The Dink Network

I am uncertain about whether or not to do something for then end of my dmod I am working on. I was thinking of making Dink fall in love. Do you think I should do that?

While I think making a main character fall in love in a dmod isn't necessarily a bad idea, I think falling in love just doesn't suit Dink's cynical self.

My Dink might be a little less cynical really (alternate Dinkverse where he had a better upbringing and overall life) and the circumstances will be differnt than usual in a dmod. Besides even cynical people fall in love sometimes. And this potential lover is very similar to my Dink.

You may be right. Dink was much less cynical/patronizing in Friends Beyond 2. Plus he was married in Prophecy of the Ancients... I dunno though, I just thought the idea of Dink falling in love was weird. Not sure if it has been done before. But hey, if it's well done, I might change my mind. Who knows?

You want us to tell you how to end the d-mod? Surely most Dinkers would want the end to be a surprise?! But if you must ask...

You COULD always have two alternate endings, one where he falls in love and one where he doesn't, depending on his actions earlier in the d-mod.

well, i think that is a GREAT idea!

it may not suit dink himself, as all say, but it is a GREAT idea!

two thumbs up, keep up the good work, etc, etc...

Just do whatever you like, that usually gives best results.

Try this:

black scree:
...and they lived happilly ever after...
load a screen, where dink is falled down, drunk, and his wife yelling at him to wake up and go home.
black screen again:
THE END

Well, since you asked so nicely... yes, I believe you should make Dink fall in love. Not with a person, animal, dragon, or anything like that, though.

Dink must fall in love with the word "pumpkin." Whenever he hears it, he must writhe in ecstacy. Yes, you must make new, writhey, animations for Dink.

Oh, and make Dink ride a rocket ship to the moon and battle the moon people of the moon, who have like large, um, glands, and Dink has to kill them and make it real fun. Like put Dink in a moon vehicle buggy and have him go "vrrm vrrrrrm" and do jumps and splatter all of the moon people of the moon into a bunch of green pieces (because moon people of the moon wouldn't have red blood, you know?) Then when he's done with that, he has to travel in time to go defeat the Borg with only his fist. Yeah, and then make him fall in love with the word "pumpkin" because of some evil Borg mind control ray.

Frankly, that would make a hell of a kickass D-Mod.

How about something with a bear flying an airplane?

That's just crazy talk.

...And yours isn't.

It'd be cool though, but I like the falling in love / not falling in love depending of the actions you took.

heh, Striker's post was an inside-joke.

I was planning on creating a game featuring a bear flying an airplane, but I got a job, and started working on 1.08 more.

Umm, firstly I can't make animations. Secondly that isn't love. Love is the deepest and strongest appreciation of who someone is. That cannot be felt for anything without a personality, such as words.

Yes, make Dink fall in love and lose that loved one (make him search for her). It is usually the case, when you lose someone you love that you'll realize how much you appreciate his/her presence/existence. Love is like a cold splash of water on the face of cynicism.

Remember the Greek myth of Eros and Psyche? Love searching for its Soul? That would be a wonderful end for a DMOD...a prequel to a quest for lost love...

Can't wait for your DMOD, draconicdink

Umm, no Dink isn't losing his love. Because of what his love is that isn't possible. She's way more powerful than him. She controls the Air Element.

Hmmm...even more interesting...intriguing! So, she's everywhere and nowhere, if she's of air.

Go on, draconicdink, finish this DMOD of yours, and let's see...

She controls the air element, but that doesn't mean she's made of air!

Think of the GBC Zelda games, where there's a specific person who controls time, or seasons... But does not really want to use it.

ahh, but it's more interesting, DaVince, if Dink's lover is ethereal, thereby making them star-crossed lovers....Dink could not even touch her, not even hold her hand...thus is the price of such power of Air.

Yes indeed. But that's not this D-Mod, I think...

Although it IS a good idea.
Dink can't cheat on her either that way. }:><

EDIT: Kitty smiley button still not working correctly here.

Oh well, let's see how this love theme works out.

BTW, what do these other icons mean...(others I can surmise) but this kitty button for example. Are ther any icon legends around here somewhere?

Thanks in advance.

Dink falling in love could be a good idea as long as it's not ridicuously mushy and implemented in a good way. (I think they would have had that in the original Dink if they had more time to develop it, y'know, there's a canditate in every town)

I doubt a lot of people would prefer bestiality either, so it better be a shapeshifting dragon.

DraconicDink's blog : I am doing a dmod series about the dragons that control the four elements of air, water, fire and earth.

DraconicDink's post : Umm, no Dink isn't losing his love. Because of what his love is that isn't possible. She's way more powerful than him. She controls the Air Element.

So Dink is in love with a dragon then? Wow! Now there's an interesting idea!

EDIT : Argh, I was writing my post when scratcher posted his...

EDIT 2 : I'm not sure what you meant by 'bestiality', scratcher, but I don't think falling in love with someone who belongs to a different kind of species is bad, unless it's perverted. In fact, I've read a few fantasy stories where characters fell in love with someone of another species.

Umm, no she isn't of air. She just controls the magic of the Air Element.

