Traits

Posted in

#2726 by NaioHoras
2021-12-11 at 13:08
< report >c71633.4 (beware spoiler)
Should super long-living beings be classified as immortal
actually, I've been wondering about this. I've encountered characters described as long-lived, but sometimes it was vague whether they can die or not, or sometime they were explicitly said that they can die, which don't fit Immortal desc at all. therefore, I see the need for this occurance to have its own trait.

however, this trait Longevity was denied with Old trait described as subtitute for it as the reason, which is weird because Old is a physical appearance trait, not the actual age. I'm guessing that the trait was proposed before Apparent Age turned into, well, apparent age.

I propose that Longevity should be accepted with some adjustments. I'm thinking that the trait should be applied to both character that have long lifespan, or has lived longer live than average human.
the trait should not be a child trait of Immortal since as mentioned above, long-lived character may die at some point. and Immortal should not be made into Longevity's child trait either since it's possible immortal character to be still in relatively young age. I've also encountered a case where a human become long-lived as the result of magic or something similar, thus it could not a child trait of Nature. probably best to put it under Role. or maybe it could, looking again at its desc.

with those changes in mind, the desc should look something like this:

---
This character is a long-lived being, or has lived a long life.

This might be caused by their own nature or achieved through various means, such as magic. As a standard, the character should or can live longer than average human age.

Different from Immortal, this character still have lifespan, thus they may die because of old age at some point. If a character cannot die and has lived a long as well, use this trait and Immortal concurrently.

---Last modified on 2021-12-11 at 13:11
#2727 by beliar
2021-12-11 at 15:38
< report >Yes, I can see where the problem lies. For example, Asari and Krogan have a theoretical livespan of 1000 human years, but are far from immortal. It doesn't appear that we currently have a trait to describe that, and I assume there are some characters this is relevant to. I don't see a problem in approving the trait with the updated description.
Edit: "Though I'm not sure we should include the last part "If a character cannot die and has lived a long as well, use this trait and Immortal concurrently.". There will be too much of an overlap if we do, as most immortal characters in the db are also long-lived.Last modified on 2021-12-11 at 15:46
#2728 by NaioHoras
2021-12-11 at 16:03
< report >the idea is that so we can have the additional information of "an immortal/long lived, yet relatively young age", such as Pride from FMAB. I don't know how many characters meet this criteria in the DB, but applying two traits is better than a loss of information for me. do you think how many times I applied Infidelity and Netorare together, just because not all heroine is in relationship with someone? :D
#2729 by beliar
2021-12-11 at 16:10
< report >
an immortal/long lived, yet relatively young age
Well, I imagine there are such characters out there. For example, a newly turned vampire would match the condition. While I don't particularly like the overlap, as many immortal characters would still be old ones, I could return the last sentence to the trait, however that clashes with the penultimate sentence.

"Different from Immortal, this character still have lifespan, thus they may die because of old age at some point." - this sentence excludes Immortal from Longevity.
"If a character cannot die and has lived a long as well, use this trait and Immortal concurrently." - this sentence is inclusive of both.
The penultimate sentence needs to be changed from exclusive to inclusive for the description to make sense.
#2730 by Mrkew
2021-12-11 at 16:11
< report >Okay, cool. Should that apply only to humans, though? Otherwise it applies to like 90% of the nature trait family.
#2731 by beliar
2021-12-11 at 16:16
< report >Yeah, after thinking, I don't want to make Immortal an inclusive trait to Longevity. Doing that would make it apply to pretty much every character under the Nature tree, like Mrkew said. Moreover, our description is already taking in account the fact the character might be yough, though has a capacity to live long.

"This character is a long-lived being" - means they might still be young, but have a long lifespan
"or has lived a long life" - obvious what that means.
So, I think I'll leave the trait as is.
#2732 by Mrkew
2021-12-11 at 16:19
< report >No, I meant like the trait in general. Even without any changes, you can say it applies to for example all elves. At least I can't think of a setting where elves wouldn't live long. A lot of overlap with the species traits, but on the other hand the same argument applies to immortal. (all angels, demons, machines, etc.)
#2733 by beliar
2021-12-11 at 16:25
< report >I don't think that's a problem. As you have noted, Immortal already overlaps with beings like Deities, Demons, Undead, Fairies, etc. I think Longevity will have much less overlap than that. Depending on the setting that might be Elves, Monsters, maybe some Half-breeds, but otherwise I don't think the overlap is too bad.Last modified on 2021-12-11 at 16:25
#2734 by NaioHoras
2021-12-11 at 16:35
< report >
to be changed from exclusive to inclusive.
thought the first sentence "This character is a long-lived being, or has lived a long life." should solve that one, but now you pointed it out, it is problematic.
I thought of making it to just "Long-lived character could die of an old age, but not necessarily." but that would make the trait not too much different from Immortal, plus limited lifespan is the reason why I proposed it in the first place. so unless someone can come up with better desc, I'd rather have the last sentence removed.

