Print

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

[Rowanas]

TRafalgar, I concur. In the real world I am an unreasonable and malicious person, but I'm not evil and I don't want to cause anyone harm who hasn't first harmed me or mine. In computer games I rarely manage to swerve from the path of justice and kindness because it makes me feel bad to do bad acts, even to computer people.

But sometimes, just sometimes, I feel like shooting everyone in the nuts and taking their daughters/wives/camels home with me for depraved acts which should not be spoken of. On those times, surely I should be allowed to indulge that momentary depravity, because if we have no outlet, how are we supposed to keep ourselves sane and moral in the real world? Sure, some people can be upstanding citizens without vice or sin, but gaming should cater to the fantasies that we would never dare to commit in the real world. Relaxation and release through ASCII cruelty is a normal and acceptable way to part with the pressures and desires that we can't release anywhere else.

Viva la ASCII torture!

[CobaltKobold]

Short version: simulation is better than prudery.

For extra badness add a Polygamy ethics tag, don't complain if your civ ends up with the ACCEPTABLE value for the coming ethics diversification.

One of those things that bugs me is that it's hardcoded when it should be an ethics tag.

I haven't noticed any mention of the controversial drug topic (AFAIK beer doesn't even get one drunk) but I don't see any advantage in storytelling or gameplay to adding it in.  Think about a stoner movie if you don't believe me.

Amusingly, beer in a game pushes it up to T.

Considering that the man added individual ribs and teeth, he could add drunkeness.

Knowing you have 32 teeth doesn't really help storytelling or gameplay either.

All I can tell you is my method for judging ideas.  Besides, maybe the drunk you punched in the tavern last night has decided to call in favors from his Thug allies since you knocked out some of his teeth.

You mean, like... one ally per tooth?

Planting dragons' teeth supposedly gets you one soldier per tooth, so actually, yes, number of teeth has historical story significance. (Also, necklaces of enemy teeth)

So, how will the relevant insecurities be handled? You can't very well plaster the mood list with "had a small penis recently"

And the inverse, "has launched a thousand ships recently"

The issue of homosexuality within the game did not come up. Does anyone see it as possibly adding flavour or anything tangible to the game? I think forum disputes would multiply like bunnies as eventually some people would undoubtedly begin treating homosexuality as a crime within their forts (and describing that in their narrations, believing it to be a good joke, or making fun of it),

I don't think Toady should avoid a feature for that reason. Campaigns of cleansing have explicitly come up in the devlog, including considering the dwarves "getting wise" if you start exterminating all the red-haired dwarves. Should Toady exclude color variations for this reason? No.

and of all the issues that have caused dispute this seems to be the most highly volatile. Should it be included for completeness? Avoided as a can of worms? Should it simply take the form of some dwarves* having "lovers" who are of the same sex? Is it something anyone feels strongly should be included? I've had a gender-confused dwarf in my narration of a community fort before, but it didn't require the game to actually simulate it. Could it serve any important purpose?

Completeness sounds good. Also, transgenderism is not the same thing, but has in fact a more significant root in legends, though admittedly all I can recall at the moment are pirates, well forward of the target time period, and more a "disguise to pass sexism and achieve career" than "to match gender identity".

OFF TOPIC -
I'd say the tag that best incorporates modern views of homosexuality would be PERSONAL_MATTER

That would be nice if it were true.

Could it serve any important purpose?

Making it meaningful in the gameplay, as directly as possible.
If dwarf fortress is going to tell stories, it should at least tell the highest dimensional story possible, because it'd be nice to not have to lie or fill in blanks with imagination to tell a story of a fortress.

You can dump as many dwarven children into as many dank pits and kill their mothers all you want, but all the imagined suffering in the word won't matter if their thought profile says their happyness is at "Ecstatic" and everyone they know are friends, because ultimately as long as that is the case, you'll never get one orphan to kill another. Even if you imagine there's a love triangle (or love web) there won't be any conflict because such things were never programmed, for fear it would offend someone's sensibilities.

You put it much better than I think I could.

A point on the whole media-picking-it-up thing.

It won't. Look at Mass Effect. Mass Effect, they could just show a three second clip of the two people on top of eachother and people would be outraged. Hot Coffee, they played a brief, unfinished portion of it and people were in arms.

which had to be modded to put in

Hell, if you need to modify a game to get at the sex, why isn't the existence of a nude patch for [insert_game_here] a call to arms? 

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

OK, you made me smile.

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

What does 'evil_act' add to the game? Allowing 'evil' people to appear 'evil'. What does excluding it remove from the game? Verisimilitude.
When the potential to use objects sexually appears, modding or otherwise, it must be considered that corpses are objects.

