maybe something like succubi, or some sort of demon race.
OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
Yes, we need to re-rail the thread. Quick, how could we weaponise homosexuality?
Nice, SJW's in Dwarf Fortress. There's literally nothing they won't attempt to inject their politics in.
It is very irritating they they try to get niche games such as DF to try and cater to their ideologies.
Oh no, I want a game that doesn't passively support homophobia! How annoying! As a straight person, I'm annoyed by something not being about me!
Succubi have are not typically portrayed as homosexual,—to my knowledge—but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an interesting thing to implement. Some sort of creature that sneaks into the fort as if it was a vampire.OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
Someone mentioned earlier an entirely gay race, maybe something like succubi, or some sort of demon race.
How about Atheism.
I would say atheism wouldn't fit too well, by the simple fact that Gods are actually visibly acting upon the world. Agnosticism may fit better because of that.
It happened with the Dwemer in Elder Scrolls. Didn't go too well for them, what with the vanish-from-existence thing. And why not have a modifier like this one being tested here, to have a chance of disbelief/agnostic/don't care/somewhat-religious/devout/militant? Even more options!
Atheism in older worlds could be possible, since the gods are no longer involved in the world and most monsters are dead. One of the older ages even has this description "The Age of Civilization was a time when fantastic creatures were but mere stories told by travelers."How about Atheism.
I would say atheism wouldn't fit too well, by the simple fact that Gods are actually visibly acting upon the world. Agnosticism may fit better because of that.
It could be interesting to see an actual moral progression in a race.
OOOOOKAY troll or not, there has been a massive thread drift (and not the good kind)The first thing I can think of is kill off all the elves, but, hey, that's just me.
Anyone else see different ways we can use this mechanic?
Possibly an entirely female race that abducts male children to be used as a way to reproduce?Very interesting.
The lesbian dwarfs would be particularly useful, maybe just leaving 1/10 of the female population straight so the civilization doesn’t die.
Yes, we need to re-rail the thread. Quick, how could we weaponise homosexuality?
Only two ways I've thought of to derive benefit are to ratchet up homosexuality to save on beds without increasing the number of children, and lesbian dwarves have no babies to carry into battle and then lose their shit over.
It was stated earlier that that's impossible since they're immortal. It would limit their growth however If you so choose.Hm.
What was that ancient Greek fighting force, made of gay couples? The theory was they would fight better if they were with their lover. Don't remember their name, or I'd link it...
That would definitely make Amazons, minus the female loving part.What was that ancient Greek fighting force, made of gay couples? The theory was they would fight better if they were with their lover. Don't remember their name, or I'd link it...
The Sacred Band of Thebes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)
Speaking of which, someone mentioned the advantage of lesbian dorfs being soldiers. Maybe you could danger-room a godly melee squad of female lovers?
What was that ancient Greek fighting force, made of gay couples? The theory was they would fight better if they were with their lover. Don't remember their name, or I'd link it...
The Sacred Band of Thebes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)
Speaking of which, someone mentioned the advantage of lesbian dorfs being soldiers. Maybe you could danger-room a godly melee squad of female lovers?
Out of curiosity, would it make more sense to have some races more/less gay? I really don't picture Dwarves as gay, but elves I can. It's just how I view the races.
Surprisingly, this isnt that far removed from the current "Night creature spouse" type transformations that happen in the game already.This is true, but perhaps the new feature of sexuality will allow for an expanded role for these night creatures.
Out of curiosity, would it make more sense to have some races more/less gay? I really don't picture Dwarves as gay, but elves I can. It's just how I view the races.
