Ludeon Forums

I'd like to suggest that "gay" be removed as a listed trait. There should still be colonists who feel same-sex attractions, but we're in the year 5500, I'd like to hope that in the next 3500 years, society as a whole moves beyond gay/straight and male/female.

By the way, are multiple relationships possible ingame?

Pansexual polyamory in 5500!

Labels exist because they work.

Removal of labels muddies language.

I keep hearing about people identifying as an attack helicopter. I wonder if that should be added as a trait :D

Should gay be a trait tho? I mean it takes up a 'slot'. Its not like straight colonists have a 'straight' trait. Maybe it should just be a hidden attribute?

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on April 11, 2016, 03:04:16 AM
Should gay be a trait tho? I mean it takes up a 'slot'. Its not like straight colonists have a 'straight' trait. Maybe it should just be a hidden attribute?

You have a point there. If straight colonists don't have a 'straight' trait, that's really defining 'normal' isn't it?

I'd rather have all sexual orientations show up as a trait (so that includes straight) and increase the number of possible traits by one, so it doesn't 'take up a slot', but still visible.

Hidden...I'm not sure. Surely in the 5500s, the concept of being 'in the closet' would have been removed?

For the sake of argument, and forgetting any real-life sensibilities I/we may have;

I can imagine that on a harsh frontier world, where survival is a primary concern, being gay might be viewed as a negative trait to have. As such, it would make sense that there is a certain level of stigma attached. On core/glitter worlds, as in most more advanced real earth communities, different sexualities would be more accepted.

The fact that children are not (yet) in the game does rather undermine this argument though.

Quote from: StorymasterQ on April 11, 2016, 03:21:44 AM

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on April 11, 2016, 03:04:16 AM
Should gay be a trait tho? I mean it takes up a 'slot'. Its not like straight colonists have a 'straight' trait. Maybe it should just be a hidden attribute?

You have a point there. If straight colonists don't have a 'straight' trait, that's really defining 'normal' isn't it?

I'd rather have all sexual orientations show up as a trait (so that includes straight) and increase the number of possible traits by one, so it doesn't 'take up a slot', but still visible.

Hidden...I'm not sure. Surely in the 5500s, the concept of being 'in the closet' would have been removed?

Well I say hidden, less implying that they are 'in the closet' and more that its just a standard thing that you wouldn't really notice unless you asked someone, or seen them in a relationship

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on April 11, 2016, 03:47:30 AM
For the sake of argument, and forgetting any real-life sensibilities I/we may have;

I can imagine that on a harsh frontier world, where survival is a primary concern, being gay might be viewed as a negative trait to have. As such, it would make sense that there is a certain level of stigma attached. On core/glitter worlds, as in most more advanced real earth communities, different sexualities would be more accepted.

The fact that children are not (yet) in the game does rather undermine this argument though.

I dont see why it would intrinsically be a negative or positive trait. Since the colonists end goal is just to get off the planet, its not like long term reproduction come into it, and even if it was, I'm sure that there would be plenty of war orphans to go around. If your working on the trope of 'hard men dont like gays' I would point you to the Spartans, or pretty much any Greek culture, or pretty much any culture except Christian/Herbru/Islamic ones.

If the colonists were to have a long-term goal of setting up a new community, being gay might indeed be a negative trait - or at least perceived by some colonists to be so. I suppose whether or not this is actually the case depends on your playstyle and/or the narrative you create for yourself as much as anything else. I personally haven't build a ship in ages - my endgame is usually when I judge a colony is self-sustaining (and/or I get bored). Although to be fair I suck at actually playing the game, so I don't often get that far.

I'm not really sure where I would like sexuality traits to go to. I can certainly see the point of sexuality not being a trait at all, but more of a pawn attribute, just like age or gender. I'm also aware of the massive potential for controversy, no matter how sexuality were to be portrayed in the game. Having, just as an example, a fundamentalist trait that really dislikes pawns of a different sexuality might be interesting, but it's also stirring the mentioned hornet's nest.

It would be better if it was part of the colonists regular stats, like a sexuality section, that covers the basics, that way it doesn't affect traits, and it can be easily viewed at a glance. I don't really care whether they are gay or not. However, if children were implemented, I would love to be able to sterilise everyone cause I don't want to be dealing with useless food eaters.

Well in a world where people are commonly vat grown (so many back stories) does it really matter if you could reproduce the old fashion way? Also, the 'colonist' are really colonists (Ty really needs to clarify this point tho) they are survivors of a ship crash. If I was ship wreaked on a deserted island, the last thing I would be thinking of is reproduction.

Tangent - I really wish the game would go one way or the other. Are they colonists, or are they survivors? Is it colony or a temporary shelter? I'm sweet either way, but the world colony means colonisation which implies an intent to stay.

Personally I want a complete change to traits, in reference to sexuality I think an array like this.

Homosexual - Bisexual - Heterosexual - Transsexual - Asexual

The only "option" missing is zoosexual which would be good for a laugh at most, although I suppose its just as reasonable as the others.

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on April 11, 2016, 03:55:44 AM
If your working on the trope of 'hard men dont like gays' I would point you to the Spartans, or pretty much any Greek culture, or pretty much any culture except Christian/Herbru/Islamic ones.

I find it funny that you know of past societies that had no problem with gays yet fell and yet claimed that you don't think hangups about sexuality would exist 3500 year in the future.

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on April 09, 2016, 09:01:26 PM
Yeeeeaaahhh... I dont see why any of our hangups about sexuality would still exist in 3500 years. Or why there would be any problems with a trans-anything person reproducing. Or why the change would even be a issue. There are genetically engineered exploding animals - why would changing ya junk be anything more then an outpatient procedure?

If such things can change to be more homophobic when Christian/Herbru/Islamic culture took over why can such a thing not happen again in the future? The answer quite simply is that such change could happen again.

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on April 11, 2016, 06:25:28 AM
Well in a world where people are commonly vat grown (so many back stories) does it really matter if you could reproduce the old fashion way? Also, the 'colonist' are really colonists (Ty really needs to clarify this point tho) they are survivors of a ship crash. If I was ship wreaked on a deserted island, the last thing I would be thinking of is reproduction.

Tangent - I really wish the game would go one way or the other. Are they colonists, or are they survivors? Is it colony or a temporary shelter? I'm sweet either way, but the world colony means colonisation which implies an intent to stay.

You don't need to be thinking of reproduction for it to happen, Lovin -contraceptives = children and as for what colonists actually are here is an old post with some ideas Tynan had that might clear the air.

Quote from: Tynan on June 16, 2014, 04:21:50 PM
-snip-

Perhaps you guys would find it fun to have a couple different endgames. Maybe a short one, where you outfit an expedition to leave and try to get to some distant city. And a middle one, where you can build the ship after a period of research and construction. And a long one, where you conquer the area and become more than just a little colony. And players who want to bypass all these can just play forever. I think the idea of different "exit ramps" to end the game at different points might be interesting, so people can choose the length of experience they want. Just an idea.

Looks like we're starting to stir that hornets nest.

Can we stay on topic here? I'd like this thread to remain a non-politicized discussion. That means no LGBT/SJW discussions - but implementation discussions of what might make sexuality an interesting gameplay mechanic.

Regardless of in what number you think different sexualities might exist on a colony, I think we can all agree they probably will exist. So what, if anything, should be done to make sexuality actually an interesting gameplay element - that preferably can be ignored by those who can't be - or don't want to be - bothered with their colonists' sexual preferences.

Actually, water need and hygiene need are in my top things that need to be added to the game, that includes toileting.

Like I mentioned, I don't have the illusion that everyone will enjoy having to deal with sexualities - hence why it should probably be ignorable in that the benefits/drawbacks aren't too great. I personally would find this an interesting gameplay mechanic (much more so than multiplayer or going on my own expeditions), and the main mechanisms are all already there. Adding more interactions to make sexuality more than a label would be a simple task of some xml, and a few small worker classes (as opposed to massive amounts of work for expeditions and multiplayer.)

I'm not saying Tynan should do this, I can fully understand if he doesn't want to, for various reasons. It saddens me to see such hostility towards mechanics just because they might be offensive, particularly considering we all seem to be fine with making human leather hats and feeding prisoner organs to our pets. Also note that I'm not advocating any particular viewpoint when it comes to sexuality, I'm merely suggesting that there might be more interesting mechanics to be had here. Finally, I agree that something shouldn't be added to the game just because it exists in real life - hence why I'm trying to open the discussion about more interesting mechanics in the first place.

This subject in this game makes me uncomfortable (for various reasons).

I don't consider that a bad thing, it will be interesting to see how this situation develops.

Interesting thing happened to me I had a gay couple who did not have the gay trait. They were both female is this a bug or something?

I see this thread has already become a pile of shit with the whole "Gays are breaking my immersion"

Anyways, I would like it if gender preferences were there but didn't take up a slot (put it somewhere else) or have it take up a slot and have more traits slots.

You kidding? Kids would help any colony.

They'd probably sell for TONS to pirates and tribals.

Quote from: mumblemumble on April 11, 2016, 08:37:08 PM
And since such gritty details would offend people, yeah...

Such gritty details would also potentially impact sales, Cannibalism is far enough removed from civilized socities real life unpleasantness that it's not likely to traumatize or offend someone by being in the game, adding something like rape from a colonist having a mental break could/would likely upset quite a few people, and it would also likely cause all sorts of bad publicity for the game. (Similar to how Mass Effects same sex romance plot with Lira Tsoni got it (mis) labeled a "lesbian sex simulator" by the media.)

I think it's great Tynan included Lesbian/bi/gay traits in A13, and they do add depth to the relationships and possible stories. (although I agree they should take up a free third slot, along with with "Straight")

Zoophile/Trans/asexual/robot lover/etc I don't see adding enough additional depth to the relationship aspect of the game to be worth the time for Tynan to code in given there's so many other neat stuff he could add. (like being able to land on a new planet with your built ship & stored resources for example/)

And like I said in another similar thread, there will no doubt be mods to add in zoophila/trans/planto-philes and whatever other sexual orientation/interest people think is needed; and probably a mod to remove the gay/lesbian/bi traits entirely for those who just want a straight colony.

Quote from: mumblemumble on April 11, 2016, 10:36:21 PM

Just think if they were added, and a transsexual got rejected / insulted incessantly by a guy she flirted with... I don't think that would be something you would want to see, much less violent outbursts against them, or botched surgeries killing the person, or other terrible possibilities.

I'm inclined to agree with this, and thinking more on it, I question if Rimworld is the correct game to include such social/personal complexities beyond the relationship system we have in A13?

At it's core Rim World is a harsh game of violence, starvation, pain and eventual death as your struggle against the inevitable end of your colony. (at least when played on the normal difficulty with Cassandra or Randy anyway  :P )

In Rimworld having a colonist be trans or a hermaphrodite or whatever minority is not included right now doesn't really add as much to the game play, compared to say, adding in the ability to raid enemy settlements, or actually control your settlers when they go off on a "mission" or being able to start a new game + with the colonists and supplies you loaded onto your starship you launched from the previous map.

A trans minority is something that would be more of a perfect fit in a game like Sims 3/4 where the social complexity of being trans could take center stage and tell a much more compelling story than in RimWorld; where that story will probably be one of pain, mutilation, (when you lose body parts to some raiders charge rifle) and eventual death when Randy drops a mechanoid ship part on your head during a cold snap with an rampaging Warg pack at the front door.  8) )

Quote from: mumblemumble on April 11, 2016, 11:36:00 PM
Wolf, I've felt a pain in my gut a few times in rimworld too, from breakups, family issues, ect. Its a game which is emotionally engaging, and sometimes a little bit painful to watch, but that is part of the "storytelling" experience.  Sure, seeing a girl break up with a guy after he saved her, got maimed in the process, because of a small argument, before an infection slowly killed him hit me right in the feels. It hurt, it hurt bad, it reminded me of a few break ups I had, and DAMN that hurt... BUT, I would never, EVER say "rim-world shouldn't have x because it hurts my feeling and made me a bit sad". Even though, embarrassing to say, that situation got me really, really effected emotionally, and hate to say it, brought a tear to my eye, I wouldn't say that shouldn't happen..