Actually, this reminds me, know how it prevents you from drinking blood/vomit/mud until you're absolutely requiring the water, thanks to a disgust level? Perhaps a sensible way to go about it (but, naturally, you run afoul of the game telling you "You don't want to do that" when you think you do,  getting disconnected, I think Toady's mentioned for some other action-restriction thing...)

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

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

[snip]

Indeed.

It was nice to prove that the members of the community are capable of handling these issues maturely,

IS THAT A CHALLENGE? 

The issue of homosexuality within the game did not come up. Does anyone see it as possibly adding flavour or anything tangible to the game?

Probably not unless there's an ethical tag about it.  Gameplay-wise its the same as having 2 dwarves that will never have children.

That's actually interesting. I can imagine people making their fortress military into a small-scale model of the Sacred Band of Thebes, just to prevent military pregnancies.

Aha! Someone else who knows about the historical military thing. I have a friend who actually researches this sort of thing.


Lastly, on rape...if it is impossible, doesn't it rather kill the point of 99.9% of "kidnap the princess" stories? The sinister prince captures the neighboring kingdom's princess, and then she gets to go "Ha! You can't do anything to me. I'm protected by the code."

Including, say, The Evil Squire?

Kudos on keeping it civil.

[sproingie]

More like "Ha! You can't do anything to me, I'm just bits in a simulation."

It's what's imagined that actually counts.  And when I was a little innocent kid, my assumption was that the princess was going to be dragon food.

[LordZorintrhox]

For extra badness add a Polygamy ethics tag, don't complain if your civ ends up with the ACCEPTABLE value for the coming ethics diversification.

Let us not forget that polygamy need not be restricted to multiple wives.  There is a neolithic tribe which there are multiple husbands, and the womenfolk takes great care not to let the men know who's child is whose so that every child has at least three, sometimes like six, fathers.

I haven't noticed any mention of the controversial drug topic (AFAIK beer doesn't even get one drunk) but I don't see any advantage in storytelling or gameplay to adding it in.  Think about a stoner movie if you don't believe me.

I know EXACTLY how to include it: in GURPS and the Hero system role playing games, a character may take a disadvantage in order to get more character points to work with.  So, you take "addiction to substance: opium" and get ten extra points to augment your sword technique.  but you have to have opium lest you risk withdrawal and death.

OFF TOPIC -
I'd say the tag that best incorporates modern views of homosexuality would be PERSONAL_MATTER

That would be nice if it were true.

Seriously.

It was nice to prove that the members of the community are capable of handling these issues maturely,

IS THAT A CHALLENGE? 

  (there is no "raised eyebrow" smiley, so this has to do.  Just imagine it is a raised eyebrow smiley) 

Lastly, on rape...if it is impossible, doesn't it rather kill the point of 99.9% of "kidnap the princess" stories? The sinister prince captures the neighboring kingdom's princess, and then she gets to go "Ha! You can't do anything to me. I'm protected by the code."

Including, say, The Evil Squire?

Yeah, it would.  There needs to be a more complex rewrite of the social interaction code before the ramifications of alot of this can be represented reasonably (depression, self-loathing, regret, and a whole slew of other stuff that can be caused by severe psychological trauma).

[Dakk]

OFF TOPIC -
I'd say the tag that best incorporates modern views of homosexuality would be PERSONAL_MATTER

That would be nice if it were true.

Seriously.

Quite.

And I agree with everything else aswell, for DF to tell proceduraly generated stories on the go, it should consider these possibilities so they are actualy interesting, instead of getting 99 princess was kidnapped by evil mcevil for unknown reasons per worldgen.

[Muz]

There's already plenty of controversial elements. Like suicide and skinning people to make leather out of them.

But overall, I think Toady is mature enough, and has enough experience moderating these forums to know what is suitable and what is not. As he said before, violence is worse than sex, but people have a harder time controlling themselves when it comes to sex. Sex is just more controversial. And he does want people to play his game.

There's a balance between realism/gameplay and controversy.. whether the benefits to gameplay are worth having something offensive. Something like feces would mean that you have to build a sewage system, but it won't add much otherwise. It's better to have say, pollution. Incest brings little, rape brings minimal storyline to the game, while the threat of suicide brings on a tactical decision.

But in the end, it's really Toady's choice. He could just say no. If you're lucky, he might put it in as a moddable element.

[Andeerz]

Yep yep.  CobaltKobold I agree!  I agree with Muz, too, up until after the sentence "There's a balance... ... offensive."  Waste management rawks.  But the merits of including waste management engineering in the game is for another thread...