The idea of sexuality tends to vary from culture to culture, it would make sense for different levels of prominence.
why are people against gay marriage in this game anyway.
there's plenty of things in this game that aren't strictly needed i dont see why gay marriage would be any different. all it does is provide more fuel for interesting stories, which is what df is all about.
people saying that gay marriage shouldnt be in the game for some obscure reason are assholes
the guy that's calling us "neckbeards" is an asshole too though.
im probably an asshole for calling people assholes. :v
why are people against gay marriage in this game anyway.The debate ought to end. No-one—or, rather, almost no-one—is paying any further regard to the "the guy." No matter what one's view is on the topic, it is now in the game—with modable adjustments.
there's plenty of things in this game that aren't strictly needed i dont see why gay marriage would be any different. all it does is provide more fuel for interesting stories, which is what df is all about.
people saying that gay marriage shouldnt be in the game for some obscure reason are assholes
the guy that's calling us "neckbeards" is an asshole too though.
im probably an asshole for calling people assholes. :v
why are people against gay marriage in this game anyway.You missed the flame war a couple pages back. We're about the feature now, not about getting angry because people have different opinions.
there's plenty of things in this game that aren't strictly needed i dont see why gay marriage would be any different. all it does is provide more fuel for interesting stories, which is what df is all about.
people saying that gay marriage shouldnt be in the game for some obscure reason are assholes
the guy that's calling us "neckbeards" is an asshole too though.
im probably an asshole for calling people assholes. :v
Seems to be concrete here. Basically you have another tool other than/in addition to pop caps to make birth rates whatever you want them to be. Also love females actually getting a chance to do combat like most of you.Well it's not that they couldn't do combat before it's just that they had two shields and that's not fair to the goblins.
Well it's not that they couldn't do combat before it's just that they had two shields and that's not fair to the goblins.
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
Again, kidnapping, cannibalism, and murder. What constitutes good to have in the game does not necessarily mean "good thing".
I think we need to calm down and focus on discussing the issue, rather than attacking each other. Ad hominem only leads to bad places.
Sorry if I hurt your fragile, straight, white feelings.
So you people actively WANT homophobia in your game? And here I thought DF had a good community. Boy, was I wrong.
Again, kidnapping, cannibalism, and murder. What constitutes good to have in the game does not necessarily mean "good thing".
Kidnappin cannibalism and murder all present fun gameplay aspects to me, while homophobia doesnt seem like it would add much except for a burning hatred of the kind dwarf folk...
Think about it gameplay wise, what depth would homophobia add? would gay dwarves be burned at the stake? or would homophobic dwarves et a bad thought at seeing a gay couple? either way it doesnt really add much substance to the gameplay, not as much as our time tested murder, cannibalism, and kidnapping anyways.
I like the idea of dwarf fortress as a "happy" lol little world without the homophobia and racism I have to deal with on a daily basis. Having literally seen people killed over race, was part of the 2003 benton harbor race riots, and having seen a gay man beaten to death in my homeland of somalia this is not something i want tainting my gaming experience.
Point is pretty much moot because I doubt Toady will ever implement racism/homophobia but thats just my 2 cents. Dwarf fortress is a nice little escape from the horrors of the real world. While I dont have to deal with three headed centipedes that breathe fire or a goblin invasion in real life, i do have to deal with racism and homophbia. It's inclusion would ruin my favorite aspect of DF (Being able to take care of the dwarves problems will ignoring my own =p)
Ramadan Mubarak
Adow is ka ilaali
May your enemies stumble.
Goblins are killed over race.
Really, this is just Dwarf Fortress. It isn't airy fairy.
I like the idea of dwarf fortress as a "happy" lol little world without the homophobia and racism I have to deal with on a daily basis. Having literally seen people killed over race, was part of the 2003 benton harbor race riots, and having seen a gay man beaten to death in my homeland of somalia this is not something i want tainting my gaming experience.Well, if Toady included them, you could probably mod them out. I don't know if he ever would, though, but creating a tolerant utopia from a bunch of superstitious, backwards settlers would be pretty fun. Their existence in the game would create the possibility of conquering them in the game.
