Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, there's also stuff from fiction like the Asari from Mass Effect, whose asexual reproduction actually isn't quite as bullshit as it first seems.

There is a type of beetle, for example, that will grow a horn for fending off birds at birth if its mother was attacked by a bird, but not grow it if their mother wasn't attacked.

That is, it's something innate that it's born with, but it's not genetic.  Genes play a smaller role than previously imagined in how children develop than originally assumed. 

A courting ritual where a parthenogenesis-reproducing creature has this mother's-experience-alters-ultimate-child-form concept (if you ignore the magic psychic powers used in the ritual itself) can make some biological sense.

Game-wise, it would mean you could have species that reproduce with nothing but a female gender, which could still obtain traits from other creatures for the purposes of attributes as though they reproduced sexually. 

If you have an "Echidna" type of creature (the Greek titan who was "mother of monsters") that can give birth to all sorts of crazy creatures that don't otherwise reproduce, you could have Echidna giving birth to things like FBs and amethyst men and other things that can't rationally have a real species, and then have them "mate" with all kinds of random, non-reproducing creatures, in turn through parthenogenesis.

Rather than having a set caste, Echidna might just start giving birth to any random creature with a token that says they have no other way of reproducing but through Echidna.

[NW_Kohaku]

On a more significant topic and relevant to DF from all the mentions of various breeding schemes, being able to populate a DF world with creatures with more fantastical creatures, perhaps some with breeding schemes that don't exist in the real world, would help go a ways towards DF's stated goal of not being a generic fantasy game, but a generic fantasy world generator (if I am quoting that correctly). In one of the threads I tried to search for on this topic previously (the "new races" one), there was talk of something like a tribal race of lizard-people that worked with one alpha male and a harem of females, but also an entourage of beta males that don't reproduce.

Actually, on this topic, there's an awful lot more complexity than just that...

Wolves, for example, (plus wild dogs, lions, and a lot of pack hunting mammals, really,) don't just do that for males, they do it for females, too. 

In a wolf pack, only the alpha and beta female mate with the alpha male.  But the lower-ranking females (which are often weaker-from-age older relatives of the alpha female, like aunt or grandmother, since females stay with their pack from birth to death) have a "fake pregnancy" that will result in them being capable of nursing.  The alpha and beta female wolves are too valuable to the pack as hunters to leave them back and nursing the young, so they go back to hunting as soon as they can after birth.  The least valuable hunters get the nursing duty. 

Even among animals like monkeys, where they have a full-on harem effect, the females have a social pecking order.  Alpha females and their children get the first pick of food.  Lowest-rank females and their children can only eat when the alphas and everyone down the line above them have had their fill, if there's anything left.  But since a male monkey that gains the alpha spot will kill and eat any children not his own, female monkeys will sleep around with potential claimants to the throne, just to make sure they'll have reason not to kill their children, since he won't be able to tell exactly if its his child or not.

Of course, that kind of brings me around to how unrealistically humanoid relationships are portrayed right now: Humans in the game right now mate like birds.  Birds court once, and then are mates for life.  They even stop eating and die if their mates die.  They never court and find a new mate.  Humans don't do that.  We're half bird and half monkey in this regard - we like to say we mate for life, but that's not at all how things usually play out.  Humans are cheaters, for one, and males, especially, will try to sew their seed as far as possible, even if they're not going to care for the offspring (which would be certain death for a bird, but only near-certain death for a human with only a single parent, and far more likely to actually work in an age where social welfare programs prevent children from starving) while at the same time, there is an impetus to stay with at least one favored female to keep the survival rates of their children high.  Even so, there's also powerful social incentives for cheating - the high value placed upon the perceived power and social status one exerts if one can sleep with whomever one wants. 

That's just humans, I really, REALLY don't see goblins as the sort to believe in eternal true love. I'd see goblins as more the sort to believe the strong can develop a following of whomever they can beat into submission (regardless of the leader's gender) with the leader enjoying a harem of whomever they are sexually attracted to from that following.  Their whole creed seems to be that might makes right.

[Neonivek]

The interesting thing I find is even among polygamy there is still this concept of the "One wife"... Or in this case the "first wife" or whatever it is called.

