QuoteGiven that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners. While your character may be in a monogamous relationship with another character, understand that as a commoner, this does not deserve (and should not get) formalized recognition by the powers that be. Your character also should not expect anything for deciding to limit his or her current sexual focus to one person. Any commoner relationship is not formalized. This means that there are no such things as inheritance laws governing who gets your character's things if they die, nor are there divorce laws concerning who gets which half of things if the couple splits up. Zalanthan commoners are NOT highborn, and this is one area in which that should be very clear.
So, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
I imagine because people have IRL qualms against polygamy, and even if they have 'multiple partners' IC, usually only one is another player, at least in my experience/what I've observed from others.
I personally couldn't give a damn. My characters are usually monogamous, but only because I have attention issues.
I'd assume it's a "bleed-effect" from RL.
If you want IG justification, you could reason that since "murder, corruption, betrayal" is supposed to be a common social creed on Zalanthas then developing enough trust with someone to form a relationship that is the type that springs to western minds when we hear "monogamous," would take quite some time and effort, enough so that a Zalanthan may not want to devote more of their time, resources and precious skin to develop a functioning poly-relationship.
If we pull known player-actions to justify this view, we needn't look far or for long. How many people have been bumped off due to someone being miffed that their significant other is banging or being banged by someone else? When having an extra relationship with someone that is not sanctioned by their or your current partner can lead to the death of your other partner or yourself...well. Think twice.
Quote from: satine on December 01, 2017, 05:06:42 PM
QuoteGiven that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners. While your character may be in a monogamous relationship with another character, understand that as a commoner, this does not deserve (and should not get) formalized recognition by the powers that be. Your character also should not expect anything for deciding to limit his or her current sexual focus to one person. Any commoner relationship is not formalized. This means that there are no such things as inheritance laws governing who gets your character's things if they die, nor are there divorce laws concerning who gets which half of things if the couple splits up. Zalanthan commoners are NOT highborn, and this is one area in which that should be very clear.
So, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
Good topic.
Even though I am entirely monogamous in real life, and not at all a polygamist, I have researched the topic due to interest in roleplaying it correctly, and I've known people IRL who actively practice it. Since it seems so rare in the game, I feel that it is important to represent it and so almost all of my relationship-eligible PCs are polygamous.
It's very difficult in practice for twofold reasons: one, the extreme bent toward monogamy in game, and two, because often I find that players don't necessarily understand or know how to roleplay polyamory.
In a world like Zalanthas, having large family units of purposefully chosen people who are all in mutually agreeable polyamorous relationships would be a huge boon, due to the harshness of life, the frequency of death, and the ability to pool resources and take care of each other's children and living situations.
This does NOT mean "sleep with whoever and if one of your partners doesn't like the other partner, they're just being jealous and bad at polyamory". This does NOT mean "everybody's always happy together and there's never any jealousy, tension, or push-pull between partners".
It does mean that generally, in poylamorous relationships which are healthy and are working out, there will be open communication and a lack of possessiveness over your partner(s) - heck, even an expectation that your lover(s) will have other lovers. This shouldn't be seen as diminishing the connection between your character and their lover(s).
It's also codedly difficult to live together in more than a 2-person unit because of the limitation on PCs-per-rented-room. I'd love to see that opened up so that broader varieties of living situations can be explored.
I find the whole "killing your lover's lover out of jealousy" to be a horribly OOC and western-world influenced practice and in almost all situations, ridiculous. In rare situations I can see it making sense, but it's far too common.
Are there any historical examples of early societies engaging in mass polyamory outside of the ruling class?
Many native american tribes practice polygamy, as well as tribes/cultures in Africa, the middle east, and asia.
It's pretty easy to research. :)
The helpfile says NOTHING about polyamory. It's common to have multiple sex partners, that's PROMISCUITY. Don't confuse the two. In real life both are looked down upon morally in some way by some faction or another. On Zalanthas neither SHOULD be but let's face it, they are. The slut shaming needs to stop.
I believe it's RL bleed 100% BUT I am less prone to understand polyamory on Zalanthas because EQUALITY is virtually impossible. One partner might be better connected, richer, a better lay, a stronger hunter, less og a threat - someone is always more favored than another in the land of murder corruption and betrayal. To me relationships are all the more precious on Zalanthas. My emotional characters don't feel the same as most of my characters. Loyalty is earned. True loyalty and love are rare. The chances of any of my characters LOVING two people the same are nil. I don't believe it's possible and I love all five of my children the same but I -like- them vastly differently. Pecking order. It's real.
One of the problems is the use of the word "mate". This is my main bitch, all others are below him. The pecking order is implied. The mate is the one with a title.
So while multiple sexual partners are normal and not looked down upon and marriages are contractual having a tribe of orgy having lovers is NOT the norm, hell, they're not even mentioned.
i wanted some other opinions before I posted my own, but I have to say I agree heavily with Delirium.
Having a family functional unit larger than two seems like it would be a selected for advantage.
In Zalanthas there are large terrestrial animals, which can potential give large amounts of meat. Having a functional family unit would allow for more efficient hunting strategies, greater protection, more assistance with raising young -in a world where it is probable that one or both parents will be killed, etc.
People take ic relationships -very- seriously, and I feel like it is almost too seriously. Yes you want someone you can trust, but you have to think about function. I find it hard to believe that in a world where a given partner can be removed at any time, people would be more fluid with relationships.
While noble houses have relationship agreements that are official, it seems silly to me that average commoners wouldn't also be manifesting relationship agreements in order to improve their lot in life -though these would clearly be less political-. People would want to reproduce and have a next generation. It would be easier to make an agreement with a functional family unit in order to reproduce x children between x people, then to win over a desirable mate, keep them alive, and live to raise offspring.
Just some thoughts.
For the same reason that many humans are nice to elves and breeds. I suspect a lack of reading, or caring about, the docs.
Monogamy is only the norm by the most vocal of characters who tend to rp relationships as they are in America. The lovey and sweet cuddling at the bar is pretty unrealistic for the Zalanthas setting, imo. It is hot, sand is everywhere, people are dirty, most people have no idea where their next drink of water comes from, people are brutally murdered in the street, poverty is the norm....I could go on. It isn't a very romantic setting unless you're into gloom, depression, and hatred.
People may get together to get freaky but I don't think that jealousy over physical interaction would exist (maybe over who you gave some water to). Sex is everywhere.
The only time I feel that a monogamous is realistic in Zalanthas is when a noble is in a child-producing contract.
Edit: * intentionally monogamous
Quote from: satine on December 01, 2017, 07:07:05 PM
Just some thoughts.
That's a tribal mentality where everyone is family, whether they are sexual partners or not.
Nothing is stopping anyone from playing it like you suggest. It's just not the norm discussed in the docs. Even the tribes I've played in may mention wanton libidos but don't specify POLYAMORY.
Polyamory is a lot like having a small tribe! I don't think that this "tribal" mentality is out of place in the cities or in smaller civilizations, or even just among groups of hunters, traders, etc. A fluid (cough) exchange of lovers seems far more practical and normal than getting into constant battles over who gets to sleep with who.
Maybe I just really don't like Days Of Our Lives-style romance-fueled conflict because it is so overdone.
This is Zalanthas. Who cares if Amos is boning Talia and Malik? There are other things to worry about.
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
Polyamory is a lot like having a small tribe! I don't think that this "tribal" mentality is out of place in the cities or in smaller civilizations, or even just among groups of hunters, traders, etc. A fluid (cough) exchange of lovers seems far more practical and normal than getting into constant battles over who gets to sleep with who.
Maybe I just really don't like Days Of Our Lives-style romance-fueled conflict because it is so overdone.
This is Zalanthas. Who cares if Amos is boning Talia and Malik? There are other things to worry about.
+1! I couldn't have agree more!
Quote from: Kankfly on December 01, 2017, 07:29:06 PM
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
This is Zalanthas. Who cares if Amos is boning Talia and Malik? There are other things to worry about.
+1! I couldn't have agree more!
+2
But who is boning who isn't what's under discussion here. Monogamy is.
In near 2 decades here I haven't seen a single polyamory relationship. What does that say? I've seen lots of pcs banging each other without jealousy but not a single "These are my mates, Amos, Thalia and Marcos and our children George Forman, George Foreman the second, third, fourth fifth and Georgina".
Be the change.
Quote from: ShaLeah on December 01, 2017, 07:46:26 PM
Quote from: Kankfly on December 01, 2017, 07:29:06 PM
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
This is Zalanthas. Who cares if Amos is boning Talia and Malik? There are other things to worry about.
+1! I couldn't have agree more!
+2
But who is boning who isn't what's under discussion here. Monogamy is.
In near 2 decades here I haven't seen a single polyamory relationship. What does that say? I've seen lots of pcs banging each other without jealousy but not a single "These are my mates, Amos, Thalia and Marcos and our children George Forman, George Foreman the second, third, fourth fifth and Georgina".
Be the change.
Now we're going to see a spread of polyamorous relationships popping up like we've seen the spread of twins, magickers, every other male being named Amos, every other female being named Talia and every Aide having "tress" somewhere in their s- or m-desc (and for
sure in their s&m role-play) :P
Already on it, ShaLeah.
I played a PC with a polyamorous family in her background. Lots of "uncles" and "aunts." But I've never actually played out a legit polyamorous relationship IG.
Quote from: satine on December 01, 2017, 05:06:42 PM
So, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
Maybe it's because of my milkshakes, but I haven't really seen that many monogamous PCs.
In my mind, the problem with polyamory is the players are representative of too many different groups. It might be possible if everyone involved was a member of the same tribe/group. If you gather more than a few players in a group, then likely they would all have competing loyalties due to their jobs and nature of the game. How can you really trust all these people who blatantly and obviously have significant and likely competing/antagonistic loyalties? I am sure it would make some interesting drama, but like a reality TV show where people of different background are forced together just for drama's sake.
I can't speak for everyone, but when my PCs are involved with another PC, that relationship takes up a chunk of my PCs time. While relationship RP can be entertaining, there's also other objectives and things my characters are interested in that that chunk of time eats into. I can only imagine how trying to maintain two or even three PC-to-PC relationships would restrict my ability to advance my PCs other agendas. I don't mean promiscuity, as someone up here referenced -- one and dones take no time at all. But TRUE polygamy means multiple relationships. That's a big time investment. One PC, max, then as many vNPC side chicks as is appropriate for my character.
Except in a tribal setting I don't believe Amos would care about Malik unless he could use him for something significant. Helping someone else raise a child or giving them resources takes away from your own resources. Amos would likely rather sell Malik's child or, if the child took resources from Amos, just kill it.
Back on main...I don't believe that the western reasons for monogamy exist in Zalanthas. Like others, Ive seen some things that /seem/ rather ridiculous lately pertaining to monogamy and jealousy.
There's absolutely no reason why 90% (or even 100%) of your relationships can't be virtual, and either way, they don't have to be that much of a time sink. Yes, developing relationships with other PCs (regardless of friendly, romantic antagonistic) takes time, but it's not like you have to spend all of your login time together.
QuoteI don't believe Amos would care about Malik unless he could use him for something significant. Helping someone else raise a child or giving them resources takes away from your own resources. Amos would likely rather sell Malik's child or, if the child took resources from Amos, just kill it.
Collective good. Not everyone in Zalanthas is so short-sighted to forget the adage of "scratch my back, I scratch yours."
It is a harsh planet where only the fittest survive, and competition over extremely scarce resources causes constant strife, struggle, and bloodshed. Deserts cover most of its explored surface, and the great red sun can bring daytime temperatures well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Most citizens lead lives of extreme hardship, struggling to survive and get ahead.
Resources are too scarce NOT to be short-sighted.
Stop prude shaming me.
Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on December 01, 2017, 10:11:37 PM
It is a harsh planet where only the fittest survive, and competition over extremely scarce resources causes constant strife, struggle, and bloodshed. Deserts cover most of its explored surface, and the great red sun can bring daytime temperatures well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Most citizens lead lives of extreme hardship, struggling to survive and get ahead.
Resources are too scarce NOT to be short-sighted.
Shenanigans, I say! *rabble, rabble, rabble*
The mere fact that there are towns, farming fields, cities,
cities with sewer systems says that long-term planning and/or cooperative mentality exists in enough of the population of the small section of the planet called the "Known."
It doesn't mean that MCB doesn't exist or that the world isn't harsh or that the majority of folk don't live anything but a pitiful life as compared to what we know (or like to think).
But with several points of civilization in such a small area with tens of thousands of people living in them says that there's enough trust going on to even have that many people alive at all.
And by people, I mean humans. Everyone else isn't "people." And tribals are pushing it *sniff.*
My previous statement is directly from our game documentation. So is this...
Allanak is possibly the richest single civilization in the Known World, in total wealth. This prosperity is, however, very unevenly distributed across the population. The life of the average Allanaki citizen is one of strife--expensive and degenerate living conditions, coupled with a nearly omnipotent ruler who watches every move his subjects make.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 01, 2017, 10:14:12 PM
Stop prude shaming me.
This isn't prude shaming, this is "stop bringing westernized romantic ideals into Zalanthas".
Be monogamous if that's your PC's thing. Be straight, gay, bi, asexual, whatever. I, and others in the thread, are arguing that monogamous, committed, "true love" relationships are probably the exception in Zalanthas. Loose-flowing, probably polyamorous, relationships born of practicality, mutual benefit, and personal gain are probably far more common.
