"Gay" as a trait

[milon]

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.

[Mathenaut]

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.

[jaeden25]

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.

[Lady Wolf]

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.

[RemingtonRyder]

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.

[thestalkinghead]

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

[Plasmatic]

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?)

[hoochy]

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.

[erdrik]

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.

[Andurhil]

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.

[Realjuan]

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

[wbonxx]

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.

[SuperCaffeineDude]

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.

[Negocromn]

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

[b0rsuk]

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!