Separate sexuality from the trait system.

[Cibi]

I am within the LGBT spectrum, I love that people in rimworld can be gay, but I am also a horrid powergamer. I feel it is wrongly implemented, it being a trait makes me weigh it against having something more useful, as opposed to something that is really only for the fluff. Its basically this, would I rather have Gay, or industrious in my starting 3, industrious always. Do I want to have gay pawns? Of course, but gay just does not compare to literally any other trait.

While you are at it, you could even add more depth to sexuality, and relationships. Actually have Hetero 8e a thing, and rolled against Gay, Bisexual, Polyamory, fun stuff like that. With that said, I'd say that simply separating sexuality from traits, and being instead a 1 or 0 roll (with gay being less likely of course) alongside the already present traits, it'd make for a more interesting, and a more prevalent inclusion of sexuality.

[keylocke]

well i think this suggestion should probably also fall to the dynamic traits suggestion.

coz, i've known lesbian/bisexual people who became straight, and straight people becoming lesbian/bisexual. one of my previous GFs used to be bisexual during her highschool days in an all-girls school, and became straight when she stepped into college.

so i'm not entirely convinced that gay/lesbian/bisexual is a permanent thing.

--------------

as for dynamic traits : i was thinking there shouldn't really be a 3 limitation.

dynamic traits should be from zero-to-whatever, with each pawn gaining or losing traits over time, depending on their own experience.

[Vagabond]

Personally, I see being heterosexual as being normal. It makes sense that being homosexual or bisexual as a trait, to me at least. For homosexuality at least, being such would be incredibly detrimental to the continuance of a fledgling colony, as those individuals aren't contributing to the gene pool through reproduction. A trait is something that distinguishes them from the masses, the masses are general heterosexual, so having homosexuality as a trait makes sense.

One of my most prized fighters has gay as a trait, but had he not rolled with such good combat stats i'd have let him die rather than rescue him. Gay people can still be useful in game, but they are still gay, and it is an identifying trait that distinguishes them. It is certainly a flaw on a backwater planet where people are trying to build a colony in a place that would rather see them destroyed.

I have two friends, in real life, named marcus (though one's is spelled markus). When one of our friends goes "anyone seen marcus" we say "Marcus or gay markus?". When I think of Marcus, the first three things I think is fat, guitarist, and crybaby. When I think of Markus, I think tall, gay, and strong.

[DariusWolfe]

Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.

Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.

I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.

[marcavis]

Gotta second Cibi's suggestion; the current implementation suggests that LGBT people are about half as diverse as the norm, which is, yeah, quite weird.
(Also, the thing about gay people not reproducing isn't strictly true, with in vitro fertilization and whatnot, but I suppose is a decent enough approximation since making things otherwise would require Tynan to develop additional systems for it)

[Cibi]

well i think this suggestion should probably also fall to the dynamic traits suggestion.

coz, i've known lesbian/bisexual people who became straight, and straight people becoming lesbian/bisexual. one of my previous GFs used to be bisexual during her highschool days in an all-girls school, and became straight when she stepped into college.

so i'm not entirely convinced that gay/lesbian/bisexual is a permanent thing.

--------------

as for dynamic traits : i was thinking there shouldn't really be a 3 limitation.

dynamic traits should be from zero-to-whatever, with each pawn gaining or losing traits over time, depending on their own experience.

That's harder to code than a simple system that more or less works alongside the already present social system. There are marrages and family trees, why can't sexuality be moved there instead of it taking a trait slot.

[Cibi]

Personally, I see being heterosexual as being normal. It makes sense that being homosexual or bisexual as a trait, to me at least. For homosexuality at least, being such would be incredibly detrimental to the continuance of a fledgling colony, as those individuals aren't contributing to the gene pool through reproduction. A trait is something that distinguishes them from the masses, the masses are general heterosexual, so having homosexuality as a trait makes sense.