And for Ginka's sake, you don't have to roleplay it out if you don't want to. Keep it virtual if you want.
I think it's pretty well established that romantic RP isn't exactly my favorite thing, so I'm hardly one who'd say "romance more!"
As for the "resources are scarce" thing, how do you hold onto resources? You protect them. How do you protect them? By yourself? Hell, no. You protect them by finding people who are willing to help you protect them, for whatever reason (money, friendship, intimidation, employment, family, sex, etc, etc, etc).
Lone wolves only out for themselves would rarely go far before someone stronger comes along.
The oft quoted text was likely put in to stop slut shaming. Now, as humans are want to do, people have converted it into a strict dogma to the extent that if everyone doesn't have three lovers like the complainers do they are now ruining the immersion and should be shamed.
Is monogamy really limited to 'western' ideals? If you want to say most people are not monogamous in the game that is great, but it is quite amusing that people try and apply logic to a rule that indiscriminately makes every single culture in said world have that same belief because 'reasons'.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on December 02, 2017, 12:22:17 AM
The oft quoted text was likely put in to stop slut shaming. Now, as humans are want to do, people have converted it into a strict dogma to the extent that if everyone doesn't have three lovers like the complainers do they are now ruining the immersion and should be shamed.
Is monogamy really limited to 'western' ideals? If you want to say most people are not monogamous in the game that is great, but it is quite amusing that people try and apply logic to a rule that indiscriminately makes every single culture in said world have that same belief because 'reasons'.
In a world where anyone might (allegedly) stab you for your drink of water. Having enough trust with someone to be in such a vulnerable position with any partner is a pretty big deal. If that partner is also kanking any number of other folks, then you have to consider so many different things. Are they talking about things I told them with these other people, are they actually just spying on me for these other people, are these other folks likely to turn my trusted partner against me when I am super vulnerable. The easy solution is to kank once and never kank again. Only slightly more difficult is to find an agreement not to kank around until the two of your are done kanking. To demonstrate trust. It's a simple business agreement that makes sense in a world where trust is fleeting.
What makes less sense, is any belief that you'll have the same partner for the rest of your life.
Real life behavior influencing decisions, mostly.
I agree with ShaLeah. Polyamory =/= promiscuity.
Also, a sheer numbers game affects this phenomenon. Zalanthas has many thousands of potential mates available, but only hundreds of players. Deduct the amount of players who do not have an interest in pursuing IG relationships. Deduct the amount of PCs who are irritating/unappealing. Deduct the remaining PCs who do not make sense for your character.
The dating pool is rather minuscule, relatively.
QuoteSo, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
You've got to be joking. The notion of casual sex and sleeping around is so rampant and so much the norm among the player base that if I RPed a character who had their one true love and was devoted to them and them alone, a mob of PCs would arm themselves to the teeth with player complaints and try and pkill me with the request tool. I literally avoid expressing any views in favor of monogamy in game based on how I expect most players to react: with venom and rage.
I really think the idea you're pushing for already exists as part of the overwhelming majority.
Quote from: ghanima on December 02, 2017, 04:30:23 AM
QuoteSo, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
I really think the idea you're pushing for already exists as part of the overwhelming majority.
Don't quite agree with ghanima.
I think we can do a better job at following the docs on sexual mindset tbh. I don't think that amending the docs to include polyAMORY will result in an increase of polyamory trains roleplay. It's just rare. I could be wrong. If it makes people feel free to try it then by all means change the docs to state it wouldn't be abnormal to see these kinds of relationships.
Polyamory is NOT Polygamy/Polyandry (which is having more than one spouse). Polygamy is a legal state of marriage which commoners do not engage in. I'm totally not okay with this changing. At all. You might all be like "You know what I mean!" and "It's the same thing!" but it's not. Distinctions should be made between those words.
While -I- feel that this would rarely be happening (meaning it's not the NORM) outside people RAISED that way (tribals), I do think we should see more incidences of it.
I'm gonna add that one of the reasons MONOGAMY and the RELATIONSHIP DRAMA Delurium hates go hand in hand and are a HUGE source of storyline catalysts is very very VERY simple:
ONE of the two people involved in this supposed monogamous relationship is a fucking liar. Betrayal. Tagline. #winning
So what happens if both parties are honest? Those kinds of stories are less and there'll be a different kind of drama.
Polyamory will make it wayyyyy harder for people to use love against you cause they're gonna have to be rid of however many people you love and I am way into Murder. Tagline. #moarwinning
Imagine all the people that are gonna try and Corruption the shit out of your mates too! Tagline!!!!! #mantishead
Seriously though. Polyamory, yes. Promiscuity, yes. Monogamy, yes. Philandering, yes. MurderCorruptionBetrayaling, yes.
Polygamy, no. Slutshaming, no. Whoreshaming, no. Frigidshaming, no. Fadetoblackshaming, no. Detailingitoutshaming, no.
It starts with YOU.
Quote from: ShaLeah on December 01, 2017, 07:46:26 PM
Quote from: Kankfly on December 01, 2017, 07:29:06 PM
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
This is Zalanthas. Who cares if Amos is boning Talia and Malik? There are other things to worry about.
+1! I couldn't have agree more!
+2
But who is boning who isn't what's under discussion here. Monogamy is.
In near 2 decades here I haven't seen a single polyamory relationship. What does that say? I've seen lots of pcs banging each other without jealousy but not a single "These are my mates, Amos, Thalia and Marcos and our children George Forman, George Foreman the second, third, fourth fifth and Georgina".
Be the change.
As a polyamorist, I feel a need to correct a misconception here. You don't have to have multiple co-primary partners to be polyamorous. Having your mate and then people you bang on the side is valid polyamory, as long as there is honesty about the outside the relationships. And you can even love the people you bang on the side without elevating them to a partner status and coparenting children. Or you can have two coprimary partners and only want to coparent with one. Or you can have NO primary partners and refuse to label your relationships, which is called being either a solo polyamorist or a relationship anarchist. You can be polyamorous but only have one relationship at the present time, because you're open to having more relationships, or you can even be polyamorous but be in a closed relationship (a couple of my friends are temporarily closed while they're raising a toddler together). All of these things (sex, love, the escalator status of the relationship, number of relationships active, and coparenting) are separate and people negotiate all kinds of agreements to cover them.
Polyamory also doesn't mean a lack of jealousy. Most people who are polyamorous try to recognize that jealousy is an emotion like every other emotion (not inherently negative), and what matters is how you act as a result of that emotion rather than whether you have it. I've been jealous before and I've dealt with it, sometimes by talking to my partner about hey, this behavior makes me feel insecure, maybe X Y or Z would make me feel more secure. I've also felt jealousy and recognized it's just a passing thing and ignored it. I've also sometimes wanted to murder people or drive my car into their cars but I never do these things because anger is just an emotion too.
TLDR; I've seen plenty of polyamory in Zalanthas.
[Oops. Doubled post, feel free to delete,]
Quote from: ghanima on December 02, 2017, 04:30:23 AM
QuoteSo, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Discuss.
You've got to be joking. The notion of casual sex and sleeping around is so rampant and so much the norm among the player base that if I RPed a character who had their one true love and was devoted to them and them alone, a mob of PCs would arm themselves to the teeth with player complaints and try and pkill me with the request tool. I literally avoid expressing any views in favor of monogamy in game based on how I expect most players to react: with venom and rage.
I really think the idea you're pushing for already exists as part of the overwhelming majority.
I wouldn't go that far, but I was thinking along those lines.
I always took the docs as, it's not unusual to be polyamorous, not a reason to try to shame a character or raise your eyebrows because they have multiple partners. It's a non-issue, but at the same time it's also not an issue to be monogamous either. My experience has been a lot of characters are poly though.
In an arid world where food and money is scarce, the rarest, most precious commodity is none of those. It is trust. When people find something that feels -safe-, some will choose to cling to it and care for it and even hoard it for as long as they can. More will destroy it, betray it, exploit it. That's how it works. Sex is a very vulnerable situation, you're ostensibly alone with someone, maybe unarmored, maybe even unarmed. If you think (rightly or wrongly) you've found someone who won't poison your wine or slit your throat in your sleep, it's not unlikely that you might find it very precious and keep it close.
Until the inevitable happens anyway.
I just want to clear something up. Polyamory does not equal "sleeping around" or lots of casual sex. You can be a polyamorous person and be extremely picky.
I think both choices are valid in the game environment so long as the PC has a rational reason for either.
I don't wish we would follow the docs more. I wish we would change the docs, and then follow THOSE docs. New docs:
Amory, whether poly or otherwise, is acceptable. It is not expected. You are not required to play a character interested in ANY intimate/romantic relationship at all. If you want to do that, great. If you don't, that's also great. Regardless of what happens with the virtual denizens of Zalanthas, the Armageddon staff recognizes that some of you just flat out ain't interested in this kind of roleplay. So go ahead and roll up your "not interested in sex, period" character. That kind of character is acceptable, both OOCly and ICly. No one IC should give a shit one way or another.
That would be my idea of a doc I could follow. Sadly, it isn't. I played a character who had a virtual lover, on purpose because I wanted to avoid the nonsense that comes with roleplay romance. Instead of avoiding it, I ended up tits-deep in the drama because my character was challenged regularly to produce her virtual boyfriend.
I have also played characters who were sexually disinterested - and were constantly hit on by people considering it a challenge to inspire my characters.
I find the entire topic to be very distasteful, because I feel people obsess WAY too much about relationships in this game. It should be a non-issue. Obviously it isn't a non-issue because it keeps coming up in thread after thread on the GDB.
This argument just seems to push the idea of a larger functional family unit.
There is also the point of, Amos probably wont sell maliks kid if Amos might be the father. This is a mating strategy used in many species.
in harsh cruel world, having multiple fathers and multiple mothers or either would really only serve to ensure that -more of your offspring- survive. This is an evolutionary system.
Quote from: Refugee on December 02, 2017, 11:19:26 AM
I think both choices are valid in the game environment so long as the PC has a rational reason for either.
Yeah, play what you want. This is more of a push on my part to accept and be aware that there are all kinds of valid romantic relationships (or lack of them) and I personally try and represent that because it is more interesting/unique to me than a+b love story #392753.
Quote from: Delirium on December 02, 2017, 11:13:54 AM
I just want to clear something up. Polyamory does not equal "sleeping around" or lots of casual sex. You can be a polyamorous person and be extremely picky.
This.
I want to be clear that we are not talking about "sleeping around a lot", we are talking about functional family units larger than x + y. Which includes a sexual side(or a fade to black side).
We are not talking about how jeb likes to bang all the girls in nak.
AS stated before, I also think relationships ig are taken far to seriously.
I don't wish we would follow the docs more.
Following game documentation is rule #1 of Armageddon. Acting the way your character would act in the world of Zalanthas is a requirement. You don't get to pick and choose which docs you want to follow based on your own feelings or opinion.
Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on December 02, 2017, 04:06:29 PM
I don't wish we would follow the docs more.
Following game documentation is rule #1 of Armageddon. Acting the way your character would act in the world of Zalanthas is a requirement. You don't get to pick and choose which docs you want to follow based on your own feelings or opinion.
I agree with this, though I don't particularly care about the subject matter. I would like to think people could take a hint if you say you have a virtual lover, or virtual prostitutes you pay, or just don't want to pursue the subject matter. People play the game for different reasons, and I think it's complaint worthy if people insist you don't have a virtual lover because they can't see it, just as following only the documentation you agree with is (IMHO) poor form. Suggesting a change to documentation to Staff and the reasoning why in a request makes sense though.
Monogamy with both parties sleeping around without jealousy is indeed common relationship. However, while some western influences may be at play here, the overall state of game itself has never encouraged polygamy.
Here are some reason:
- It is hard to find a mate you can trust
- Most mates die/store sooner rather than later
- Only two people can rent and share an apartment
If polygamy was more common, you'd might have mated groups of people that rival the PC population of some clans. Also, I feel the mated groups you would mostly likely see, would probably be composed of all women. Gay male character are already more rare in game than lesbian character. This is because there is an obvious group of male players in the community that play female characters and clearly prefer to make them hardcore lesbians.
In the great scheme of things, monogamy with both parties sleeping around without jealousy is already a pretty good standard and fits the current game environment. We shouldn't feel the need to prude shame it. Mind you I'm not against polygamy in the game/lore, but I just feel its more likely to happen virtually than with PCs.
Quote from: Dresan on December 02, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
Monogamy with both parties sleeping around without jealousy is indeed common relationship.
Erm... that's polygamy.
Quote from: Delirium on December 02, 2017, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: Dresan on December 02, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
Monogamy with both parties sleeping around without jealousy is indeed common relationship.
Erm... that's polygamy.
No. As I think some people have alluded that is a promiscuous couple, perhaps even classified as swingers. You fuck someone, you don't live with, share your life, trust them beyond the bed. Polygamy would mean you would have two 'husbands', both whom you love and share your life with equally with. That is quite different from loving one, having his children, building a life with him, vs just fucking the other for fun from time to time.
I think this (and any other mudsecks behavior) is something that players should decide for themselves, and not have any codified morals thrust upon them. if you want to be polyamorous, go for it. if you want to be monogamous, go for it. it's not anybody else's place to question the players. if your PC has a problem with monogamy or polygamy, that's fine. just kill the ones who offend you.