Umm, no she definetly has a physical form. But I can tell you she is not human, though she can shapeshift.

Um, yes it is shapeshifting. And second I never said they'd have sex. And unless they have sex it isn't bestiality. Also bestiality stictly speaking is when humans have sex with animals. Dragons are not animals. They are too intelligent for that and have magical powerws, which animals don't.

Point of intrest: in fantasy and science fiction humanoid creatures have had sex (eg: humans and elves, humans and vulcans, humans and klingons). They are of course different species. Would you consider that bestiality?

Imho, humans are animals as well, despite their intelligence.

But Vulcans don't have wings, do they? And as you say, the species you mention are all humanoid, and apart from minor differences (pointy ears, mars bar foreheads) are very similar.

At the end of the day, as long as Dink doesn't deep throat any fire breathing lizards then it's ok!

As I said she can shapsehift.

Biologically speaking yes, we are animals. But I'd define dragons as monsters/magical beings rather than animals. I'd also define them as mythical and non-existant.

Well, Sabre, I'm sure your dreams are about to come true. According to DraconicDink's unquestionable logic, if you find a fish that's like super intelligent and has magical powerws (maybe it can fly to the moon, and run over the moon people of the moon in its magical fishbowl), you can consummate a marriage without fear of being arrested! Sweet.

"Umm, firstly I can't make animations. Secondly that isn't love. Love is the deepest and strongest appreciation of who someone is. That cannot be felt for anything without a personality, such as words."

Gee Draconic, before you discuss your profound knowledge of the spectrum of emotions, you should do some intense research on

HUMOR!!

Um, yes it is shapeshifting. And second I never said they'd have sex. And unless they have sex it isn't bestiality. Also bestiality stictly speaking is when humans have sex with animals. Dragons are not animals. They are too intelligent for that and have magical powerws, which animals don't.

Point of intrest: in fantasy and science fiction humanoid creatures have had sex (eg: humans and elves, humans and vulcans, humans and klingons). They are of course different species. Would you consider that bestiality?

I count 4 times he said the word "sex" in that...y did u say that s word like 4 times?

Oh my, the "s word"? You know, sex is healthy, without it, you wouldn't have been born. On second thought...

What is that supposed to mean??? besides... I'M 12 YEARS OLD. Besides...i haven't had sex ed yet. oops, now i said it...CURSE YOU!!

it's just a word, it's not a big deal unless you make it out to be. if you truely have a problem with it, just try to ignore it, you can't delete that word from everybody's vocabulary.

*Resists urge to post a stupid Bloop the fish joke*

Also bestiality stictly speaking is when humans have sex with animals. Dragons are not animals. They are too intelligent for that and have magical powerws, which animals don't.

When speaking of fantasy the term "Bestiality" is more versatile than in real life. In real life it only includes human/animal sex, because there are no other kinds of creatures to have sex with.

Point of intrest: in fantasy and science fiction humanoid creatures have had sex (eg: humans and elves, humans and vulcans, humans and klingons). They are of course different species. Would you consider that bestiality?

Sex between similar types of animals is okay, eg. human and elf, donkey and horse, wookie and gorilla, horse and unicorn sex. The no-no line goes somewhere around human and satyr/faun sex.

:')

Well, Sabre, I'm sure your dreams are about to come true.

Woohoo! It's about time to! Yet the chances of finding another fish with magical powers are pretty slim, I fear.

Sheesh, sex is just another word for gender.

Sheesh, sex is just another word for gender.

Exactly, what's all the fuss about?

The world's greatest literature would never have existed without such a life force as sex... so much so with science fiction. It is in most of the world's myths. So let's not shy away from the topic of sex, as long as we place it in its correct perspective.

Some of you must have heard of "fornication under the consent of the king" or it's often abused acronym...it makes the whole topic of procreation sordid and disgusting...which shouldn't be. Children should be made aware early on of the sacredness of pro/creation.

And i admire draconicdink's conviction on what love means to him... i betcha he's in love, sounds like it Am i right, dd?

I know about humour. But did it oocur to you that I didn't see it as humour or funny. It can be hard to tell someone's intents on the net since you don't have the context of tone of voice or body language to go by.

So you know about the origin of the "f word" diwata? Not many people do. Most think it come from a German word beginning with f that means "to strike". As for if I'm in love... well, yes, but she doesn't know it. Though that's not why I think love is what I think what it is. The reason I think that is because I am a rational thinker.

When speaking of fantasy the term "Bestiality" is more versatile than in real life. In real life it only includes human/animal sex, because there are no other kinds of creatures to have sex with.

Yes, I do realise that. I was being a bit of a smart ass. I do that sometimes.


Sex between similar types of animals is okay, eg. human and elf, donkey and horse, wookie and gorilla, horse and unicorn sex. The no-no line goes somewhere around human and satyr/faun sex.

In that case, out of curiosity, what do you think about sex between a human and a creature that has shapeshifted into a human?

Yes. Especially since there is no such thing as magic.

It's okay, since the most important (only?) reason intelligent beings shouldn't have sex with each other is physical incompatibility. But they better be good at shapeshifting, turning into a rabbit in the middle of sexual intercourse could be pretty sad...