I really, REALLY don't see goblins as the sort to believe in eternal true love. I'd see goblins as more the sort to believe the strong can develop a following of whomever they can beat into submission (regardless of the leader's gender) with the leader enjoying a harem of whomever they are sexually attracted to from that following.  Their whole creed seems to be that might makes right

While I understand that Goblins have a powerful biologically overwhelming desire to follow a powerful leader. I question a Harem in a society entirely formed around backstabbing, murder, and challenges for leadership.

It is like asking for trouble.

Especially since... No goblins... absolutely no goblin... has any qualm for stabbing their leader in the back to reap the spoils. It is actually part of their biology.

[Di]

That's just humans, I really, REALLY don't see goblins as the sort to believe in eternal true love. I'd see goblins as more the sort to believe the strong can develop a following of whomever they can beat into submission (regardless of the leader's gender) with the leader enjoying a harem of whomever they are sexually attracted to from that following.  Their whole creed seems to be that might makes right.

They're lawful evil you know.

[Glitch(TMG)]

Actually, on this topic, there's an awful lot more complexity than just that...

All well and true points (and quite interesting and fascinating, if only for information tidbits curiosity), but those are all more 'societal' breeding conditions, not necessarily innately biological. The fantastic lizard-race I mentioned that was being brainstormed in another thread (The talk of the sexual dimorphism and breeding biology starts here and continues on to the next page) had their race set up where their breeding scheme was set up because of biological fact rather than emergent society behavior. As I said in my earlier post, societal factors in breeding would be nice, but I'm thinking keeping them secondary to tags coded into the game that set up biological breeding rules, which can be combined to make such sexually dimorphic (and maybe deliberately gender-imbalanced populations) reproductive methods, as well as say, creatures with asexual reproduction.

(I will admit though the main reason I started this is just because I want asexual reproduction possible in the game, and the reason I want that is for a proper Automaton Fortress mod where automatons are made, not born. :B)


Oh, and it just occurred to me that maybe my 'sample' brainstormed tags for, say, 'requirements' for reproduction could have been structured better, so instead of [NEEDS_<something>_CASTE/RESOURCES/CREATURE], it could be more like... [NEEDS_RESOURCES:what's needed parameter:how much needed parameter] for things like asexual reproducers, if my understanding of the token system is correct. And then a token of [NEEDS_CREATURE:creature parameter] for things like parasitic breeders, and then [NEEDS_CASTE:caste parameter] for male/female reproducers as well as more complex multigendered species, and caste systems like insect-people hives.

Of course, for the above to actually work (particularly the parasitic one), the first problem that needs to be fixed in Dwarf Fortress is the endemic "everything breeds by spores" problem. So, I guess that's a prerequisite we also have to request in this suggestion for the more complex biological reproduction possibilities. :B

[NW_Kohaku]

The thing about talking about tokens is that the actual naming of tokens or what arguments they will accept is probably the easiest part of coding, and the least useful to Toady as a suggestion. 

What's most useful is talking about what you would actually want to do with them, especially for the vanilla game, since Toady's not exactly going out of his way to help modders terribly much more than simply putting all his new changes in the raws.

I don't even see how asexual reproduction would be hard, honestly, since you already have code for taking traits from two creatures to create a new one, so just changing that to one creature would be a pretty easy change.  It's simply that Toady doesn't see much need to put asexual reproduction in.

He's also mentioned recently this:

Will we ever get half elves?

We have them in our stories, and we don't really have objections to it.  Sorting out the raw creature definitions is a mess.

So he's basically already considering doing something more complex.

What is going to be a more persuasive argument for Toady isn't "this is something that would be useful for modders, just make the tokens look like this", it's "this would be a great part of the vanilla game, and expand on the normal play because..."

So, yes, talking about slugman mating habits and elven social mores, and how that could actually change gameplay if you were an adventurer exploring the world and interacting with those peoples in their native habitats are probably going to be more fruitful than talking about tokens that are little more than an afterthought to Toady.

[weenog]

I will admit though the main reason I started this is just because I want asexual reproduction possible in the game, and the reason I want that is for a proper Automaton Fortress mod where automatons are made, not born.

