Why is monogamy so common?

[Hauwke]

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.

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.

[Harmless]

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.

[Molten Heart]

.

[nauta]

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! 

[Lizzie]

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! 

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.

[Delirium]

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.

[Hauwke]

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?

[Namino]

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.

[WarriorPoet]

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.

[valeria]

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).

[Grapes]

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.

[satine]

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.

[Namino]

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"

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.

[Akaramu]

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. 

[LucildaHunta]

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"

[Veselka]

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.

[Gaare]

Everybody likes drama. Also jealousy is an easy emotion to show/play as well.

[Hauwke]

Easy to play sure, hard to get right without coming across as a moron.

[Eyeball]

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.

[Veselka]

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.

[JustAnotherGuy]

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.

[ShaLeah]

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.

[Hauwke]

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.

[sleepyhead]

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.

[Eyeball]

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.