You bring of a very valid point I admit, and I've felt a pang or two of heartache during various events in RW, although for people like you and me such real life events that the ones in RW remind us of are few and far between. (I sincerely hope anyway.) For someone who experiences bullying and violence on a daily basis the reminder in game might well be a lot more off putting.

I do agree completely with you though that if Trans are included they they should also include the Harassment, threats, abuse, murder, etc since it is Rimworld and yeah, if you're going to put it in you might as well throw in all the draw back too for the sake of a more compelling storyline.

Although I would think that murder should be a very low % chance, since in a survival situation even if person x hates the trans (or whatever trait bearing) colonist, if the hated colonist is the colonies only doctor, or researcher etc, they would think twice before going so far as to kill them when the entire colonies survival may hinge on that one colonists particular skill niche. (Then again they may be too angry or stupid to care...)

Quote from: mumblemumble on April 12, 2016, 12:32:23 AM
Yeah wolf, those situations which make me almost cry are exceptionally rare, but enough that I'm well aware of them. Really am embarrassed to admit rimworld can do that to me but it can.

Nothing embarrassing about it, that a game can be made well enough to evoke an emotional response from it's player/s is a tribute to the games quality/realism. If a game doesn't invoke some kind of feelings in me one way or another chances are it's one I'll stop playing after beating it the first time.

QuoteAnd usually if for whatever reason you cannot function, you are left to die, like dead weight.

That's if you're lucky. Given the average Rim World experience, there's a better chance you'll wind up having your organs harvested, sold as a slave, or butchered and fed to the wargs/your fellow colonists. (or used as a bullet sponge in the next raider attack)

Like Inan said in Dragon Heart, "Death should be a release, not a punishment." Seems Rimworld's taken that phrase to heart.  :P

You guys are taking this so deep. For me, I'm not bothered.  Dev time can be spent else where but if this happens, as long as they can pull their weight, don't care about their background... If they can't, then they get euthanized and eaten...  Humans a human, all meat to me

i knew adding traits like this would cause havock -_-

I don't even understand why zoophila and bestiality would even be considered by the community. ew...

Woah, so many things happened each time the word "gay" appear in a title.

I think the sexuality of the colonist should appear only in the new table with all the stats. Something like "Have had a relationship with X woman/man", or "Have been in couple during X hours with a male/female", and the sexuality will be determine by that. Of course, people can be gay and have had a story with a girl. Why not, this kind of things happened and would add much more subtility than a Gay trait.

As far as I know, a lot of transgenres don't want to change their bodies, only a part of them go and see a doctor about that. And the surgeon that operated me told me that in Europa, only one on five people who are seeing a doctor for a transsexualism matter want to do the complete change. Some people don't identify themselves as male or female, some want only hormones or one operation etc... In France, you can be operated for free so money is not the issue, the family and friends can influence, but some people just don't need it and feel fine.

So it's a really complex stuff to put in a game, which will concern a very little part of it. And as a said in an other thread, I already find the looks and names of the colonists more or less gender-mixed. I'm not against it, but this feature isn't a necessity.

At this point, I think the best course of action would be to leave "gay" in the game (trait or stat or whatever fits), and then just drop the issue from future development and leave it to the modding community. In the social system, I'm assuming that the "gay" trait just switches one flag on the given pawn that changes their objects of attraction.

This is an issue that will always leave people vocally dissatisfied and outwardly belligerent, when it comes from the game's official creators. So, leave it in the hands of modders who can dedicate their development time to the features that they want to see without impacting the overall development of the base game.

Quote from: DFKabuto on April 12, 2016, 03:59:36 PM
At this point, I think the best course of action would be to leave "gay" in the game (trait or stat or whatever fits), and then just drop the issue from future development and leave it to the modding community. In the social system, I'm assuming that the "gay" trait just switches one flag on the given pawn that changes their objects of attraction.

This is an issue that will always leave people vocally dissatisfied and outwardly belligerent, when it comes from the game's official creators. So, leave it in the hands of modders who can dedicate their development time to the features that they want to see without impacting the overall development of the base game.

Yeah I agree, trying to dive in and do anything like this is like trying to get in the middle of a fight between 2 drug addicts. Sure, not doing anything isn't "great", but getting in the middle of it can get things much, much, MUCH worse potentially.

ok to shut everyone up just do this

Add a new section titled Misc Information Display here Sexuality sub Category place Homosexual or Heterosexual in this area along with some other stuff like Vegan, Vegetarian, Meat Lover etc... and so on even the Chemical Interest trait can go here.

doing this will 1 make being Gay not a label but a statement that this colonist prefers sex with their gender. 2 this will free up a trait slot while still showing information about the colonist. 3 it will shut up most people complaining about "Labels"

p.s. the LGTG community wants equality give up the Gay Pride Parade we don't get the straight pride parade why should you get a parade for your sexuality when we don't?

@mumble; oh you poor straight, male, white, christian person - you have it so bad with all those minorities infringing on your right to be a douchebag. I cry for you, I really do.

@any moderator that reads this; please excuse me for the above, I couldn't stop myself. You might want to lock the thread, there's been some relevant information that might be useful - but I can see only drama in the future.

As expected, catering to lgbt issues only invites demands for more. And you can expect there will be no end to the special snowflake whining.

Too much off topic stuff here.  Thread is temp-locked while I attempt to untangle this mess & split the off topic posts away. Apologies to the future - this thread will disjointed when I'm finished.

Okay, off-topic stuff has been moved here: https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18818.0

This thread is for RimWorld Suggestions.  Let's keep it that way, and see the other thread for everything else.  Sorry for the disjointed look now, but that really wasn't avoidable.

Now that the dust has settled, here's my thoughts on the matter:
I also suggest that sexuality preferences not take up a Trait slot.  I don't really care about what options there are or how the mechanics work out, but traits are too valuable to spend on what amounts to (for me) a largely cosmetic difference.

Pretty much what milon said.

The only issue I see with the gay trait is that it occupies a trait slot. It's something that swings both ways, though (heh). Some may miss the potential other traits that could have fit in it's place.

Though, way I see it, that trait slot could have been filled by all manner of garbage traits that would have thrown me on the reroll button in an instant, but as there are no drawbacks to being gay, it's a safe thing to have.

I'm not sure why it was ever put into the game, it doesn't bother me that it's in game, but it does bother me that people can't play a game without worrying about the sexual orientation of game characters these days. This issue crops up in every game now despite the fact it has zero effect on gameplay, it even crops up in games which the target audience is not even old enough to understand the issue, it's silly.

Quote from: jaeden25 on April 13, 2016, 07:24:27 PM
I'm not sure why it was ever put into the game, it doesn't bother me that it's in game, but it does bother me that people can't play a game without worrying about the sexual orientation of game characters these days.

It was put into the game as part of the relationship expansion in A13, which makes sense given gay/lesbian does add more opportunities for relationship in some circumstances (all male/female colonies) and also adds a bit more depth and interest to the relationship mechanic.

Moving preferences to a third tab and including a "straight" (and perhaps "undecided?" preference for the sake of completion would work nicely. (Undecided as a preference not to represent any minority or what not or even be realistic, but just to add further interest into the relationships and give a chance of all guy/girl colonies still forming relationships even without their being any gay members present.

There is that aspect of, you know, you can't initially be too picky about who joins your colony if you want your colonists to have relationships at all, because only later in the game when you have plenty of silver or goods to trade can you actually buy in colonists from slave traders. Your other recruits are the result of persistence on the part of your warden(s) and timely medical intervention from your doctor(s) so nothing is guaranteed there.

obviously this came about because relationships and social things are new, but i do think it should maybe be in the information section and not a trait, and as others have suggested, bisexual and asexual should maybe be an option as well.

perhaps a homophobic (or traditionalist or something less specific)  trait could be added, seeing as hard workers don't like lazy people it doesn't seem like a major stretch for people to have issues with relationships

Quote from: Dran on April 11, 2016, 04:59:15 PM
Interesting thing happened to me I had a gay couple who did not have the gay trait. They were both female is this a bug or something?

I dunno but it happened to me as well.. both female, ended up married and happy.. Seems like the Gay trait is either not working properly, or just flavor text without any real function..

Maybe rename it to "flaming homosexual" and have them color their hair rainbow colored and always carry a large pink dildo? perhaps that could be a stunning weapon? :)

And yes, I am obviously joking.

As for on topic, I'd rather see it not mentioned at all.. and every colonist can get into a relationship with any other.. Like, leave the labels out of it entirely..
Now, this may not work well if and or when children become a thing.. but that's a discussion for another time (Rimworld adoption agency?)

In every prison in every part of the world there are "straight" people participating in "gay" relationships. The concept of being isolated on a planet and you have 3 females, or 3 males, and them not participating in "gay" relationships seems extremely unlikely, especially since we have direct evidence of it on Earth right now. At the very least it should be a percentage of people that float.

So basically it should be a lot more fluid, like many people here suggest. If you had to be born gay to be gay, then "gay-like" relationships wouldn't exist when they are necessary for bonding and enjoyment purposes, as seen in prisons, stranded situations, etc.

If there is to be happiness and social interactions in Rimworld, which it appears there is, should it reflect humans or some form of "safe human"? I don't see why people care so much about all this weirdness, Rimworld, unlike real life, gives you the choice to experiment with your colony however you want. Whether that is a group of 10 "psychopaths" that love human flesh, 10 "gays" or 10 "normals", you can choose, you have choices. The game is giving you choices, which is the sign of a good game, no?

If anything, the weird conversations people will have about the game, whether positive or negative, will only increase sales. To pretend it will hurt sales is ridiculous because people that are offended that their "choices" aren't in the game, or that the game even gives YOU choices, would likely have never played a game like rimworld anyhow. But their advertising of the choices available in the game will increase purchases by people who want more choices. All the "Negative" posts/talk about Dwarffortress, and even Rimworld, only help increase its exposure.

Tyrian is smart enough to realize that giving people more choices will result in more sales and more advertising, it has pretty much been his modus operandi since Alpha 1 that I've seen.

The only thing I have to say on this subject is that I think they should be an attribute and shouldn't take up a trait slot.

I know there hasn't been a post here for a while now... but I've had some personal experience with this issue while playing Rimworld so I'd like to share my thoughts. I've also had two female colonists without the gay trait forming a relationship. This could be a bug since I haven't seen anyone in this thread mentioning this happening with male colonists, but honestly it didn't come across as a bug. I think there's always a chance for a relationship between any two colonists depending on their social interactions, but that the probability is much lower for same-sex relationships UNLESS they have the gay trait. That's a very clever way of doing it while allowing fluidity without having to hard code it in. I suspect that's why there's no straight trait. Yes, it assumes straight as the default but it works mechanically so I don't have an issue with it. However, since straight isn't a trait then I agree that gay should not take one of the three traits. It should be a hidden variable that can be seen in the detailed stats of the colonist. Also, personally, I think a good addition would be a bi trait that gave equal probability to a relationship with either/any sex, and an asexual trait that lowers the probability of having an intimate relationship with anyone.

Sorry if this is said before, but I cant read all the comments.

Considering the game gives +, - or it means that you can/want (not) do something in game (bionic) then straight or gay doesnt matter. I would still like gay relationships to continue in game, and I would find it interesting for even more complex relationships.

There is the debate between being "born" gay and "becoming" gay, and maybe a hidden stat could play this. Sadly I think this makes the game development more complicated without providing more fun, so I do not think it should be priority.

Juan

I don't think exotic sexuality and being gay should be represented in the game.

There are much more important aspects to take care of before.

What if, to represent a spectrum, Gay and Straight became an unchanging value between 0-10 respectively, and sexuality (desire) being 0-10, with high values being more common (could just be my bias talking), but with a lot more leniency. Honestly to me that sounds a little ott, but then we have a health system where pawns  lose fingers and toes.

Alternatively just a list of background attributes could be given to each pawn; sexual orientation (hetro/bi/homo), class (upper/middle/lower), religion (A,B,C,None), race (Native/Transhuman/Spacer/Ancient), Diet (carn/omni/vegan), etc.
These values are then used to compare how dissimilar another pawn is, putting them at a social advantage/disadvantage.
A separate level of tolerance divides that modifier, so a tolerant tribes man might be more accepting of his gay atheist offworlder vegan cousin than another tribesman.