Quote from: Dresan on December 02, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
Gay male character are already more rare in game than lesbian character. This is because there is an obvious group of male players in the community that play female characters and clearly prefer to make them hardcore lesbians.
This is a tangent, but I want to say that people are pretty open minded in this game, really, and I have received no lack of male attention as my male PCs.
Quote from: sleepyhead on December 02, 2017, 04:56:05 PM
Quote from: Dresan on December 02, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
Gay male character are already more rare in game than lesbian character. This is because there is an obvious group of male players in the community that play female characters and clearly prefer to make them hardcore lesbians.
This is a tangent, but I want to say that people are pretty open minded in this game, really, and I have received no lack of male attention as my male PCs.
True for me as well. It seems eternally ambiguous if new male friends are hitting on my PC or just want to be friends.
Quote from: Veselka on December 02, 2017, 05:05:52 PM
Quote from: sleepyhead on December 02, 2017, 04:56:05 PM
Quote from: Dresan on December 02, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
Gay male character are already more rare in game than lesbian character. This is because there is an obvious group of male players in the community that play female characters and clearly prefer to make them hardcore lesbians.
This is a tangent, but I want to say that people are pretty open minded in this game, really, and I have received no lack of male attention as my male PCs.
True for me as well. It seems eternally ambiguous if new male friends are hitting on my PC or just want to be friends.
I am hitting on you.
Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on December 02, 2017, 04:06:29 PM
I don't wish we would follow the docs more.
Following game documentation is rule #1 of Armageddon. Acting the way your character would act in the world of Zalanthas is a requirement. You don't get to pick and choose which docs you want to follow based on your own feelings or opinion.
You left off the other half of that statement:
QuoteI don't wish we would follow the docs more. I wish we would change the docs, and then follow THOSE docs.
And then I gave an example of possible new docs we could all follow. I don't like the existing docs and wish we could change them. That was my point.
I have no problems with existing docs.
I have no problem with people who have no interest in playing out romantic relationships.
I don't think the two are at odds with each other, the holders of each view just have to respect each other. In terms of game behavior, holding respect for it doesn't mean 'Never bring it up', it means play along. In the aforementioned scenario, I'd say the problematic part was producing a virtual partner; in terms of game actions, that is someone your character cares about and is influenced by, but is untouchable by means of anyone else in the game.
We have similar constructs, in virtual children, virtual tribes, etc. But I can see people having issues with it on the OOC level, and on an IC level, wondering if you're putting something past them, so I think it would be better to clearly identify that you character doesn't do relationships, and know that occasionally, someone might try anyway. It's not any different than the people who don't like relationships in game, or the relationships chosen, and putting them through the same sort of fire for what they're doing.
It is, give and take, a pretty equal tug of war. But if it crosses into the realm of disrespect for the player who is acting within confines of the game, there and only there do I have a problem.
Whether PCs are monogamous or polygamous, I think it comes down to their PCs' choices and personalities and ICness, etcetc.
What strikes me weird is when someone is polygamous or promiscuous, and others treat it like it's scandalous, and they go out of their way to "fix" the problem (aka. jealousy, soap-opera play), when they aren't even directly involved in the relationship.
But since I, as a player, is only witnessing one side of that particular sort of play, there is no saying whether or not that is driven by other IC reasons (whether political gains, acts of self-interest, some sort of weird protectiveness over a certain PC etc). I personally don't enjoy this sort of RP, so my characters tend to treat that side of thinking as odd.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 03, 2017, 12:26:36 AM
In the aforementioned scenario, I'd say the problematic part was producing a virtual partner; in terms of game actions, that is someone your character cares about and is influenced by, but is untouchable by means of anyone else in the game.
This is interesting though, I've never thought of it this way. My PCs never had a virtual mates themselves, except for virtual kanking partners. Maybe one way to work around that is to send in a report to staff, and see if something can be worked out if you want to hurt the PC in question by harming the PC's virtual mate.
Yeah really I don't see the big deal, except some players want to RP "General Hospital" or some crud. I'd advocate killing them all and camping outside chargen, but that's even worse than "as the sands run through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives"... um, no thanks.
EDIT: All My Children will continue in a moment. Further proof that god hates you.
1. Monogamy is not against the rules. You can be monogamous, or not. Zalanthans would not bat an eye at a monogamous couple any more than they would bat an eye at a polygamist couple.
2. Just because you do not like a certain kind of RP (dinner party RP, romantic plotlines, combat plotlines) does not mean you should dogpile or advocate killing the characters of those who do. This is one thing that tends to turn others off the game. If you have a bona fide complaint about someone importing RL values into the game and ignoring the docs, use the player complaint tool.
3. From my perspective, monogamy is actually quite rare in the game among PCs, and polygamy (and its friends) is far more common. Hence, the premise of the original post is false (from my view): Why is monogamy so common? It's not: neither in how we portray the docs nor in the docs themselves. (I have a hunch there is something vaguepost-y in the background.) In any case,
both are acceptable to a Zalanthan since Zalanthans have a broad attitude toward sexuality.
Some reading:
Quote
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners. While your character may be in a monogamous relationship with another character, understand that as a commoner, this does not deserve (and should not get) formalized recognition by the powers that be. Your character also should not expect anything for deciding to limit his or her current sexual focus to one person. Any commoner relationship is not formalized. This means that there are no such things as inheritance laws governing who gets your character's things if they die, nor are there divorce laws concerning who gets which half of things if the couple splits up. Zalanthan commoners are NOT highborn, and this is one area in which that should be very clear.
From: http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Marriage
I think it's also important to note that monogamy is not black and white either. It's a widely debated topic in many scientific communities. There are animals that practice genetic monogamy, which means that there are no extramarital copulation, and the genetic identity of offspring is secure and unquestionable. And on the other side, there's social monogamy (which is what most humans are) where extramarital copulation does occur, and genetic identity of offspring is not necessarily known. And there are several gray areas in between those two, where a species may exhibit behaviors associated with monogamy (paternal care, mate guarding, affiliative behaviors), but may not follow the same life style as another species.
Genetic monogamy is extremely scarce in nature outside of birds. Humans actually exhibit more polygamy than genetic monogamy, and more social monogamy than genetic.
In terms of Zalanthas, I think it's important to consider what life style choice would bring the greatest benefit to your character. Mating strategies are not consistent because of the variable nature of one's environment. In closely knit tribes, I would expect polygamy (I use polygamy because I'm speaking in evolutionary terms, where the marital component is a social construct that only applies to humans). In large cities where murder and betrayal are more common amongst the populous, I'd actually expect social monogamy to be more prevalent because trust does not come easily. Unless you have group-living communities that help raise offspring, in which case another strategy would be more beneficial.
tldr; Do what makes sense for your character and the environment they're in. Mating strategies are typically based on offspring survival in nature, and are based on cultural norms in humans.
To be clear I'm not arguing that people need to get out there and kank more. It really is just an honest question as to why we don't see more people rping a larger functional family model.
Also, even with birds genetic monogamy is touch and go, and there are even a number of female centered (when the female has multiple partners) polygamy.
I actually expect more social polygamy in cities than in small tribes, but we seem to mostly agree tiptoe.
Really I just thought this would be a fun conversational topic.
^^ yeah.
Seriously though, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's extremely dire for my emursion.
I'd second everything Nauta said. In my experience, true monogamy is very rare in the game. Most of those couples who claim 'mated' have at least one partner, if not both having sexual interactions outside their 'mating'. There's no needing to 'further push' the documents toward this, I think.
I think we might need to change World Discussion to Armchair Zalanthan Anthropology.
Jealousy plots are dumb. If you're playing a monogamistic character and your character's mate cheates on them, then whatever, let it go, they did your PC a favor by proving themselves untrustworthy by saying one thing and doing another. Meanwhile you can be focusing on your plot to murder Amos for screwing with your order of widgets, as opposed to wasting everyone's time with slobbering over a failed relationship like a toothless dog with a hunk of meat.
Quote from: Grapes on December 04, 2017, 06:04:49 AM
Jealousy plots are dumb. If you're playing a monogamistic character and your character's mate cheates on them, then whatever, let it go, they did your PC a favor by proving themselves untrustworthy by saying one thing and doing another. Meanwhile you can be focusing on your plot to murder Amos for screwing with your order of widgets, as opposed to wasting everyone's time with slobbering over a failed relationship like a toothless dog with a hunk of meat.
OMG THIS! One experience left such a bad taste in my mouth, and that was a recent attempt at "romantic roleplay." The whole "oh I want you to be only mine, and I promise to change my ways and not run around on you, I want you all to myself" stuff was just so - blech. It was stifling. It was even worse when "you can't sleep with anyone else" became "you can't be close pals with anyone else." I basically said fuck that, and ended up with someone else who had no problem screwing other PCs, and my PC was fine with it because that is the setting of the game. Eventually my PC was murdered, I suspect by the jealous ex (though I never found out who killed her or why).
Quote from: Grapes on December 04, 2017, 06:04:49 AM
Jealousy plots are dumb. If you're playing a monogamistic character and your character's mate cheates on them, then whatever, let it go, they did your PC a favor by proving themselves untrustworthy by saying one thing and doing another. Meanwhile you can be focusing on your plot to murder Amos for screwing with your order of widgets, as opposed to wasting everyone's time with slobbering over a failed relationship like a toothless dog with a hunk of meat.
There's no need to roleplay police others, as long as they're playing within the docs and true to their characters.
If you don't want to run a jealousy plot, don't. If you don't want to be part of one, avoid relationships with people whose lives are drama. If you don't want to listen to someone bemoan the end of their relationship, change the subject, punch them in the face, leave the tavern, whatever your character would do. But telling other people how and what to play, just because you don't want to play that, is rude.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 04, 2017, 07:42:36 AM
Quote from: Grapes on December 04, 2017, 06:04:49 AM
Jealousy plots are dumb. If you're playing a monogamistic character and your character's mate cheates on them, then whatever, let it go, they did your PC a favor by proving themselves untrustworthy by saying one thing and doing another. Meanwhile you can be focusing on your plot to murder Amos for screwing with your order of widgets, as opposed to wasting everyone's time with slobbering over a failed relationship like a toothless dog with a hunk of meat.
OMG THIS! One experience left such a bad taste in my mouth, and that was a recent attempt at "romantic roleplay." The whole "oh I want you to be only mine, and I promise to change my ways and not run around on you, I want you all to myself" stuff was just so - blech. It was stifling. It was even worse when "you can't sleep with anyone else" became "you can't be close pals with anyone else." I basically said fuck that, and ended up with someone else who had no problem screwing other PCs, and my PC was fine with it because that is the setting of the game. Eventually my PC was murdered, I suspect by the jealous ex (though I never found out who killed her or why).
As veleria pointed out to Grapes, if you don't like romantic plots or jealousy plots or monogamy plots, you are free to make decisions for your character to avoid them. However, two things here:
1. Just because you don't like someone's RP, does not mean you should complain about it on the gdb. If they are breaking a rule or not playing to character or violating the documentation, then you should file a player complaint.
2. Both monogamy and polygamy are within "the setting of the game" -- the docs state that Zalanthans are open-minded about sexual relationships, and kinds of romantic relationships, and so they would not have problems with either variant. Hence, you don't even have recourse to a player complaint in the situation you stated above: the player you are complaining about was playing a character in Zalanthas. You just didn't seem to like that character.
In general, complaining about the RP of others on a public forum is exactly the sort of thing that turns players off.
People like conflict as long as it's just exactly the conflict -they- want.
I suggest a little tolerance toward RP that other people enjoy, even if you don't enjoy it. Then you have a right to expect tolerance toward RP that you like that others don't.
There's an awful lot of "don't say this, don't do this, everything other than what I do is wrong or stupid" on the GDB these days. It's really a turnoff.
There are games where everyone playing will play just like you want. Hundreds of them. They are called solo games.
Play what you want. React how your PC would react to whatever some other player serves to you. Cooperate with developing the story. Let your PC live their lives and let other PCs live theirs. Or not live their lives, however it works out...
Quote from: Refugee on December 04, 2017, 11:59:06 AM
People like conflict as long as it's just exactly the conflict -they- want.
I suggest a little tolerance toward RP that other people enjoy, even if you don't enjoy it. Then you have a right to expect tolerance toward RP that you like that others don't.
There's an awful lot of "don't say this, don't do this, everything other than what I do is wrong or stupid" on the GDB these days. It's really a turnoff.
There are games where everyone playing will play just like you want. Hundreds of them. They are called solo games.
Play what you want. React how your PC would react to whatever some other player serves to you. Cooperate with developing the story. Let your PC live their lives and let other PCs live theirs. Or not live their lives, however it works out...
+1
This "Arm my way" and these passive aggressive pet peeves are really getting old. We should be having fun playing with each other and cooperating on an ooc level that this is a game and everyone brings something different to it.
I'm really, quite happy to see more people taking a stand against the RP police, and the ensuing group nodding.
Good for you.
This has gotten off topic and I apologize for contributing to that but I would like to point out that, without making a specific reference, you can not pick and choose what documentation you would like to follow. Despite the current trend just because you, as the player, don't like something does not permit you to do whatever you want and disregarding documentation is against the rules.
edit: Didn't see another post was already made.
