At best we could have it downplayed so that it only occurs between civs of differing species. I can see how having prejudice between, for instance, two human civs of differing skin colour would probably hit a bit TOO close to reality for most players to be comfortable with it.
At best we could have it downplayed so that it only occurs between civs of differing species. I can see how having prejudice between, for instance, two human civs of differing skin colour would probably hit a bit TOO close to reality for most players to be comfortable with it.There are no different species in all-human worlds. That's why Toady started us on this discussion of prejudice. Dwarves hate goblins is easy, can start a thousand stories. 'The gods are at war' is another great excuse.
I'll just give out my two cents on this subject.A fantasy world generator in which everyone is the best of friends. Dwarves and elves and goblins sing happy songs together as they build stuff.
I'm against prejudice. DF is, first and foremost, a game. It's designed to be entertaining. Adding more depth makes a game more fun, but only up to a point. If you decide to play as a woman or a dark-skinned person or whatever, you wouldn't want to deal with this. I mean, it can get quite annoying after a while, and start to spoil your experience. In my opinion, adding prejudice would use up too much of Toady's time for too little a gain. Even if it could be turned off, I don't think Toady should spend time on this when he could be developing mythgen or boats.
A fantasy world generator in which everyone is the best of friends. Dwarves and elves and goblins sing happy songs together as they build stuff.You know, the game doesn't currently have any prejudice mechanics. And yet, worlds created aren't exactly peaceful.
Well, yeah, as an option maybe. Would hate for that to be the default mode...
I'll just give out my two cents on this subject.
I'm against prejudice. DF is, first and foremost, a game. It's designed to be entertaining. Adding more depth makes a game more fun, but only up to a point. If you decide to play as a woman or a dark-skinned person or whatever, you wouldn't want to deal with this. I mean, it can get quite annoying after a while, and start to spoil your experience. In my opinion, adding prejudice would use up too much of Toady's time for too little a gain. Even if it could be turned off, I don't think Toady should spend time on this when he could be developing mythgen or boats.
On the other hand, I can see how sex discrimination could just end up annoying. Spend 6 hours generating a world only to find everything much harder to do if you want to play your favorite female characters (or male if they're being discriminated against).I don't know about others, but I find your example applied in game fascinating and likable. I don't believe this kind of detail would ever be applied though.
'Don't go out at night! There's a curfew'.
'I killed some bandits!' > 'Did you get your husband's permission first?'
Etc...
I can see how having prejudice between, for instance, two human civs of differing skin colour would probably hit a bit TOO close to reality for most players to be comfortable with it.I would explicitly want this and every other variation of prejudice that realistically simulated minds are capable of generating. I honestly can't imagine why someone would be uncomfortable with that, and I would probably judge someone for it a little! Broadly speaking, I agree with VislarRn. This would produce interesting stories. There's no reason to go around having feelings about it. As far as priority goes, prejudice should be an organic result of characters having complex beliefs and preferences and acting on them.
Personally, I'm for prejudice. Although this comes from the guy who found the supposedly "horrifying" DF stories such as Obok Meatgod... rather "meh"-inducing.
the guyWait, really?
Personally, I'm for prejudice. Although this comes from the guy who found the supposedly "horrifying" DF stories such as Obok Meatgod... rather "meh"-inducing.
the guyWait, really?
Males can like cats too, you know.I know – I mean I know firsthand! – but I would probably expect people to get that impression if I named myself Kitty on a forum. :P
I'll just give out my two cents on this subject.
I'm against prejudice. DF is, first and foremost, a game. It's designed to be entertaining. Adding more depth makes a game more fun, but only up to a point. If you decide to play as a woman or a dark-skinned person or whatever, you wouldn't want to deal with this. I mean, it can get quite annoying after a while, and start to spoil your experience. In my opinion, adding prejudice would use up too much of Toady's time for too little a gain. Even if it could be turned off, I don't think Toady should spend time on this when he could be developing mythgen or boats.
'Prejudice' against kobolds, demons, and goblins sounds realistic and rational...
I'm OK with variations of the existing levels of prejudice based on cultural values present in DF such as going to war with elves in horror at eating the fallen; abhorring baby-snatching; followers of a god of volcanoes and fortresses being in conflict with the sept of the god of oceans and war; etc. These sorts of clashes can add narrative flavor and create stories that are compelling, for all that in play I like to sue for peace and usher in golden ages of cooperation and prosperity when possible. These sorts of prejudices are often horrible in our history. I have no interest in a game of such verisimilitude that I am reenacting the grotesque reality of the razing of Carthage, crusades, colonial alienation and extermination of other cultures, the holocaust, Shia-Sunni purges or any other similar example. An abstracted level that is not intimately realistic is fine.I agree with everything you said.