Those ideas aside, I feel that yes having gay as a trait rather than an attribute like age, is a little backwards, a trait should be inversely something like homophobic or hetrophobic.

I don't think society will have moved on from traditional stigma, the theme of Rimworld is that history repeats itself, so it's more dependent on how enlightened the society is that people hale from as to how interactions should play out (like with some of the comments present here  ::) ).

So in my overall opinion stigma should be expanded to better reflect the pawn's background, like nobles who dislike plebs, warriors who hate nerds, etc, and that that should include sexuality and even race.

I'm with the majority of the thread, this shouldn't take up a trait slot, just display it as info on info.

Hey, what about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb ? United States Air Force worked on one. Maybe mechanoids should have this as a super weapon ? When dropped, it would turn all pawns within a large area gay. So basically it would affect all colonists unless someone was on a far away mining / hauling operation, or hunting.

Rimworld is a SF game. It can have the Gay Bomb!

Yeah ... make sexuality a basic descriptor; it shouldn't take up a Trait slot.  That would imply that gays are fundamentally less interesting than straight people, which makes no sense.

I like the idea of throwing Asexual/Bisexual in there as well.  Would be really simple to tease out the metrics:
-----
Heterosexual: can make romantic advances towards opposite gender / can accept advances from opposite gender.  Mood penalty for rejection, Mood bonus for acceptance/sleeping with them/etc.

Homosexual: can make romantic advances towards same gender / can accept advances from same gender.  Mood penalty for rejection, Mood bonus for acceptance/sleeping with them/etc.

Bisexual: can make romantic advances towards or accept them from either gender.  Mood penalty for rejection, Mood bonus for acceptance/sleeping with them/etc.

Asexual: cannot make romantic advances and must always reject romantic advances.  No Mood bonuses or penalties, but social penalties for unfavorable interactions may still apply.
-----

Stuff like Transexual wouldn't have any obvious gameplay implications and should be left out.  If the player wants to role-play that a female character was born a man but is really a woman and made that transformation, nothing's stopping them.

Bonus points for the devs if sexual orientation is a hidden trait.  Let it emerge during gameplay.  That guy hits on both men and women.  That girl rejects all advances from either gender.  Those two seem to be a typical hetero couple.  I honestly don't see it as a big enough thing that it needs to be listed on the character sheet at all.

...  But I have to admit I like the idea of a homophobic player losing his shit when his two favorite tough guy soldiers become lovers.  :D

i aint reading this thread. i cant imagine the hellish cesspool of nonsense that has probably been spewed forth, an i have no intention of adding to that.

instead, my only point is this. its daft to have sexual orientation or relationship preference as a trait. yeah yeah crusader kings did it, but its daft. drop it as a trait an instead make preference be another field in the stats box, like work speed. an follow on, throw in three options, straight gay an other. Why, because why do it any other way. its not about political correctness or sjw stuff or anything, its just a specific thing that every single person has. a preference. Everyone has it. By making gay a trait what you are really saying is that its a very special thing about those people. an sexual preference does not make a person special.

an since we are here, having this nonsense discussion, itd be nice to see alternative relationships to monogamy be a thing. theres a whole giant load of them out there, an itd add some spicy drama to the colonies. Once again, not a trait, just a stat.

Oh, final point, would it really be so bad to have an "other" category for gender too. like, we dont have showers or toilets or any of that stuff, so how terrible-charged could that addition be :\ hell, even if showers an personal hygiene was a thing id still argue its stupid not to have an "other" option :\

In Rimworld, attraction already exists separately from the "Gay" trait (ie. it's possible for two pawns without the gay trait to have high attractiveness and/or compatibility scores towards each other.)

I like having Gay as a trait. You can see it easily, which makes it easier to plan your colony. The ideal case would be to make more room for it the UI and include sexual preference separately, but I think it's not worth the time.

thats even more absurd than just having it as a trait... when did Gay become a personality quirk :\

The argument that gay "takes up a slot" is pure nonsense. Pawns have 1-3 traits, assigned by (as far as I can tell) pure RnG. If you removed the gay trait from the game, that does not guarantee pawns get a helpful trait instead. They might get nothing.

Quote from: hoochy on April 16, 2016, 11:26:30 AM
In every prison in every part of the world there are "straight" people participating in "gay" relationships.

More nonsense. This behavior is basically unheard of outside American prisons and American prison movies. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Quote from: cultist on May 08, 2016, 05:56:39 AM
The argument that gay "takes up a slot" is pure nonsense. Pawns have 1-3 traits, assigned by (as far as I can tell) pure RnG. If you removed the gay trait from the game, that does not guarantee pawns get a helpful trait instead. They might get nothing.

*other stuff i dont want to touch with a giant stick*

thing is, its not nonsense to be mad that it takes up a slot. Lets assume what you said about 1-3 is correct an ignore statistical liklihood of traits and numbers of traits for a second. What you just said is that with gay as a trait, there is the potential that at a minimum (as in assuming every colonist got 1 trait) that a portion of those would still get gay as a trait(basically, the math is that 1 in *how ever many traits there are* of colonists would get that trait on average) and in that situation, yes gay took up a slot that a different possibly more useful trait could have taken.

Now, thats minimum math, an i think theres something like 30ish traits, so one in 30ish colonists potentially lose a slot to 'gayness', at a minimum. Now, if gay does something more than just making pawns like other similar pawns, then yay its not specifically a useless trait(so, if it turns out gay pawns are more attractive to other gay pawns or whatever) but still, its taking a slot.

Even then, its still a daft thing to have as a trait.... especially if pawns can like other like gendered/sexually oriented pawns without it, as youre saying that sexual preference is somehow a defining trait for a character(its actually worse because youre saying this particular preference is somehow defining a character as gay is the only one) :\ its a thing that everyone everywhere has. if the trait does a thing, change its name to something else, like peacock or flamboyant or whatever, its still a daft trait to have :\

I'm not against it and i'm not for it either. Before we come to this matter we have to agree if we want this to ultimately become a sims game (as long as relationships are concerned). For example, if "gay" and "straight" is added, why not "bisexual" or "asexual" or any other label.

Also, if we start adding such labels, then maybe we should add colonists' reactions to such labels. Someone doesn't like gay people / someone doesn't like straight people / a gay person falls in love with a straight person of the same sex / a straight person falls in love with a gay person of the opposite sex.

What i'm saying is that this would take a ton of work in order for it to be realistic. Also, especially if we add Rimkids - generations of colonists - which means the player would feel like having a gay person in his starting team would be a liability since he/she won't produce any offspring (which you would want for your colony to grow) which would be treated as if the game was designed to make you hate gay people.

Obviously in such a year we are above labels and sexualities and hatred towards the different sexuality than your own. However, to solve this realism problem, we could say that in such a year every human has been genetically engineered to be straight from birth. I'm not obviously saying that this would be moral or correct, i'm just saying that since that could be the case then the problem is solved in a second.

Also, think about this. A gay person plays the game and wants an all-gay colony and decides to sell straight people as prisoners. How will this colony survive? Gay women and gay men would be "forced against their nature" to have a sexual relationship for the sole purpose of growing the colony. That would be really "unfair" towards gay people. So then we should start thinking about alternate routes that would lead to offspring like making a lab that would have the sperm fertilize the egg without the need of the sexual activity between a gay male and a gay female.

The sole reason i'm saying all of these is to point out how much more work it would be even if you just wanted a gay/straight label show, without it meaning anything in the colony. Maybe, in ten years of alphas and betas that include generations, alien worlds, cybertech, guards, expeditions and in general, all the things everyone is longing for, they could also include different sexualities.

But again, think about what would that mean for the players. For a colony to survive it would be easier if everyone is straight (again, i'm saying this because of the offspring "availability") so the gay trait would be seen as a negative, and that would be wrong.

While we're at it let's make "Triggered" a character trait. The person does nothing to contribute to the colony and has a mental break whenever socialized with.

Quote from: MAKAIROSI on May 08, 2016, 09:13:55 AMWhat i'm saying is that this would take a ton of work in order for it to be realistic.

No, it wouldn't.  I already outlined the four possibilities.  Really it's just two more on/off switches.

Character can interact romantically with men Y/N
Character can interact romantically with women Y/N

in addition to the existing

Character is M/F

That's it.  That's all that's needed.  And these switches are already in the game, they're just framed as a Special Trait for gay characters instead of just being something that everyone has, and only locked into two combinations at present instead of four.

YYM = Bisexual Man
YYF = Bisexual Woman
YNM = Gay Man
YNF = Straight Woman
NYM = Straight Man
NYF = Gay Woman
NNM = Asexual Man
NNF = Asexual Woman

if you enact any of this pc bullshit im guna leave this game forever

96% of the us population (1st world country!) does not fit the label bisexual asexual transgendered or gay

i dont care how many people on tumblr tell you otherwise this is a non issue and if the author lowers himself to this level he simply open the floodgates and be kicking himself later

i dont give a flying FK what you think SHOULD or SHOULDNT be in this game or what you think is appropriate

its whatever he wants. when it comes to NONSENSE like this thread you have no fuckin right to try and guilt trip sjw him into changing HIS fuckin game

eat a big fat cis dick


Moderator: User has been warned for this post.  This is a clear violation of Rule #2, and a less clear violation of Rule #1 as well.  In hopes of avoiding further problems, here's an excerpt of the forum rules:

Quote from: Hypolite on October 04, 2013, 08:21:23 PM
We want the forums to be enjoyable, informative, and inviting to all, while also supporting spirited debate and respectful disagreement. To that end, we've got some guidelines/rules here that everyone can refer to.

Unless otherwise noted, all rules apply both in the forums and in PMs. Violating any rule can lead to a perma-ban or a warning, depending on the specifics of the situation. Once warned, further violations will almost always lead to a perma-ban.


1. No personal attacks: No personal attacks or insults - especially angry, inflammatory ones. Feel free to criticize a game, mod, or idea - but take care never to allow that to become a personal attack on an individual. Even oblique or implied personal attacks are disallowed.

2. Sustained hostility or anger venting: Do not post streams of unconstructive, unnecessary negativity or hostility, and do not vent anger here. It just makes the community feel hostile for no reason. This doesn't mean everyone has to be happy or have good opinions of everything and everyone all the time - it means that phrasing complaints in constructive ways leads to much better results all around, and we don't want a community where anger and hostility are behavioral norms.

Let's keep ourselves calm and maintain the forums as a constructive and welcoming community.

Quote from: charkesd on May 08, 2016, 01:47:13 PMif you enact any of this pc bullshit im guna leave this game forever

Um, gay characters are already in the game.  I guess you'll be quitting then.  We'll all be sad to see you go.   :'(

yea everyone knows since its the title of the thread

nice job on that one

Quote from: MAKAIROSI on May 08, 2016, 09:13:55 AMAlso, if we start adding such labels, then maybe we should add colonists' reactions to such labels. Someone doesn't like gay people / someone doesn't like straight people

That would actually be interesting from a gameplay perspective. Homophobe/Heterophobe as traits. Though that might be a bit more risque than Tynan wants.

Quotea gay person falls in love with a straight person of the same sex / a straight person falls in love with a gay person of the opposite sex.

If you read some of the earlier posts in this thread, and especially mine, that can already take place and I gave my take on how I think it works. It doesn't have to take any work, really.

Quotewhich means the player would feel like having a gay person in his starting team would be a liability since he/she won't produce any offspring (which you would want for your colony to grow) which would be treated as if the game was designed to make you hate gay people.

That's just part of emergent gameplay though. If your goal is to make a self-propagating colony under harsh conditions, then yes, having a gay character would be a liability at first. That's not the same as saying it's designed to make you hate gay people, that's kinda absurd. The game doesn't encourage anyone to hate characters with any of the other negative traits, such as lazy.

QuoteAlso, think about this. A gay person plays the game and wants an all-gay colony and decides to sell straight people as prisoners. How will this colony survive? Gay women and gay men would be "forced against their nature" to have a sexual relationship for the sole purpose of growing the colony. That would be really "unfair" towards gay people. So then we should start thinking about alternate routes that would lead to offspring like making a lab that would have the sperm fertilize the egg without the need of the sexual activity between a gay male and a gay female.