Made vs born is merely a problem of perspective.

[Glitch(TMG)]

What is going to be a more persuasive argument for Toady isn't "this is something that would be useful for modders, just make the tokens look like this", it's "this would be a great part of the vanilla game, and expand on the normal play because..."

That's actually why I expanded the topic from just "asexual reproduction" to "a set of basic rules that can be combined into almost any reproductive scheme/alternative reproduction", to make it more valuable to actually be put into the game. I already did just that. I was just admitting my motive. 

[Made vs born is merely a problem of perspective.

Haha, xkcd, good point. 

[NW_Kohaku]

The interesting thing I find is even among polygamy there is still this concept of the "One wife"... Or in this case the "first wife" or whatever it is called.

Well, there's also concubinage.

Concubines muddle the whole subject up terribly, because they often took place between lovers of very different social status, which bar them from actual marriage.

Wheras in the West, the wife was typically the favored one, and the mistress just the thing on the side to satisfy the desire for a fling, the concubine would much more often be the one heavily favored. 

(And I know I've seen books on the whole subject of what influential mistresses and concubines have contributed to world history in the past...)

While I understand that Goblins have a powerful biologically overwhelming desire to follow a powerful leader. I question a Harem in a society entirely formed around backstabbing, murder, and challenges for leadership.

It is like asking for trouble.

Especially since... No goblins... absolutely no goblin... has any qualm for stabbing their leader in the back to reap the spoils. It is actually part of their biology.

Thing is, they'd have to turn that off sometime if they were to stay together as a society that could be any threat to anyone but themselves, or else they'd all be hiding in some hole accusing their own shadow of plots to betray them.

They obviously do follow leaders, even into obvious dwarven deathtraps, and so I'm going to say that they tend to keep it together for at least long enough to get the business of repopulating the losses from the last attempt to charge through the magma flooding and goblinite harvesting chamber.

Having a "great goblin" that can muster the charisma/fear to sire lots of children with their followers/disciples because they are also awed and placated by shows of might and strength.  (If you can't be a goblin rockstar, at least you can be a groupie...)

Basically, I think it might be better to think of them like the Sith (always training new apprentices they fully want to try to betray them once their training is complete) than like a whole race of Starscreams and Revolver Ocelots.

[wierd]

It could well be that goblins have a twisted form of "honor" in their society. Such as, it is disrespctful to NOT supplant your antecedant, because failure to do so shows that they did not train you well.

Take for instance, an order of assasins, with the favored student ascending to master assasin through assasination of the previous master. By failing to train a suitable successor, (one that could out-assasinate him, and claim the title) the master assasin is shamed, for not being a very good teacher, and it reflects poorly on the whole order. (When the system works properly, it means that each generation of assasins re more deadly and more crafty than the last.)

This would explain why demons gain control of goblin civs through "force of argument". Eg, they demonstrate that they are an unreachable pinnacle, to be emulated at best, but unreachable by any others. Only a civ open to that kind of reasoning would consider having a demon leader to be reasonable. The demon actually ascends to leadership through the societally proscribed method of ascention.

This would mean that goblins would require a very high reproductive rate, coupled with a high teenage death rate, and long lifespans, in order to retain a functional culture.  Parents fully expect offspring to try to off them, and would be insulted by offspring that did not at least try. This may also explain why they steal children of other races for labor-- their culture would not permit a labor class from their own species... they would be pariahs! 

(If any of you have played TES3, Morrowind, compare goblins with house Telvanni, and their outlook on backstabbing, and political posturing.)

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, Toady (and the Threetoe stories in particular) have had some words on how those slaves work:

They're thrown to the bottom of the pile, and may well be eaten at the leisure of a goblin (some of the old dev pages refer to goblins "fattening a child up" for slaughter) but that if the children demonstrate the willingness to survive and claw their way up to the top, they can be accepted as goblins.