One of my most prized fighters has gay as a trait, but had he not rolled with such good combat stats i'd have let him die rather than rescue him. Gay people can still be useful in game, but they are still gay, and it is an identifying trait that distinguishes them. It is certainly a flaw on a backwater planet where people are trying to build a colony in a place that would rather see them destroyed.

I have two friends, in real life, named marcus (though one's is spelled markus). When one of our friends goes "anyone seen marcus" we say "Marcus or gay markus?". When I think of Marcus, the first three things I think is fat, guitarist, and crybaby. When I think of Markus, I think tall, gay, and strong.

This has little to do with my suggestion. I am making this suggestion 8ased upon the game balance, gay being a trait means it has to compete against all other traits. It ends up just being a filler trait instead of something substantial. Its just in the wrong place, sexuality should be coded into the social system.

[Cibi]

Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.

Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.

I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.

Thats my logic, instead of having gay take up a coveted trait slot, and for the sake of better simulation, make it so everyone has a sexuality and maybe other personality traits asside from the more buff oriented traits like industrious

[Fafn1r]

Thats my logic, instead of having gay take up a coveted trait slot, and for the sake of better simulation, make it so everyone has a sexuality and maybe other personality traits asside from the more buff oriented traits like industrious

I fail to see how it would make a "better simulation" for everyone. The change would just add an extra trait for people who prefer having only gay pawns.

[b0rsuk]

The fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".

[DariusWolfe]

The fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".

This cannot be emphasized enough.

[Wex]

The fact it's a trait makes it incredibly rare for two gay people of the same gender to meet each other. I haven't seen this in any of my colonies. The trait might as well be called "no relationships".

I have seen a gay woman in my colony, begin a relationship with a straight one. It didn't last, but can happen appearently.

[keylocke]

i think they should also include bestiality and necrophilia.

yes. i'm serious. haha.

edit : oh wait, in case people don't get sarcasm.

no i'm not.

[Vagabond]

Heterosexuality is normal for you. Homosexuality is normal for others, and bisexuality is normal for still others. Your normal shouldn't be imposed on others.

Also, one doesn't "become" bisexual or straight or gay. One might go into a same-sex relationship, or opposite-sex relationship, but that doesn't change their sexuality.

I agree that sexuality should be separated from the trait system. Every person has a sexuality that's their own, even if heterosexuality is more common than others. You shouldn't be gay OR some other personality trait.

There is a reason why I consider it normal, and it isn't just based on my own personal habits, which I haven't discussed because it isn't anyone's business and not something I believe should be broadcasted onto the internet.

Deviancy. Homosexuality, Bisexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, cannibalism, ect. There is a reason why they are considered deviant - they stray from the norm of society. Admittedly, at different times and/or places, some deviant behaviors were considered normal or acceptable. Personally, I believe in the "to each their own", so if someone has permission to eat a corpse, they should be able to. Or if they have permission to have sex with that corpse, sure. Or permission to do both. However, even with permission and the law on their side, it'd still be deviant behavior. Most people don't have sex with, or eat corpses.

If you wish to dress up as a baby and be spanked for breastfed, dress up like a horse and have a woman lead you around a corral, if you wish to have six wives who may or may not be all sisters, I believe you should be allowed to do so. It would STILL be deviant behavior, but to reiterate, I'm all for people being able to explore their deviancy.

[makkenhoff]

I don't think we need a LGBT debate here in order to post in support of, or in opposition of this suggestion.

Personally, it would be nice to see a split on traits - move some of them into a different category, physical based and personality based. For example, sanguine - don't get me wrong I love having pawns with it, but that is a personality trait while you have physical traits like too smart, which suggests having a better learning ability or jogger which amplifies movement. Not only would this improve the variety of characters (more traits = more complexity) but it could open up the possibility of some interesting personality and skill combinations as a result of it.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a balancing nightmare, nor am I saying it would be as fun as it seems to me. But maybe worth a prototype effort?