Quote from: The Lonely Hunter on December 04, 2017, 03:11:28 PM
This has gotten off topic and I apologize for contributing to that but I would like to point out that, without making a specific reference, you can not pick and choose what documentation you would like to follow. Despite the current trend just because you, as the player, don't like something does not permit you to do whatever you want and disregarding documentation is against the rules.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has made the argument "I don't like it, so I can do whatever I want and disregard documentation." I'm not sure what the point of introducing that straw man is.
It's usually about differing interpretations of documentation or less frequently, modifying documentation.
Yeah I didn't see anyone saying they didn't want to follow the docs. Saying you don't like the docs and think they should be changed isn't the same as saying you are going to ignore the docs in practice.
My love is exclusive, to my turaal. I won't share, and interlopers, are killed on sight.
What we have, is something special, and no matter how we fight, they always come back to me, so we can fight some more. I hope, we'll be together, forever.
XOXO
My PCs have almost always been the type to give people funny looks over and question the reasoning behind monogamy, but I don't think it's supposed to be so weird that no one does it or it's looked down upon.
That said, I find it terribly boring! I do monogamy in real life and it's often boring there, too.
.
While I personally prefer having characters that are monogamous just because I don't have it in me to RP actually being polygamous. It's neat to see folk who can do stuff like that and really get into their characters and use it to drive plots. However I don't think either would be seen as 'wrong' since they can both be easily understood as to why someone would operate that way and IC justifications could be made for both sides. As long as people can see that maybe it's nice to just have one person to invest in entirely in a world where that's rare could be appealing I don't have problems seeing how they can be spreading their love just to ease the burden of living in that same dangerous world.
Overall just cool to see its got people talking though and I thought I'd offer my two cents.
There is nothing against docs about being possessive towards another person. It has nothing to do with marriages either. Children are possessive of their parents and get jealous when their parents pay more attention to their siblings. People are sometimes jealous of their 'pets' when they allow petting access to strangers, when the owner truly believed that their pet allowed that only to the owner. There is nothing strange, or abnormal about jealousy and possessiveness in Zalanthas.
It might be weird to say that no, you cant bang that someone, because they are a 'mate' of some whoever else. But it's totally fine to say, "Ehhh. Be careful about that one. He/She is hot, but her/his mate is a jealous type with a big giant bone sword and not a lot of brains."
In my view of how the game world is, the concepts of monogamy and polyamory are completely irrelevant. Some people are in some kind of connection and they seem to not be possessive of each other. And some people are in some kind of connection, and at least 'one' seems possessive. And that's it. From there on, let the romance plot develop however it manages.
Not everyone wants to share their toys.
Just taking a quick moment to reiterate for the nth time, no one is rp shaming, or supposed to be, rp shaming anyone here.
This is just a discussion of relationship dynamics. :) Be happy.
Quote from: satine on December 07, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
Just taking a quick moment to reiterate for the nth time, no one is rp shaming, or supposed to be, rp shaming anyone here.
That isn't really, how it looks, tbh.
Quote from: Vex on December 08, 2017, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: satine on December 07, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
Just taking a quick moment to reiterate for the nth time, no one is rp shaming, or supposed to be, rp shaming anyone here.
That isn't really, how it looks, tbh.
Can't control how you interpret things.
Most of my conversation has been hypothetical theory? Also been struggling to bring conversation back from "cheating is okay" and "to much/lets have more mudsex" to "why don't commoners organise in large functional family units". Most of which has been countered with "well x sleeps with whoever they want" yadda yadda.
which still isn't the point.
we are talking about if/why characters should/can engage in relationships with more than 2 people on the "z" standard.
Not who/if your character can/should kank ig, or if the game needs more mudsex.
We can have this entire conversation without involving anyone's rp at all.
What are the pro's of monogamy? polygamy? this is a discussion of relationship structuring. not your personal opinion of mudsex.
Somewhat ironically, one reason trying to have functional polyamorous/polygamist setups that aren't virtual is difficult in game... well... is on full display in this thread.
"You just want to have more mudsex/cheat/judge me for being monogamous!"
*sigh*
I just want to explore the sometimes alien mindset of a person brought up in the harsh culture of a dying desert planet, okay?
The name of the game (not literally) is murder, corruption, and betrayal. Monogamy is more commonly 'claimed' because the fastest way to die is to drop your pants (and armor and choppin'-mothafuckaz-bonesword) with the wrong person.
I can't speak for everyone, and I've played both sides of the spectrum. For every reason you can give me why polyamory or polygamy are the suitable go-to, I can give you a reason (that WILL come up IC) why you might not. Playing in Zalanthas is about survival. You're also blatantly ignoring that much of the instincts in human beings encourages a certain aggressiveness toward seeing your own genetics into the future, often times at the cost of other peoples'.
To be clear, I don't think monogamy is the go-to in game, even in PCs actions. Most aren't monogamous best I can tell.
Some people don't want to share their most valuable thing to them (objectifying people isn't bad in Zalanthas, mmkay? Slaves are nice.) and they're not fine with the risks that might be associated with such. If I let my sexii hunky McRaider Badass who I keep locked in my basement play with the other fine dime, he might start liking her more than me, and then one day when that fine woman wants to kill me and pushes my Raider-with-PTSD right, I get my throat slit while my hair is getting pulled. If I'd just not let that raider develop a deeper bond with that woman, I'd be alive still. Woe is me.
If you want to argue that the involved allowance of the parties may never result in emotional connection, sure, I can believe that. I can just also believe that every study basically ever on how endorphins and dopamine work disagree.
Monogamy is safe. (if your partner is safe)
Polyamory often requires you to trust whoever your partner is with(many wouldn't), or not care. And if you don't care, you put yourself at risk in the gritty, gritty world of Zalanthas. Just my two shiny pennies, I suppose.
edit: Added a word so that there wasn't misunderstanding as to two separate opinions in the same post.
Generally, when I see a long-lived person, or someone who has built up a legacy for themselves, go get a girl/boyfriend, I think, 'That player has decided to add a risk.' The thought is reflexive and a first impression. I must not be alone, right?
While most people in the Known struggle to survive, at least after a while most players by virtue of this being a game are more than able to take care of themselves, so most of the time there is no benefit to having a mate/lover, as you will not be protected by their House or whatever in most cases. If you're the mate of an Arm lieutenant and you had something of enough value stolen, then yes, you're going to get some attention. But as soon as someone steals from the Arm barracks, you're either forgotten or put on the back burner until the Arm literally has nothing else to do or your lieutenant girlfriend logs out.
Why wait until you're established codedly and socially to do what ought to come naturally?
EDIT: Seriously though, why NOT take risks? To say there's no advantage? That's not true at all. If you have to hit 10/20 days played before you consider exploring potential weaknesses and/or character flaws, those might be the wrong reasons. I don't want to misinterpret you, Cind, but what you said makes me a little grumpy, I likely misread what you meant to say.
Quote from: satine on December 08, 2017, 04:31:47 PMnot your personal opinion of mudsex.
You wanted some some hot PC action, got rejected because he/her is in relations, so you came to the forums, to apply a lil' bit of ooc pressure/shame, but you didn't get the usual group nod you expected. Now it looks, like you're doing damage control for yourself, in your own thread.
Decadent Decisions has, a really good post, that, imo, should probably, put the thread to bed. Really, very well said.
Quote from: Vex on December 10, 2017, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: satine on December 08, 2017, 04:31:47 PMnot your personal opinion of mudsex.
You wanted some some hot PC action, got rejected because he/her is in relations, so you came to the forums, to apply a lil' bit of ooc pressure/shame, but you didn't get the usual group nod you expected. Now it looks, like you're doing damage control for yourself, in your own thread.
Decadent Decisions has, a really good post, that, imo, should probably, put the thread to bed. Really, very well said.
Please cool it, this is the kind of flaming that gets threads locked, and this conversation has a bit more time to go. If you have a problem with an IC event that happened please file a player complaint. This is not the place for making such arguments. I agree, Decadent Decisions has a good post, whether I agree with it or not.
Maybe it's because of this thread but I'm seeing a KRATHload more characters being vocal and condemning of exclusive relationships IG. THAT needs to stop.
The documents specify a broad view. How one chooses to play out an intimate relationship is ENTIRELY UP TO the players involved. Questioning someone adnauseum about why they're not fucking you cause they have a mate or why they're pissed that they found out their supposedly monogamous mate was knocking boots with 5 others is just as fucked up as its counterparts. Handle it ic but be prepared to be schooled if you're playing the exception.
Some responses come across like the poster thinks monogamy is as bad as bedding magickers or other races.
Maybe monogamy is common because not everybody in Zalanthas is a Casanova, and even finding one person to tolerate your fucked-up face and body-odor is a hard enough feat for most commoners to accomplish.
That, and the PC dating pool is way too small for players to have their picks-of-the-litter, unless they literally have no standards. (Standards being age, species, physical attractiveness, wealth, personality, etc.)
It is clear that PCs DO have standards, because if your average bynner were to stand in the Gaj and shout for all to hear "Who wants to fuck?!?" I doubt they would get many propositions, if any.
So yeah, ICly, because your character is gross and nobody loves them, except for that 1 other gross person, who will probably be dead in a couple weeks.
OOCly, there are not enough players for everyone to be fucking 5 different people. if 40 PCs are online, maybe 10 share your species, 8 of those share your social stature, 4 of those are in your city, 2 of them are tolerable to be around, 1 actually wants love in their life, but fuck... they already have their fucking turaal...
Lets have this convo again if the issue persists when we have 150 PCs online consistently.
Let me reiterate that trolling, or attempts at baiting people into flame wars are not allowed on these forums. Doing so will get you a nice break from the forums for a few days. Please do not flame/troll/bait. If you don't have something to add to the discussion, it's generally best practice not to post.
Quote from: Grapes on December 10, 2017, 03:49:30 PM
Please cool it
Quote from: Akariel on December 11, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
it's generally best practice not to post.
Quote from: Armageddon Lover on December 10, 2017, 05:45:18 PM
Maybe it's because of this thread but I'm seeing a KRATHload more characters being vocal and condemning of exclusive relationships IG.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2dtkls.gif)
Why is this so contentious? Play what you want. Represent polygamy if you want. Represent monogamy if you want. Your character can think one or the other is stupid, too. That's allowed. Just as long as there isn't an ooc implication that you're doing it WRONG behind it.
^^^ yeah.
No one should be condemning sexual practices. Expressing confusion or their own personal preferences, sure.
Unless you're fucking across species/caste lines. Then it's guns out, baby.
MY posts were to remind people that monogamy is not the only one true way to play, and that polyamorous relationships wouldn't be seen as strange. Judging by GDB response (ha, ha, ha)... evidently that isn't an issue after all. I've played all across the spectrum, from both male and female perspectives, and honestly - if there aren't enough PCs to represent what I feel would be the reality of the situation (considering vNPCs, societal expectations, etc), I just bring in virtual people.
Problem solved. It's not that big a deal.
If you have an issue with how people are playing in game, please submit a player complaint. Vaguebooking about it on the GDB does absolutely zilch as Staff (the people who keep an eye on things like this) do not always read threads like this - nor do we regularly have the time and patience to pick through a vague comment to see who you're talking about.
If you have an issue with someone on the forums baiting/flaming/trolling, please hit the report button as it'll send a report to staff and player moderators so we can look into the post. If you do not hit the report button we will not know about it because we do not read every thread on the GDB.
Quote from: Akariel on December 11, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Let me reiterate that trolling, or attempts at baiting people into flame wars are not allowed on these forums. Doing so will get you a nice break from the forums for a few days. Please do not flame/troll/bait. If you don't have something to add to the discussion, it's generally best practice not to post.
. . . This isnt directed toward me and my last post, is it . . .??
Quote from: Melkor on December 11, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Akariel on December 11, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Let me reiterate that trolling, or attempts at baiting people into flame wars are not allowed on these forums. Doing so will get you a nice break from the forums for a few days. Please do not flame/troll/bait. If you don't have something to add to the discussion, it's generally best practice not to post.
. . . This isnt directed toward me and my last post, is it . . .??
Naw some dude was b8ing really hard and got their stuff deleted.
Quote from: Vex on December 10, 2017, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: satine on December 08, 2017, 04:31:47 PMnot your personal opinion of mudsex.
You wanted some some hot PC action, got rejected because he/her is in relations, so you came to the forums, to apply a lil' bit of ooc pressure/shame, but you didn't get the usual group nod you expected. Now it looks, like you're doing damage control for yourself, in your own thread.
Decadent Decisions has, a really good post, that, imo, should probably, put the thread to bed. Really, very well said.
Actually my char is in a committed monogamous relationship in game, but I appreciate your ability to make a bunch of lame accusations because you don't like the subject matter of a thread. Way to go, everyone is really impressed.
Actually, what is going on, is that I am a disease ecologist that spent a fair amount of time studying population dynamics through a large arrangement of species. Most of which, when being "r" selected such as humans are in Zal, switch to poly type relationships where either the male or female takes on multiple partners to 1. increase the rate of having offspring 2. have the best genetics for each offspring 3. insure continuation of the species.
I'm not vaugebooking. I posted this in
world discussion and not in rp discussion for a reason.
The main reason being that while humans in zal. are "r" selected they still make mate selections like animals which are "k" selected. Even then, I haven't explicitly condemned anyone for their sexual practices, but have repeated try to bring the conversation away from who is fucking who.
As I have stated multiple times, this is not a discussion on your personal opinions on mudsex.
