Separate sexuality from the trait system.

[DariusWolfe]

I am more than okay with a weighted chance for sexuality. I have a game design of my own where 80-90% of characters will be straight, and 10-20% will be bi or homosexual (I would have gone with more "realistic" numbers, but I'm using 10-sided-dice, so it's easier).

I am also for somewhat higher rates than what can be found on Wikipedia; As rexx points out, people get killed for being openly gay or bi, so I have a pretty strong feeling that the reported percentage is considerably lower than reality; Hopefully in the future many of these particular atrocities will be less common (to be replace by cannibalism and human-skin clothing, apparently) so people will be more open about who they are.

I am definitely also in favor of other sexualities represented; Bisexuality, Asexuality, Even allowances for polyamorous relationships.

I'm... not at all sure I'd speak in favor of bestiality or pedophilia, no matter the other atrocities that are common Rimworld; That's beyond where I'd draw the line. Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are recognized as healthy expressions of human sexuality (even if not universally so) whereas those are not.

Also, BDSM may be a thing, but it's not a sexuality. I'm not even sure how exactly it would be represented in the game, considering sex is limited to some hearts periodically floating up from the bed.

[Vagabond]

The "it's the future, it's space" argument is deeply flawed for one simple reason: We are dealing with people from all eras of humanity. Maybe glitterworld colonists might have a higher chance of deviating than urbworlders who'd be similar to us. But what of Indworlders? During our industrial age, women hadn't even had the right to vote yet, and homes were incredibly nuclear with gender roles still in place. Medieval worlds, well, we can imagine some church involve there. . .Caveworlds, while we can't say for sure what they did back then, we know that only men and women can have children together, and since we are here to talk about this, we know that lgbt inclinations must not have been to much of an issue.

Then again, maybe in Tynan's universe it has always been common and accepted all throughout time.

Anyone else find it amusing when a post start "I am this [. . .] so [. . .]". What I am or am not doesn't matter, I just want the game to be as realistic as possible. Just saying, I want it all in there.

[PocketNerd]

The "it's the future, it's space" argument is deeply flawed for one simple reason: We are dealing with people from all eras of humanity. Maybe glitterworld colonists might have a higher chance of deviating than urbworlders who'd be similar to us. But what of Indworlders? During our industrial age, women hadn't even had the right to vote yet, and homes were incredibly nuclear with gender roles still in place. Medieval worlds, well, we can imagine some church involve there. . .Caveworlds, while we can't say for sure what they did back then, we know that only men and women can have children together, and since we are here to talk about this, we know that lgbt inclinations must not have been to much of an issue.

Traits don't describe what is socially normative, just what is. People who would be described in modern terms as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender have always been around, even if the societies in which they lived attempted to suppress such behavior.

[MarcTheMerc]

I wish everytime the gay trait get mentioned the thread becomes a monstrously long political correctness debate.

But i digress simply put I believe it the 'gay trait' should be recorded in the menu with pawns diets and other stats rather then the traits system. As they like op mentioned take up a trait slot. Alternativly they could be a trait which ignors the limit being a 'fourth trait' and just simply added on.

[isRyan]

I wish everytime the gay trait get mentioned the thread becomes a monstrously long political correctness debate.

But i digress simply put I believe it the 'gay trait' should be recorded in the menu with pawns diets and other stats rather then the traits system. As they like op mentioned take up a trait slot. Alternativly they could be a trait which ignors the limit being a 'fourth trait' and just simply added on.

This guy has the best idea, just put it in the information screen of a pawn, that way you could define a pawn as liking men, liking woman, or both, seperate from the pawn's actual gender.

[Gladeflower]

My first post btw

Concrete Suggestion

-There is no predefined sexuality for pawns.

-Roll a dice before a pawn decides to flirt with another random pawn, if they are of same gender then there is a 10%+ chance for success role. Else 100% chance.

-If roll is successful then the dice for successful vs unsuccessful flirt is rolled.

Pro: - There is already a system in place for pawns making moves on other pawns
       - Easy to code?
       - Less meaningless visual clutter in the trait tree, and power gamers will be happy.
       - More gay relationships since the chance before for two gays of same gender being together is very low
       - Sexuality is fluid, its not set in stone
       - No need to include lines of codes and names for all kinds of sexualities, with risk of forgetting one. Since fluid system.
       - fun and "shocking", more stories to read

Con: - Sexuality is not predifined for life? Which is more of a pro.

[DariusWolfe]

Not a bad first post, Gladeflower.

Mostly I opened the post window to address the claim that we're dealing with people from all eras of humanity, because it's massively false. I mean, I get what you meant to say: we've got primitives, transhumanism and every spectrum in between, but it's all one era; Post-Earth diaspora.

Humanity developed on Earth well past our current era, and developed cryptosleep and semi-reliable interstellar travel. It's conceivable that we managed to stomp out homophobia along the way.

It's also possible that we didn't, or the far-flung seeds of humanity devolved to less enlightened views.

But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple people playing that game in the here and now.

[PocketNerd]

But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple playing that game in the here and now.

Very nicely put. Thank you!

[TOWC]

Oh gosh, this one made me laugh, great job
However, if you're really serious about this, then you're dumber than my dead doggy.
The way you put this, game is mostly about sexual interactions. Well, it's not.

