Print

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

Definitely, yes.

I believe he should consider it.

Maybe.

I don't think it'd be a good idea.

Definitely not.

Don't care.

[Rex Invictus]

Polygamy is basically a man having multiple wives. Polyandry is a wife having multiple husbands. Both common throughout history although polygamy is more common for various reasons. The game should definitely have polygamy added since it'd let me make a kobold mod with a chieftain having several wives. I mean, we have same sex marriage but no multiple marriages. That's a bit silly.

So, should Toady add polygamy and polyandry?

[vjmdhzgr]

Technically polygamy is both of the things you described. Polyandry is specifically multiple male partners, but it's polygyny that's specifically multiple female partners.

[Rex Invictus]

Technically polygamy is both of the things you described. Polyandry is specifically multiple male partners, but it's polygyny that's specifically multiple female partners.

Ah, you're correct.

[Shazbot]

For that matter, monogamy, widowing and first and second wives. All of these need to be heavily editable in the raws, of course, to allow particularly honor-bound species like some dwarves I know to maintain the early version's lifelong pairing.

[Rex Invictus]

For that matter, monogamy, widowing and first and second wives. All of these need to be heavily editable in the raws, of course, to allow particularly honor-bound species like some dwarves I know to maintain the early version's lifelong pairing.

Yeah, I mean for it to be in the RAWs, not in the default fortress mode.

[Dyret]

Definitely. Anything that adds diversity to civs is a good thing.

[Witty]

Definitely. Anything that adds diversity to civs is a good thing.

[NW_Kohaku]

Since nobody else has done this yet...

Previous threads on the same topic:

Alternative (RAW-defined) Reproduction
Polygamy
Rawifying Relationships
Same gender coupling (marriage) and other cultural taboos
Gender Differentiation
Ethic Tag Brainstorming Thread
Argument FOR Controversial Elements
The other battlegrounds (politics, religion, and love)
Randomized Civ Traits
Relationship breakups

I'm also clipping out the homosexuality threads where polygamy was a minor side note.  (Incidentally, Toady, thanks for finally implementing that, if only to stop more of those threads from popping up...  Now I just wish human ethics of commitment issues wasn't applied to dogs... I've seriously seen more people get banned on that topic than anything else, at least , in the upper threads...)

I booted the "Alternative RAW-Defined" thread to the front since I probably made the most arguments in that one, but generally speaking, I would very much like to see polygamy play a part in DF, if only for most of these animal-people civs, as they become more prominent. 

DF is a game with multiple different organisms modeled, and forcing human reproduction strategies upon all nature is ridiculous.  This is ESPECIALLY true when you consider that the whole concept of monogamy is actually only common in the Judeo-Christian context. (So we're projecting Christianity onto all of humanity, and then onto all of nature, as well...)

It is, for example, ridiculous to believe that a Queen Beewoman would choose to only mate with one of her drones. 

And yes, this does play into what game we have now, as we have, as I already mentioned, dogs that choose not to mate with other dogs because they have commitment issues.  The idea that they need to be interested enough in other dogs to be willing to marry them before they hump is frankly not a standard dogs live up to. 

Likewise, at the very least, serial monogamy among elves is called for, and goblins should probably have little if any concept of marriage at all, what with their "might makes right" morality largely making the strong simply capable of functionally just claiming a few mates, regardless of gender. 

With all that said, I have trouble believing that Toady isn't going to implement all this, eventually.  While all those arguments about homosexuality were taking place, it became pretty clear that Toady was, for a long time before he did, and during a lot of those heated arguments, going to add homosexuality, he just was putting it off because it was a lower priority.  I suspect polygamy as a cultural feature is like that, as well.

I know for a start, he doesn't want to make elves never remarry, but it's just harder to build a legends mode that tracks all that stuff if there is constant remarriage.  (Keep in mind, if a character is transformed into a night creature in the current system, and you look it up in an engraving, it will say that a "Night hag's mate rose to become the king", when in fact, a dwarf became king, and was kidnapped by a night hag later...  When all that is revisited, I'm guessing he'll add in some cultural raw values that let the game have more flexible concepts of sexually exclusive (or non-exclusive) relationships other than marriage.

[Shazbot]

The historical record offers contradictory evidence on the development and extent of monogamy as a social practice. Laura Betzig argues that in the six large, highly stratified early states, commoners were generally monogamous but that elites practiced de facto polygyny. Those states included Mesopotamia, Egypt, Aztec Mexico, Inca Peru, India and China.

So its not only common in the Judeo-Christian context. But you digress.

I'd like to see romance as a whole expanded to include such diverse concepts as; formalized wedding parties (complete with dancing), courtship rituals (Urist McMiner gives Urist McWeaver a raw star ruby!), and jealousy (Urist McClothier strikes Urist McMiner in the nose! It explodes in gore!). Opening up the marriage mechanic only makes sense if it has some direct implication on fortress life, from a game design standpoint.

[NW_Kohaku]

The historical record offers contradictory evidence on the development and extent of monogamy as a social practice. Laura Betzig argues that in the six large, highly stratified early states, commoners were generally monogamous but that elites practiced de facto polygyny. Those states included Mesopotamia, Egypt, Aztec Mexico, Inca Peru, India and China.

So its not only common in the Judeo-Christian context. But you digress.

The only reason those states were not polygamous all the way down was for reasons of economy and simple gender ratios.  A state that fully allows for legally recognized concubinage is not at all a strictly monogamous culture, the way that the Judeo-Christian tradition (at least POST-Charlemange) is and was.  "Many people were de facto monogamous simply because they couldn't leverage the social and economic power to become polygamous like their wealthier neighbors" is not a refutation of my argument.