Point is pretty much moot because I doubt Toady will ever implement racism/homophobia but thats just my 2 cents. Dwarf fortress is a nice little escape from the horrors of the real world. While I dont have to deal with three headed centipedes that breathe fire or a goblin invasion in real life, i do have to deal with racism and homophbia. It's inclusion would ruin my favorite aspect of DF (Being able to take care of the dwarves problems will ignoring my own =p)
Ramadan Mubarak
Adow is ka ilaali
May your enemies stumble.
It would be cool RPing a holy warrior on a crusade against the scourge of [INSERT THING HERE]Considering how silly DF's procedural generation can get, it'd probably lead to crusades over absurd issues.
Exactly, it would be awesome.It would be cool RPing a holy warrior on a crusade against the scourge of [INSERT THING HERE]Considering how silly DF's procedural generation can get, it'd probably lead to crusades over absurd issues.
1: Greetings, I am raising a crusade against the scourge of the ethical treatment of potatoes. Will you join me on my quest?
2: It is terrifying.
It would be cool RPing a holy warrior on a crusade against the scourge of [INSERT THING HERE]Considering how silly DF's procedural generation can get, it'd probably lead to crusades over absurd issues.
1: Greetings, I am raising a crusade against the scourge of the ethical treatment of potatoes. Will you join me on my quest?
2: It is terrifying.
It would be cool RPing a holy warrior on a crusade against the scourge of [INSERT THING HERE]Considering how silly DF's procedural generation can get, it'd probably lead to crusades over absurd issues.
1: Greetings, I am raising a crusade against the scourge of the ethical treatment of potatoes. Will you join me on my quest?
2: It is terrifying.
I like the idea of dwarf fortress as a "happy" lol little world without the homophobia and racism I have to deal with on a daily basis. Having literally seen people killed over race, was part of the 2003 benton harbor race riots, and having seen a gay man beaten to death in my homeland of somalia this is not something i want tainting my gaming experience.
Point is pretty much moot because I doubt Toady will ever implement racism/homophobia but thats just my 2 cents. Dwarf fortress is a nice little escape from the horrors of the real world. While I dont have to deal with three headed centipedes that breathe fire or a goblin invasion in real life, i do have to deal with racism and homophbia. It's inclusion would ruin my favorite aspect of DF (Being able to take care of the dwarves problems will ignoring my own =p)
Ramadan Mubarak
Adow is ka ilaali
May your enemies stumble.
The problem is that's you as an individual drawing that line. If you had a horrible kidnapping experience you might have a serious problem with child snatchers and if you wanted to personally remove them that's understandable. I'd like racism and homophobia because it would give more realism and personality to the world. Having racial conflict in world gen would be amazing from a world building point of view despite the fact that in the real world it's a serious problem.
I personally like the dwarves as sort of a blank slate. When you think about dwarven ethics (in the context of the game) what you're usually thinking about isn't the raws it's the forum. They hate elves because our popular experiences with them have led to a pragmatic dislike.
Well, you can leave the homophobic dwarves alone so you can focus on other things.I like the idea of dwarf fortress as a "happy" lol little world without the homophobia and racism I have to deal with on a daily basis. Having literally seen people killed over race, was part of the 2003 benton harbor race riots, and having seen a gay man beaten to death in my homeland of somalia this is not something i want tainting my gaming experience.
Point is pretty much moot because I doubt Toady will ever implement racism/homophobia but thats just my 2 cents. Dwarf fortress is a nice little escape from the horrors of the real world. While I dont have to deal with three headed centipedes that breathe fire or a goblin invasion in real life, i do have to deal with racism and homophbia. It's inclusion would ruin my favorite aspect of DF (Being able to take care of the dwarves problems will ignoring my own =p)
Ramadan Mubarak
Adow is ka ilaali
May your enemies stumble.
The problem is that's you as an individual drawing that line. If you had a horrible kidnapping experience you might have a serious problem with child snatchers and if you wanted to personally remove them that's understandable. I'd like racism and homophobia because it would give more realism and personality to the world. Having racial conflict in world gen would be amazing from a world building point of view despite the fact that in the real world it's a serious problem.