"Should that apply only to humans, though?" no. that's why I used 'living being' in the desc. nevermind I misreadLast modified on 2021-12-11 at 16:37
#2735 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-12 at 00:22
< report >This user seems to be adding contradictory traits "virgin sex" and "damaged hymen" to characters simultaneously (link, link, link). I haven't played that eroge so I can't verify there's no excusable circumstance, but can someone who did look into it?
#2736 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 04:18
< report >Those traits are not contradictory but to know that you need to have a minimum of sexual education or just have read the definition of damaged hymen. Edit: Unless you think that damaging your hymen during sport make you lose your virginity? That would be funny.
But, ironically, probably a good report. XDLast modified on 2021-12-12 at 04:23
#2737 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-12 at 04:35
< report >...I'm not understanding, are you implying that since the hymen is damaged during virgin sex, then they should both be applied to all virgin females in the db?

The description of the trait is literally "damaged outside of a sexual relationship with a partner."

So you're saying it's okay if I add "virgin sex" to a character deflowered by a dildo? Not sure if you're trolling me or what, but I'll just leave it be I guess.
#2738 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 04:45
< report >No but you can previously damage it and then have virgin sex. Thinking the opposite would be as moronic as saying that I lost my virginity because I put my dick in a pie. I said you were probably right ironically because the user added both at the same time. However, the traits are not contradictory.
#2739 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-12 at 04:53
< report >Ah, I get you now. My bad, I was reading too much into it.Last modified on 2021-12-12 at 04:59
#2740 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 05:09
< report >Well, the user reverted my edit. I am not surprised because 2/3 of the characters are from a comedy and embody nymphos. It's not hard to imagine they damaged their hymen through masturbation.
#2741 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-12 at 05:26
< report >Gotcha. I was confused because characters like link don't have virgin sex applied so I assumed you couldn't add both.
#2742 by Mrkew
2021-12-12 at 05:37
< report >It's a child trait of virgin sex, that's why I didn't see the need to add both.
#2743 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 05:44
< report >wtf
#2744 by Altarius
2021-12-12 at 05:58
< report >@2740
So, if someone deflowers herself by a dildo, and then gets her first intercourse with a man, "virgin sex" and "damaged hymen" should be applied, right?
#2745 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 06:03
< report >Unless you think masturbation is sex (as in loss of virginity)?
#2746 by Latnemurtsni
2021-12-12 at 06:13
< report >Ileca, maybe i104 should be edited to say it can still be applied if the hymen is not intact, to prevent future misunderstandings.
#2747 by Altarius
2021-12-12 at 06:27
< report >In case of Hentai Elf Shimai to Majime Orc we have two elves yarimakuring with huge dildos and each other, and still being virgins, wow.
#2748 by Mrkew
2021-12-12 at 06:28
< report >Stop. That's what the damaged hymen is for. That's the reason why it was made. Damaged hymen trait automatically assumes the character engages in virgin sex because that's the parent trait.
we have two elves yarimakuring with huge dildos and each other, and still being virgins, wow
And that's wrong. Virgin sex says "that this was the first time this character had sex". It doesn't specify that lesbian sex does not count for losing virginity.Last modified on 2021-12-12 at 06:31
#2749 by cubky
2021-12-12 at 06:35
< report >Having the trait be a child of both "virgin sex" and "not a virgin" seems wrong if the trait is supposed to be used only for non-sexual intercourse activities...Last modified on 2021-12-12 at 06:39
#2750 by Ileca
2021-12-12 at 06:36
< report >Altarius, are you saying that they had sex together? Because I never said lesbian sex is not sex, duh. Yeah, putting baobab dildos in you pussy deflower you but doesn't make you a non virgin.
Breaking your hymen during sport makes you having virgin sex LMAOOOOO
This is preposterous. The definition states "outside of a sexual relationship with a partner". It can't be under virgin sex.