That's still part of the game and player decisions as to how to run the colony. Someone else could also play the game and have an all straight colony and sell off gay characters. That's equally possible within the game. The game doesn't dictate morals. If it did there wouldn't be cannibalism in the game.

QuoteMaybe, in ten years of alphas and betas that include generations, alien worlds, cybertech, guards, expeditions and in general, all the things everyone is longing for, they could also include different sexualities.

But it's this latest alpha which introduced social interactions and relationships, so of course people are going to bring up these subjects. They weren't issues before this alpha exactly because people knew there were other priorities. But now that relationships are in the game you think it's unreasonable to discuss the subject of sexuality? I don't really understand that thinking.

Besides, the subject of this thread was whether gay should be a trait from a gameplay mechanics perspective, not a social one.

QuoteBut again, think about what would that mean for the players. For a colony to survive it would be easier if everyone is straight (again, i'm saying this because of the offspring "availability") so the gay trait would be seen as a negative, and that would be wrong.

I mean, it would also be easier if everyone had the hard worker trait or if nobody had the lazy trait. It's still a valid gameplay scenario. Rimworld isn't "easy".

As far as the whole reproduction/liability argument, it's moot since human pregnancy is not part of the game and as far as I know (and hope) it never will be.  That is simply not a relevant plot line in a story about a colony trying to survive for just a few years.

Homophobic as a Trait on the Trait list ... eh, I feel it would be too limited in scope to be worth a place on the list.  Assuming that gay/bisexual/etc. characters are statistically rare (2-5%?), it would be almost meaningless next to "meaty" traits like Lazy or Psychopath that have frequent, sweeping effects.

However, I think it might be a nice hook for social fights.  Right now social fights only start because "I don't like your face".  I could see "Your sexual orientation is different from mine" being a good reason for social fights to start (though most colonists hopefully wouldn't feel this way :))  Off topic, I also think that romantic rivalry is a very good reason for social fights to happen.  ("John starts a social fight with Bill - fighting over Suzie.")

Quote from: Zombra on May 08, 2016, 05:53:40 PM
As far as the whole reproduction/liability argument, it's moot since human pregnancy is not part of the game and as far as I know (and hope) it never will be.  That is simply not a relevant plot line in a story about a colony trying to survive for just a few years.

Homophobic as a Trait on the Trait list ... eh, I feel it would be too limited in scope to be worth a place on the list.  Assuming that gay/bisexual/etc. characters are statistically rare (2-5%?), it would be almost meaningless next to "meaty" traits like Lazy or Psychopath.

However, I think it might be a nice hook for social fights.  Right now social fights only start because "I don't like your face".  I could see "Your sexual orientation is different from mine" being a good reason for social fights to start (though most colonists hopefully wouldn't feel this way :))  Off topic, I also think that romantic rivalry is a very good reason for social fights to happen.  ("John starts a social fight with Bill - fighting over Suzie.")

-ahem-

Actually, human pregnancy will eventually be part of the game. The designer has said as much, and has already stated that the systems for it is already in place. He just wants to make sure it "gets done right".

Considering how I think some members of this forum would be raising human children for slaughter, for kicks and for resources, by all means, take your time, Tynan.

Quote from: Boston on May 08, 2016, 05:59:01 PMActually, human pregnancy will eventually be part of the game. The designer has said as much, and has already stated that the systems for it is already in place. He just wants to make sure it "gets done right".

Hmm!  That certainly makes the role of gays in the colony more "crunchy" and interesting.  In that case, I'd say amplify my suggestion for homophobia as a social fight trigger by, you know, x, the appropriate number.

I'd love to see that Tynan quote if it's easy for you to find.

QuoteConsidering how I think some members of this forum would be raising human children for slaughter, for kicks and for resources, by all means, take your time, Tynan.

:o  ;D

Quote from: Zombra on May 08, 2016, 05:53:40 PMHomophobic as a Trait on the Trait list ... eh, I feel it would be too limited in scope to be worth a place on the list.  Assuming that gay/bisexual/etc. characters are statistically rare (2-5%?), it would be almost meaningless next to "meaty" traits like Lazy or Psychopath that have frequent, sweeping effects.

However, I think it might be a nice hook for social fights.  Right now social fights only start because "I don't like your face".  I could see "Your sexual orientation is different from mine" being a good reason for social fights to start (though most colonists hopefully wouldn't feel this way :))  Off topic, I also think that romantic rivalry is a very good reason for social fights to happen.  ("John starts a social fight with Bill - fighting over Suzie.")

Exactly. It doesn't add to the "survival" aspect of the game necessarily, but now that social interactions are a thing it adds to that aspect of the gameplay. Like you said, social fights feel somewhat arbitrary atm.

And yes, as Zombra said, children are a planned feature. I disagree that it's not relevant though. Yes, it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial but children happen, just as intimate relationships do. Besides, considering our colonists are crash survivors they could conceivably start with children.

Either way, once you have a stable colony, realistically it's very likely that people would have children. Depending how you play Rimworld, leaving might not even be the end goal of your colony. I've had games where I've sent people off and left others to continue running the colony.

It's always fun when I can waltz into a thread and start counting how many people are already looking at a temp-ban if they don't relax. Here's a hint, it's past the number 3!  <3

"gay" could have a gameplay mechanism if you were more able to romance your colonists.  Right now I think it's just random who romances?  Then knowing they are gay (which is indeed the less common trait) would let you know to try to romance them with the same gender.

Although sexuality is very dependent on culture(encouraging or discouraging same sex interaction), so homosexuality/bisexuality it could range anywhere from 2% to 20%+ on a theoretical colony world.

Perhaps conservative numbers like 2% homosexual 6% bisexual would be a good for the game.

I think it's great that romances happen totally beyond my control.

Who says violent reaction needs to be a trait, and not just a normal reaction with a small chance? Say, if someone has really, really, REALLY low attraction / compatability, flirting could cause a fight. This could, in theory also work for straight people flirting with other straights, but, gays flirting with straights would be much more likely. I personally like the idea of a stone cold, straight but "dislikes men" bitch beating up some poor sap because he commented on her beautiful figure, almost as much as I like the idea of a gay or lesbian getting knocked out for "not taking the hint".

Also for the argument, being against gays / lesbians (what you call "homophobic") is actually several times more common than homosexuality, so I don't think its justified giving it a trait. There are much, much more people flat out against LGBT than there are LGBT folks on this planet, though mass media / laws / militant backlash against such people would have you think otherwise. Keep in mind, in africa, even in non muslim countries, gays are often killed just for being gay. So someone getting in a fight over someone being gay really shouldn't be THAT rare.

I also am against the hidden sexuality idea, even if its hidden in misc stats and not a trait, but having it flat out not shown sounds like a headache.

I do wonder if there would ever be any chance for gays to develop health issues if sexually active however. That, and bisexuals/ gays much less inclined to have committed relationships....probably not, though it would be hilarious to see sex get deeper, wife beaters, rapists, masturbation (with possibility for self injury during... imagine needing to operate to remove an object out of a colonists butt) ect....  But, all these are perhaps outside the scope of rimworld. And I would hope if it got like that, a scale of over-all perversion of the colonist would be shown, either being kind of saintly, a bit of a pervert who enjoys sex, or just someone who is flat out wrong.

For now, I just hope orientation is always visible, and that fights over gay flirting are a possibility, and not linked to "homophobia" as a trait...

@Andurhil (and everyone else really)

When i posted my reply i thought the topic was about introducing the gay trait, not discussing the already introduced one (i had no idea there was a gay trait in the game). Now, reading your reply i noticed how you compared the "gay" trait to the "lazy" trait. Obviously i understand your intention was not to make the "gay" trait look as negative as the "lazy" one, however it will look like that to other players. So for example, you will have a lazy worker "but at least he's straight" or a gay worker "but at least he has the hard worker trait" (this example is just based on your example).

Personally, i am against political correctness. You are right in what you say, that it's not portrayed as a negative but if it happens to be then so be it (since it's survival). The reason why i raised this point is because it might be seen as a huge negative for the entire game by outsiders.

I was, indeed, looking at it socially rather than a mechanic, but i was also thinking about what would that mean for future requests or suggestions. Basically my entire point crumbles at the fact that i didn't know it had already been implemented.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 09, 2016, 09:47:29 PMI also am against the hidden sexuality idea, even if its hidden in misc stats and not a trait, but having it flat out not shown sounds like a headache.

I'm fairly certain that what most people in the thread meant by hidden stat was not having it as a trait but showing it in the misc stats, or at least that's what I meant by it. Sorry if I wasn't fully clear.

Quote...though it would be hilarious to see sex get deeper, wife beaters, rapists, masturbation (with possibility for self injury during... imagine needing to operate to remove an object out of a colonists butt) ect....  But, all these are perhaps outside the scope of rimworld. And I would hope if it got like that, a scale of over-all perversion of the colonist would be shown, either being kind of saintly, a bit of a pervert who enjoys sex, or just someone who is flat out wrong.

That might be going a bit way beyond the scope of the game. XD

Quote from: MAKAIROSI on May 10, 2016, 02:31:06 PMWhen i posted my reply i thought the topic was about introducing the gay trait, not discussing the already introduced one (i had no idea there was a gay trait in the game). Now, reading your reply i noticed how you compared the "gay" trait to the "lazy" trait. Obviously i understand your intention was not to make the "gay" trait look as negative as the "lazy" one, however it will look like that to other players. So for example, you will have a lazy worker "but at least he's straight" or a gay worker "but at least he has the hard worker trait" (this example is just based on your example).

Yeah I understand that, but you can't police what people choose to do within the freedom allowed within the game, only make sure the game is fair and true to itself. Especially with a game like Rimworld where you can do some pretty atrocious things. (Prisoner organ harvesting anyone? Though I've never done anything remotely like that, I'm too squeamish and nice.)

QuotePersonally, i am against political correctness. You are right in what you say, that it's not portrayed as a negative but if it happens to be then so be it (since it's survival). The reason why i raised this point is because it might be seen as a huge negative for the entire game by outsiders.

Honestly it's a fairly neutral trait as far as gameplay is concerned; the game doesn't dictate morals as I've said before. It's people playing who can choose to perceive it as positive or negative. Personally I wouldn't want the game or Tynan to dictate "this is good, this is bad" and I really don't think that's something he'd do. Neutrality is fair.

@Andurhil

We agree. And since i have not seen the trait in action i can't really argue about its neutrality. I'm all for adding more and more realism to this game. Anyway we agree.

I honestly do wonder if gay links to other traits will be a thing,  even under the hood.  Depression,  pyromania,  pyschopathy,  skitzophrenia,  are all at a very increased rate for gay people, and much more for trans.  Now,  many people say this is from bullying (skitzophrenia isn't caused by that) but even if this was really the case (i personally disagree with such a theory) would the rimworld be any different?

I find it funny,  rimworld has cannibalism,, organ markets, gruesome deaths,  ect.... But no judgements on someone's race or sexuality ever.  Now, i understand that colonists might be more inclined to ignore differences, but if people are in a larger,  better colony, first (rim)  world problems are sure to arrise.

Quote from: charkesd on May 08, 2016, 01:47:13 PM
if you enact any of this pc bullshit im guna leave this game forever

96% of the us population (1st world country!) does not fit the label bisexual asexual transgendered or gay

i dont care how many people on tumblr tell you otherwise this is a non issue and if the author lowers himself to this level he simply open the floodgates and be kicking himself later

i dont give a flying FK what you think SHOULD or SHOULDNT be in this game or what you think is appropriate

its whatever he wants. when it comes to NONSENSE like this thread you have no fuckin right to try and guilt trip sjw him into changing HIS fuckin game

eat a big fat cis dick


Moderator: User has been warned for this post.  This is a clear violation of Rule #2, and a less clear violation of Rule #1 as well.  In hopes of avoiding further problems, here's an excerpt of the forum rules:

Quote from: Hypolite on October 04, 2013, 08:21:23 PM
We want the forums to be enjoyable, informative, and inviting to all, while also supporting spirited debate and respectful disagreement. To that end, we've got some guidelines/rules here that everyone can refer to.