I personally like the dwarves as sort of a blank slate. When you think about dwarven ethics (in the context of the game) what you're usually thinking about isn't the raws it's the forum. They hate elves because our popular experiences with them have led to a pragmatic dislike.
specism is abstract enough for me,,, and my uncle was recently kidnapped in kenya and is still missing. There is an inherent difference (at least to me) about killing people over their sexual preference vs goblins kidnapping (liberating) dwarf children from a dwarven fortress. Its not a real world problem only one youd face in dwarf fortress. Also its not me as an individual drawing a line, its me as a good person (sorry if you are homophboic you are not a good person period).
I wouldnt have a problem with homophobia really in the game, it would just be frustrating to have to jail/exile all the homophobic dwarves, from a gameplay standpoint it would just be annoying and not add anything FUN to the game for me personally.
Elf/goblin racial conflict is not really analogous with real-world racism as it is obviously based in an idea of fantasy races being substantially different from each other in real ways, not just cultural or skin-color differences.
i.e. nobody in the real world experiences discrimination due to being a goblin. Man, now I feel ridiculous having typed that out.
I wouldnt have a problem with homophobia really in the game, it would just be frustrating to have to jail/exile all the homophobic dwarves, from a gameplay standpoint it would just be annoying and not add anything FUN to the game for me personally.This is why at least for the first couple generations of a fort I don't want same sex marriages so please explain where you feel justified rallying against homophobia and being judgmental and aggressive towards my wanting homosexuality be an option. Also I have to mod the game to play the way I want why should you be exempt from such a thing?
Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.
Also, about that ninja post two above me: WTF does progressivism have to do with social darwinism?
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.But that is as rare as having an adamantine forgotten beast with a direct path to the surface from the beginning...
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
Goblins are killed over race.Actually, I see wayyyyyyy more racism against elves and goblins by the player base than I see from the game itself where these species can all get along nicely so long as they are part of the same civilization entity. The meme status of racism against elves is pretty much a giant pet peeve of mine amongst this community but that doesn't seem to be a thing that will ever go away, so, what can you do?
Really, this is just Dwarf Fortress. It isn't airy fairy.
But who's gonna harvest all those plump helmets?Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
What fort has ever, seriously, needed children? A baby born in a fortress takes twelve years to become a useful adult. How many of you here routinely have fortresses that last for twelve years without migrants? Whenever I play for a few seasons, I'm up to my ears in scores of migrants. I've been a heavy player of dwarf fortress for five years now, and I've not once been dependent on children born in my fortress. And if you even have a handful of opposite-sex couples, they'll crank out a baby each every year for over a century.
So I think that the whole "but we need babies!" argument really, really doesn't hold water in dwarf fortress.
What fort has ever, seriously, needed children? A baby born in a fortress takes twelve years to become a useful adult. How many of you here routinely have fortresses that last for twelve years without migrants? Whenever I play for a few seasons, I'm up to my ears in scores of migrants. I've been a heavy player of dwarf fortress for five years now, and I've not once been dependent on children born in my fortress. And if you even have a handful of opposite-sex couples, they'll crank out a baby each every year for over a century.This could be a more useful argument in the future, when our fortresses don't have the weight of half the threats to sentience crashing down on them regularly, locking them in permanent turmoil that destroys the fort. And when dwarves can emigrate/be deported/exiled to other sites in the civilization or given to armies on the march as soldiers.
So I think that the whole "but we need babies!" argument really, really doesn't hold water in dwarf fortress.
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
I guess that could be an issue if you were dealing with a fort that 1. included an entirely gay starting seven, 2. had an unusually high number of gay dwarves, and 3. lived long enough for children to have ANY value whatsoever.
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
Yes, I suppose that is true enough. I was thinking along the lines of glacier fortresses, or the Dwarven civ already being gone. I have had a few forts like that, and children are like little gems.