I wonder at what lived experience people who desire a game modeling other forms of prejudice have. I am a member of a subpopulation routinely, and for many people acceptably, vilified by others and my peer group includes many people of different subpopulations similarly targeted. I've spent the past 30 years or so trying to do my part to create a safer and saner and more fundamentally decent society. In real life I already get to "play the game" of periodically wondering if getting caught out by myself with this or that group of people similar to past perpetrators is going to be another assault. I can't imagine ever playing a game where part of the alleged fun is remarking "wow, they really nailed how realistic the bigotry in this simulation is! Serious props for making this feel just like the real thing."
I don't want the game going "no you can't go into THIS elf city because you have orangish gold skin instead of _______" - that's just... not fun?I don't think anyone has suggested that the game would enforce prejudices directly. You should be imagining that entering the Racist Elf City will simply cause conflict, just like entering a city of people who hate you for any other reason would. You might prefer to sneak in or disguise yourself, as well.
So what, you smear paint on yourself? You'd still have that mechanic with cultural prejudice because I'm pretty sure civilizations in this game have a tendency to wear the same type of thing - I just think the motivations behind it sound misguided. I personally don't find that sort of prejudice inherently believable when right down the street from racist elves there are entirely different species of things they would probably be quicker to have a prejudice against (goblins who are literally led by demons etc.). I don't think we need to extend that prejudice to very specific physical features like ear length/skin color/eye color, I think that's denoting an attitude towards this type of thing in that it's a necessary aspect of cultural progression that all intelligent lifeforms may go through. Being that we are the only intelligent lifeforms we know in real life, we have no basis for which to place that assumption - I get that fantasy and sci fi realities often exist to reflect aspects of our own but usually that's to invoke a sense of social commentary and thoughtfulness.I don't want the game going "no you can't go into THIS elf city because you have orangish gold skin instead of _______" - that's just... not fun?I don't think anyone has suggested that the game would enforce prejudices directly. You should be imagining that entering the Racist Elf City will simply cause conflict, just like entering a city of people who hate you for any other reason would. You might prefer to sneak in or disguise yourself, as well.
NvmWhat were you actually planning on saying?
The same thing I said in the previous post. No need to be repetitive. Opting out of this conversation, I said my piece.NvmWhat were you actually planning on saying?
300? The largest sites have populations of around 10,000.
Yeeaahh. Not a fan of plodding around 10,000 pop towns myself. And certainly not Dark Fortresses! Although I do like the concept.300? The largest sites have populations of around 10,000.
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG. Maybe that person only plays in small worlds like me.
Yeeaahh. Not a fan of plodding around 10,000 pop towns myself. And certainly not Dark Fortresses! Although I do like the concept.300? The largest sites have populations of around 10,000.
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG. Maybe that person only plays in small worlds like me.
Largest pop town (and indeed the largest site overall) in my current world is a tiny 5145 (or 5240 including visitors and 'outcasts'). But well over half the towns are over 1000. World is only 175 years old.
Histfigs or pop? There's a big difference.Yeeaahh. Not a fan of plodding around 10,000 pop towns myself. And certainly not Dark Fortresses! Although I do like the concept.300? The largest sites have populations of around 10,000.
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG. Maybe that person only plays in small worlds like me.
Largest pop town (and indeed the largest site overall) in my current world is a tiny 5145 (or 5240 including visitors and 'outcasts'). But well over half the towns are over 1000. World is only 175 years old.
As far as I remember, in my worlds, total histfig population is about 3000.
common sense 'everyone knows dwarves hate gobbos and don't get along with hippy elves'.
And who said anything about segregated communities? We're talking civ 1 hate civ 2 because they're "heathens". Someone wanders into town looking like the stereotypical image of a civ 2 person, gets spat at.
Then sexism, which is perhaps something for when politics is fleshed out. Or not.
We're having this discussion because Toady brought it up...And who said anything about segregated communities? We're talking civ 1 hate civ 2 because they're "heathens". Someone wanders into town looking like the stereotypical image of a civ 2 person, gets spat at.
You'll find out that's precisely what happens if civ 1 is at odds with civ 2. Wander into a town of a hostile civilization and people won't get super kind to you. What do you propose to add to this?Then sexism, which is perhaps something for when politics is fleshed out. Or not.
Do anyone really consider opening that can of worm?
I don't think much will change. As I recall, the world was full of hate back in the 'olden days' too.I actually never meant that world is going to get magically better. I meant that every society has some cultural taboo that bases itself on some kind of perceived threat. In 80s we had satanic panic, in 90s 00s we had Marilyn Manson and similar types who were edgy and threatening the norms. Now, nobody sees these threats anymore. In 2012 we had sexists, nazis, classical conservatives with their prejudices. In 2014 there was Gamergate and people started seeing this taboo as a political cliché. So the pendulum is shifting to other side.