Unless otherwise noted, all rules apply both in the forums and in PMs. Violating any rule can lead to a perma-ban or a warning, depending on the specifics of the situation. Once warned, further violations will almost always lead to a perma-ban.


1. No personal attacks: No personal attacks or insults - especially angry, inflammatory ones. Feel free to criticize a game, mod, or idea - but take care never to allow that to become a personal attack on an individual. Even oblique or implied personal attacks are disallowed.

2. Sustained hostility or anger venting: Do not post streams of unconstructive, unnecessary negativity or hostility, and do not vent anger here. It just makes the community feel hostile for no reason. This doesn't mean everyone has to be happy or have good opinions of everything and everyone all the time - it means that phrasing complaints in constructive ways leads to much better results all around, and we don't want a community where anger and hostility are behavioral norms.

Let's keep ourselves calm and maintain the forums as a constructive and welcoming community.

sorry for being angry but generally when people are angry... what?

someone wants to compromise this game. when you try to make this game other then what the creator wants - the game always suffers.

----

what if there was a patch and one day all black people were lazy like you just couldnt remove the trait?
or all gay people always had only 1 eye and 1 ear. you couldnt change it in the game it was just always like that.

what would happen?

There would be mods - there would be people posting... maybe even posting angry messages! some people would stop playing, some might even protest and get a refund!

but the law will never say he cant make the game. the police arent going to come knocking on the door. because the society we live in knows that artists have rights, and should basically always be free from censorship. period. why? its not to protect the kkk... its to protect susan b anthony, or fredrick douglas

but you can not have it both ways. you cant censor what you dont approve of, no matter how messed up you think it is

your placing your hand on the scale of public opinion and your in all simplicity messing with the natural evolution of this game

and it shouldnt be allowed! i like this game and i dont want to see it even come close to the "its ok to get someone fired and send death threats to their children bc the patriarchy" field

Quote from: charkesd on May 15, 2016, 05:19:55 PMsomeone wants to compromise this game. when you try to make this game other then what the creator wants - the game always suffers.

The creator is perfectly OK with having LGBT characters in his game.  It's you who want to censor it by removing them.

(http://i.imgur.com/CwAleka.jpg)

Ready to quit forever yet?

Charkesd, it's quite understandable to feel angry when you perceive that someone threatens something you love. There's no problem with that, and in fact anger is the thing that often motivates us to seek change.  Anger can be used in a constructive or destructive way, and our policy is that destructive behavior is not permitted. You chose to be destructive and that got you a warning.  I encourage you to review the forum rules. If you still have questions or confusion, feel free to PM myself or any other mod.

Simple solution to sexual deviants within your colony: run them naked and weaponless into a fight they can't win. You can pretend your colonists are making them "walk the plank"; put them all into combat mode and have them stand there with weapons "forcing" the person out into the wild.

Right now, with children not yet being part of the game, I don't really have an issue with having a couple of people hanging around tribbin' or frottin'. As a long time proponent of the Rimworld as a Colony Sim, versus Rimworld as a super unrealistic escape sim, I have to say that such behavior will not be acceptable when I can finally play the game as such. Reproduction would be to important to have people around who object to it.

In regards to the vat children comment: Most vat people, as least according to flavor text, are troubled individuals who if not socially retarded, are plagued by other problems due to their artificial birth and "programming" - so I doubt it is a thing when you want to increase the population of "normal" people.

As for removing "gay" as a trait. . . I'm down with that. Though there needs to be a clear way to see what a character's gender is, and what their sexual preference is. I.e If I have a man who identifies as a woman, it needs to say he's a male - not what he identifies as. Then it needs to say whether he likes men, women, both, or women who identify as men, or men who identify as women, or men who were born women, or women who were born men, or a person born with both sexual organs and which one he likes to be the working one, ect.

Cheers,
Michael

I'm not much of a modder or anything, so I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement, but what about moving the sexuality and social traits to a subcategory of the social tab?

Here's a very rough mockup of what I'm trying to say, to give you an idea of what I'm trying to suggest :)

(http://i.imgur.com/Q8dyaKf.png)

Basically, the traits tab would be a collection of all the social characteristics of a character, such as their likes and dislikes, and their general behavior as well as their sexuality. Personality traits would be the main engines of how they interact with other colonists, whilst their likes and dislikes would be the modifiers that affect what happens after the interaction begins. In this case, Sigurd has three social traits I came up with for the purpose of this post; talkative, lustful and social drinker. Talkative would encourage him to seek out conversations with his fellow colonists and make him more likely to initiate a conversation with other people who are either idle nearby and have nothing to do or are doing the same task as him, such as sowing crops in a field or mining besides him.

Social Drinker would, again, encourage him to go drinking and would naturally bring him together with other social drinkers, who would be more likely to go to the bar together, grab drinks together and just generally relax alongside one another.

Lustful is a bit more complex, in that it encourages him to seek out sexual relationships with other characters, which - because of his sexuality - in this case would be the various women of the colony, with whom he'd likely have a short but passionate relationship. Putting all that together, this means that Sigurd is the kind of colonist who likes interacting with everyone around him, especially when they go out drinking together, and wouldn't mind a casual fling with one of his lady friends every once in awhile. He'd be interested in a sort of friends-with-benefits situation, not a longterm committed relationship.

The likes are, for the most part, just flavor. They don't have much of an impact on gameplay, if any, they just do small things that would probably go unnoticed by the player in most situations. Sigurd's taste for beef would cause him to pick a meal that has beef in it over one that doesn't, but wouldn't cause a morale penalty for not getting what he wants, just as green would make him prefer clothes that are green over ones that aren't and his preference for wood make him prefer wooden furniture over things made from steel and brick, for example, and the dislikes are the same, but opposite. They don't have a real effect on gameplay, so the player doesn't have to worry about micromanaging everyone to ensure they don't get some kind of morale cascade because one of his colonists didn't get enough chicken nuggets or something  ;)

What they do, however, is act as a sort of...weight for the personality system to use when trying to develop relations between two characters, ie, a character who likes cheese is more likely to get along with a character who also likes cheese than one who doesn't care, and more likely to dislike someone who dislikes it. That's not to say likes and dislikes should dominate the relationship system, the personality traits should do most of the work, but the likes and dislikes should encourage things to go one way or the other, and help characters in pushing their relationship statuses along a little bit quicker rather than just having pretty much everyone in the colony at 30+/- for most of the game.

Combine that with a series of relationship statuses, like friend, close friend, best friend, and the relationship system should be a lot more flexible over all, and no one has to worry about people's sexualities taking up a precious, precious trait slot :D It'd also support not-committed-but-sexual relationships and other such goodies that are currently missing from the game, but common enough in real life to make an argument for them to be present out there in the frontier.

As for the existing trait system, just relabel it as physical and mental traits or something along those lines, and rip out any social traits (like, say, Abrasive) and put them under personality traits instead, which should tidy things up.

Quote from: caekdaemon on May 16, 2016, 09:54:20 AM
I'm not much of a modder or anything, so I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement, but what about moving the sexuality and social traits to a subcategory of the social tab?

(...)

As for the existing trait system, just relabel it as physical and mental traits or something along those lines, and rip out any social traits (like, say, Abrasive) and put them under personality traits instead, which should tidy things up.

Suggested something similar a long time ago, it never got much response, aside from it eventually becoming sort-of a thing in game.

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=17605.0

Quote from: Zombra on May 16, 2016, 12:00:44 AM

Quote from: charkesd on May 15, 2016, 05:19:55 PMsomeone wants to compromise this game. when you try to make this game other then what the creator wants - the game always suffers.

The creator is perfectly OK with having LGBT characters in his game.  It's you who want to censor it by removing them.

(http://i.imgur.com/CwAleka.jpg)

Ready to quit forever yet?

once again your not smart enough to figure out that i play this game and am already aware of what is in this game

please stop trying so hard to get one over on me by going OH SNAP

its like your 5.

It's possible to remove anything some "individuals" not like, lets start from potato, i hate potato, it's already 5500 how people dare to eat potato, unacceptable!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07So_lJQyqw


Lets begin our removal list!

1. Gays
2. Potato

r

im personally going to be ok with whatever is put in this game because like most of the not redneck not social media bubble world, i dont care!

but its not nice to try to essentially guilt someone into making their game the way you see fit

I just wanted to mention that the sexuality list is completely implemented in that Dwarven Game. ( Not the newest gender-discussion trend with transgender, as far as I know )
But you know what ? Nobody cared.  And yes, there are marriages and children too.

The political discussion about what cultures like and what personal beliefs are is nice.
But it is a fact of human nature ( and other mammals ) that these gender preferences exist.

And a game, that is mainly about storytelling and human experience it would be wrong in my eyes to let those potential stories go. In my eyes the only true barriers are consent and age. If those are given everything goes.

And since someone mentioned the Ancient Greek already, there are some sexual preferences I would really not like to see in any game. But they are also allready covered by consent and age :)

In game I think the DF approach is best. It is as someone allready mentioned a hidden stat of the Dorfs which can only be seen in checking the relationships or with external software.

Also this gives us two new traits :)
Homophobe and Hypocrit

Quote from: SpaceDorf on May 16, 2016, 05:29:15 PM
(. . .)

The political discussion about what cultures like and what personal beliefs are is nice.
But it is a fact of human nature ( and other mammals ) that these gender preferences exist.

And a game, that is mainly about storytelling and human experience it would be wrong in my eyes to let those potential stories go. In my eyes the only true barriers are consent and age. If those are given everything goes.

And since someone mentioned the Ancient Greek already, there are some sexual preferences I would really not like to see in any game. But they are also allready covered by consent and age :)

(. . .)

Consent and age vary with the century and culture as well, though. Look at the quinceanera - it was the celebration from a girl to a woman. My grandmother who was Nahua migrated from from Oaxaca to Coahuila where my great grandfather earned his degree in engineering. My grandfather's family was from Coahuila, but he was born a United States citizen in Texas (my great grandmother and father earned their citizenship prior to his birth). Anyways, his family and her family arranged them to meet after my grandfather finished boot camp (U.S Navy) and it was "love at first sight". He was 18 and she was 15. According to them, it was a chaste marriage as both of them were Catholic and it was a stipulation of the church due to her age and not physically capable of child birth yet due to her being petite.

Basically, what I am getting at is that while in america or whatever country you live in it may be wrong, it is only wrong because society says it is. Society is far from always being right. We have cavemen in this game, it would make sense that as soon as a girl has had her first menstrual, she would be considered a woman and would likely be transferred from her parent's possession to a suitable man, assuming we are talking homo sapiens sapiens and not one of the other homo species.

I prefer it all to be in and accounted for, rather than cherry picking for the sake of political correctness. A century ago going public with homosexuality was ill advised, while arranged marriage was still common. Heck, prior to the 1920s age of consent was 7-14 depending on the state. Wasn't until 2001 that hawaii changed theirs from 14 to 16.

I don't know about you all, but I grew up in south east San Diego, in California. I remember middle and highschool, as well as how much tail I chased and baked. My wife and I had our first child at 16 and 17 respectively. That was an accident, one that could have happened with a plethora of girls from the sixth grade until I got with my wife - then girlfriend. Mind you, she was 115 pounds soaking wet, a size zero, and five foot three inches tall. Zero complications during pregnancy or birth, with her being in labor for a measly five hours, and active labor for about an hour after that (where the doctors are actually instructing her to evacuate the alien-like creature).

If we are going to have one form of deviancy in game, why not have them all? Just like in real life, why does the LGBT have the monopoly on social freedom, if that form of deviancy is to be allowed, we should also allow polygamy. I'm all about equality, as long as it is equal across the board and those of the previously oppressed don't overreach as some "equal rights groups" do.

I just want to say i find it funny,  even in the trans bounty hunter thing,  it explicitly mentions an absent father. Lack of mother / father figures can help lead into feeling gender dysphoria,  among many other problems. Its hilarious to see,  and i think i will archive that information for my own use just so that detail is never forgotten.

Also,  for people citing a single background : a single background that someone fronted over 50 bucks for is much different than a full on trans / lgbt system.  Tynan "could"  of said "listen,  i don't want the weight of the whole lgbt stuff on my game,  change the background or ill refund you",  but even refunding would of been far too much of a pain because the person would of declared war on rimworld. This is how lgbt communities often are, they declare you an enemy if you don't support them,  or are against. This is why ignoring is useful.