[Nadaka]

Muz: skinning people for their leather has been removed from the game with the exception of fell moods. 38c allowed butchery of intelligent species with minimal modding, this was removed in subsequent versions.

[CobaltKobold]

You mangled the quote tag. I didn't write the "IS THAT A CHALLENGE?"

It was nice to prove that the members of the community are capable of handling these issues maturely,

IS THAT A CHALLENGE? 

  (there is no "raised eyebrow" smiley, so this has to do.  Just imagine it is a raised eyebrow smiley) 

Muz: skinning people for their leather has been removed from the game with the exception of fell moods. 38c allowed butchery of intelligent species with minimal modding, this was removed in subsequent versions.

I'm curious. Is this based on the ethics tags(MAKE_SAPIENT_TROPHY:UNACCEPTABLE?) or just in general? If in general, I'm bugged when this kind of thing happens...Also, doesn't appear to be in devlog.

Spoiler: I'm bugged about censorship in general (click to show/hide)

Because at the very least it becomes possible for someone in the 'shelter' to create something illegal for them to read, and the science does not show a causative harm relationship that would justify this sort of thing. If it did, I'd be a lot less bugged.

edit: I, too, mangled the quote tags.

[Nadaka]

in 38c and prior the tag [BUTCHERABLE_STANDARD] could be added to humans, elves, goblins and even dwarves to allow their corpses to be butchered, their meat and skin usable.

Now, even with [ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER:ACCEPTABLE], [ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_KILL:ACCEPTABLE], [ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAME_RACE:ACCEPTABLE] and[ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT:ACCEPTABLE] dwarves can not butcher intelligent creatures (though they can embark with and import leather and meat).

Fiddling around with domestic tags like [PET][PET_EXOTIC][WAGON_PULLER][MOUNT][PACK_ANIMAL] can make creatures butcherable, and exchanging [INTELLIGENT] for [CAN_LEARN][CAN_SPEAK][CAN_LEARN] affects it. But in general, doing any of this is very buggy, possibly resulting in leather that can not be tanned and meat that can not be eaten or dwarves who can not be assigned labors and in some cases can not perform labors even if an outside manager assigns them.

[CobaltKobold]

...I'd like that fixed when ethics affecting permitted actions goes in. Dwarves as is probably shouldn't be allowed since their ethics don't like it.

[TSB]

Just let Fox News get its grip on DF. People start waving around the term "rape simulator" even when there is no rape, let alone when there is, regardless of whether it's actually simulated.

 I respectfully disagree with that statement. After all, how many times has HellMoo been featured or at least mentioned on FoxNews? That game both details many reprehensible actions, and in fact encourages all of them.( Grab a unsuspecting PC and have sex with them, then sell the baby(ies) to the local fast food joint, for example) Simply adding a non player ability to worldgen for legends or background is not tantamount to encouraging or advocating any "controversial" actions.

I cannot see the addition of raping or incest as an available option in the Adventure mode, and to be quite honest, it would not happen with player consent in Fortress Mode. ( But you people planning on burrowing 5 male dwarves with a female dwarf to farm dwarf cubs should be ashamed!  )

In the sense of story background and worldgen legend building, these features would simply add a sense of " Oh that is seriously fucked up, those Orcs raped that she-dwarf in that town." or "No wonder those kobolds are so stupid, they all have the same teenage mother!"

I do not believe anybody would seriously condone the addition of player controlled ability to perform the worst of acts, like rape and incest.

tl;dr

Player controlled rape/incest/what have you should not be added
Emergent behavior of said actions I can see as viable in a story-making sense

Remember, the games you play do NOT define who or what you are or what you believe in!

[CobaltKobold]

I respectfully disagree with TSB's views. I'm for including elements without regard to 'controversy'.

DF is one of the few games that doesn't say "Oh, no, you can't do that" (though apparently it does on butchering...huh.  )

In general if you see something happen that you cannot replicate by your own actions, it creates a very large disconnect. I'm not suggesting it should be obvious or easy or lacking consequences.

As for incest, I don't see why you'd consider it a "worst thing" in all cases. If it's consensual, then the prior emotional ties already are factored in. The main other problem would be the genetic consequences- all those recessive traits lining up in the children and preventing/stunting them. Acceptable consanguinity varies between cultures in real life, so why not in DF?
Also, without some degree of incestuous procreation, you can't get royal families that don't intermarry with lower folks (see: real life, in which the population is lower than DF, and the tree of European nobility is particularly gnarly.)