Not sure why this is a controversial topic. 'Prejudice' in some form is kinda necessary to keep the drama ball rolling (most wars happen right now because most people are intolerant fucks prejudiced against stealing babies), especially when in-civ/fortress politics become a thing. That doesn't mean you have to or should bring awkward real life stuff into it. Like maybe the Society of Pears really hate the Oar of Slapping for killing their holy dude in a time before time, or maybe everyone knows people from Boulderholes are untrustworthy because that one titan associated with lies waddled through there once. Maybe Dwarves and Elves really hate each other, or maybe they're besties 4 lyfe, who knows, let worldgen decide!
On an unrelated note, this thread's title is super creepy - like something a villain would monologue about, haha
20 + upvotes for your insightful observation.Not sure why this is a controversial topic. 'Prejudice' in some form is kinda necessary to keep the drama ball rolling (most wars happen right now because most people are intolerant fucks prejudiced against stealing babies), especially when in-civ/fortress politics become a thing. That doesn't mean you have to or should bring awkward real life stuff into it. Like maybe the Society of Pears really hate the Oar of Slapping for killing their holy dude in a time before time, or maybe everyone knows people from Boulderholes are untrustworthy because that one titan associated with lies waddled through there once. Maybe Dwarves and Elves really hate each other, or maybe they're besties 4 life, who knows, let worldgen decide!.
No, prejudice does not need to keep the drama ball rolling. Conflict is needed, but conflict and prejudice are *not* the same thing. If two groups or individuals simply hate each other that is not prejudiced, prejudice is when we automatically assume something is the case that we do not know based upon some fact that does not in itself imply what we are assuming.
Prejudice is not simply conflicted, prejudice is a form of irrational thinking.
It's not at all irrational. It's perfectly rational under insufficient information.Exactly, prejudice is actually a form of heuristic thinking.
No, prejudice is not need to keep the drama ball rolling. Conflict is needed, but conflict and prejudice are *not* the same thing. If two groups or individuals simply hate each other that is not prejudice, prejudice is when we automatically assume something is the case that we do not know based upon some fact that does not in itself imply what we are assuming.
On an unrelated note, this thread's title is super creepy - like something a villain would monologue about, hahaCan Prejudice Save the World?
It's not at all irrational. It's perfectly rational under insufficient information.Exactly, prejudice is actually a form of heuristic thinking.
When we don't have resources to consciously process all information, we try to spot some patterns and generalities.
Heuristic thinking becomes prominent in two types of situations -
1. People have not enough information. (One of the examples is criminal profiling, which is prejudicial technique used in psychology.)
2. People have too much information to process. (Advertising can be used as an example for this)
In both of the cases there is a deviation from optimum that is required for human to be able to form more analytical and well-thought conclusions.
In perspective of social-evolution, heuristics helped people to regulate social trust. Humans seem to have need to identify markings and symbols that resemble your own culture, tribe or brotherhood. This automatically makes you distrust difference.
Two groups of individuals really hating each other does require a degree of prejudice though, especially if it's long term and over something as esoteric as an old religious conflict or a disagreement over ethics.
focused entirely upon the differences that implies foreignness, seeing their own culture as some kind of universal norm against which the foreign folks are defined...I'll get the point, but I think have to make mine more clear tbh.
...Apart from misquoting me, your interpretation is pretty faulty. For example, the game as it stands definitely contains prejudices, so your last paragraph is based on a false premise. In general, you seem to imagine that "prejudice" means something other than it actually does. I'm not going to go through this on a point-by-point basis, but, by way of example, your "non-prejudiced dwarf entity" from your description actually is exhibiting prejudice. Essentially, your whole post misses the point.
I'll get the point, but I think have to make mine more clear tbh.
I was trying to paint out this kind of basic idea:
Fallacy resembles faulty information processing, specifically in context of psychological reasoning.
Fallacious thinking doesn't have to induce faulty behaviour in biological-survivalism context.
Example - lots of people are prone not to like spiders or snakes. It doesn't matter if they are harmless or not. Keeping them away is part of primal behavior that helps/helped to survive.
Now, when talking about rationality - we have to define the context of rationality.
Apart from misquoting me, your interpretation is pretty faulty. For example, the game as it stands definitely contains prejudices, so your last paragraph is based on a false premise. In general, you seem to imagine that "prejudice" means something other than it actually does. I'm not going to go through this on a point-by-point basis, but, by way of example, your "non-prejudiced dwarf entity" from your description actually is exhibiting prejudice. Essentially, your whole post misses the point.
I suspect that, in general, this disagreement comes from differing definitions of "prejudice"; that would certainly, at least, explain the people who keep coming in and assuming that "prejudice" means eg "racism exactly as exhibited by one particular small group of humans during one particular small span of history".
noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
4.
such attitudes considered collectively:
The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.
damage or injury; detriment:
a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
verb (used with object), prejudiced, prejudicing.
6.
to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable:
His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
Idioms
7.
without prejudice, Law. without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand.
Don't quote people and then erase what they wrote.is a pretty dickish thing to say. Your post is right there, you aren't being "erased" just by the common practice of shortening quotes of lengthy diatribes.