Also considering how common homophobia is, it shouldn't be a trait =) more people by far dislike gay people,, than are gay,  though this is suppressed everywhere almost. 

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 18, 2016, 03:19:22 PMAlso,  for people citing a single background

Yeah, that was me - wasn't meant to prove that a full-blown system is coded in or intended - just taking a dig at the guy who said "I'll quit immediately and forever if LGBT stuff appears in the game", because for some reason he is still here.   ;)

Quote from: Zombra on May 18, 2016, 08:42:29 PM

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 18, 2016, 03:19:22 PMAlso,  for people citing a single background

Yeah, that was me - wasn't meant to prove that a full-blown system is coded in or intended - just taking a dig at the guy who said "I'll quit immediately and forever if LGBT stuff appears in the game", because for some reason he is still here.   ;)

Who said that? I love how you have to set up strawmen to make ur self feel like not a underhanded low life.

Quote from: charkesd on May 08, 2016, 01:47:13 PMif you enact any of this pc bullshit im guna leave this game forever

Quote from: Zombra on May 18, 2016, 08:42:29 PM

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 18, 2016, 03:19:22 PMAlso,  for people citing a single background

"I'll quit immediately and forever if LGBT stuff appears in the game", because for some reason he is still here.   ;)

Quote from: Zombra on May 19, 2016, 01:37:35 PM

Quote from: charkesd on May 08, 2016, 01:47:13 PMif you enact any of this pc bullshit im guna leave this game forever

hm...

Honestly, after reading through this entire post, I do have to agree that it is alittle weird that gay is a trait. As mentioned earlier, I think it would be better to possibly separate "traits" into some different groupings like physical and social. I know that lgbt(and sometimes q?) topics get alot of support or opposition, but honestly, imho more content should be added to the game before we really consider removing what we have.

On a side note, and going back more to separating traits, would be interesting to see social conflicts from colonists of different tech levels (Glitterworld Surgeon dislikes neolithic medicine man)

One thing that needs to stop is gay pawns constantly hitting on straight pawns, causing poor social relations. it makes no sense after one or two attempts, they should be able to understand that the other person is not interested. It essentially turns gay into a "bad" trait much like abrasive, which doesn't seem intentional.

Quote from: cultist on May 20, 2016, 12:33:47 PM
One thing that needs to stop is gay pawns constantly hitting on straight pawns, causing poor social relations. it makes no sense after one or two attempts, they should be able to understand that the other person is not interested. It essentially turns gay into a "bad" trait much like abrasive, which doesn't seem intentional.

I don't think that's so much an issue with the Gay trait but with the relationship system in general. One of my colonists keeps hitting on his best friend's wife, like multiple times yet his mate doesn't care one bit. Its just something that maybe needs to be smoothed over.


Honestly, the current system works well enough as it is. Maybe it needs a bit of tweaking, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have the Gay trait hidden, but all in all it works well and that the fact that since the new release there have only been a couple of topics that've gotten a little heated shows that the vast majority of people don't have a problem with the current system.


At the end of day, there's gonna be a lot of mods addressing all sorts of perceived problems from whole range of perspectives. I'd rather the development team spent more time on new additions to the game, than tearing their hair out trying to perfect what has otherwise been a fantastic update to make everyone happy.

Tynan probably has his own opinions and beliefs, noone needs to speak  on his behalf. But, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev. I think you guys need to take a step back and realize the Gay trait was a good intention, but poorly implemented. Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now? Get the OP???? Now please stop with the Anti-LGBT and Pro-LGBT crap on a video game suggestion.

Quote from: des on May 21, 2016, 04:12:50 AM
Tynan probably has his own opinions and beliefs, noone needs to speak  on his behalf. But, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev. I think you guys need to take a step back and realize the Gay trait was a good intention, but poorly implemented. Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now? Get the OP???? Now please stop with the Anti-LGBT and Pro-LGBT crap on a video game suggestion.

The days where you could reasonably separate video games from the rest of the world/human existence are long gone. Video games are no longer just for children, they are for everyone. With adult players come adult issues, morals and ethics (and indeed politics) and the content of games becomes a much more complex issue than "is this bad for the children?"
The infancy of video games is long gone. People can deny that all they want, but it's not going to matter. It's part of our culture now and not just a fringe commercial product to entertain toddlers.

Quote from: des on May 21, 2016, 04:12:50 AM
Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now?

As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to. :P

Quote from: Skissor on May 21, 2016, 07:22:44 AM
As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to. :P

(http://i.imgur.com/gRk1uZm.gif)

Ok, there is 7 pages here on a topic that affects basically nothing. Surely this isn't a suggestion that will benefit the game, but a general debate about homosexuality.

That's technically true. ;D

But it's still basically centered around whether or not Gay should exist as a Trait, so I'm going to let this continue.

Let's try to keep on that topic.  Anything else should get its own thread in an appropriate subforum.

Quote from: des on May 21, 2016, 04:12:50 AMBut, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev.

I disagree.  I don't see anyone asking Tynan to make a statement as to whether he supports gay rights or whatnot.  Gays and transgenders are already in the game, so he clearly has no problem with representing their very existence (and despite some fairly transparent bigotry, no one is asking him to remove them).  All that's really being asked for here is a more sensible way of formatting sexual orientation on the character sheet.  I don't really get why that's controversial.  Whether he thinks it's a good use of his time is of course up to him.

As for whether sexuality is a "trait" or not, of course it's a trait if we're speaking English.  That doesn't mean that it should be a capital-t Trait in the "Traits" section of the character sheet.  There's a difference between an English word and a game term, and anyone who wants to argue semantics needs to take that on board immediately, immediately, immediately.  Gender is a trait too, but it would be weird if all characters were female unless they had the special "Male" Trait.  See the difference?

Ingame 2% of the population means you just have someone who basically cant get married

But having the percentage higher (then real life) is the only way this isnt true, other then gay people willing to marry straight people and straight people willing to marry gay people. But if this is the case why even make the distinction?

So whats the answer? Make a crap load of people gay, or accept that it just means you probably have a person who cant marry?

Once again we dont have to figure out this shit for him just eat whatever is given to you and say ty

Quote from: charkesd on May 21, 2016, 10:11:40 PM
Ingame 2% of the population means you just have someone who basically cant get married

But having the percentage higher (then real life) is the only way this isnt true, other then gay people willing to marry straight people and straight people willing to marry gay people. But if this is the case why even make the distinction?

So whats the answer? Make a crap load of people gay, or accept that it just means you probably have a person who cant marry?

Interesting observation, but honestly is this a problem that demands a solution?  The mood boost for marriage is substantial, to say the least - but there are already plenty of characters who don't get married, in my experience.  The occasional colonist who will have a harder time getting that bonus is hardly going to change the face of the game.  It's strange at best to suggest the idea of artificially inflating the gay population to induce a greater incidence of marriage.

QuoteOnce again we dont have to figure out this shit for him just eat whatever is given to you and say ty

Good point.  In that light, I move that the Suggestions forum be shut down permanently and all existing threads deleted.    :-X

Quote from: Louisthebadassrimworlder on May 21, 2016, 11:16:51 AM
Ok, there is 7 pages here on a topic that affects basically nothing. Surely this isn't a suggestion that will benefit the game, but a general debate about homosexuality.

Whether or not anything in the game changes is up to Tynan. All we can do is discuss the subject. So... yeah. This thread has been de-railed and nuked by mods at least once, but what did you expect? It's a hot-button topic and fertile soil for trolls. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We just need the mods to keep a sharp eye on the thread and a twitchy finger on the flamethrower.

Quote from: Skissor on May 21, 2016, 07:22:44 AM

Quote from: des on May 21, 2016, 04:12:50 AM
Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now?

As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to. :P

I meant VVV

Quote from: Zombra on May 21, 2016, 01:27:26 PM

As for whether sexuality is a "trait" or not, of course it's a trait if we're speaking English.  That doesn't mean that it should be a capital-t Trait in the "Traits" section of the character sheet.  There's a difference between an English word and a game term, and anyone who wants to argue semantics needs to take that on board immediately, immediately, immediately.  Gender is a trait too, but it would be weird if all characters were female unless they had the special "Male" Trait.  See the difference?

I understand whole-heartedly where you are coming from and I agree more so with the other comments that include listing all sexual orientations and possibly changing the terminology

Quote from: TheWoodElf on May 22, 2016, 03:18:49 PM
I understand whole-heartedly where you are coming from and I agree more so with the other comments that include listing all sexual orientations and possibly changing the terminology

The problem is there is going to be a infinite number of groups that want to be recognized. I'd rather that the development team spent more time adding new features and leave it to the modders to add bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals etc. etc.

It seems to me that adding a new sections on the character profile is completely arbitrary, you are still listing it as a trait and honestly I think it does serve to have in the trait section. Just as I alter the working schedule of a Night Owl so that he is awake during the night, I tend to group two gay characters together to increase the chance of them having a relationship (And for that sweet, sweet mood boost).

In a colony with twelve people, having one that is gay does make that something unique about him and I honestly would be surprised if none of you have ever heard some bloke on TV being described as "the gay one".

Honestly, I think this topic has barely managed to stay focused on the original suggestion and has veered into some very shaky territories so I certainly wouldn't begrudge this topic being locked. This isn't the Sims, its RimWorld, we don't need all this contentious, sensitive content being added because some people want to feel personally recognized and affirmed by the developers. Leave it as it is, and wait for the modders to add it to the game.

Quote from: Travinsky on May 22, 2016, 03:42:37 PMThe problem is there is going to be a infinite number of groups that want to be recognized.

... No, not really.  There are no floodgates waiting to burst with thousands of special interest groups demanding to overhaul the game again and again.  There aren't legions of foot fetishists and BDSM queens lurking just offscreen, waiting for Tynan to show a moment of weakness so they can spam the forums demanding recognition.  This thread is a request to, one time, format the character sheet so that sexuality is a basic, integral attribute, like gender or age.  Once that formatting change is made, any sexuality should be easily accommodated.

QuoteIn a colony with twelve people, having one that is gay does make that something unique about him and I honestly would be surprised if none of you have ever heard some bloke on TV being described as "the gay one".

There's also the "token black guy" or "the token female" on TV shows.  That doesn't make it good practice or somehow not insulting to use this kind of labeling.  You'll notice that Rimworld features two genders and a variety of skin colors without making them into crazy quirks.  Would it be a good idea for "Black Guy" to be a special Trait?

QuoteHonestly, I think this topic has barely managed to stay focused on the original suggestion and has veered into some very shaky territories so I certainly wouldn't begrudge this topic being locked. This isn't the Sims, its RimWorld, we don't need all this contentious, sensitive content being added because some people want to feel personally recognized and affirmed by the developers.

I still don't understand how indexing sexuality in a more organized way equates to "adding contentious content".  Gays and transgenders are already in the game.  It doesn't get more contentious than that.

Quote from: TheNewNo2 on April 11, 2016, 02:26:41 AM
I'd like to suggest that "gay" be removed as a listed trait. There should still be colonists who feel same-sex attractions, but we're in the year 5500, I'd like to hope that in the next 3500 years, society as a whole moves beyond gay/straight and male/female.

By the way, are multiple relationships possible ingame?

Pansexual polyamory in 5500!

This is the original topic. We have clearly strayed from it. I'm saying the Gay Trait serves a function, you are requesting something completely different.

I think its time this topic was locked and perhaps you create a new topic requesting a more fleshed out character sheet.

There's a difference between the "original topic" and the "original post".  The topic is '"Gay" as a trait', i.e. how sexuality should be represented in the game.  The OP advocated imposing pansexuality on every character (which I think would be rather boring).  Much of the following discussion is in response to that, and as we began with the question of whether sexuality should be represented, it is natural to proceed to discuss how it should be represented.  Many of us, the OP included, seem to agree that the current representation isn't ideal.

I agree that the Gay Trait serves a function - but I disagree with the implication that the implementation is the best possible.  Integrating sexuality as an inherent characteristic would not only be more respectful, it would easily allow for other permutations than the two we have now ("Gay" or "not-Gay"), as I outlined here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18664.msg218633#msg218633) and here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18664.msg217960#msg217960).  It would serve the same function that the Trait serves now, and it would be a better implementation for a number of reasons.  I honestly don't see how anyone can be opposed to a better indexing system.

