Getting back on track... I think marriage really needs to be handled by culture, and that should also determine family sizes to some extent.
Yes, I was thinking that each civ's Exclusivity value (determined in worldgen) would determine the acceptability of monogamous vs. polygamous
relationships within that civ, while the civ's stances on Law & Tradition would control whether the people involved actually get
married or not. Effectively-immortal people like elves and goblins would really have to consider if they wanted to spend *the rest of their lives* legally bound to each other. As for family sizes, I'd prefer to see that be closely tied to the parents' Family traits.
I'd like to see courtship implemented as well, possibility with some dwarves being more attractive mates than others (some professions more attractive than others, etc).
There have been a couple of threads on courtship, I even started one for a Matchmaker noble, who compiles lists of which dwarves might be a good romantic match for which other dwarves, and (for a nominal fee) will provide encouragement and coaching to get them to agree to marry.
Attractiveness is pretty complicated, not to mention subjective. If you're just talking about pure aesthetic appeal, should there really be an attribute for that, and should that attribute have more effect on those dwarves who really appreciate art and natural beauty? Also, I think we're all agreed that high Strength is universally good . . . so, should
all dwarves be attracted to more muscular types, or should some go for the small & weak, while others have a preference for hanging sacks of fat? Mental attributes can be even more complicated: Suppose a dwarf has a high Anger_Propensity. Should he seek a mate who is similarly inclined, so they can have screaming matches followed by angry sex? Or should he be more attracted to his
opposite in this regard, someone who can balance him out & temper his rage with calm? It's quite the can of worms.
One thing I
am sure about is that I think along with preferences for sard or jaguar leather of whatever, dwarves should have preferences for things like height, eye color, beard length, hairstyle, etc. (Opening the door for dwarves to alter their hair to match the preferences of their desired mates.) Most importantly,
each dwarf's preferences should state the gender(s) that he/she finds attractive (unless the raws have set the incidence of homosexuality to be zero, in which case this statement of preference would be wholly redundant).
Adultery could make for some interesting consequences.
"He is the father of Melbil Lobsterpaddled and Ezum Towerstones. He believes he is the father of Cog Dustwheel."
Until we know how Toady intends to implement culture it's probably premature to discuss how it should be implemented in the raws, though.
Except that our suggestions and discussions let Toady know what (at least some of) the players hope to see, so in this sort of case putting the cart before the horse is actually helpful. One thing I do find curious, however: Many users (myself definitely included) have all sorts of plans about how civilizations could/should be procedurally diversified in worldgen, how they could all have different cultures, religious practices, wardrobes, diets, music, etc. But the thing is,
I've never seen actual confirmation that is is even planned. Have Toady and/or Threetoe ever given a definite yea or nay if different societies of the same race will truly have noticeable differences from one another?
All races that Toady deems sapient enough to have scope for cultural variation could have their relationship-affecting traits present in the raws. As for "the nature of the creature in question," that's precisely what I'm suggesting be made pliable: That each of the 4 main races have their racial predispositions for Love, Lust, Reproduction, Exclusivity, and Friendship be made adjustable by the player.
What is the nature of dwarf sexuality and how are we establishing that to begin with? We can assume that the present "stay faithful to spouse even if spouse is dead" is not the intended system fore dwarves even if isn't for humans.
Well, if
anyone gets to define the canon values, it's obviously Toady. But just ballparking here, I'd say something like . . . Love_Propensity 40% (with a 30% variance), Lust_Propensity 35% (20% variance), Reproduction 50% (15%), Exclusivity 90% (25%), and Friendship 60% (30%). So in order of relative importance (in general), monogamy > friends > having kids > falling in love > getting laid.
You're right, it won't--I hope I haven't implied that. Seemingly contrasting desires (such as high Love_Propensity but also low Exclusivity) aren't contradictory at all, they're just not what we're used to seeing.
Given those facets are universal to all creatures, it is not a good idea to try to express the basic nature of the creature's sexuality by such personality facets. It is better to come up with a number of different systems, possibly using several for the same creature and apply to facets on top of those basic systems to 'tweak' how they behave.
Glossing over the "all creatures" generalization, it seems a rather
good idea to define a race's sexual behavior by isolating its various motivations and setting them individually. But hey, if you
truly want multiple different systems affecting each creature, by all means go ahead & construct that.
If dwarves do not have 100% effective birth control, then that would presumably mean that we would also end with babies being born above the population cap. If dwarves can always ensure that babies are not born to exceed the population cap, why would they not also be able to ensure that they did not end up with illegitimate children?
As Bumber said, overseer controls should not be confused with dwarf behavior.
Are you talking about marriage, or about reproduction here?
There is not really any distinction in reality.
Well, that's one hell of an overstatement, but I see your point. Still, whether or not people are
reluctant to reproduce while unmarried is rather irrelevant against the fact that it happens all the damn time. (Although to be fair, it
used to be far less common, as Western societies frowned on it a lot more.) I would say the whole promiscuity culture of "baby mama"s and such definitely falls
outside the sphere of actual polygamy.
A culture will not invent institutions that fly in the face of the biological nature of the majority of it's members.
Many major religions have orders whose members are sworn to total celibacy, for life. Is that not the very definition of violating a major biological imperative? Or do you not consider monasteries to be an "institution"?
. . . if goblins are predominantly promiscuous, there is no demand in that society to invent institutions of inheritance or otherwise that reflect any other system. Changing things is hard if history tells us anything, no crank can turn up and wave a magic wand to impose a set of institutions without the support of a majority and there is no majority against the creature's own basic nature.
It doesn't necessarily have to involve change: If a group (such as goblins) has a trait (such as promiscuity) with a large variance, then a subgroup of
less promiscuous individuals could exist without changing the average promiscuity of goblins in general. If that subgroup decided to leave the larger society, and strike out to form a civilization of their own, BOOM, new culture with a (somewhat) different set of ethics--perhaps in slight opposition to the rest of their race, and even their own basic nature.
You just have to go through a mental list of societies that used to be polygamous and consider how many of them are still polygamous to realize the pretty much the whole world is now monogamous.
Monogamous as far as actual
marriage is concerned, yes. I've heard of no meaningful indication that extramarital
sex has decreased.
I did not directly insult you even then, angry as my response was.
Did you not save a copy in your Sent folder? I can bounce it back to you if you'd like.
You are the one that insults people SixOfSpades
Ah, but that's just it: I actually
don't insult people, I only insult
you. The majority of people are willing to learn from instruction. The majority of people are willing to learn from examples. The majority of people can learn from rational argument and references to experts. The majority of people can at least comprehend whether or not their views are unpopular. But not you. You represent The Great Unteachable, the guy who's read the first chapter of every book in the room. You have learned just enough to decide that there's nothing else worth learning. It is your precise combination of intelligence, ignorance, and arrogance, that has earned my malevolence.
What is the purpose of this whole exercise except to insult me
To ensure that nobody mistakes any of the more ridiculous of your notions as having any rational basis. So that the concept of "intelligent debate" does not give way to "one guy saying the same foolish things over & over." To reassure anyone who might read this that, even in Trump's Post-Truth era, there are still places where facts DO still matter. And to teach forum users a really handy life hack which can save them a LOT of time: If GoblinCookie disagrees with somebody, that's because GoblinCookie is wrong.