I agree with Spin - both your example dwarves are prejudiced against goblins coming from Dungeons of Menace, being that they distrust the goblin based not on anything that particular goblin has done but merely his/her birthplace.
is a pretty dickish thing to say. Your post is right there, you aren't being "erased" just by the common practice of shortening quotes of lengthy diatribes.
If you can quote people and then delete what they wrote, then this allows you to hide any relevant information in the 'lengthy diatribe' that you are not responding to. You can now freely cherry-pick points to respond to and nobody can see what you are doing. If you take an extract out of a larger text then people can compare this to the original post to see specifically what you are not responding too there, but if you erase people's quotes then it is unclear as to the scope of your response. People will have to carefully read through the original post and then guess what part of it you are responding too.
A discussion of prejudice devolving into insults and arguments over semantics is kinda fitting, unfortunately :/
I think we should leave this one up to toady, he seems to have a pretty good plan and its his game.
My last two cents is that I'd personally like to play in a world where dwarves don't discriminate based on skin color, sexual preference, or gender identity. Some of us deal with that crap enough that we don't want it in our forts. That being said, I'm not opposed to it existing in other worldgens, just that it shouldn't be a hard-coded in thing (which would be unrealistic anyway). I think procedural (random cultural castes) or fantasy(dorfs vs greenskin) prejudice, if any, is the way to go, tbh.
At the end of the day, especially in a game like Dwarf Fortress, anything resembling prejudice should really be emergent within the system. The mechanics of group and cultural identity are already in the game, and as some have mentioned are primarily responsible for already-existing wars and other conflicts. Allowing the group identities to include physical characteristics is perfectly natural and is to a degree already implemented. To add an identity modifier which allows a dwarf or other creature to choose any physical characteristic upon which to base personal feelings is realistic and can be implemented without any explicit focusing on skin color or any other specific item.
I frankly don't even understand why this is a discussion, aside from the modern cultural construct which causes people to become wildly emotional and illogical whenever skin color is mentioned.
Being suspicious against a member of a group not for anything they have done is still being prejudiced against members of that group.I agree with Spin - both your example dwarves are prejudiced against goblins coming from Dungeons of Menace, being that they distrust the goblin based not on anything that particular goblin has done but merely his/her birthplace.
It is not their birthplace though we are talking about here, it is their present group membership. :)
If I get on poorly with a group, this does not imply that I have any particular hostility towards any particular member of the group. A group in this context is *not* a trait, as traits and groups are not the same thing. Two things having a trait in common, does not imply they actually form any kind of larger whole; a common form of prejudice is to forget this principle, treating two things that merely share a trait as though they were automatically a group.
Being suspicious against a member of a group not for anything they have done is still being prejudiced against members of that group.
Besides, a goblin is automatically assigned to their birth group upon being born and doesn't have much of a chance to leave it unless they picked appropriate travelling profession when turning 12 AND there's recently-upgraded town that accepts immigrants. Outside of that few decades to century long period, birthplace strongly correlates with group membership. Not that the definition cares whether it is one or the other one is prejudiced against. *shrug*
I like the idea of using preexisting tolerance token - in fact, you don't need a prejudice slider and can just mod the propensities for this value in raws, similar to how some players mod their dwarves to be more likely to stress out due being bored of idyllic forts.
It's a hostile attitude towards ethnic/racial/social and probably not religious group (though otoh each civs has their own gods and the demon may be worshipped, so then again...). Ergo, it's prejudice. Pretty clear from "his individual traits do not matter". Though yeah, it's bit more distant. That it one might consider it reasonable or that one might be able to, say, choose to not worship a revered figure matters not; for many consider their prejudice reasonable - or as Runaway_char put it, semantics argument *shrug*
Goblin immigration to dwarf forts is relatively low. Even if a dwarf fort becomes entirely made of goblins, it's still just 200 of them, barring libraries (which tend to favour elves), while in a dark fortress there can be over ten thousand of them. With human towns though, if you take snapshots of 1 hamlet→town, 1 dark fort, ocean inbetween worldgen, you can actually see the population in dark fort substantially decreasing when town starts accepting mass immigration. Pretty cool, though still fairly short period in history. Once the town is full, I'd expect the new births to take priority over immigration.
We all know that no matter what laws and Politically correct doctrines say, everyone is a bit discriminatory, racist, and prejudice.
Recent advances in brain-mapping and active brain scanning have confirmed many theories with biological proof.
Examination of disgust responses and the like, make it clear to me that making something everyone is/does illegal or encouraging people to deny that it exists through outright lies, or just avoiding the subject altogether, is a failure to understand human nature.
1. Political Correctness is a joke; you can't avoid offending everyone, and in trying to do so you end up with a dangerously authoritarian set of rules, and a tendency to slide into tyranny very quickly.
So I say don't bother trying to manipulate a complex system like the evolved social dynamic overnight (this kind of change takes generations, probably hundreds of years, unless one is willing to use violence & mass-death as a catalyst),
when not one of our species yet understands that system, much less how our brains work altogether.