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
I guess that could be an issue if you were dealing with a fort that 1. included an entirely gay starting seven, 2. had an unusually high number of gay dwarves, and 3. lived long enough for children to have ANY value whatsoever.
Honestly, you'd be more likely to start out in the middle of a volcano, or on a frozen lake that melted instantly. And remember-- Losing is Fun! Wouldn't that weird, statistical outlier that was your one 100% gay fortress be one of your most memorable ones ever?
Imagine if all your starting seven were gay, and after that there was a high percentage of gays. It would have too low a child yield, especially in forts that need children. I don't like it as a feature at all, but I could live with/mod it out.
I guess that could be an issue if you were dealing with a fort that 1. included an entirely gay starting seven, 2. had an unusually high number of gay dwarves, and 3. lived long enough for children to have ANY value whatsoever.
Honestly, you'd be more likely to start out in the middle of a volcano, or on a frozen lake that melted instantly. And remember-- Losing is Fun! Wouldn't that weird, statistical outlier that was your one 100% gay fortress be one of your most memorable ones ever?
I like the idea of playing from starting seven and stopping all immigration and relying only on childbirth to grow my fortress. It doesn't take the entire seven being gay to stop this it takes the wrong two. Actually the new mechanics are mostly unhelpful all together in this with the addition of not only homosexuals, but asexuals, and commitment phobes. It isn't even that I don't want to play if gay marriage. Are you saying wanting to play a fort the way I have described is horrible and wrong and my opinion deserves to be ingored or dismissed in favor of yours or others?
I also wish someone would either correct my understanding of how the system currently works or actually take a better look before saying this is a non-issue.
As I said, I don't really care as long as it's moddable out.
If the man wants to mod his game, let him. If someone wanted to mod out pinky fingers, it's his decision, no matter how pointless it seems to someone else.As I said, I don't really care as long as it's moddable out.
...you're modding out 0.00000001042842864990234375%. I can't even think of anything that unlikely in Dwarf Fortress. It is literally the least likely thing I have seen in my entire time modding or playing this game.
Boy, you're like a bloody dog with a bone.As I said, I don't really care as long as it's moddable out.
...you're modding out 0.00000001042842864990234375%. I can't even think of anything that unlikely in Dwarf Fortress. It is literally the least likely thing I have seen in my entire time modding or playing this game.
I'm not specifically speaking of the starting seven being gay. First off, I said "imagine if." I knew it wasn't much of a possibility, and used the most extreme example possible, instead of saying "one of the starting seven was gay." Sure, I didn't know exactly how long the odds were, but shoot me. Secondly, me saying it's okay if I can mod it out was in reference to the entire gay feature in general, not in relation to the starting seven. One reason is the children. The other is that homosexuality doesn't suit my perception of dwarves, and would spoil my immersion. Other races, such as humans, I could see. So yes, I'll tailor the game so it seems more realistic to me.
So I don't care about the odds of a dwarf being gay.
(removed)Just stop. Please. You're trolling just like your buddy awhile back, attacking the person instead of arguing like a respectable adult. Don't use racist terms either, you've lost credibility.
I'm not specifically speaking of the starting seven being gay. First off, I said "imagine if." I knew it wasn't much of a possibility, and used the most extreme example possible, instead of saying "one of the starting seven was gay." Sure, I didn't know exactly how long the odds were, but shoot me. Secondly, me saying it's okay if I can mod it out was in reference to the entire gay feature in general, not in relation to the starting seven. One reason is the children. The other is that homosexuality doesn't suit my perception of dwarves, and would spoil my immersion. Other races, such as humans, I could see. So yes, I'll tailor the game so it seems more realistic to me.
So I don't care about the odds of a dwarf being gay.
Alrighty then, mod it. That's my discussion on your opinion of what dwarves should and shouldn't act like in respect to this. You can even go the full length and make all civilizations hostile to people who don't accept tradition and the importance of raising a family -- all without complaining about it.