Fact is, it's only really the Judeo-Christian "fear of sex" mindset (and a few other traditions that similarly hated the physical) that shut down polygamy, and elsewhere, "might makes right" ethics let the wealthy do whatever they wanted.

[Rex Invictus]

With all that said, I have trouble believing that Toady isn't going to implement all this, eventually.  While all those arguments about homosexuality were taking place, it became pretty clear that Toady was, for a long time before he did, and during a lot of those heated arguments, going to add homosexuality, he just was putting it off because it was a lower priority.  I suspect polygamy as a cultural feature is like that, as well.

I just find it odd that homosexuality was more of a priority than polygamy. Then again, it's probably easier to implement.

The historical record offers contradictory evidence on the development and extent of monogamy as a social practice. Laura Betzig argues that in the six large, highly stratified early states, commoners were generally monogamous but that elites practiced de facto polygyny. Those states included Mesopotamia, Egypt, Aztec Mexico, Inca Peru, India and China.

So its not only common in the Judeo-Christian context. But you digress.

Mainly because you couldn't afford to keep multiple sexual partners in one household because it was too expensive.

[NW_Kohaku]

I just find it odd that homosexuality was more of a priority than polygamy. Then again, it's probably easier to implement.

It's probably a matter of Toady's personal values and what was being said at that time. 

Again, there were more than a few people being banned for making anti-gay remarks, and so I think Toady just implemented it to shut up the whole argument once and for all.

[Shazbot]

And the Jews inherited their position on monogamy from Babylonian, Egyptian and older Mesopotamian cultures. Meanwhile Chinese, Indian, Incan and Aztec civilizations don't count? Did Hammurabi have this Judeo-Christian "fear of sex"? Did the Romans? Greeks? Ancient Germans? For that matter, did the Judeo-Christian "fear of sex" even exist in ancient times, or is it a product of the Puritan movements? Did it even exist among the Puritans? Or was the Puritan "fear of sex" no more nonsense than claiming they had a "fear of alcohol" based on sermons against drunkenness? Is this "fear of sex" a modern revisionist history myth refuted by a cursory read of the Song of Solomon? It would appear to be celebrating it. And if it wasn't economically viable for a common man to have multiple wives, is that not the explanation in an of itself? Does asserting that simply prove that it was not only a Judeo-Christian ethos run wild, but that it could rather be the solution to an economic question when a society passes from nomadic to agricultural sustenance? Compare Sioux (nomadic polygamous) to Pueblo (agricultural monogamous). Neither were Judeo-Christian societies, although I admit I do not know if the Pueblo fear sex.

But you and I digress. The subject of monogamy's roots in human society need not arise for our discussion of adding varying marriage norms to Dwarf Fortress. It is a debate for lower boards and one that would only agitate this topic further. I should not have troubled it, but I think the Judeo-Christian "fear of sex" being the root of monogamy is a popular misconception and we've all seen the XKCD comic about people being wrong on the internet overriding all human moderation.

What is on topic is to say that all these systems of marriage should exist as possibilities, and that tokens should exist so players can modify the system to their tastes, just as Toady has handled homosexuality. Do you disagree with this, Kohaku, or are we in agreement?

[NW_Kohaku]

But you and I digress. The subject of monogamy's roots in human society need not arise for our discussion of adding varying marriage norms to Dwarf Fortress. It is a debate for lower boards and one that would only agitate this topic further. I should not have troubled it, but I think the Judeo-Christian "fear of sex" being the root of monogamy is a popular misconception and we've all seen the XKCD comic about people being wrong on the internet overriding all human moderation.

What is on topic is to say that all these systems of marriage should exist as possibilities, and that tokens should exist so players can modify the system to their tastes, just as Toady has handled homosexuality. Do you disagree with this, Kohaku, or are we in agreement?

Oh yes, it's not at all that you're going to say your piece and then declare that nobody is allowed to respond on pain of "derailing the topic" as a blatant attempt to get in the last word, I fully agree to those terms.

In any event, I've read (although I'm not going through the trouble of searching and liking at the moment) Toady talk about how he wants to add cultural values that are raw-guided but semi-procedural, specifically so that different cultural values can be represented across the game through different civs.  This means we might get something representing Chinese ethics, where there very much was culturally acceptable polygamy, and anyone disagreeing is just pretending they don't count.  Alternately, it may be from a Fertile Crescent-descended culture like, say one involving Hammurabi, whose ethics of sex are very much the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics and "Western Civilization", and are ultimately derived out of a freak-out over the fact that dowries for brides were the same value as slave women.  Simply adding tokens for the range of possibilities, once those possibilities exist, would be all that is required.

Rather, the larger problem just seems to be making those possibilities exist.  Serial monogamy, with marriages that last until death or even divorce, do not yet exist, even though I seriously doubt there would be any controversy over such things.  (Well, divorce would be something for a cultural ethic...) It's a problem of how the data is stored within the game, and it would require coding in a way for references to a character to come with a date, and character data to have timestamps for what the status of that character would be.  Otherwise, you have the problem of saying that a night hag consort was crowned king, and problems with geneology tracing. 

Likewise, each possible behavior needs at least some time taken out just to make them exist.  Asexual reproduction of an animal like a sponge, the selective fertilization that allows cuttlefishwomen to accept sperm from multiple male donors that fertilize different sets of eggs, bee queens with multiple drones, lions or wolves which have an extended female family in a pride with one male, but where only the alpha female is sexually active, and where the grandmother takes care of the young while the mother goes out to hunt, etc.  As all these animalpeople become real cultures, it begs for nonhuman mating strategies. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh, and I do hope you won't try to carry on any sort of off-topic conversations, as that would just be a passive-aggressive and silly thing to do as a response to what I've just done. Furthermore, no tag-backs and no erasies.

[Shazbot]

So glad we agree.