I remember going through a lot of my legends in one of my earlier forts where goblins were constantly under siege and relying upon kidnapped children for their military - I had one legendary 13-year-old elf girl slave of the goblins who managed to get 147 kills as was the sole survivor of her "class" of only 5 warriors.  Every year, so many elves besieged the goblins that every recruit was either slain immediately, or made legendary.  This girl made legendary, and turned back several sieges single-handedly before getting cut down by a human siege's crossbowman.  (Pre-0.31.01 elves were freakin' fierce if they were taken out of elven civs and given proper weapons.)

There's also times where you can go to a goblin civ, and see that there's actually legendary-in-several-skills elves in charge.

I think the "might makes right" argument style is perfectly compatible with the way that goblins are described.  If a goblin (wo)man is capable of demonstrating sufficient power/valor/fierceness to cow a (wo)man into accepting them as superior, they will simply go with what they say.

The Spartans, for example, had a system where men had to "claim" a woman by taking an unmarried woman home with them... and the woman was expected to fight back.  Basically, a man could only take a woman he could best in nonlethal combat.

Of course, while goblins are evil, I don't think we want Spartan levels of evil.  Something more akin to winning a contest meaning that they just accept that the winner is superior, and hence, worthy of being followed is more sane. 

In cases of potential mates, especially, it might be more sane to say that they're going to perform strictly non-lethal attempts to best and prove themselves to have actually been superior all along, since that way they get to keep their mate, but just be the one in charge.  Rather than a knife in the ribs while they're sleeping, it might be more like doping their food with a narcotic, then challenging them to a wrestling rematch. 

(It's only for politics that you pull the daggers out.)

[Neonivek]

I am not even sure why Goblins would even create relationships with one another for the long term. I mean I'd imagine favortism between goblins but I doubt marriage even exists.

Ignoring that the current stuff shows that they marry.

Though I do like the idea that mate selection involves challenges between the genders.

[wierd]

Think "bonnie and clyde" when you think of Mr and Mrs Gobbo McGoblin.

The family that slays together, stays together. 

Rather than a single dominant parter, I see goblin marriages to be more open ended partnerships, with pleasure taken in shared murder, and in producing offspring more diabolical than themselves.

I would see "sex for pleasure" being only with that life partner, where "sex for torture", such as rape, would be accepted by both spouses, and a thing bragged about, but any offspring from such a union being considered "meat", having been sired on a lesser race.  I see goblins as experiencing a major headrush from murder and dark plots going well, on par with being orgasmic. As such, I see them as being like BDS&M types, with very VERY different social moes from other races.

I can easily see a goblin "couple" whipping the dogshit out of their "new house slave", then retiring to the bedroom.

I see goblin peer-heirarchy established by example, with individual goblins within the society either establishing themselves and a personal history to prove self worth to the collective civ, or being killed to be made an example of.  Within that heirarchy, there is "mutual respect", and a "code of conduct", with the penalty for infraction being death in most instances.

Eg, the goblins each have a home they police themselves, within which they expect to be treated like god himself. Tressassers, or those who slander in another's house are killed outright, and made an example of as a "personal matter".  Likewise, rivalries between peers are setted with secret violence, again, a "personal matter."

This destructive behavior is held in check by limited collectivism, such as dynamic duo husband/wife teams, or even family reprisals.  Choosing to off a rival means choosing to also off all that rival's supporters.  A potential road to great respect in the civ, but also a very big gamble. I would expect that attempting it and failing by being killed instead, would be viewed within the civ as a sign of weakness in that group of supporters and family, and thus be internally advised against, except where "absolutely sure" of success.

[Neonivek]

Choosing to off a rival means choosing to also off all that rival's supporters.

Except those supporters don't generally disagree with their murder. If anything it aids them greatly.

[wierd]

The exact specifics would be just that-- exact specifics.  At the best, both groups feel that offing the member is mutually benficial, and the act of slaying becomes a collective, socially supported activity by both groups, which may actually bring both together.  At worst, it would induce hatfield/McCoy blood fued until one side cowed and crushed the other, with possible 3rd party involvements.  I would expect most political assasinations to be of the first, since each goblin would first and foremost be looking out for his/her own needs and safety, and risks to the support network for gain would run counter to that.  However, some would be more prone to ambition than others, and as long as that ambitious type was successful in their campaigns, would be well respected and an asset to their houses.

I see it as very Frank Herbert in nature, actually.