Print

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

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Basically, this tag would just allow a creature to adopt a child of the same species, or, if sapient, of any sapient species of the same faction. Why implement it as a tag? Partially because making custom species would be easier, but mostly because realistic vampire bat behavior would be fun. Otherwise, the obvious advantages (making it easier to save newborns whose parents just died, for example) apply. Preferably, said tag would include fields for how willing the species is to adopt and how willing they are to breed.

Nice idea.  I'd suggest something like this, where each value could be -100 to 100:

	-100	| 0	| 100
[WANTS_CHILDREN:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:GENDER:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:RACE:0]	abandon only female any race	| adopt | either | only friendly races	| only want own | only male | only own race

I think this would give us a good range.

I don't think the "abandon, adopt, only own" spectrum makes sense. Perhaps the more negative something is, the more likely it is to abandon, and the more positive something is, the more likely it is to adopt?

[FantasticDorf]

Ah yes. This would go nicely with my slightly with my slow learner deterrent programme. Overall this suggestion is the best one i've seen of this kind in a while that hits the nail on the head for bringing outsiders into dwarven society.

Breed some troggs in captivity, with a childless/AND-OR/suitable foster parent in the fortress

This is Martha/Marcus McGorescream

Yadda yadda yadda... She/he dreams of raising a family, she/he likes troglodytes for their grunts. She/he would be willing to adopt a child for her/his own, she/he would never give up her/his children, like others in her/his culture she/he doesn't approve of giving up children etc etc.

Proceed to smash the trogg parent's skulls in outside of the line of sight (word to the wise, trogg children exploitably try to path directly out of the map on birth so recapture should be easy) and ensure one trogg leaves as to not deplete the cavern populace (unless its infested) but still instill fear rather than aggression so your dwarves can forage without being bothered. This is a brutal but effective way of killing two bird(men/women) with one very heavy stone.

Question - Would slow learner/intelligent adoptions be immediately upgraded to citizens or remain as pets until adulthood? Since a trogg is the size of a dwarf they'd make excellent frontline troops/part time builders/cavern guards and have armour that fits by default by size on top of naturally high strength and innate climbing ability despite being very hard to train weapons/fighting without skilled handlers & poor sunlight resistance

A few faults i could see is that dwarves might go out into danger to 'rescue' their newly adopted children or become extremely upset when under circumstances the brand new child dies walking into a trap/pit of animals it just turned away allegiance to. All manner of FUN.

There is also divisionary issues about neutral or good creatures adopting evil creatures which may cause multiple conflicts with laws, such as adopting a baby troll which will grow up to be a ill tempred and destructive creature that'll go around breaking workshops because it cannot find any ale or stubbed its toes on a rocky crag and will probably be a victim of the justice system in the future if it doesn't go on a rampage and be put down by over-compensating guards first.

Though i will admit, ogres make EXCELLENT tavern keepers from experiences with modding, so i know what to adopt as a priority.

[TheBiggerFish]

Basically, this tag would just allow a creature to adopt a child of the same species, or, if sapient, of any sapient species of the same faction. Why implement it as a tag? Partially because making custom species would be easier, but mostly because realistic vampire bat behavior would be fun. Otherwise, the obvious advantages (making it easier to save newborns whose parents just died, for example) apply. Preferably, said tag would include fields for how willing the species is to adopt and how willing they are to breed.

Nice idea.  I'd suggest something like this, where each value could be -100 to 100:

	-100	| 0	| 100
[WANTS_CHILDREN:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:GENDER:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:RACE:0]	abandon only female any race	| adopt | either | only friendly races	| only want own | only male | only own race

I think this would give us a good range.

I don't think the "abandon, adopt, only own" spectrum makes sense. Perhaps the more negative something is, the more likely it is to abandon, and the more positive something is, the more likely it is to adopt?

And 0 would be 'wants only own children'.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

I like this idea, the part about adopting orphans of one's own species meshes well with the recent addition of gay dwarves

Meshes even better with everyone getting themselves horribly murdered all the time. Free orphans for everyone!

Yes, but horrific and bloody murder isn't exactly new.

[Lightman]

I don't think the "abandon, adopt, only own" spectrum makes sense. Perhaps the more negative something is, the more likely it is to abandon, and the more positive something is, the more likely it is to adopt?

And 0 would be 'wants only own children'.

That's actually the original layout I had - abandon, own, adopt.  The tricky part is that we're trying to get multiple things represented in one number: the abandon/want scale and the adopt/own scale.  It might be better to break it into:

1. [WANTS_CHILDREN:0]
-100 they will abandon kids, 0 they are open, 100 they absolutely want kids
2. [WANTS_CHILDREN:ADOPT:0]
-100 means they only want their own, 0 is netural, and 100 means they would prefer adoption to having their own

[Insanegame27]

ptw

[ShinQuickMan]

For humans (and most races, I garner), intra-family adoption should be given top priority among any other forms. That is all.

[Darkond2100]

Basically, this tag would just allow a creature to adopt a child of the same species, or, if sapient, of any sapient species of the same faction. Why implement it as a tag? Partially because making custom species would be easier, but mostly because realistic vampire bat behavior would be fun. Otherwise, the obvious advantages (making it easier to save newborns whose parents just died, for example) apply. Preferably, said tag would include fields for how willing the species is to adopt and how willing they are to breed.