That part is of that flash movie "the f word". I thought it originally meant to till. As in the farmer f'cks his field.

The f word was originally an acronym for "fornication under command of the king".

We make decisions/judgments based on how we feel, then rationalize the correctness of such actions. It's our heart who make such choices of action, and then our mind will try to find logic in it, IMHO, dd.

*Sigh* I suppose I'll always be the romantic...you reminded me of those heady days long ago...I wonder how your real love story will unfold...

The F word is not an acronym.

If you're saying you know what love is because you are a rational thinker, you surely do not know what love is! I think most people would agree emotions are not ratinonal in the slightest.

I am very much in love. Everybody say Aww.

EDIT: Secondly, I would have thought Redinks intent was fairly obvious. You don't actually think he was suggesting Dink fell in love with a word, did you?

Hmm, so it might have been of Germanic origin...the word, I mean, just as draconicdink mentioned initially. Thanks for the info, redink1.

So you're saying love isn't the deepest and strongest value of someone for who they are?

Besides the only irrational emotions are those that are not controlled.

Point of case: if someone saves your life it is rational to feel the emotions of gratitude and happiness towards that person, thus those emotions are rational in that case.

No our "heart" doesn't make choices even in the metaphorical sense. Our mind does. We decide. And if by "heart" you mean your romantic side, then that's bad wording since your romantic side is still part of your mind, which is controlled by the brain.

Let me explain love in some depth to clarify this issue. Love according to dictionary.com is primarly:
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness..

Now, let us analyse this shall we?

Now, OK, there is emotion involved here, positive emotion, but there is more too it. It is not based on some arbitary whim, you choosing to love just anyone because some collectivist told you that you should love your neighbour or what have you.

No, love is a deep emontional bond that exists for a reason.

Now, family members usually have some sort of love for each other, but that is not really what we are talking about here, so we will not delve too far into that.

Now, it might be based on recoginition of attractive qualitiess, ie you value that persons identity, parts of whom they are and their actions/personality. Now what are ones actions and personality based on? Ones world view and their values, their concepts of the nature of the world and their place and others place in the world.
That is, because we share parts of their world view, respect who they are and share a number of their values. It is based on ones assessement of that person based on what they know/think about that person.

Ah, you say, but can such things be irrational in any way? Well, one might be wrong about the qualities they beleive one to have, maybe due to understandable errors or dishonesty on the behalf of that person. They may share irrationa l views and values with that person. But it is love all the same... you can love someone based on the fact you share irrational values.

Now, think about the last bit...the feeling of oneness. Despite what you say, you cannot honestly say you feel at one with someone unless you fulfill the previous criteria. You might wish to feel at one with them, you might beleive you do, but your emotions will differ. You cannnot just create emotions, or that feel of oneness.
Emotions are derived from your thoughts, whether or not they are rational. You feel at one with someone if your mind considers that you have enough in common with that person.

See, love is not an arbitary emontional game, but a deep emontional bond based on the way you think...on your thoughts and your and anothers [perceived] values... with family love put to the side anyway...

I could very well be wrong, but I think diwata was referring to "heart" in the spiritual/emotional sense and not the literal blood-pumping device, and I'd wager she was fully aware of that and the fact that the brain is in control of emotion. You're just being asinine now.

I know that. I'm no idiot. That;s why I said it wasn't even metaphorically true.

Personally I think it is a great idea. Dink doesnt get to really fall in love very much, as much as he might think he does .

Love is a great thing, and if you think the characters are that compabitle it would be a sad thing if you did not let them fall in love..because that is what they might be inclined to do if all this was real (its not right? )..

Just because they are of a different species is not I beleive a reason to deny their love. It makes things more tricky, sure, but if they were to deny their love they would be denying the fact that they share so many aspects of their identity, and letting certain difficultes keep them back from happiness... and is not deserved happiness mans highest reward for living life as a man/dragon?

"That;s why I said it wasn't even metaphorically true."

Uhm, it's well known that a "heart" is a metaphore for love. Who are you to say that it isn't a 'correct metaphore'? If I use a peanutbutter jelly sandwich as a metaphore for my left-eyebrow, it would still be a metaphore. A bit weird, yes, but there is no such thing thing as an 'uncorrect metaphore'. Everything can technically be a metaphore.

Metaphor or not, rational or mindless...love exists. What is important, draconicdink, is that you tell us your own definition or grasp of what love is through your Dmod...

If you want to know his definition, look up to where I go into it at great length, I know the guy, and know that he agrees fully with I said love was up there.

Whether or not he will express that in his DMOD is another thing...

He's right I do agree with it. I also said a less descriptive definition above. And yes, I do plan to show what I think love is in my dmod. I even know how I'm going to go about it. Thanks, diwata, that was a good suggestion.

Can't wait for that DMod of yours...

Well, you'll be waiting a long time, 'cos while it's only going to be a Quest it will take a long to make, 'cos I have a lot of new features to add. I intend to have a demo that tests most of those features available by next month, though. the love bit won't come in it, though, since it'll stop at the part where dink meets the dragon (about 20-30 minutes into the dmod).