[Ramsis]

Oh gosh, this one made me laugh, great job
However, if you're really serious about this, then you're dumber than my dead doggy.
The way you put this, game is mostly about sexual interactions. Well, it's not.

Chill out TOWC...

[SpaceDorf]

I am in favor of removing the sexuality from the traits list and put it on the social tab as a standard value.
As always when this discussion shows up.


And as always I am shocked that this discussion is still such a big thing and even influences the elections in first world countries.

Also when you bring up ye olden times in this discussion please specify which time you mean.

The Victorian Age where there was no sexuality at all ?
The Time before the French revolution where a certain Marquis made clear that everything goes if you have the money.
The middleages when poor Jesus and his Father where used to oppress the masses ?
The time when Ghenghis Khan spread his DNA everywhere ?
The Romans ? ( see france , also slaves )
Greece ? whats the one thing those guys are famous for other than math and democracy ? ( also slavers )

Sadly I don't know enough about the eastern culteres to put them into the comparison but I am sure they had their ups and downs too. Like that sad down the middle east has these days.

<sarcasm> At least all the pawns are white and like weapons </sarcasm>

[DariusWolfe]

The pawns aren't all white!

...though now that you mention it, the lighter skin tones do tend to predominate. Plus, I almost always have at least one pacifist in my colony. They're usually my medics, which works out, because I rarely need to worry about my medics getting wounded in battle.

[Kashipoi]

Pawns are definitely not all white, and given how far in the future rimworld is and the strange way humanity is spreading it's possible that almost no one seen in game actively has any traces of old earth cultural races to begin with.

[Vagabond]

Not a bad first post, Gladeflower.

Mostly I opened the post window to address the claim that we're dealing with people from all eras of humanity, because it's massively false. I mean, I get what you meant to say: we've got primitives, transhumanism and every spectrum in between, but it's all one era; Post-Earth diaspora.

Humanity developed on Earth well past our current era, and developed cryptosleep and semi-reliable interstellar travel. It's conceivable that we managed to stomp out homophobia along the way.

It's also possible that we didn't, or the far-flung seeds of humanity devolved to less enlightened views.

But honestly, that's nether here, not there. We're not talking about futuristic attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. We're talking about how they exist within the playable portion of the game, and how that portrayal impacts purple people playing that game in the here and now.

First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.

Imagine if everyone practice some form of deviancy in a culture. You'd have to hope that the homosexual male considered the transgender female who believes she is a man would procreate with each other. This relies on the female-male being interested in males still, not females, and the homosexual man being attracted to a female that has the appearance and "soul" of a man, but still has female parts.

Or as another example: a man who is okay with bestiality, procreating with a woman who believes she has the soul of a cat http://goo.gl/5YHVbR . This too assumes that the woman-cat is interested in human males, and not male cats.

Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.

I suppose in less enlightened cultures, social pressure could still force the marriage of homosexuals with a heterosexual, or even a homosexual of another gender. . . In situations like that, we'd still get the contribution. This would actually be an interesting mechanic in the event of children being implemented, forcing procreation/marriage under the threat of expulsion from the community. Mothers and father's could pressure children into productive relationships for the benefit of the communities' population.

Religion could be another form of social pressure, if such religions exist, which would make sense for certain technology levels. Since those doctrines were created for a reason within historical human society.

I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.

All interesting mechanics to consider for the game, though.

Pawns are definitely not all white, and given how far in the future rimworld is and the strange way humanity is spreading it's possible that almost no one seen in game actively has any traces of old earth cultural races to begin with.

My thoughts exactly, a good point.

[PocketNerd]

First part is true. However, with those cultures that devolved (advanced, and perhaps devolved again), do you think something as simple as the need to procreate was left out? Only two technology levels, from what I can tell, seem capable of maintaining their population in the face of overwhelming numbers of sexually deviant individuals.

"Sexually deviant individuals"?

"Overwhelming numbers"?

Primitive tribes of hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves with large populations of deviant characters as they are, in general, of smaller numbers. The gene pool requires additional contribution to prevent defects.

I'm convinced now, that removing sexuality from traits may very well be the best thing. Instead just making it another, separate statistic. However, I also believe that the numbers reflect whatever is required (based on technology level) for the continuance of humans through procreation. The only issue I see, when it comes to higher tech levels increasing the amount of deviants, is that the technology actually makes up for the lack of standard procreation. What this means is that deviant couples could still be fertilized artificially and deviancy loses it's usefulness as a form of population control.

You're arguing from a false premise, i.e. that a society would fail if a non-trivial fraction did not reproduce every generation. While that would certainly be true if NOBODY reproduced, historically the hard caps on population size and growth haven't come from how many people are having heterosexual sex or how often. It's also worth noting raising children takes a lot of time and effort, and the role of kin selection in our species is significant — e.g. even if you never have children, but help raise your niece and nephew, you're still contributing to the survival of your own genes. (Interestingly, this may be a contributor to why humans survive so long past breeding age when most animals don't — if grandma and grandpa help take care of all their grandchildren, even though they can't have any more children of their own, they're still contributing to the success of their specific bloodlines and also the tribe overall, most of whom are also likely to be relatives.)

Also, would you mind not calling gay, bi, and trans people "deviants"? Thanks.