I don't think a new thread is necessary; I think the topic has been well explored here and I'm sure that Tynan is aware of the ideas that have surfaced.  No real reason to lock this one, either.

I think you are stretching the OPs original intentions, especially since they have yet to reply to this post at all. The suggestion was the Gay Trait being removed or not and throughout this, the discussion has not remained dignified in the slightest. This is a sensitive topic and I feel that the original intent of this topic has been completely lost.

So I like I said, by all means post a new suggestion with your idea of a more fleshed out arrangement regarding colonist sexuality. I'm not upset if others want to continue this topic, this is the internet after all, I've read far worst threads than this. But I feel a original intent behind this topic is gone and this subject in general would be far better served by you posting a new topic with an idea that you have clearly thought about.

I'm bowing out of this topic, if you wish continue it, go right ahead. But I think your ideas would be better off in a new suggestion topic.

Yeah, sorry I misread your post earlier.  I tend to post in haste and edit on reflection.  No hard feelings I hope.  (http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_handshake.gif)

Quote from: TheNewNo2 on April 11, 2016, 02:26:41 AM
I'd like to suggest that "gay" be removed as a listed trait. There should still be colonists who feel same-sex attractions, but we're in the year 5500, I'd like to hope that in the next 3500 years, society as a whole moves beyond gay/straight and male/female.

By the way, are multiple relationships possible ingame?

Pansexual polyamory in 5500!

I agree - sexuality isn't any more relevant than eye-colour or handedness.

Individuals will pair up - they may or may not be of the same gender.

These sorts of labels are mostly used to divide people.

I disagree with removing the trait. Since this is a game about managing people you need information about them.
Knowing sexual preferences of your colonists is something I'd like to pay attention to, considering the possibility of children in future updates.

And seeing "Straight, Gay/Lesbian" or better yet "Homosexual" and "Heterosexual" as anything other than acurrate description of a persons sexual preference is unthinkable to me, might be a culture difference.

Rimworld is a game where you are influenced by AI storyteller and what you desire: be that a colony of cannibals, only males/females, etc.
Its something you decide the end goal of, you are not forced to leave the planet, its all up to you but only thanks to the information and options that the game offers you can make those decisions.

Please note that this is a game where having options to do monstrous things gives great freedom. Try to detach your feelings from it, eh?
These are my views and I stand by them, until convinced otherwise.  ;)

How does their sexuality influence game-play though?

Quote from: Jonofwrath on May 23, 2016, 04:46:22 PM
How does their sexuality influence game-play though?

]

I think the argument, which is quite valid, is that as being gay is proportionally uncommon, it is valuable to at least have that preference displayed because, in a clinical sense, match-making is valuable for the mood boosts, and could be useful in the long-run for simulated prejudices and cultures

So can you encourage people to hook up by forcing them into proximity in RimWorld? Interesting if so! Handy for get 2-for-1 bedroom occupancy!

Quote from: Jonofwrath on May 23, 2016, 06:50:00 PM
So can you encourage people to hook up by forcing them into proximity in RimWorld? Interesting if so! Handy for get 2-for-1 bedroom occupancy!

Pawns will only attempt romance when they are near each other ("near" seems to be talking/interaction distance, whatever that is). So yes, you can in theory try to pair up certain pawns by having them work on the same jobs, keep the same schedule etc. No guarantee it will work though.

want me to break the game

I know your curious!

oh something like... peoples with 1 hand are outraged! how dare you set objective values to our self worth! by god even converted to a monitory statistic! me and the thousands of other 1 handed people from the "single hands across america foundation" (people who dont play the game) are suing you into the ground for defamation of character, willful destruction of a brand and hate speech! prepare to cry!

just so were clear i have 2 hands.

You know my curious what?

Um ... you know people with one hand are also represented in the game, right?   8)

Quote from: Jonofwrath on May 26, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
You know my curious what?

That's some low hanging (and plentiful!) fruit that you went for there :P

Quote from: milon on May 26, 2016, 02:08:18 PM

Quote from: Jonofwrath on May 26, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
You know my curious what?

That's some low hanging (and plentiful!) fruit that you went for there :P

The content of the post merited no response so I went for straight-up ridicule instead ;D

"just so were clear i have 2 hands." was a low-point for me. Don't correct it - say it as it's written. Go on. Feel my pain. 

I suspect that Charkesd can either type or breath - not both simultaneously - and has as many brain-cells as hands.


User was warned for this post.

Quote from: Zombra on May 26, 2016, 12:31:31 PM
Um ... you know people with one hand are also represented in the game, right?   8)

yes and they have 50% manipulation

are you saying you agree that people with 1 hand are only 50% as effective as someone with 2 hands?

Does anyone have any comments on the fact that gay is a "bad" trait in the sense that it does nothing useful except for the very rare case where you get another gay pawn of the same gender and they happen to like each other?
Otherwise the gay pawn will regularly hit on pawns that will always turn him/her down, causing poor social relations. Could we maybe implement some sort of gaydar so gay pawns will be a bit more picky about whom they approach in a romantic fashion?

Quote from: charkesd on May 26, 2016, 04:00:17 PMare you saying you agree that people with 1 hand are only 50% as effective as someone with 2 hands?

It's not how many you have - it's how you use them.   :P

Quote from: cultist on May 26, 2016, 06:00:45 PM
Does anyone have any comments on the fact that gay is a "bad" trait in the sense that it does nothing useful except for the very rare case where you get another gay pawn of the same gender and they happen to like each other?
Otherwise the gay pawn will regularly hit on pawns that will always turn him/her down, causing poor social relations. Could we maybe implement some sort of gaydar so gay pawns will be a bit more picky about whom they approach in a romantic fashion?

As someone else pointed out, it does occupy a Trait slot and prevent having an actual negative Trait instead.

But yeah, gaydar would be good. Or even learning from (repeated) rejected advances.

Quote from: milon on May 27, 2016, 06:41:03 AM
As someone else pointed out, it does occupy a Trait slot and prevent having an actual negative Trait instead.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your logic here, but it depends on the exact method the game uses to decide traits for pawns, which I'm not familiar with. If we imagine the Gay trait does not exist, does that actually guarantee a different trait in its place? Or would the pawn simply have fewer traits? I know the number of traits are usually 1-3, but how exactly does the game decide how many and which traits?

Fair enough.  I don't know how it works either, I was just going with "this slot is occupied by something that's not a negative trait and that's good enough for me!"

But my preference is still to have Gay (etc) not take up a Trait slot.

IIRC, traits (and all other info) is pretty much distributed by a point system. skill points, passions, health, bionics, ect, injuries, all have a point ranking when generated, passions, bionics, skills, obviously  costing points, and traits maybe costing points. Some traits have a negative value, some have positive. Depressive is negative, because its a pain, which is why some  depressive  people have great stats otherwise, cause it effectively gives more points, while hardworking TAKES points.

I always thought gay was a neutral trait (0 point value) but I could be wrong. But having the gay trait makes it less likely to get something interesting. Yes, I'm saying the gay thing as a trait is mechanically UN-interesting =) in addition to many other things.

Also I vehemently disagree on the future having "no labels", because frankly, differences aren't always just skin deep, and that is also insisting that all straight people who prefer opposite sex and ONLY opposite sex, would all of been killed off, converted, or whathave you, which is ridiculous. Even if that was the natural idea of "progression", which, well, it is not, but even if it was, progress isn't always held, and societal need for children besides.... So such mass acceptance for gay people, and other lgbt stuff wouldn't be a thing, certainly not a guaranteed thing.

And while gayness is no more of a choice than say, a strong urge to drink, it CAN be suppressed, and beaten if a person tries / has the resources to understand how their mind works. I've said many times before : The urge isn't a choice, but the actions are.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 27, 2016, 12:04:20 PM
And while gayness is no more of a choice than say, a strong urge to drink, it CAN be suppressed, and beaten if a person tries / has the resources to understand how their mind works.

hahaha

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 27, 2016, 12:04:20 PM
And while gayness is no more of a choice than say, a strong urge to drink, it CAN be suppressed, and beaten if a person tries / has the resources to understand how their mind works.

I'm sorry, but are you actually comparing homosexuality to alcoholism?

I'm wondering who'd be more outraged, alcoholics or homosexuals. Probably a close call. Either way, the comparison is in pretty poor taste :p

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on May 27, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
I'm wondering who'd be more outraged, alcoholics or homosexuals. Probably a close call. Either way, the comparison is in pretty poor taste :p

Genetically it's not a bad comparison.

Homosexuality and alcoholism are both likely affected by epigenetic traits. Like overeating (proven that children who had parents who overate are more likely to overeat, even when separated from parents from birth) a strong work ethic and who knows what else (it's a new field) can all be attributed to epigenetic causes.

There is no gay-gene, but the debate is still out on whether there is an epigenetic cause.

As for the game.... Why are you all still talking about this?? Gay sort of needs to be a trait because the percentage of LGB people in reality rarely gets above that 5-10% range. Less among primitive cultures, due to *ahem* reasons. So making it anything else would be disingenuous.

I compare it to alcoholism because unlike say, having black skin, or green eyes, or curly hair, you can RESIST DOING such things. If you tell someone whos black to not be black? you will NEVER get anywhere, as its physically impossible for them to will away the melanin. However drinking, or homosexuality? Both are huge impulses yes, but they CAN choose to not drink / have gay sex, even if its difficult. Saying someone cannot help but choose is borderline the same argument of excusing a rapist because "they can't help themselves". At the end of the day they still buy the beer , still drink, or still seek out / find a guy, and hook up. Nothing FORCES them, and if tied up / restrained, they wouldn't magically get drunk / hook up with a guy.

Also I've delt with alcoholics in the past before, and the biggest thing is removing temptation, and having support.. something which doesn't exist for trying to not be gay, often, as its shot down as bigotry, EVEN IF REQUESTED BY THE PERSON.

So yes, I am comparing them, mainly because both are MENTALLY not a choice, but actionally a choice.

Its like if someone has homicidal thoughts, do they go around killing? generally not.... even if the thoughts are intense, normal people have restraint.

Thoughts might not necessarily be controllable, but actions are. Any other argument is an excuse.

Heres a thought just to simplify it : if gay people CANNOT resist doing gay sexual acts, why do straight men not rape women 24/7 because they too, I imagine cannot help but be straight? More importantly, why are there some alcoholics that have been 20 years sober?

Answer is because restraint, resisting temptation, and choice... for all of them.

Just to put this sidebar in perspective, by the exact same token, heterosexuality can also be suppressed and "beaten" in exactly the same way.

It can, and is in some places. Its called Chasity. Its actually quite common. Except the reason for straight sex goes beyond just pleasure, having kids is a thing many people want. Your wording is rather aggressively skewed by the way, "beaten" implies someone wishes to conquer it, which many gay / alcoholic people wish. Few people really completely "wish" to "beat" being straight, but considering my past, having gender dysphoria, and strangely enough BEING in that situation (fucked up home life), I can say that yes, some people can wish to suppress straight feelings, but theres generally a messed up reason for it, OR, just annoyance as it as a distraction, but generally those feelings are not strong if caused by distraction. Theres also spiritual reasons, like monks or such, but those are for the very devout.

So yes, you are correct, straight feelings "can" be suppressed if one really wants to, but unlike the other examples, theres less reasons one would want to do so, and the reasons generally are less sound.

So does this mean we agree now? Gay, and straight feelings "can" both be suppressed? So you will no longer tell me people cannot help it? Though, I'd like to hear your reasons why straight people should suppress it.

Also, with the "who would be more offended" comment, what about an alcoholic homosexual? Those are pretty common.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 28, 2016, 04:34:13 AMYour wording is rather aggressively skewed by the way, "beaten" implies someone wishes to conquer it,

Not my wording, yours.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 27, 2016, 12:04:20 PMGayness CAN be suppressed and beaten.

-----

Quotewhich many gay / alcoholic people wish.

Wow.  So most gays wish to be "cured"?  Would love to see your source on that.