This thread is in -world- discussion and not -rp- discussion.
Also, great post decadant, I have a few small responses but I will have to come back and post more after a short break
If you're reading this thread and feeling salty please go watch some cute cats or smoke some weed or play your favorite video game before posting.
Quote from: satine on December 13, 2017, 01:00:43 PM
Actually my char is in a committed monogamous relationship in game, but I appreciate your ability to make a bunch of lame accusations because you don't like the subject matter of a thread. Way to go, everyone is really impressed.
I have no preference on the subject matter, and feel that strong opinions in either direction, could only make people uncomfortable. There are people, who will see popular opinion, here, from the minority, and run with it into the game world, to make it the standard.
If you've read the thread, you will no doubt see, that someone has already commented on this very thing happening, just a few posts up. That, is the problem, and the only result that could have come, from a discussion like this.
I'm not really interested, in "smack talk", either.
Then why do we even have a world discussion board if we are not allowed to talk about the world? Please stop trying to derail the thread simply because you don't like the subject matter. You don't have to participate here.
Delerium, melkor, grapes, and decadant have all been able to contribute to this thread with actual world discussion about the relationships.
No one here has called for people to icly start bearbateing monogomous relationships.
I should not have to keep explaining this to you, if you don't like the thread.... start your own. Start a discussion about people taking discussion board posts and going out of line ig. In a different thread. Which is not this thread. Which is hear for theoretical discussion about family units and poly relationships in game.
A conversation that is almost impossible to have because everyone either wants to complain about how people are having to much mudsex or throwing a fit about people shaming them in game.
Make your own thread.
Stop derailing this one.
Have your own conversation. in the appropriate board. Which would be the rp board if you have a problem with the way people are rping.
Please allow the people that want to have a theoretical conversation, have their conversation.
delirium, do you ever engage npcs in game as if they have group families? I always fancied some of the house workers that are NPCs as being related, depending on the appearance of the NPCs. Some of the house NPcs look similar so I always imagine them as part of a family unit, either as parent child or a imagine different types of relationships for them. I don't however think these are in any way cannon for the game.
Quotedelirium, do you ever engage npcs in game as if they have group families? I always fancied some of the house workers that are NPCs as being related, depending on the appearance of the NPCs. Some of the house NPcs look similar so I always imagine them as part of a family unit, either as parent child or a imagine different types of relationships for them. I don't however think these are in any way cannon for the game.
I -sometimes- do the same thing, though in fairness I havent really played a whole lot amongst the various clans but have seen a good number of the NPC's in the various HQ's. I like to think to myself that a lot of the House guards are related. You dont really get to a position like that through the singular act of being really, really good at your job, though it is possible. No, you get your job because thats what your father did, and his mother before that and her uncle before her.
This is a world where generally, you follow in your parents footsteps in a very little way, at least to me anyway, in that Father = farmer? Guess what? Kid = farmer also.
once had a long lived PC in a polygamous relationship triangle/quadrangle. It was an interesting run, for sure, and there were both good sides and bad sides to the equation as my character saw it.
I won't spoil how things ended, but in some ways the polygamous arrangement ended up benefiting everyone, in a harsh world where survival is a constant goal.
Other times, things were more "monogamous" but only because a third person wasn't around or willing to enter into the arrangement. Exclusivity isn't really a concept to most of my PCs; anyone can die at any moment, so investing emotions or resources fully into one person never seemed wise to any of my PCs. However, because I rarely pursue relationships with my characters in the first place as a driving storyline, it often doesn't have the chance to expand to the point of dedicated, stable polygamous arrangements.
.
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 13, 2017, 05:39:20 PM
Is it monogamy if there are no romantic/sexual relationships?
There aren't many relationships to choose from left-over, other than best buddies, at least among commoners, for there is no legal or cultural significance to a relationship with just one person. But if monogamy is some relationship that is not romantic/sexual between two people, then you could say the First Trooper and the Sergeant are monogamous! ;D
Quote from: nauta on December 13, 2017, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 13, 2017, 05:39:20 PM
Is it monogamy if there are no romantic/sexual relationships?
There aren't many relationships to choose from left-over, other than best buddies, at least among commoners, for there is no legal or cultural significance to a relationship with just one person. But if monogamy is some relationship that is not romantic/sexual between two people, then you could say the First Trooper and the Sergeant are monogamous! ;D
There is such a thing as platonic love; it is absolutely valid, and not merely a "best buddies" type of thing. It is a spiritual romance; a marriage of the spirit that doesn't require or involve sexual desire. I've seen it in the game, though it's not common. I imagine most players don't really think about the option much, because it's not well-understood in real life either.
I engage vNPCs, for sure. I try not to make any assumptions about NPCs. I've gotten scolded for taking my understanding of an NPC's personality and running with it to include in my RP; evidently that is not a thing that is cool to do unless you "own" the NPC (i.e. they're your personal guard, etc).
Generally a thing I try to do that I think might be helpful is to just remember how big the world is and that PCs are in the minority.
There's no reason you can't include the virtual world to make things feel bigger, more fleshed out, more real.
Within, well, reason.
Relationships in the game are odd, I havent been in ny particularly long lasting ones IG, but thats mostly because I dont seek it out anymore, for awhile I was, but got bored with it in some ways I suppose.
Personally, I think that most Zalanthans would be smart enough to understand the basic idea that: More people in a relationship = more people to care for the young, and also to care for me if I am for some reason incapacitated for a day or two. They would also be smart enough to keep the very old around as a source of wisdom at the very least, its a thing that happened through out a whole bunch of Earth-human history, we kept the elderly around as early as the days where we were cavemen and cavewomen.
Most Zalanthan-humans, however would in my mind at least, be untrusting enough that the great majority of multi-people relationships would be carefully laid out so that each person has the least amount of chance to get sick, and the least amount of chance to be backstabbed by the other people.
These are still humans we are talking about, basic survival is a thing in their mind. If its not, are they really human at that point?
Quote from: satine on December 13, 2017, 01:00:43 PM
Actually, what is going on, is that I am a disease ecologist that spent a fair amount of time studying population dynamics through a large arrangement of species. Most of which, when being "r" selected such as humans are in Zal, switch to poly type relationships where either the male or female takes on multiple partners to 1. increase the rate of having offspring 2. have the best genetics for each offspring 3. insure continuation of the species.
As a disease ecologist myself, I'd like to see that research, especially in humans. Given that, off the top of my head, I can recall that there are several seminal papers revolving around behavioral tendencies and strong selective pressures to become
less promiscuous and social overall under high disease mortality, particularly when faced with communicable diseases that you and I study. But this also extends to any social contact. For example, Storfer et al showed that even in something as simple as a salamander, social interactions (like cannibalism) are reduced when disease is in play and mortality is high.
That being said, humans can't switch from being K selected to being R selected. They can have
more children, certainly, but we have physiological limitations in play. I'm not going to spawn 100,000,000 eggs like a black marlin just because Mekillots are a thing.
I didn't read five pages of sniping and bickering but....
For my money, jealousy drives conflict. Gameworld open relationships are swell and true to docs. But it is much more fun to get jealous and stab some people.
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 13, 2017, 05:39:20 PM
Is it monogamy if there are no romantic/sexual relationships?
Nope.
Polyamory is a relationship style, not a relationship shape. I could be a polyamorist with only one partner and closed to other partners, but our agreement is open for renegotiation after whatever the reason we're closed is (polyamorists sometimes close to raise small children, for instance, who require so much time, attention, and stability). I could be a polyamorist with no partners because I've broken up with all my partners. Just like how don't happen to turn polyamorist if you're a monogamous person dating around with the intent to start a new long-term relationship with your best option, you don't become monogamous by default just because you only have one relationship at a given time.
You wouldn't default to monogamy just because you have only one romantic or sexual partner. Unless I suppose you've agreed to close their relationship indefinitely in order to be exclusively with a monogamous partner (but then you're a polyamorist in a monogamous relationship, which many polyamorous people struggle with).
Apologies for being out of line, I let myself get heated by someone's interpretation of the OP having an ulterior motive, when it seemed to me that they were just genuinely trying to open a discussion. I could have definitely worded that better.
Quote from: Namino on December 13, 2017, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: satine on December 13, 2017, 01:00:43 PM
Actually, what is going on, is that I am a disease ecologist that spent a fair amount of time studying population dynamics through a large arrangement of species. Most of which, when being "r" selected such as humans are in Zal, switch to poly type relationships where either the male or female takes on multiple partners to 1. increase the rate of having offspring 2. have the best genetics for each offspring 3. insure continuation of the species.
As a disease ecologist myself, I'd like to see that research, especially in humans. Given that, off the top of my head, I can recall that there are several seminal papers revolving around behavioral tendencies and strong selective pressures to become less promiscuous and social overall under high disease mortality, particularly when faced with communicable diseases that you and I study. But this also extends to any social contact. For example, Storfer et al showed that even in something as simple as a salamander, social interactions (like cannibalism) are reduced when disease is in play and mortality is high.
That being said, humans can't switch from being K selected to being R selected. They can have more children, certainly, but we have physiological limitations in play. I'm not going to spawn 100,000,000 eggs like a black marlin just because Mekillots are a thing.
I am on my phone in a car so it is hard for me to respond </disclaimer>
I'm not talking about in only a disease sense, and you are correct that humans cant switch between r and K selection. i suppose we could equate violence to a disease, but i was mainly talk8ng about shift in animal behavior to being more promiscuous in times of hardship. this goes along with red queen hypothesis, as well as general selection. i can't access jstor via my android, but there is an interesting submission there (us for prarie voles monogamy should get it) where some holes in stable environments will engage in monotonous relationships, while prarie voles in harsher environments will engage in multiple relationships, in order to spread genetics as well as have the beat mate available for higher survivorship in offspring. interestingly, the monotonous prarie voles showed higher levels of oxytocin, while the poly voles had higher levels of dopamine (if I remember correctly... I'll re read the article after the Christmas season is over and i have jstor access once more)
anouther example could be chimps and bonobos, phalarope,Northern jacana...
I'll come back to this.
I think you have some misconceptions about the red queen hypothesis, which has to do with reciprocal adaptation between parasite/predator and host/prey, rather than some switch to polygamy. A vague abiotic condition such as "high general mortality"
Quote from: satine on December 22, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
Quote from: Namino on December 13, 2017, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: satine on December 13, 2017, 01:00:43 PM
Actually, what is going on, is that I am a disease ecologist that spent a fair amount of time studying population dynamics through a large arrangement of species. Most of which, when being "r" selected such as humans are in Zal, switch to poly type relationships where either the male or female takes on multiple partners to 1. increase the rate of having offspring 2. have the best genetics for each offspring 3. insure continuation of the species.
As a disease ecologist myself, I'd like to see that research, especially in humans. Given that, off the top of my head, I can recall that there are several seminal papers revolving around behavioral tendencies and strong selective pressures to become less promiscuous and social overall under high disease mortality, particularly when faced with communicable diseases that you and I study. But this also extends to any social contact. For example, Storfer et al showed that even in something as simple as a salamander, social interactions (like cannibalism) are reduced when disease is in play and mortality is high.
That being said, humans can't switch from being K selected to being R selected. They can have more children, certainly, but we have physiological limitations in play. I'm not going to spawn 100,000,000 eggs like a black marlin just because Mekillots are a thing.
I am on my phone in a car so it is hard for me to respond </disclaimer>
I'm not talking about in only a disease sense, and you are correct that humans cant switch between r and K selection. i suppose we could equate violence to a disease, but i was mainly talk8ng about shift in animal behavior to being more promiscuous in times of hardship. this goes along with red queen hypothesis, as well as general selection. i can't access jstor via my android, but there is an interesting submission there (us for prarie voles monogamy should get it) where some holes in stable environments will engage in monotonous relationships, while prarie voles in harsher environments will engage in multiple relationships, in order to spread genetics as well as have the beat mate available for higher survivorship in offspring. interestingly, the monotonous prarie voles showed higher levels of oxytocin, while the poly voles had higher levels of dopamine (if I remember correctly... I'll re read the article after the Christmas season is over and i have jstor access once more)
anouther example could be chimps and bonobos, phalarope,Northern jacana...
I'll come back to this.
Satine, I think you're applying Red Queen in circumstances where it's not applicable. The vague general antibiotic mortality inducing promiscuity isn't red queen. Abiotic factors aren't evolving. You need reciprocal adaptation and coevolution between two living entities (parasite/host or predator/prey) to fulfill Red Queen. An organism simply adapting lifestyle characteristics to harsher environments is just adaptation, not Red Queen.
That being said, I'm familiar with Larry Young's work on the voles, and you've got it backwards. Prairie voles, which exist in an ecological sink (ie, praries have less food resources than meadows) are the monogamous clade. When times are tough and population numbers are low (due to high mortality and low resources), it's better to mate pair and produce few, high quality offspring. Quoting directly from Larry's manuscript:
"Prairie voles are believed to have evolved in the tall-grass prairies, which are very low in food resources and where population densities are likely to be very low. Under these conditions, males may enhance their reproductive success by nesting with a single female and producing multiple litters, rather than risk not finding a fertile mate. An alternative explanation proposes that, since prairie voles utilize a saturated habitat, dispersal opportunities are low. Thus, natural selection favors the production of high-quality, low-quantity offspring reared by two parents."