2. When all the emotion related to the subject is bottled up, hidden, and confused through ignorance & miss-information there could be dangerous repercussions later.
-Any law that is created but is not reasonably enforceable also does nothing but weaken the entire system of laws.
-And any doctrine that encourages ignorance & lies is going to create more bad than good usually.
-The same can be argued for freedom of speech; it is better that people are free to say stupid things publicly and be known/criticized rather than force people to hide, stew, brew, and plot until they explode.
3. No matter what anyone wants to believe, modern science has proven that humans are not born equal, and given equal everything will not produce equal results.
History alone can show us the flaw in thinking that everyone was a blank slate and could be molded into anything. Equality was the rally cry of the communist revolutions throughout the Cold War, each and every one of which invariably ended in suffering on a massive scale and genocide-level losses of life.)
TL;DR
Prejudice/discrimination/racism evolved in social creatures for a reason. For much of our species' past it acted as a defense against parasites & infectious disease spread, as well as a sort of "social immune system".
Obviously the key issue is that survival [via natural selection etc] is more likely to breed examples of over-reaction rather than the reverse.
In other words, the default setting for our disgust sensitivity being highly discriminatory towards strangers & those categorized as "other" had minimal negative side-effects...
when compared to the opposite setting which could potentially have side-effect of you and your entire tribe being killed by a plague or some such.
Obviously the key issue is that survival [via natural selection etc] is more likely to breed examples of over-reaction rather than the reverse.
In other words, the default setting for our disgust sensitivity being highly discriminatory towards strangers & those categorized as "other" had minimal negative side-effects...
when compared to the opposite setting which could potentially have side-effect of you and your entire tribe being killed by a plague or some such.
Honestly I think this discussion has been surprisingly civil thus far (I actually expected it to go downhill much faster than it did). It's been somewhat heated, true, but only a few posts resorted to using actual insults (and fairly mild ones, at that). Not defending it, just saying I've seen FAR worse.Just the sort of mealy-mouthed liberal garbage a Plump Helmet Man would spit out!
No. For me, hostility towards a group is the same as prejudice: "an unfavourable feeling regarding an ethnic/racial/social/religious group"Well you're semantically incorrect then.
Going into my signature list.Honestly I think this discussion has been surprisingly civil thus far (I actually expected it to go downhill much faster than it did). It's been somewhat heated, true, but only a few posts resorted to using actual insults (and fairly mild ones, at that). Not defending it, just saying I've seen FAR worse.Just the sort of mealy-mouthed liberal garbage a Plump Helmet Man would spit out!
@SmileyMan: Based it on summing dictionary.com definition, but fair enough. If you know all members of a group, and base hostility on who they actually are, I don't think I'd call it prejudice indeed.Don't forget it's possible to have positive prejudices as well - all girls are kind-natured, all men are brave, all French people are great lovers etc.
In the context of DF, hm. Can suspected agents even disprove they're not actual agents? Or is that going to be a persistent cloud...Time to FotF it.
initial disposition = sum(physical characteristic * (personal experience + cultural knowledge + differences) for all characteristics)No. For me, hostility towards a group is the same as prejudice: "an unfavourable feeling regarding an ethnic/racial/social/religious group".
Almost all impersonal kind of inter-group hostility counts as prejudice to me, regardless of how much sense it makes. Basically, I don't accept "it's totally rational, here's proof" to make something not prejudice.
As far as I grok the posts, you do, though.
It's an interesting point you make regarding groups, though it seems to work best for social and maybe religious ones; not so much racial or ethnic ones.Yes it works for social groups and (some) religious groups but it does not work well for racial and ethnic ones. That is quite what I am talking about, that the racial and ethnic groups are only groups along the lines of the red ball group fallacy.
"All red balls form a red ball group", or "All goblins come from Dungeons of Menace" fallacy - well now, this gives me idea:
First, how accurate is that fallacy? I've seen worldgens where such idea can range from nigh-delusional (0% to 5%) to near 1:1 prediction (95% to 100%).
Second, at what point should a given creature, law-giver or civ become prejudiced?
Proposal for mechanic: if over TOLERANCE% of X impact prejudicer in Y way, the prejudicer will become prejudiced towards X expecting Y.
Ideally, that be for each and every creature, buuut that's just not possible to simulate with current hardware. Alas.
Using a law-giver or monarch, one could indeed produce civ-wide prejudices via edicts or laws. Which does raise another issue above: individual entities are kind of too... ethics-abiding, currently (closest things we have to laws).
If a goblin is in a situation to follow their KILL_NEUTRAL:REQUIRED ethic, they'll not decide to not follow it because they might die without killing any neutrals, for instance.
Thus, while we do have rebellions, there's no laws that are not reasonably enforcable.