QuoteSo does this mean we agree now? Gay, and straight feelings "can" both be suppressed? So you will no longer tell me people cannot help it? Though, I'd like to hear your reasons why straight people should suppress it.

"You" meaning me personally?  I don't recall saying anything about what motivates sexuality.  I also never said straight people "should" suppress their sexuality; I just said they could "beat" it just like you said alcoholics and gays can "beat" their issues.  Interesting that you thought that phrasing meant I disapproved of heterosexuals or that they should be suppressed.  What does that say about the intent of your original statement?

You saying beaten was in a different frame of reference than mine. Referring to straight, not gay. You did not explain "why" someone would wish to "beat" being straight. Which was entirely my point : I think you using the word suppress, contain, control, withhold, or other words would of been more appropriate unless you have a reason it should be beaten. I've already listed reasons the others should be beaten, you can go find them since you seem to love tracking my posts.

Many =/= most. Many people are gay, MOST people are straight. See? Although to be honest, I do believe quite a lot of gay people if they could, take a pill and magically be straight, they would. But unfortunately it isn't that simple, mental health NEVER is. But think about it, all the social stigma, health risks, disease risk, drug risk, and all the statistics surrounding it? If I felt that way, I would certainly want to pick the logically sensible one, if I could just program myself. I mean, I like junk food but KNOW its bad for me, and if I got the opportunity to be able to never want it, I'd take it. Plus, you must be kidding me if you have never heard of a person saying they WISH they could quit feeling a certain way.  What was that quote from the gay cowboy movie? "I wish I knew how to quit you"? Pretty much sums it up, some people feel certain ways but DO NOT WANT to feel certain ways.

As for if its curable, it has been done plenty of times, people going from straight, bi, gay, bi, then straight again, fluctuating in feelings. But really, please understand "curing" it, does not necessarily mean they will NEVER have a gay thought ever again. The mind doesn't work that way, just like alcoholism. "curing", means abstaining from actions, and making the urges manageable. Even 20 years sober AA folks will admit they occasionally think of it, but stay away from it. Same for "cured" gay people, the thoughts might still be there , yet are not acted on, and the stimuli holds less power than it might have before, but also like alcoholism, risk for relapse is there. Its also difficult since any type of conversion therapy is ILLEGAL, and cannot be practiced, thus documented medical cases for it especially in the west would be hard to find. But men having gay thoughts come and go is FAR from unheard of.

Well, considering you used the word beat, it DID seem like you were anti hetero in that sense. I'm anti homosexual (movement and thought process, not necessarily people) but I've admitted this pretty openly, and I try to treat people fairly even so, BUT, I state my reasons for my positions. So if you are implying I disapprove of homosexuality, among other things? Well, yeah... I've never really hidden this. So I guess your implication is right, but like I said, this was never hidden, so why should I care? I don't HATE gay people, nor trans people (I feel bad for both) but I disagree completely on how they are viewed. I'm GUESSING that is what you mean when you refer to my "Intent", or are you trying to say something else? Equivocating isn't helpful. If you have something to say, say it, because my intent is to spread awareness, and help those who seek it.

IMPORTANT NOTE : I didn't follow the entire thread but I'm afraid it will be impossible to be "politically correct" on any of this. Nature simply don't care about our social-construct, and so absolutely anything can be argued as "a trait" or not depending of who you ask.

Like the idea that it isn't a "trait" as it is a Natural aspect of life that doesn't have an impact beyond Natural Selection. Or one could argue that Misogyny, Racism or Sexism should be trait, because those are Social Construct... allowing us to have a reason to expel/execute/sell, those peoples "unfit for civilization"... (Civilization being a natural social construct, see what I'm saying ?)


So I think that Devs are simply forced to take a stance on that and it will never, ever feel right. Simply because nature don't care about trait.

My stance :
Gayness should only be a factor/trait if the game intend to have multiple generation. Which I think would be stupid.
All the other-one are factor because it directly influence the scope of survival in the game.

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 27, 2016, 12:04:20 PM
And while gayness is no more of a choice than say, a strong urge to drink, it CAN be suppressed, and beaten if a person tries / has the resources to understand how their mind works. I've said many times before : The urge isn't a choice, but the actions are.

LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

If you could take a pill to be accepted by others, you might feel pressured to take said pill, despite in reality needing better more accepting friends who mind their own business.

In my opinion humans are not livestock, and partaking in mutual acts of love, between two consenting adults, is validation in itself for such acts, whether it results in a child is simply arbitrary, and regardless not a part of the game, whereas matchmaking and the mood boost it yields certainly are.

I think this is unlikely to be settled, but I love the idea mentioned earlier of colonists learning from their rejected advances, that would work quite well, have colonists search for love rather than flirt heedlessly. Maybe colonists also could be less likely to make a move on a pawn already in a relationship and opposing sexual preference as well.

Quote from: Skissor on May 28, 2016, 07:32:42 AM
LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

I once heard a Fanfiction where the christian-autor self-insert said he "Gave his blood to make a Gay-vaccine". Those who know how vaccine work should understand the irony (assuming of course that gayness was a disease, nonsense).

Quote from: mumblemumble on May 28, 2016, 05:42:57 AMYou saying beaten was in a different frame of reference than mine. Referring to straight, not gay. You did not explain "why" someone would wish to "beat" being straight. Which was entirely my point : I think you using the word suppress, contain, control, withhold, or other words would of been more appropriate unless you have a reason it should be beaten. I've already listed reasons the others should be beaten, you can go find them since you seem to love tracking my posts.

So being gay is an aberration, a problem that needs solving.  Got it.

QuoteMany =/= most. Many people are gay, MOST people are straight. See?

Oh!  You're right.  I was thinking of something else.  The problem that MOST gay people agree on isn't the need for a "cure"; it's persecution by bigots.

QuoteWell, considering you used the word beat, it DID seem like you were anti hetero in that sense.

This was an intentional trap.  If I used that language on a certain group, it would imply bigotry, which you (rightly) called out.  The fact is that I was using your own exact words and applying them to a group you don't hate to see how fast you'd jump on it.  (Pretty fast.)

QuoteI'm anti homosexual but I've admitted this pretty openly.

Wow.  OK.  You got me there.  I haven't read your earlier stuff so I must have missed your historical forthrightness.  Not being sarcastic - in a way I have to respect a bigot who wears the t-shirt.  ... But that doesn't mean I'm going to accept bigotry or hold back from fighting it every inch of the way.

Okay everyone chill. Suggestion forum for a 2d base building game. Remember that. This is not a YT comments section.

Good point @Thane, I forgot we weren't in the Off-Topic thread.

... 10 pages. 10 pages for this topic. Just remove it from a trait and add a sexuality thing in info, as I'm pretty sure it adds no buffs or debuffs right? No need for anything else.

Any mention of gay on these forums and we end up with 20 pages of a thread of cancer.

Quote from: Skissor on May 28, 2016, 07:32:42 AM

LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

To clairify, are you saying that gay people have absolutely 0 restraint what so ever? If so, isn't that more evidence against them?

Now I disagree, I think they can control urges / resist actions, as can an alcoholic, with strong willpower refuse to drink.

So are you saying that gay people absolutely positively cannot resist trying to screw men in ANY circumstance (ie, are rapists) OR are you just pointing and laughing because you really have nothing else to throw at me but heckling me, by insisting I'm not just wrong but a "laughing stock", with no basis / proof against my point? I suspect the second, because that response has nothing to do with the debate, and you are I suspect, merely trying to defame me / shame my by making it seem as if I'm a "weirdo" for my view. Which will not happen,  this is a debate going on, and if you wish to sidetrack it with random  useless comments, I won't have part.

Be careful answering that.

As for you zombra, gay activities do lead to more risks statistically speaking, so yes. Diseases, drugs, incontinence, emotional damage, ect, ect....  if you look at all the side, YES, being gay has more downsides / possible risks. So in that sense, yes, it is problematic, like alcoholism.

Keep in mind for both, there can be functional versions of both, but the problems, risks, and everything else are still there. It doesn't stop being a problem just because other stuff is taken care of.

Most people with schizophrenia, and ALSO alcoholism, wish to deny there is an issue. And with alchoholics they can do the exact same sort of excuse, just replace bigot with "party pooper" or "prude", literally exact same argument.

Like I said "beat" or "beaten" is commonly used in the case of overcoming something, gaining control over something and being happy to do so, having finished a goal, ect. I simply wanted a frame of reference why a straight guy would want to quit being straight (which I gave you examples why, funnily enough) yet you didn't state one.  A gay guy could want to stop due to : Health reasons, religious reasons, family reasons, social reasons, spiritual reasons ect... Theres many reasons a gay guy might say to himself "You know what, I really wish I could stop being gay", but unfortunately do not know how, nor do they have the support to try to do so.

Just want to say bigot is very overused.....hold on...quick google....

"a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

So wait, does that mean zombra, skissor, and OTHERS are also bigots? I mean, they seem much less "tolerant" of me than I am of gay people  :)

Quote from: SuperCaffeineDude on May 28, 2016, 09:57:14 AM
If you could take a pill to be accepted by others, you might feel pressured to take said pill, despite in reality needing better more accepting friends who mind their own business.

In my opinion humans are not livestock, and partaking in mutual acts of love, between two consenting adults, is validation in itself for such acts, whether it results in a child is simply arbitrary, and regardless not a part of the game, whereas matchmaking and the mood boost it yields certainly are.

I think this is unlikely to be settled, but I love the idea mentioned earlier of colonists learning from their rejected advances, that would work quite well, have colonists search for love rather than flirt heedlessly. Maybe colonists also could be less likely to make a move on a pawn already in a relationship and opposing sexual preference as well.

The speculation of the pill being forced isn't necessarily a bad one, the pharmaceutical industry is a corrupt piece of shit, and if it got destroyed today, little of value would be lost IMO. This said your argument is literally "Don't  change yourself, change EVERYONE ELSE", which is a very common theme in gay people. Not only that but tolerance only go so far. Tolerance, even if enforced at gun point, does NOT mean "like", far from it, and trying to force tolerance at gunpoint builds animosity which can lead to violent backlash.

Love is unfortunately so very very VAGUE, that I do not touch it for purposes of debate. Many child molesters say they love the kids they "play" with, but we clearly do not allow that, even if at any point the child agrees. More importantly, the risks involved with gay sex are much higher. So regardless if someone feels "strong feelings of connection / affection / bond / desire" (ie love) I think it holds no point in debate, because they are FEELINGS, and not physical, tangible things. Add onto that that gay people are much less likely to have committed relationships, and I think the word "love" is depreciated, used in that context.

That all said SCD, Glad to see you support people having morals / accepting rejections, and possibly respecting relationships... Monogamy seems like it kinda almost doesn't exist in rimworld.

Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on May 28, 2016, 02:15:14 PM
... 10 pages. 10 pages for this topic. Just remove it from a trait and add a sexuality thing in info, as I'm pretty sure it adds no buffs or debuffs right? No need for anything else.

Any mention of gay on these forums and we end up with 20 pages of a thread of cancer.

Its debated here for a reason, and please note that it has been civil here outside a select few hecklers.

I ask that nobody try to lock the thread with drama especially if they are creating it.

This said, sexuality in info sounds ok, but I personally think it should go deeper into the effects in someones psyche, Like a slightly lower mental break thresh-hold on gay people, and an even lower one on transsexuals. That would be fitting all things considered. As for why? Well, justify it as "homophobic" or "transphobic" people if you want, causing them additional mental illness due to "bullying" if you want...but we do know both groups have a much higher mental illness rate, so a lower mental break threshold would seem accurate, and more immersive.

Oh, as for the gay vaccine comment, while this wouldn't work of course (gayness is a mental disorder, not a blood born disease) This tactic is used medically for other stuff. Using chemicals to balance stuff out, or taking in lots of more alkaline drinks / foods to balance an otherwise acidic blood. Just saying.

I'm locking this thread preemptively now. We've had all the on-topic discussion that's possible to have and Tynan is well aware of our collective thoughts on the matter.  If I'm wrong and there is more Suggestion discussion to have, start a fresh thread for it. This one has derailed far too much and things are running too hot.  Feel free to start a thread in the off topic forum if you wish to continue this, but as always remember the forum rules.

10 pages. Color me impressed!