The meadow voles are in patchier habitat of higher quality, and require high densities of low quality offspring to disperse across patches -- the shotgun approach. That being said, neither of these are totally analogous to humans because voles are voles, not people.
However, Arthi and Fenske (Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria's Igbo) showed that even in the same community, same resource pressures, same mate pool, same socio-economic status, being polygamous meant fewer surviving offspring, not more. And that was in people. The monogamous couplings were more re-productively successful in a sustenance tribal society. Granted when they looked at historical data, they lost this signal, so it's inconclusive, but I don't see how evolutionary biology of 'times are tough, spread your seed' applies to humans. There's no evidence I can find for that.
Now, as far as this being a game and not under the thumb of evolutionary biology, that's a whole 'nother debate I'm willing to stand on the sidelines for and let more invested parties decide on, but evolutionary biology and natural selection is
not going to unanimously favor polygamy in harsh environments. Evidence is equivocal, or slightly inversely correlated.
Quote from: Harmless on December 13, 2017, 05:35:06 PM
once had a long lived PC in a polygamous relationship triangle/quadrangle. It was an interesting run, for sure, and there were both good sides and bad sides to the equation as my character saw it.
I won't spoil how things ended, but in some ways the polygamous arrangement ended up benefiting everyone, in a harsh world where survival is a constant goal.
I'm so jelly. My IC partners (almost) always wanted to do the monogamous thing. Or at least wanted me to adhere to it. ::)
This topic makes me thing of that Sza song "Weekend"
"My man is my man is your man
Her, this her man too
My man is my man is your man
Her, that's her man
Tuesday and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
I just keep him satisfied through the weekend
You're like 9 to 5, I'm the weekend"
Quote from: LucildaHunta on December 24, 2017, 11:44:48 AM
This topic makes me thing of that Sza song "Weekend"
"My man is my man is your man
Her, this her man too
My man is my man is your man
Her, that's her man
Tuesday and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
I just keep him satisfied through the weekend
You're like 9 to 5, I'm the weekend"
Amen.
Everybody likes drama. Also jealousy is an easy emotion to show/play as well.
Easy to play sure, hard to get right without coming across as a moron.
Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.
A woman can always be sure a baby is hers.
A man needs monogamy so he doesn't invest all of his effort in raising some other man's kids, meaning an end to his genes.
The men who don't care have their genes edited out of the species. The men who do procreate. So those who care pass on their tendency to care and it remains as a trait for the general population.
A woman and her child benefit from having a man dedicated to providing resources for upbringing. Don't project modern society onto the situation. Zalanthas is a bitter fight for survival so added resources are very meaningful. But a man won't stick around if a woman sleeps around, because the children might not be his.
A woman wants her man to be dedicted to her alone so his resources go to her offspring alone.
What are genes, precious?
I do think there was some biological urge for monogamy, and a very similar urge for polygamy and polyamory. Cultures vary in their following of either, typically revolving around spiritualism and religiosity. There's a reason, for instance, that Talmudic texts introduced the matrilineal inheritance of Jewish bloodline. Those rascally men couldn't keep it in their pants! (Among other reasons, but again, religion plays a large role).
With only a moderate amount of spiritualism and no religiosity outside of despot worship, I think Zalanthans do whatever floats their skimmer.
I stopped roleplaying relationships because most I have dealt with have issues with the whole openness that Arm portrays and they get all "serious" about it. Just isn't fun at all for me, so I just avoid that level of role-play entirely now. Just don't want the headache. As someone who is poly myself, and educated in the topic from different standpoints and aspects, it's hard to "educate" someone in an IC manner, so I don't bother with it.
I play the game to have fun, and well... role-playing the relationship side of things have been a headache to me. There has been one instance where I had a lot of fun with it, but that was due to the other player having fun also. Actually, it's been over way over a few years, but the fucker was a damn psion prostitute that was manipulating my corporal in the Arm and feeding him information so that he would hunt down magickers in Allanak to his Templar, who basically let him do anything. One of my best characters ever... and my character had no clue. I IRL figured it out, but my character was too dumb and manipulated to figure it out. Gods that was one of my most favorite characters ever and one of the best role-played relationships I have ever had in the game.
On Zalanthas I think monogamy is common because of the amount of betrayal. All those people cheating instead of being honest, creating relationship drama. Possession. Insecurity.
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
The happenings in the world don't always match what should be happening. Imo monogamy should be more rare than it is.
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
On Zalanthas I think monogamy is common because of the amount of betrayal. All those people cheating instead of being honest, creating relationship drama. Possession. Insecurity.
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
The happenings in the world don't always match what should be happening. Imo monogamy should be more rare than it is.
I wouldnt say its that she wants his resources because she cant get them, she totally can. She is just greedy like the average Zalanthan and wants more resources for no added effort.
In this thread, the people who prefer playing monogamous characters seem to complain that everyone tries to pressure them into polygamy. The people who play polygamous complain that everyone tries to pressure them into monogamy. This suggests to me that things are already working as intended, i.e. both are plenty represented. Just stop taking it so personally when someone else doesn't "get" your character's romantic proclivities.
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
Think about it for a while. You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.
Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?
Clearly their mother and father together are having trouble providing for them. Single parents are going to have it even worse.
EDIT: Successful single mothers are a luxury of a highly productive, technological society, with either the ex paying support or the government subsidizing them. You won't find family courts or SNAP cards on Zalanthas.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 09:26:18 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
Think about it for a while. You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.
Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?
Clearly their mother and father together are having trouble providing for them. Single parents are going to have it even worse.
EDIT: Successful single mothers are a luxury of a highly productive, technological society, with either the ex paying support or the government subsidizing them. You won't find family courts or SNAP cards on Zalanthas.
I have thought about it. Have you?
PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off. They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.
Your defense holds no water at all. People on Zalanthas that are starving and find themselves knocked up are more likely to sell that whelp into slavery than demand the father support both of them. The pcs having babies are rich enough to take care of them and hell, even hire nannies!
I have never heard of a pc in game that was starving and destitute get pregnant in game. Not once.
Maybe you're playing a normal poverty stricken homeless friendless jobless street scavenger but by FAR most ain't.
Personally I find romantic relationships to add a new layer of intrigue to my roleplay experience, and prefer monogamy because while I want that extra layer I don't want it to become some TV show my mum probably watches while she eats chips and dip in bed. For me, going outside of a single person means opening the possibility that I'm going to be betrayed by more than one person. Who's to say I won't be dating Amos and Talia, and Amos and Talia discover they like one another and want me out of the picture? I mean, I think monogamy is common (if it even is, considering some comments in this thread and my own experience to boot) because there's no solid ground in a place like Zalanthas to really want to put your trust in more than one person at that level.
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off. They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.
I see, so we've gone from "a woman wants her man's resources" to "PC's in Nak". That's a common fallacy called "moving the goalposts".
Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
Polygamy's never really been my thing IG because when (and if) my characters have relationships, I like to properly focus my attention and at MAX think I could handle the possible complications and drama that come with two other people (and only if that made sense). Generally though, if a partner is spreading their attention thin, I don't get mad, but get bored and eventually end up nudging them toward their other partners so I can busy myself with other stuff or find someone compatible with my preferred play style.
The documentation itself is more interesting if you have fun with it. It is broadly worded to say commoner people can do whatever they want in this regard, they just shouldn't expect a cookie for it either way. It's almost like genealogy today. I'm sure some of our families have a book on a shelf that tells who was who generations back, but a fair chunk of us have to ask this aunt or this parent by word of mouth the same as any Zalanthan would (silly family tree projects). We're fortunate to have access to written records if we really want them, though.
What's eyebrow raising to me is that GMH family members are pretty much tracked by the government. Marriages are formally contracted and legitimate children are documented. Monogamy is important for these select commoners during those contractual periods. As per the docs, to make a new MMH, once you reach a certain level, your bloodline becomes important.. which would likely have you registering a contracted spouse and children to the templarate!
It leads me to believe that it is power, influence and a desire to firmly control these things that is the driving force behind monogamy in Zalanthan society, not so much base survival needs. Marriage is a breeding program. If we want to look at it objectively, a commoner looking at someone with wealth and influence might see that this person can often (not always) be seen having fewer partners and try to emulate that behavior, not knowing the possibly whys and rhythms of it.
I'm gonna go a touch further and have a bit of fun with open-ended documentation. The GMH people believe they are free men and women, but it could be said that they are just as bound and accounted for as any Borsail slave or gemmed. Since the nobles conceivably are also part of this 'breeding program', wouldn't it be interesting if they were being exclusively born for particular attributes? Even noble bastards are firmly placed under thumb. None of what I just said may be completely RIGHT, but it's amusing to not be so serious about it and explore ideas, even if it ends up being TL:DR.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 02:42:03 AM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
PC's in Nak are the top tier barring a very select few rinthi pcs STARTING off. They all start with a shit load of cash, end up in a job or training place within a real life week usually... unless the PLAYER chooses not to and most players who choose that are experienced and never have to worry about sid.
I see, so we've gone from "a woman wants her man's resources" to "PC's in Nak". That's a common fallacy called "moving the goalposts".
Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.
I used Nak because:
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 09:26:18 PM
You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.
Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?
Stop moving the goal post. You said a woman wants her man's resources, I am saying that's more a real world belief than a Zalanthan reality based solely on equality of gender in the game and the fact that we play the successful ones, not the destitute like the NPCs
unless we want to and I have yet in all my years seen a single starving pc breed. Not one.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 02:42:03 AM
Go ahead and play a female PC who has each kid from a different dad if that pleases you. It's pretty easy to play independent-super-mom when the kids are all virtual, isn't it. Right up until mom dies and the kids are orphaned (a common fate for a PC), but we don't think about that, do we.
Axhimas Kadius had two children (I think) out of marriage. One for her cousin Sia, and the other one cause she loved the guy. Taken care of by Kadius should she have an untimely death. Not monogamous in any way.
Blazing Moonrose the Sun Runner, had two too, one for a Bahak whose mother kept bugging him to make her a grandchild and one for the zarajiri she was emotionally monogamous to but not physically. Tribe is taking care of them.
Shy the whore, in a monogamous relationship with Jarls the wanted murderer and criminal of Allanak (yes, she was yet still working) got knocked up - she took a trip to Luir's, went into labor and murdered the infant when it came out because she didn't want it.
I take post mortem into consideration when my pcs have kids. Maybe I'm just more immersed than others but *I* end up with incredible guilt over the children my characters leave behind.
I think Krath said it well enough:
Quote from: Krath on May 25, 2018, 03:39:12 AM
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
My opinion that monogamy shouldn't be the norm has come from THIS helpfile (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Marriage) which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality,
it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.My opinion that it really would not be a 'thing' that women would want their man's resources and that it's real life that's like that, not here, comes from this help file here (http://www.armageddon.org/intro/chargen.php) which states:
Avoid imposing your own interpretations and norms on the game world. For example, there is no sexism on Zalanthas; women and men are treated equally.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 12:14:42 PM
Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.
(A bunch of dubious social, not biological, arguments.)
Humans aren't biologically monogamous. There are a bunch of people that try to figure out why current, westernized society started to trend monogamous, but all we have are theories. Meanwhile, if humans were naturally, biologically monogamous, we'd mate for life like truly monogamous species. There would be no cheating. There would be no "emotional infidelifty." There would be no divorce. There would be no cultures that practice polygany or polyandry. And yet... we have all those things as a species.
So no, monogamy isn't natural or biological. It's a social preference. One that, according to the helpfiles, doesn't exist in Zalanthas.
Speaking as a polyamorous person, I'll say that people handle polyamory in the game about as well as they do in real life. There is quite a bit of drama and jealousy, quite a bit of insecurity, some people who just want to fuck around, and more than a few people who decide they'd rather be monogamous. And I think that's fine. As long as people recognize that there is no PREFERENCE for monogamy in Zalanthas and don't socially stigmatize people who have multiple partners, I think whaever your or your character's preferences are are fine. Just like IG attitudes toward homosexuality.
No one's saying everyone has to be queer and polyamorous. But you shouldn't be stigmatizing people who are. If you are, you aren't playing according to the helpfiles.
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 25, 2018, 10:04:24 AM
I used Nak because:
Well, no. You started focusing on PCs, whereas I was talking in general.
QuoteI am saying that's more a real world belief than a Zalanthan reality based solely on equality of gender in the game and the fact that we play the successful ones, not the destitute like the NPCs unless we want to and I have yet in all my years seen a single starving pc breed. Not one.
Would it make you happier if I said a male parent trying to raise children would benefit from having a female parent trying to contribute too?
Clearly it would in the case where one of the parents dies, a common event on Zalanthas.
Selling your own children into slavery isn't a recipe for successful reproduction, by the way. Those who make the effort to provide a future for their children are going to pass on their genes. Doing everything you can for your children is built into human nature because the genes of those who did were more successfully propagated than those who didn't.
QuoteAxhimas Kadius had two children (I think) out of marriage. One for her cousin Sia, and the other one cause she loved the guy. Taken care of by Kadius should she have an untimely death. Not monogamous in any way.
A very specific example of a woman who had the resources of a wealthy, powerful family at her disposal, so she could afford to dispense with a husband. Most Zalanthanian's don't have this.
QuoteBlazing Moonrose the Sun Runner, had two too, one for a Bahak whose mother kept bugging him to make her a grandchild and one for the zarajiri she was emotionally monogamous to but not physically. Tribe is taking care of them.