The goal of DF is to be a fantasy world generator, for Toady.Yes, and a "fantasy world" is a world that contains stories. Stories are simplified, embellished, details left out or included, to make them [better]. This is close but not exactly the same to what makes the fantasy world fun. This is also close but not exactly the same to what makes the fantasy world realistic. There's a kind of realism that means "complicated in a way that drives the plot and makes it seem plausible," and in that sense realism is always [good], but there is also "complications that are tedious and do not add anything to the plot or world", such as, ferex, needing to channel all information through a single dwarf. Would that make everything more realistic? Yes. Do you think that Toady will require the world to adhere to realistic communications on a dwarf-to-dwarf level? I don't. Similarly, some complications do not add anything to the story or world. These are a waste of time.
Being a game one finds fun is second priority.
Classic example: Wouldn't it be more enjoyable that if you embarked in range of goblins you'd be guaranteed sieges? Used to be case, but was changed in .40 to be more 'realistic' in requiring them to be interested enough, most interested and have enough numbers, with no toggle to change it back to how it used to be.
Novel counter to above: You can now aggro the goblins anyway by raiding them, even if they find you boring. But that too has 'realism'.
Still, this is why we have unofficial "summon a siege" buttons instead of official ones.
I basically play Dwarf Fortress because I want to see dwarves do cute things that are totally inhumane, like stabbing a chicken because they think it killed the mayor. I guess I see prejudice as at least two features?
One is for creatures to not like each other because of cultural assumptions. I think there's some potential for this stuff to emerge from the existing group alliance stuff. Each civ currently has cultural knowledge of every other civ for the purpose of starting wars -- adding mechanics that make it possible for a civ to have wrong cultural knowledge would encourage holy wars, but it'd be tempered by the mitigating factors already built in.
The side I don't want: in the human world cultures develop symbolic ways to express hate and convince bystanders to agree: fake science like phrenology and The Bell Curve, slurs like "nigger" and "kike," de jure discrimination like separate buses and bathrooms and prisons and schools, ritualistic acts like lynching, cutting off hands, shaving heads, photographing, sterilizing. Prejudiced aggressors like inventing crimes or blaming the victims for the nasty things they did, and they get away with it even if it doesn't make sense.
I think this feature is actually really important. In the real world, whenever you're not actually the target of the prejudice, it's the more visible one, because if you're not the victim, you won't experience the violence and you don't need to know if if it's justified, but you can still see how the aggressor is talking. The lies are usually obvious and ridiculous, but the hate continues to spread because humans are weak to lies that appeal to their prejudices. Watching people you like fall into this stuff is like watching them develop cancer or something. I don't want my dwarves to do this because it will remind me of people I knew who became entrenched in this.
If any of the stuff I mentioned, including the language I used, makes you uncomfortable, then I don't think you want this stuff in a game like Dwarf Fortress. For many of you it doesn't seem like the topic has any sting. Most of the worst things humans ever did are related to prejudice, and many of you explicitly want dwarves to repeat those things. If they do, it should make you feel sick, or else it's not a good simulation.
On variation:
Not knowing whether you'll ever see a goblin after having some hostile goblins as neighbours would be bit more interesting in a twitch game, adding tension, but in DF I see stuff like "I feel like 'why even build defences' if nothing's going to show up" and "sieges gave something more to do (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163550.0)".
(Also, running out of bodies is more of a deescalation.)
I think this feature is actually really important. In the real world, whenever you're not actually the target of the prejudice, it's the more visible one, because if you're not the victim, you won't experience the violence and you don't need to know if if it's justified, but you can still see how the aggressor is talking. The lies are usually obvious and ridiculous, but the hate continues to spread because humans are weak to lies that appeal to their prejudices. Watching people you like fall into this stuff is like watching them develop cancer or something. I don't want my dwarves to do this because it will remind me of people I knew who became entrenched in this.
If any of the stuff I mentioned, including the language I used, makes you uncomfortable, then I don't think you want this stuff in a game like Dwarf Fortress. For many of you it doesn't seem like the topic has any sting. Most of the worst things humans ever did are related to prejudice, and many of you explicitly want dwarves to repeat those things. If they do, it should make you feel sick, or else it's not a good simulation.
Personally, I'm for prejudice. Although this comes from the guy who found the supposedly "horrifying" DF stories such as Obok Meatgod... rather "meh"-inducing.the guyWait, really?
... I guess it's just the "Kitty" thing, but I didn't see that coming. :P
Now ask yourself - After those events, if you go outside in the streets bearing those distinct features of the Red Order, does it make sense when people don't react to it? Absolutely not, you'd better run away from all these grieving family members who seek revenge against the Red Order because this prejudice is probably staying for a long time.
And then they conclude that you had something to do with the happenings at night.Now ask yourself - After those events, if you go outside in the streets bearing those distinct features of the Red Order, does it make sense when people don't react to it? Absolutely not, you'd better run away from all these grieving family members who seek revenge against the Red Order because this prejudice is probably staying for a long time.