Nice idea.  I'd suggest something like this, where each value could be -100 to 100:

	-100	| 0	| 100
[WANTS_CHILDREN:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:GENDER:0] [WANTS_CHILDREN:RACE:0]	abandon only female any race	| adopt | either | only friendly races	| only want own | only male | only own race

I think this would give us a good range.

That looks like a fantastic way of designing patriarchal and matriarchal races, where one gender has a tendency to be cast out more often, and so the opposite gender keeps the civ's culture. More likely to have Queens than Kings if all the Princes are sold as slaves because they're worthless.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

It seems rather unlikely that that'd be something shared by a whole race, but that reminds me, adding values for how much adoption tendencies tend to vary among civilizations. So the syntax would probably be something like [ADOPTS_CHILDREN:SPECIES:CASTE:REGULARITY:VARIANCE], where species can be ALL, ONLYSAPIENT or OWN, CASTE can be ALL, OWNSPECIES (any caste found in the own species), OWN (will only adopt children that belong to the same caste as the adopter) or NOTOWN (will only adopt children that belong to other castes than that of the adopter), REGULARITY would just be a number from 0-100 that determines the probability of adoption and VARIANCE would just be how much it varies. Two numbers as VARIANCELIMITS might also be useful as part of the syntax, if you want a species to always form civilizations that don't adopt any children, for example. [PUTSADOPTION:CASTE:REGULARITY:VARIANCE] would be the counterpart.

[Lightman]

It seems rather unlikely that that'd be something shared by a whole race, but that reminds me, adding values for how much adoption tendencies tend to vary among civilizations. So the syntax would probably be something like [ADOPTS_CHILDREN:SPECIES:CASTE:REGULARITY:VARIANCE], where species can be ALL, ONLYSAPIENT or OWN, CASTE can be ALL, OWNSPECIES (any caste found in the own species), OWN (will only adopt children that belong to the same caste as the adopter) or NOTOWN (will only adopt children that belong to other castes than that of the adopter), REGULARITY would just be a number from 0-100 that determines the probability of adoption and VARIANCE would just be how much it varies. Two numbers as VARIANCELIMITS might also be useful as part of the syntax, if you want a species to always form civilizations that don't adopt any children, for example. [PUTSADOPTION:CASTE:REGULARITY:VARIANCE] would be the counterpart.

It seems like it would be a complex mix of personal traits, situation and civ/group societal standards.  Right now, races tend to have certain traits, so that would play a role.

And that does look like a more plausible syntax!   My table was conceptual - to consider shaping the ideas and limits.

For humans (and most races, I garner), intra-family adoption should be given top priority among any other forms. That is all.

I think, naturally, adoption would start within the local community.  From there, they could consider trade partners or settlements that are close-by.

[Darkond2100]

Spider-men and Mantis-men races would have a matriarchal lean, I would expect.

[Dwarf4Explosives]

Mostly, that seems like it would stem more from the "which group wants to raise a family" tendencies of said groups, since male spiders roam around enough that the raising a family stuff would be impractical (the roaming is also why they tend to offer themselves as food to female spiders, since they have better chances ensuring that their current brood survives than mating with multiple ones. Meanwhile, female spiders may offer themselves as food to their offspring, resulting in what amounts to zombie food sources that are also the mothers of what are eating them). On the other hand, since we're talking about a civilized group, where those factors don't come into play, they may not have any such lean or perhaps even the opposite.

[Dyret]

I like this idea, the part about adopting orphans of one's own species meshes well with the recent addition of gay dwarves

Meshes even better with everyone getting themselves horribly murdered all the time. Free orphans for everyone!

Yes, but horrific and bloody murder isn't exactly new.

Still, getting rid of the whole 'young child starves to death'-thing would be pretty awesome.

[Button]

Everybody's treating this like it's a creature tag, but I think it would make more sense as a behavior that just happens, depending upon the values.

The higher the individual's Family value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt an orphaned relative.
The higher the individual's Friendship value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt the orphaned child of a friend.
The higher the individual's Loyalty (or Cooperation?) value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt an orphaned entity member.
The higher the individual's Sacrifice value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt any orphan.

Animal adoption like the "raised by dragons" situation would be best off waiting for randomized animal personalities, IMO.

[Lightman]

Everybody's treating this like it's a creature tag, but I think it would make more sense as a behavior that just happens, depending upon the values.

The higher the individual's Family value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt an orphaned relative.
The higher the individual's Friendship value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt the orphaned child of a friend.
The higher the individual's Loyalty (or Cooperation?) value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt an orphaned entity member.
The higher the individual's Sacrifice value, the higher the chance that they'll adopt any orphan.

Animal adoption like the "raised by dragons" situation would be best off waiting for randomized animal personalities, IMO.

As I indicated, I just used the tags format as a way to outline a conceptual approach.  What you've written above is good and it makes sense.  However, we still might need some kind of additional attribute (or attributes) to get the full spectrum of possibilities.