Elves aren't even human, I'm not going to speculate about their biology. Nor about dwarves, who some believe simply spring out of holes in the ground.
QuoteShy the whore, in a monogamous relationship with Jarls the wanted murderer and criminal of Allanak (yes, she was yet still working) got knocked up - she took a trip to Luir's, went into labor and murdered the infant when it came out because she didn't want it.
Killing her own children. Total failure of reproductive fitness.
The bottom line is that PCs are the about the worst reproducers ever. They take stupid risks, they die young, they rarely form lasting relationships, they behave as if the kids make no almost no claim on their time because they don't appear in the game, and they make no provision for their kids in the event of their disablement or death. They really are not a good example of how things are on Zalanthas, and they make you wonder why exceptional people keep being born if they go and eliminate themselves from the species the way they do.
EDIT: Here's another interesting point. Men and women on Zalanthas are equal, but while I've seen plenty of female characters who state they have children, I've seen exactly zero male single parent PCs.
Quote from: valeria on May 25, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 12:14:42 PM
Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.
(A bunch of dubious social, not biological, arguments.)
The social behaviors arise from what works to successfully propagate genes. An example of a behavior arising from reproductive success: men who pursue sex are more likely to reproduce than those who don't care about it. So men in general end up have strong sex drives, which leads to various sorts of social behavior.
In a society with sparse resources, a woman raising a kid is going to have a better chance if the man contributes than if the man just spreads his seed and walks away. I don't understand why this isn't obvious.
A man who sticks around to contribute is going to want a commitment from the woman, because those who don't care if the children aren't theirs end up having the genes that led to their not caring shrink out of the gene pool.
Yes, behavior is not 100% determined by genetics, but it's huge factor.
And yes, men will sometimes be polygamous when they can get away with it. In the past, the ones for which this was a successful reproductive strategy were the apex males who had the resources for more than one family. Few men can be apex males.
And yes, women will sometimes be polyamorous, although they tend more to serial monogamy. Generally when they have enough of their own resources that they don't need a partner, they can just take them for pleasure. But this historically has been rare. They're more likely to simply cuckold their male partner and pass the child off as his.
Quote from: Krath on May 25, 2018, 03:39:12 AM
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
Shit-reposting this.
This isn't a discussion on why people are monogamous or polygamist in general. This is about Zalanthas, which allows for both. Play what you want. If someone doesn't "get" your relationship, deal with it ICly.
Quote from: Riev on May 25, 2018, 11:11:56 AM
This isn't a discussion on why people are monogamous or polygamist in general. This is about Zalanthas, which allows for both. Play what you want. If someone doesn't "get" your relationship, deal with it ICly.
Good grief. From the original post:
QuoteSo, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
I don't see anything saying the question is specific to PCs.
It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes. Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise). For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a world that is harsh, like Zalanthas, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).
Quote from: nauta on May 25, 2018, 11:21:11 AM
It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes. Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise). For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a word that is harsh, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).
Ok, the answer to the original post is "unicorns and rainbows" then. What does it matter anyhow. Still drives me batty though, how at one moment people will condemn those who don't extensively play out being wounded for being unrealistic, and almost in the next breath, say "Zalanthas isn't Earth" and people don't even have genetic material! ;D
Reading through 6 pages, I don't know that it was ever confirmed that "commoners are commonly monogamous" was ever confirmed. Monogamy is TYPICALLY about marriage, and even if its extended to sexual partners, there is no documentation that suggests that "commoners typically only take one mate at a time".
This thread was necro'd, but it is based off no real fact. There's no discussion because the question was "Why is monogamy so common?"
It isn't. In the virtual world of Zalanthas, it isn't. But we're players, roleplaying our parts in the world, and most people have a specific upbringing and comfort level. So among PCs, monogamy probably is stacked in favor of monogamy. We're playing a game. So.
Quote from: Krath on May 25, 2018, 03:39:12 AM
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
Quote from: Riev on May 25, 2018, 11:23:04 AM
This thread was necro'd
The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: Riev on May 25, 2018, 11:23:04 AM
This thread was necro'd
The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.
It had been last discussed 5 months ago. But you were the one talking about "moving the goalposts" earlier, and now you're picking apart an argument over the etymology and meaning of a term, rather than the discussion.
I'm merely pointing out that in 6 pages of discussion, at no point was the fact "Commoners are, statistically, more likely to be monogamists". It is, actually, documented that Zalanthan Commoners have multiple sexual partners and this is the norm.
So the discussion is based on false pretenses, and everyone is discussion Real-Life Bleed rather than "how it is".
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: nauta on May 25, 2018, 11:21:11 AM
It isn't documented that Zalanthans have genes. Hence, there's no reason to suppose that they would be driven by any so-called 'genetic' urge (to reproduce or otherwise). For all we know, Zalanthans are made up of the four elements and were created by the Urdragon Ishmael.
In a word that is harsh, any number of social arrangements can be had for raising children, where that relation can have as its terminus or termini: nobody at all (abandoned); one other person (single parent, male or female); two or more other people (be they the parents or complete strangers).
Ok, the answer to the original post is "unicorns and rainbows" then. What does it matter anyhow.
No. The answer to the original post is in the help file previously posted:
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 25, 2018, 10:04:24 AM
...THIS helpfile (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Marriage) which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.
So,
QuoteSo, my question is why monogamy among commoners the default? Why isn't polygamy more of a default?
Because people aren't playing according to the docs.
Quote from: Riev on May 25, 2018, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: Riev on May 25, 2018, 11:23:04 AM
This thread was necro'd
The thread was still on the front page of the forum, actually.
It had been last discussed 5 months ago. But you were the one talking about "moving the goalposts" earlier, and now you're picking apart an argument over the etymology and meaning of a term, rather than the discussion.
I'm merely pointing out that in 6 pages of discussion, at no point was the fact "Commoners are, statistically, more likely to be monogamists". It is, actually, documented that Zalanthan Commoners have multiple sexual partners and this is the norm.
So the discussion is based on false pretenses, and everyone is discussion Real-Life Bleed rather than "how it is".
Oh, just go away. I'd call you a grumpy old curmudgeon, except that I'm probably older than you are. ;D
(glances at the theories in her last post, shrugs and grabs popcorn)
I'll interject here that I have seen several single male PCs raising children before and have even done so myself IG.
This topic comes up every few years and the same two sides (for or against monogamy and the reasons behind it) rear up and weigh their worth.
It is NOT against documentation if your character is monogamous. It is NOT against documentation if your character is polyamorous. It is NOT against documentation if your character is a polygamist. It is NOt against documentation if your character is asexual.
While it is the normative that many Zalanthans do not find it practical to have just one mate given the harsh climes of the world, it is not some alien behavior to see it happen.
Quote from: Tiktak on May 25, 2018, 01:04:15 PM
It is NOT against documentation if your character is monogamous.
Tiktak is right. The documents don't say there is
no monogamy. They just say it's common (ie the norm) to see Zalanthas with many
SEX PARTNERS (not mates) so while not the norm it *does* happen.
I agree with OP that monogamy seems more prevalent. It's been the normal request for at least one lover throughout
all my characters.
Quote from: Krath on May 25, 2018, 03:39:12 AM
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
I'm actually going to suggest pressuring each other into different lifestyle choices is just normal human behavior (aka roleplay), even to the point of being a dick about it. Doesn't seem all that different to me from pressure towards doing drugs, racism, music genres, fashion, or pizza toppings.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on May 25, 2018, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Krath on May 25, 2018, 03:39:12 AM
Here is my take.....
1. If you want to role-play a polygamist - role-play a polygamist.
2. If you want to role-play a monogamist - role-play a monogamist
3. Whichever one you choose, do not be a dick to others because they want to play a certain way. It is a game, and we play this for entertainment. What may be enriching to others, may not be to you and vise versa.
I'm actually going to suggest pressuring each other into different lifestyle choices is just normal human behavior (aka roleplay), even to the point of being a dick about it. Doesn't seem all that different to me from pressure towards doing drugs, racism, music genres, fashion, or pizza toppings.
Will continue to pressure MM to stop FTBing.
I get that you disagree, Eyeball, and why you disagree. Neat theories, man. But monogamy is common in only about 10% of mammals and 25% of primates. Primates as a group are highly social, and issues with infanticide, paternity, and resources aren't limited strictly to humans. Still... monogamy in only 25% of primate species. I don't find it strange at all that Zalanthas cultures largely decided not to go the monogamy route and that multiple partners are common. I just don't disagree with your monogamy/biology theory. I think people play mongamists because that's their social role in real life and they're comfortable with it. No culture is a monolith, which is why I don't care what you play, as long as it's within the docs.
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 25, 2018, 10:04:24 AM
My opinion that monogamy shouldn't be the norm has come from THIS helpfile (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Marriage) which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.
Would like to point out that the statement "polygamy is common" does not necessitate "polygamy is the most common" and further, neither of those statements necessitates "monogamy is uncommon."
Having a sexual partner, does not necessitate being in a relationship, or even the rearing of children in any way, shape or form.
Quote from: cshoov on May 25, 2018, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 25, 2018, 10:04:24 AM
My opinion that monogamy shouldn't be the norm has come from THIS helpfile (http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Marriage) which states:
Given that Zalanthas is a place with broad attitudes towards sexuality, it is common to see Zalanthans have multiple sex partners.
Would like to point out that the statement "polygamy is common" does not necessitate "polygamy is the most common" and further, neither of those statements necessitates "monogamy is uncommon."
Polygamy isn't mentioned at ALL. Polygamy is having more than one
spouse.
Semantics matter. If having multiple sexual partners is common then anything other than that is less common. Definition matters. It should matter more than interpretation. When everyone thinks definitions are subject to interpretation everyone can see things different. Like the dress thing or the laurel thing.
So for shits and giggles!
com·mon
ˈkämən/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
"salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings"
synonyms: usual, ordinary, familiar, regular, frequent, recurrent, everyday; More
def·i·ni·tion
ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
in·ter·pre·ta·tion
inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
the action of explaining the meaning of something.
"the interpretation of data"
synonyms: explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification More
an explanation or way of explaining.
plural noun: interpretations
"this action is open to a number of interpretations"
synonyms: meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference
"they argued over interpretation"
a stylistic representation of a creative work or dramatic role.
"two differing interpretations, both bearing the distinctive hallmarks of each writer's perspective"
synonyms: rendition, rendering, execution, presentation, performance, portrayal
https://www.liveabout.com/what-is-the-difference-between-polyamory-and-polygamy-2171552
when people get butthurt that my PC refused their advances and there happened to be another partner recently, they start filing player complaints that I am inappropriately monogamous.
Unfortunately, it's just your PC my PC is refusing. My PC has other side-bitches that they just didn't tell you about.
People complaint over that? MULTIPLE people? An IG relationship isn't a hostage situation. I'm going to just leave it at that.
How did you know about the complaints? I thought that staff didn't tell people when they get player complaints, especially when they're unfounded like that.
Quote from: sleepyhead on May 26, 2018, 02:53:51 PM
How did you know about the complaints? I thought that staff didn't tell people when they get player complaints, especially when they're unfounded like that.
That's because it's BS.
Seems like someone's pretty thirsty.
Here ya go, a harmless glass of water.
(https://images.pexels.com/photos/416528/pexels-photo-416528.jpeg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&h=350)
The most likely reason that I see for there being a massive amount of pro-monogamy people is simply due to the fact that that is, for now, the Earth cultural norm. For some reason, even though we can sidestep other simple things like "reality" and "bugs the size of Volkswagens," people seem to cling to this last concept. For some people, it's about knowing someone has your back above all others. For other people, it is about control of the other person in the relationship.
Stepping away from reality to shovel shit for several hours seems easier for people to step away from their cultural comfy blanket of "You are mine."
"You are mine." can be really interesting to act out if you feel like pouring energy into that sort of story and dealing with the inherent stuff that could come with it. Done right, it can be go from subtle everyday manipulations, to "My character is literally traveling the Known and jumping at shadows trying to get away from an obsessed person that KEEPS finding them."
Basically, if you offer someone a 'tasty cupcake' and they turn it down, offer it to someone else. Don't club them with a rolling pin and try to drag them into your bakeshop. It's a cupcake. Someone will want it if you offer it nicely. (shrugs) If you get turned down for romance RP, find another character to flirt with that shares your play style and everyone can keep having fun.
Mali is mine.
https://youtu.be/8fvTxv46ano
As with any relationship, in-game or otherwise, those who are paired typically come up with certain limits. If your character is someone inclined to have multiple partners then they are to free to stay with those who do the same, just as those who prefer a single partner should also do the same. It isn't against the docs for your character to feel indifferent to a single partner let alone multiple unless you are playing a role that says otherwise, and even then it is still your character. If there is shame given out either way, shame on those who feel that they must do that.
We can settle this without devaluing anyone's opinion on the matter, and I think that we can all agree that we are here to make experiences that we consider to be fun. Monogamy, polygamy, or snu-snu givers... it doesn't matter! Just play your character how you feel it should be played and try to adhere to the guidelines that are enforced.
Never had a monogamous PC.....have I had PCs with more then one relationship at a time? Nope. Why because one is all I the player have time for. I bet that is a consideration for many players and that it is simply easier to claim to be monogamous then to find some other way to explain IC that 1 relationship takes up 30% of my arming time....why would I add more? Well maybe not hard to do IC I suppose...but the results are the same.