But that is not a prejudice. They simply conclude that you are in the Red Order because you bear it's insignia.
If any of the stuff I mentioned, including the language I used, makes you uncomfortableNot in the least. Also, I think you should actually read The Bell Curve because it doesn't make the argument you've been told it does.
And then they conclude that you had something to do with the happenings at night.
False syllogism is: I have a proof that some members of the Red Order are perpetrators therefore all members of the Red Order are perpetrators.
More peaceful members of the Red Order (since there is at least one according to the example) might have been voting against such actions, but are now bound to be misjudged anyway.
If any of the stuff I mentioned, including the language I used, makes you uncomfortableNot in the least. Also, I think you should actually read The Bell Curve because it doesn't make the argument you've been told it does.
Group-level conflicts are not the same thing as prejudice. We do not in a war have to interview every single soldier to make sure they personally are in favor of the continuation of the war against our country in order to justify killing them. Personal opinions are simply irrelevant in a group-level conflict, you will kill the invading goblins irrespective of what their personal opinions regarding the war and their civilizations leadership are.Sorry, you're just using a made-up definition of prejudice. In the actual definition of prejudice, yes, group-level conflicts invariably require prejudice, because you presume the motives of an individual from that individual's group affiliation.
The Bell Curve :P :P :P!
If we read books we have to buy books. Buying books gives money to the people who made the books, which are the people we don't approve of. The more racist books there are, the more racists are published because that is how markets work. Do we want racists to get published and get an impressionable audience to turn into more racists?
I feel like I should point out that GoblinCookie never actually questioned the right to freedom of speech.I just said "freedom"...
Sorry, you're just using a made-up definition of prejudice. In the actual definition of prejudice, yes, group-level conflicts invariably require prejudice, because you presume the motives of an individual from that individual's group affiliation.
you could just download them from the internetbut yes, we do want that. Everyone is allowed to publish their opinions. That is how freedom works.
... More importantly, though, none of that applies to The Bell Curve because the idea that it's "a racist book" is a myth.
This is the DF forum, we're far too civilized for that. :P
This is the DF forum, we're far too civilized for that. :P
I have plenty of experience to the contrary. :(
The Bell Curve :P :P :P!
If we read books we have to buy books. Buying books gives money to the people who made the books, which are the people we don't approve of. The more racist books there are, the more racists are published because that is how markets work. Do we want racists to get published and get an impressionable audience to turn into more racists?
Go to the library, read it there without anyone seeing, put it carefully back on the shelf. Apply a sprinkling of dust to fool librarians into thinking nobody's touched the book in decades. That should work. No promotion, no hits, no statistics.
Well, wouldn't a war mechanic, where battles eventually became wars, which eventually became a divide between two civilizations, go to the same effect? If the two civs are two different races, you'd have a bigotry component there without necessarily having to deal with the depths of prejudice Toady was talking about that could potentially harm gameplay. Like, I think he just doesn't want an in-depth "racism mechanic", but I'm not seeing him denying the possibility of underlying conflict that's so underlying that its roots are barely traceable, and the conflict only stands on bigotry.
I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something. I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)
The Bell Curve :P :P :P!
If we read books we have to buy books. Buying books gives money to the people who made the books, which are the people we don't approve of. The more racist books there are, the more racists are published because that is how markets work. Do we want racists to get published and get an impressionable audience to turn into more racists?
Y'all just prejudiced against prejudice. Please stop with this prejudicism, it's my trigger.
Also I think prejudice should not be in the game because of course having some imaginary people being prejudiced against other imaginary creatures will instanly make all players racist, nazi, jewish, homophobic and KKK members simultaneously. Toady will basically be second Hitler if not worse for including, however partially, prejudice in a simulation game.
I would love to have the opportunity for someone to call me a dildo because of my beard, then punch him in the face."YOU DARE HAVE ONLY THREE BRAIDS IN YOUR BEARD! YOU FUCKING UNCIVILIZED TROGLODYTE"
I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something. I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)
That's exactly my point.
I would love to have the opportunity for someone to call me a dildo because of my beard, then punch him in the face."YOU DARE HAVE ONLY THREE BRAIDS IN YOUR BEARD! YOU FUCKING UNCIVILIZED TROGLODYTE"
beard prejudice is the only acceptable prejudice between two dwarves.
also I remember someone suggesting a prejudice slider, I think prejudice should be in the game for the realism but there should be a slider or two for it (1. amount of prejudice 2. intensity of prejudice)
I forget, has positve prejudice been mentioned here yet, like IDK assuming all elves are wonderful singers or such?Some genius mentioned it...
Don't forget it's possible to have positive prejudices as well - all girls are kind-natured, all men are brave, all French people are great lovers etc.
It's also possible to have personal prejudices based on personal experience that don't come from either the standard 'distrust of difference' regarding physical attributes, or cultural knowledge.
