"Gay" as a trait

[Zombra]

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".

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.

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.

 

[Andurhil]

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.")

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.

[Ramsis]

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

[levgre]

"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.

[Zombra]

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

[mumblemumble]

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...

[MAKAIROSI]

@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.

[Andurhil]

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'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.

...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

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).

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.)

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.

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.

[MAKAIROSI]

@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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[charkesd]

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:

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

[Zombra]

someone 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.



Ready to quit forever yet?

[milon]

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.

[Vagabond]

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

[caekdaemon]

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



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 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.