My best charitable guess is that very few players have the experiences to draw upon alternative forms of relationships or sexuality so they tend to avoid them. Or it's even just easier to slip into the mold you already fit into while role playing.
And I'd venture it's harder to play a character as alternative sexually without getting some sort of unwanted attention from other characters. Positive or negative.
Nobody is monogamous in Zalanthas. Y'all are trippin'.
... I can't believe we're still talking about this. Probably shouldn't have ever been brought up to begin with lol
Quote from: boog on May 30, 2018, 06:46:35 PM
Nobody is monogamous in Zalanthas. Y'all are trippin'.
Thanks for adding more trash to the garbage fire >:(
You're welcome. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q5NnBt9.png)
I went on a long rant about whether I 'scene' or not, then I realized this thread is about monogamy. Which I would think has been beaten enough with the investigation stick.
I remember playing this different RP enforced game. In there, the practice of adoption was a very common occurance. When an old, established, powerful character adopts a younger, recently created, less codedly/influence powerful characters. These connections were created and dissolved at a whim, often over silly drama reasons. To a point where it eventually devalued the concept.
Some poor soul asked my character to adopt her. I stayed away from that practice, but then my assholeness kicked in.
I agreed and poured quiet a bit of effort into helping my new found daughter. And theeeeeeen, I had some asshole fun :). I got controlling. Insisting on weakly family dinners. I began scaring away her romantic interests. At some point provoking an entire war betweeen houses by staging a shotgun wedding. The daughter tried fo dissolve the adoption, but nuh uh! Family is family, my dear child. You dont choose it. Now, I heard this man has shown you dishonest intentions. I will have him flogged.
It was fun!
Sometimes being unreasonably controlling could be fun.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 09:26:18 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on May 24, 2018, 05:04:24 PM
The idea that a woman wants her man's resources on Zalanthas screams real world bullshit cause on Zalanthas men and women are equal, women don't need men's resources, they have their own.
Think about it for a while. You have people in Allanak starving on the streets. You have run down children who are wearing rags ready to fall off of them.
Do they seem like the product of successful, strong, independent womyn?
Clearly their mother and father together are having trouble providing for them. Single parents are going to have it even worse.
EDIT: Successful single mothers are a luxury of a highly productive, technological society, with either the ex paying support or the government subsidizing them. You won't find family courts or SNAP cards on Zalanthas.
There have always been "single" mothers. It's just that they were generally called "widows". And they
were usually poor and depended on charity or extended family. But they could survive without remarriage.
The only real reason my chars tend toward monogamous open relationships over good old multiple partners (as in, not lovers, but romantic partners) is because on many or most apartments you can only put two people on a least, and I have no desire to deal with the code limitation ICly, that you can't have a throuple/triad on a lease in most places.
Quote from: daughterofauset on August 29, 2018, 01:23:44 PM
The only real reason my chars tend toward monogamous open relationships over good old multiple partners (as in, not lovers, but romantic partners) is because on many or most apartments you can only put two people on a least, and I have no desire to deal with the code limitation ICly, that you can't have a throuple/triad on a lease in most places.
Everyone knows that any group of three, or more, comprised of Zalanthanians is called Murder.
Quote from: daughterofauset on August 29, 2018, 01:23:44 PM
The only real reason my chars tend toward monogamous open relationships over good old multiple partners (as in, not lovers, but romantic partners) is because on many or most apartments you can only put two people on a least, and I have no desire to deal with the code limitation ICly, that you can't have a throuple/triad on a lease in most places.
This is a good point, and really doesn't promote the idea of multiple partners. Maybe the cap on people leased to an apartment should be universally raised by 1 if they want to promote this sort of thing.
Prediction: multi-partner relationships cohabitating apartments discover inventory management is now, foreplay
>remove leggings
You can't carry that many items.
>put leggings bed
There's no more room for that here.
>put leggings backpack
A dusty leather backpack doesn't have enough room left for a pair of leggings.
You say, in sirihish, "We could just cuddle?"
Aww <3 das cute
Honestly WTH does this matter so much? I like the idea of tribal relationships and I like the idea of trust being the most limited resources and having a life bound mate. Why would this happen? The same reason Houses have life sworn servants who can't leave without grave consequences. Because people are a resource and trust is scarce. Let people play how they want. Everyone has a different play style and every character is different.
Everyone needs to stop trying to act smug. No good can come from taking your OOC interpretation and preferences and trying to enforce them upon every player, every character that person plays and every romantic relationship those characters engage in. They are both IG. They are both socially common and accepted IG. Nothing needs to change.
Okay. Good. Play how you want. Have fun.
I know I don't have much to draw on here since I'm fairly new.... but shouldn't people just play how they want to play? Then... they can be judged IC, by each individual character, the way that specific character views it.
There are a specific set of societal rules we all get in the help files, but surely that just determines how we should
react to things and characters, not how we should OOC judge people and how they play.
In the end - to me anyway, it's a game, and we should just all have fun bringing it to life, however we want to.
Also:
Quote from: only_plays_tribals on August 29, 2018, 03:51:21 PM
Prediction: multi-partner relationships cohabitating apartments discover inventory management is now, foreplay
>remove leggings
You can't carry that many items.
>put leggings bed
There's no more room for that here.
>put leggings backpack
A dusty leather backpack doesn't have enough room left for a pair of leggings.
You say, in sirihish, "We could just cuddle?"
Thanks for making me laugh my ass off ahaha
Totally! I was really hoping this thread would have died out awhile ago because that seems obvious enough after much discussion.
I once was in a triangle that worked out pretty well, save for one of the guys leaving a sword lying in the other guy's apartment (? lol) and he'd be the slightly jealous one (as in not killing us, which he easily had the power to do) and it was pretty fun as none of us had conflicting careers or anything like that, and we were all citizens of the same place. We were like our own Hong Kong Triad.
I think I ended up seeing someone outside of those two guys, a Templar. Although I had not actually slept with him before I stored, although the homeboys seemed to think so. I decided to be pregnant after a while, so, that was fun, although I did not play my pc long enough to have the baby. I would chat with the Templar several times over the way before heading on to a new character, and would not really elaborate on the fact that both my short-distance hubbies were desperately wanted criminals. Fun!
It makes for great stories. Math gets more complicated the larger you go, right?
Quote from: Cind on August 31, 2018, 03:06:39 AM
I once was in a triangle that worked out pretty well, save for one of the guys leaving a sword lying in the other guy's apartment (? lol) and he'd be the slightly jealous one (as in not killing us, which he easily had the power to do) and it was pretty fun as none of us had conflicting careers or anything like that, and we were all citizens of the same place. We were like our own Hong Kong Triad.
I think I ended up seeing someone outside of those two guys, a Templar. Although I had not actually slept with him before I stored, although the homeboys seemed to think so. I decided to be pregnant after a while, so, that was fun, although I did not play my pc long enough to have the baby. I would chat with the Templar several times over the way before heading on to a new character, and would not really elaborate on the fact that both my short-distance hubbies were desperately wanted criminals. Fun!
It makes for great stories. Math gets more complicated the larger you go, right?
Haha, I think I remember this.
Quote from: Eyeball on May 25, 2018, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: valeria on May 25, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on May 24, 2018, 12:14:42 PM
Monogamy is biological. It has to do with shared parental raising of children.
(A bunch of dubious social, not biological, arguments.)
The social behaviors arise from what works to successfully propagate genes. An example of a behavior arising from reproductive success: men who pursue sex are more likely to reproduce than those who don't care about it. So men in general end up have strong sex drives, which leads to various sorts of social behavior.
In a society with sparse resources, a woman raising a kid is going to have a better chance if the man contributes than if the man just spreads his seed and walks away. I don't understand why this isn't obvious.
A man who sticks around to contribute is going to want a commitment from the woman, because those who don't care if the children aren't theirs end up having the genes that led to their not caring shrink out of the gene pool.
Yes, behavior is not 100% determined by genetics, but it's huge factor.
And yes, men will sometimes be polygamous when they can get away with it. In the past, the ones for which this was a successful reproductive strategy were the apex males who had the resources for more than one family. Few men can be apex males.
And yes, women will sometimes be polyamorous, although they tend more to serial monogamy. Generally when they have enough of their own resources that they don't need a partner, they can just take them for pleasure. But this historically has been rare. They're more likely to simply cuckold their male partner and pass the child off as his.
except bonobos which is a biological argument.
if anything your response seems more rooted in sociology than in biology.
with bonobos, individuals mate freely with each other... and bonobos care for each others offspring not knowing how related they are to each other.
Just a reminder, this is the world discussion forum and not the rp discussion forum. If you want to have a chat about the way people rp relationships go to that forum.
The question here is a world based discussion. Points like... why are only two people allowed to share an apartment are more valid than "well, bhy dont you just let people rp what they want". We arnt talking about rp. We are talking about the world.
Why is everyone always so up in each other's loin cloths? Let people play their characters the way they want and that includes how they wish to pursue romance if they care about it at all? I've been away a couple years but there is a never ending marry go round about what is or is not appropriate in arm relationships. Bottom line people are complex their characters should be as well some people just don't want to deal with multiple relationships some people are selfish... nobles, I would expect to get rather pissy at the thought of sharing a lover with some flea bitten commoner with who knows what kind of STD's. Obviously there are social stigmas like the whole elf human thing but when it comes to who is banging 4 people and who would rather just be with one other person I am not interested in playing rollplay police. I will say I think the day we get coded STD's there is going to be sharp curve in how quickly some pc's jump into each other's pants but I generally try to think of my concept and how I think they feel about multiple lovers and if someone has issues with it they are welcome to bring it up in character. I've played PC's that were very casual with sex and PC's that were more committed to a single partner. Generally speaking I find it's easier to stick with one person so I'm not spending the entire time I have on the mud dealing with 5 active lovers. Who has time for this really??
Welcome back! And I couldn't agree more, I was hoping this thread would have died out awhile ago though to be honest.
Whore to devoted one, both done, and without any stigma. Play what you want.
"Why is monogamy so common?"
Reduced chance of getting stabbed by jilted lovers.
It's easier than seducing multiple people at once.
I mostly attribute it to the fact it's hard to maintain a relationship with 4-5 people at the same time to an intimate, even physically, level as opposed to: That one person who I /KNOW/ gets on at this time and wants to get the D.
That and I assume most of us live in good christian white areas that have the subtle influences of monogamy in them.
It's really hard to detach the monogamous programming, even when you're polyamorous af irl.
But this is the best answer yet:
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 10, 2019, 08:32:15 PM
"Why is monogamy so common?"
Reduced chance of getting stabbed by jilted lovers.
Monogamous pair bonding is a natural result of the natural human psychology of hierarchies. You always have a favorite, and eventually their comfort in the sureness of the relationship is more important than strange on the side.
(https://i.etsystatic.com/17046411/r/il/587370/1468532441/il_570xN.1468532441_8fyg.jpg)
If y'all don't stop citing a psychology/evolutionary biology consensus that doesn't exist on this subject...
There is no consensus in scientific literature whatsoever as to if primates, let alone humans, are meant to be polygamous or monogamous, or which strategy produces more offspring or results in higher fitness.
I'm just going off of what I know from people and how almost every single organization functions -- hierarchy.
I don't have a dog in this fight obviously. I've never let anyone else tell me how to play something as inherent to my character as their sexuality and don't ever plan to, either.
What irritates me is people casually behaving as if there's some sort of default human condition that determines monogamy or polygamy as our natural biological preference. That's patently untrue. Make whatever arguments you want, but that humans have some sort of psychological or biological consensus leaning towards one or the other is provably false, hence my irritation.
Behold.
(https://i.imgur.com/gVLXNAJ.png)
As you can see, certain cultures are monogamous and others are polygynous (very seldom polyandrous, which composes something close to .5% of mating systems in the human species). Additionally, the mean reproductive success is variable and almost certainly based on conditional factors specific to one culture or another. Simply glancing over the table shows that some monogamous cultures have higher reproductive success for both male and females than some polygynous cultures (Ache versus Brazil), while the reverse is also true in several cases (the Kenyan Kipsignis males are doing very well for themselves, for example, in their polygamous mating).
Even the cultures that are polygamous also often have serial monogamy as a secondary mating structure, which resembles Armageddon pretty tightly (ie, some people have multiple partners, other people have committed relationships in succession). Sadly this table only has European sampling after the rise of Catholicism/Christianity, so there's no polyandry represented there but, well, that's religion for you. Unless Tek is going to outlaw a mating strategy, I think we can safely say a lack of consensus is the only true human condition that applies to Armageddon.
The ultimate point being is that for every primarily polygamous human society there is also a monogamous human society so if we can please FARK OFF acting like there's some sort of conclusive biological or evolutionary advantage to one or the other, I'd be tickled pink.
Nevermind.
Monogamy is my kink.
Mahogany is my kink.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/dKpTkya14ysJq/giphy.gif)
I just cant belive this thread is still here.
Though i would like to note that in that little chart posted above that areas where it is harder to survive tend towards poly. :0
And, man.... I still can't get over how hard it was for people to understand that this wasn't an rp discussion.
opens drawer and gets a whip....I'm gonna need all ya all ta bend over.
To be fair, this thread is still here because people keep bringing it back from the dead once a month or so.
*bends*