So for a gameplay point of view, you could have:Code: [Select]initial disposition = sum(physical characteristic * (personal experience + cultural knowledge + differences) for all characteristics)
and so a dwarf who dealt with kind elves regularly would soon have the 'personal experience' overwhelming the cultural and difference factors.
I forget, has positve prejudice been mentioned here yet, like IDK assuming all elves are wonderful singers or such?
I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something. I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)
I would actually love to see some form of prejudice ingame. Imagine two dwarf civilizations feuding because one civ likes to wear pig tail socks while the other likes jute socks or something. I'm confused as it why it makes people uncomfortable. You can already do some pretty horrible things in dwarf fortress. I just can't see how one evil act or interaction is okay but another isn't. Being able to Genocide entire races is okay but adding in actual reasoning for that genocide isn't okay? (very horrible reasoning mind you)There are two argument i heard on similar subjects:
Likely because logic and reason related to prejudice is the absolute worst thing possible to those who tend to be offended by non-politically-correct thinking and statements anyways. The conventional wisdom these days (mostly, I imagine for the comfort of those who would otherwise be uncomfortable) is that anyone who exercises any form of prejudice is stupid, an idiot, ill-informed, etc etc etc. When such a person begins to actually support his or her patterns of thinking with logic or actual facts, those who think otherwise have a tendency to go ABSOLUTELY BANANAS.Adding prejudice to dwarf fortress won't make it look any more reasonable and might even show how arbitrary it is.
It is FAR more threatening when a challenge to a person's closely-held beliefs is backed up by logic than when it is nothing more than ad-hominem type stuff.
Likely because logic and reason related to prejudice is the absolute worst thing possible to those who tend to be offended by non-politically-correct thinking and statements anyways. The conventional wisdom these days (mostly, I imagine for the comfort of those who would otherwise be uncomfortable) is that anyone who exercises any form of prejudice is stupid, an idiot, ill-informed, etc etc etc. When such a person begins to actually support his or her patterns of thinking with logic or actual facts, those who think otherwise have a tendency to go ABSOLUTELY BANANAS.
It is FAR more threatening when a challenge to a person's closely-held beliefs is backed up by logic than when it is nothing more than ad-hominem type stuff.
That is because prejudice happens to be a kind of stupidity. If you successfully support your pattern of thinking with logic and facts then it stops being prejudice.Prejudice isn't stupidity, it's an evolutionary necessity.
That is because prejudice happens to be a kind of stupidity.
Absolutely not. It is a form of pattern recognition, which is just about all our brains are good for.
Prejudice is a pejorative.
Prejudice is a pejorative.
You're declaring things which are not necessarily true, and then acting as though your declaration is all that's needed to ensure the veracity of your argument.
Without prejudice, you walk into obviously dangerous situations blind. Without prejudice, you die, period.
Prejudice need not be pejorative. I can be positively or negatively pre-judgmental of another group of people. Either way is prejudice. And both help keep you alive.
Stop eating the post-modernist garbage hook, line, and sinker. Groupthink is a thing. Trying to deny it or force it to be untrue is merely naive.
You can choose to re-define prejudice so that it is possible to have a 'rational and good prejudice', but as I said the world is to the rest of the world prejudice is pejorative, which means the use of the word prejudice implies irrationality and general bigotry. The question then is what game is it that you are playing here, nobody else understands your alternative version of English.
You can choose to re-define prejudice so that it is possible to have a 'rational and good prejudice', but as I said the world is to the rest of the world prejudice is pejorative, which means the use of the word prejudice implies irrationality and general bigotry. The question then is what game is it that you are playing here, nobody else understands your alternative version of English.
I using the term in its long-understood and long-used common manner. For the last generation or so it has meant something very different, which I find ridiculous and socially abhorrent. My apologies if this has caused confusion.
Let it be known, however, that it is not I who am redefining words.
c. 1300, "despite, contempt," from Old French prejudice "prejudice, damage" (13c.), from Medieval Latin prejudicium "injustice," from Latin praeiudicium "prior judgment," from prae- "before" (see pre-) + iudicium "judgment," from iudex (genitive iudicis) "a judge" (see judge (n.)). Meaning "injury, physical harm" is mid-14c., as is legal sense "detriment or damage caused by the violation of a legal right." Meaning "preconceived opinion" (especially but not necessarily unfavorable) is from late 14c. in English.
I hope this rustles your jimmies, because 'post-modern garbage' is here to stay (unless fascism is your thing).
There are myriad ways in which the "post-modern garbage" might be excised from greater society, and I imagine fascism to be among the least likely of those. Natural processes such as social evolution are far more likely to be the primary factor in the end.
What is actually unnatural in this intellectual system you are using?
The imposition of social change which is unagreed to and unwanted by the vast majority is unnatural. In other words, precisely what you are defending and pushing forward is unnatural.
The natural order of society, meaning the great numbers of people closer to the center of the bell curve, will continue the correction of this aberration until it has taken its rightful seat in the dustbin of history.
Which word would you like me to define for you next?