Print

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

[Demonic Gophers]

A tag determining that the caste is willing and able to care for babies.  If the child's mother is available and has this tag, she should take care of the child.  If not, and the father has it, he should do so.  If neither parent is available, or neither has the [TENDS_YOUNG] tag, than any available tender should take care of the baby.  This would allow adoption of orphans, making them less likely to fall down the well.  It would also make it possible to add a nurse caste to antmen and the like, so the queen doesn't carry around all the children.

Useful?  Feasible?  Anyone have a better version?

[LordZorintrhox]

I want to say it would be better to put such a thing under "ethics."  Hard-wiring those things in the species seems off somehow.

On the other hand, most non "sentient" species seem to work that way as far as our real-world observations have gone...hmm.

Maybe if it was a non-required tag for species.  If the tag is missing in a species, all members tend to young depending on convenience.  Non-civ species can take the tag in caste definitions.  Civ species can take the tag in ethics under the format [CHILD_CARE_CASTE:<caste_name>:<ethic_descriptor>] or under the caste, but not both.

I think that might model things better, because once a species is thinking in intangible concepts, dogma, and traditions, child care becomes a sticky subject.  For instance, if a father was the primary caregiver in a society where fundamentalist religion dictated that women are supposed to be taking care of the children, he could be exiled or imprisoned or something else horrible.  Seagulls, on the other hand, probably wouldn't care at all.

Also, if gay couples ever made it in, just a caste-based tag would be kinda broken and the code behind it would have to be rewritten anyway to deal with it.  Better to nip it in the bud and add opportunities for interesting stories for when we get a legends update.  For instance: a defiant husband and wife raise their children together in a culture where the women are supposed to do it alone, constantly heckled by the townsfolk.  Their children go on to conquer half the world and unite the human races.

[Draco18s]

No, I think this does fall under caste tags, as some animals tend to their young--some both parents, like birds, others only one parent, usually the mother, such as polar bears--and in some cases, no one cares for them, typically seen in reptiles, such as sea turtles and komodo dragons (a baby komodo dragon that does not scamper into the trees and found by an adult will find itself quickly gobbled up, genetically related or not).

[Hunterdew]

I think the adoption idea is good, but I dunno about the tag.

Here's what's going on in one of my fortresses right now:
Mother died from insanity (possessed and didn't have enough materials) and the father is a high ranking member of the military. Even if the father was tagged, I wouldn't want him taking care of the kid anyway. The baby basically is wandering the fortress and receives food and water every now and then, so right now it is literally taking a village to raise a child (whoever is idle is feeding it). I'm not quite sure why the baby hasn't killed itself by other means yet, but it's receiving food and water so it will grow up eventually I'm guessing.

The idea of adoption is definitely feasible, and I might get some use out of it. Although I feel I'd rather have some way of dictating that the more useless in my fortress take care of the kind-of-orphans (the father is still alive, too important to take care of his kid). If cultures were to evolve to the state that they dictate who takes care of children, could it not also dictate who joins the military (it wouldn't allow you)? If that were the case, then would assigning a female to the military in a male-dominated military society be cause for ridicule and/or immediate expulsion? This kind of system could be used to make sure babies are not taken into battle with your military dwarves, and could give societal cause to separate the military dwarves from the ones taking care of children. Even if the society allows females into the military, maybe they don't allow mothers so they would automatically give the child to another dwarf who isn't in the military and able to care for a child.

Basically, separation of military caste from the care-giving caste could make sure your fortress guard and military dwarves don't carry babies into battle. Unless your society thinks that's a good idea.....

(Funny thought, my fatherly figure joined the military in order to avoid child support....)

[Draco18s]

Basically, separation of military caste from the care-giving caste could make sure your fortress guard and military dwarves don't carry babies into battle. Unless your society thinks that's a good idea.....

Baby make good shield.

[xdarkcodex]

And a good little snack for the goblins.

[Emily Murkpaddled]

Beyond any eventual blanket changes like "military dwarves won't carry babies into battle," maybe this is a good candidate for a tag modified by personality? If that were possible, the tag itself could just work like a flat bonus to the variable personality value(s), and a hierarchy of candidates are checked against one another: mother against father, and if neither of them have a score above a certain minimum then it might find the highest score amongst the entire fortress and ask the dwarf if s/he will adopt the baby. You could add a negative modifier for number of children they've tended or are tending already, too, so that the burden gets spread across more than The One Very Compassionate Dwarf.

For non-civving creatures, the tag could just work as described in the OP, I guess.

[Nadaka]

And a good little snack for the goblins.

Silly dwarf. Goblins dont eat babies, they abduct them, raise them as their own and make them proud members of the goblin people. Elves however, do eat babies.

Edit: I should remember to post something remotely on topic, instead of joking around.
I suppose some species should have young with a tag like [YOUNG_SELF_SUFFICIENT] like most reptiles and lower creatures.

[Astramancer]

Perhaps the [TENDS_YOUNG] could be an enableable labor, which gets turned on by default whenever someone has a baby (and turned off when the kid grows up).  Priority would be for your own offspring, and a baby with someone already assigned to it wouldn't randomly grab other people to take care of it.  This way you could manually enable caregiver on some soaper and disable it on your legendary wrestler who just gave birth.  Like with health care, more caring dwarves are more dedicated to the job, and less caring dwarves might get distracted enough to let the baby die.

Possibly even add a new bed designation, Creche, simliar to a barracks, but for children.  Older children (i.e. non-babies) might even help take care of the babies, if their personality is so inclined.  Maybe they'd even randomly grab toys to litter the creche with, and playing with toys in the creche should generate happy thoughts to the children.  Then maybe those little basta-- angels wouldn't be throwing parties all the time.

[Demonic Gophers]

I was mostly thinking of this for basic ability and inclination in antman-type situations, with any improvement in how dwarves handle childcare as a nice bonus.  Most civilized beings should definitely have the tag for all castes, or default to 'on'.  Cultural and personality influences would definitely be a great addition (PERSONALITY:LIKES_CHILDREN?).  Giving a childcare labor in fortress mode would also by handy.

I think that self-sufficient young can be handled by going straight to child status, without any time as a baby.