As for rape, anatomical-correctness mods have been made. I know at least one is planned for the next version. External BPs can be used in wrestling very precisely. Was rape an intended feature? Questionable. consensual wrestling does not appear to yet be a component of DF, though.

I don't condone rape. Or ripping people apart at random, or shooting them in the head, or stealing. I think it odd to make a line whereby the player is permitted to be so evil and no farther. (Perhaps the player must get their character to the point of "doesn't really care about anything anymore" to avoid negative thoughts, but then you're going onto the thorn of "telling the player what they are thinking".)

Therefore, it appears your belief (that nobody would seriously condone addition of a player-controlled ability to "perform the worst of acts, like rape and incest") is incorrect.

edit:

Spoiler: Shortform (click to show/hide)

[ETHIC:INCEST:JUSTIFIED_IF_NO_REPERCUSSIONS]
I mean justifiable/not prohibited, but that's how the tag is worded, so I suspect it's meant that way. Apparently, TSB thinks [ETHIC:INCEST:UNTHINKABLE], though this is only my guess.

(joke) Does this mean war?  (/joke)

[Julien Brightside]

I think something along the lines of this would happen:

Urist McOedipus has learnt a terrible secret.
Urist McOedipus has gouged his eyes out.


Or this one:

Uri McWife gets approached by noble.
Urist McNoble attempts something unmentionable on Uri McWife.
Urist McNoble cancels unmentionable. Interrupted by Urist McBrave.
Urist McNoble arm is broken.

Urist McNoble tantrums!
Urist McNoble has calmed down.
Urist McNoble sends Olin McHammer to punish Uri McWife and Urist McBrave.

Uri McWife is struck down.
Urist McBrave has gone Berserk!
Olin McHammer is struck down.

Urist McBrave routs friends.
Olin McFriend arms himself.
Urist McFriend arms himself.
etc.

Urist McNoble is struck down.

[Innominate]

Rape is one of those weird issues at this point, because sex in DF is done by spores at present, and the spores only seem to be released upon marriage. I doubt Toady intends to implement actual sex any time soon (potentially for adventure mode way down the track), but at that time I see no good reason to prevent non-consensual sex. Besides breaking immersion, such an act sets a precedent for other morality enforcement. In (almost?) all games available for sale in the West (not sure about elsewhere), it is impossible to kill children. Some games achieve this by not even including them. Others make children invulnerable, and a few simply make you unable to try even ineffectual attempts at harm directed at them.

At what point do we say "No, you can do a lot of things with your genitals/fists but not that."? If we have goblins and daemons in the world, corrupt intentions and all, it would make sense for them to commit what we rightly find atrocious. Will we find these actions recorded in the annals of worldgen history and not ever actually "performed" in-game, or will we find that evil NPCs can do what the player is not allowed to. What if the player wants to role-play as one of those evil NPCs? Then it becomes an issue of whether the prohibition is hard-coded or arises from the raws or emergent culture. If it emerges from the raws, why allow the player to transgress on some of the established dwarven ethics and not all? If the player can still commit an [ETHIC:...:UNTHINKABLE] such as torturing, why would they not be allowed to eat another sapient once they have the ability to process corpses?

A 'happy medium' in my opinion is that the player should be allowed to do whatever they please within what is possible in the game, ethics aside. But if they transgress on a matter the "possessed" adventurer considers abhorrent, then it seems only fair that there be a violent physical backlash at first. Non-stop nausea for example, with less nausea each time something unthinkable is done until the "possessee" is accustomed to it. And since we know that there are physical causes in the brain of most psychological conditions, it is reasonable that (assuming there is some way to simulate them) they come into effect as appropriate. Stress-induced hallucinations perhaps.

Part of the objection to these controversial elements as I understand it is that they are essentially free of consequence. Sure, the town might try to kill you if you accidentally bludgeon the mayor to a bloody pulp with his daughter's mini-forge, but there are physiological consequences to that action. Unless the brain of the individual - the physical brain, not the "possessing" brain - functions like that of a sociopath then committing certain acts for the first time will cause extreme nausea, blackouts, aching muscles and all manner of psychological conditions (see post-traumatic stress disorder). The only way for that to be avoided is if we pretend the "possessor" intercepts all sensory data before it is interpreted by the physical brain of the "possessee".

So add controversy. Add consequences. If Toady decides he wants to allow such features then I suggest he implement a model of possession, wherein the player (in adventure mode - artifact creators in fortress mode) and the host compete for control of the body. It might ruin the fun to some extent if the host could take control of more than just reflex actions, though.