Print

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

[Sutremaine]

[ADOPTS_OWNER]

*facepalm*

You know, I was going to see if prefstrings could be done on a caste by caste basis, but even if that worked it would be terribly rare. I wonder if civ members with [PET]/[ADOPTS_OWNER] can be adopted themselves?

[elf-fondling human]

I feel like a royal harem would be pretty epic. Maybe instead of marrying a bunch of times a dwarf can have their spouse and a slew of concubines.

[Jeoshua]

... will a [PET] who is the same [CREATURE] as it's owner be breedable?

[NW_Kohaku]

... will a [PET] who is the same [CREATURE] as it's owner be breedable?

If they are INTELLIGENT, they have to get married to have children.  A dwarf with [PET] could have children if they got married, but not if adopted.

[Radiant_Phoenix]

So, in DF, polyamory and the ability to learn are mutually exclusive? Or does [CAN_LEARN][CAN_SPEAK] not preclude it?

[Jeoshua]

I was wondering the same thing.  The whole "den mother" thing really stuck me as a very dwarvenly thing, tho.  They don't even keep track of parentage through last name, so this seemed likely

[Hammerstar]

Dwarves probably wouldn't be polygamous.  Elves, on the other hand... I can picture them...

Well let's not discuss what I see in my minds eye.  But Elves way moreso than short drunk people... reminds me too much of Math Club parties if you know what I mean.

Oh, god... *holds head in hands*

This reminds me of a horrible rule set I read long ago for sex in 2nd Ed. D&D, complete with die rolls and bonuses/penalties for constitution/dexterity and such. It was very complete, to the point of even defining rules regarding the various races sexualities. Elves came up as something like "free love" during their younger years, and not just with each other. They'd sleep with anything that walked on two legs, and quite a few things that don't. "During their younger years, elves explore the world and races, making love with everything they encounter."

Only thing that would have made it perfect would be a picture of an elf humping a tree.

[Bohandas]

Dwarves probably wouldn't be polygamous.  Elves, on the other hand... I can picture them...

Well let's not discuss what I see in my minds eye.  But Elves way moreso than short drunk people... reminds me too much of Math Club parties if you know what I mean.

Oh, god... *holds head in hands*

This reminds me of a horrible rule set I read long ago for sex in 2nd Ed. D&D, complete with die rolls and bonuses/penalties for constitution/dexterity and such. It was very complete, to the point of even defining rules regarding the various races sexualities. Elves came up as something like "free love" during their younger years, and not just with each other. They'd sleep with anything that walked on two legs, and quite a few things that don't. "During their younger years, elves explore the world and races, making love with everything they encounter."

Only thing that would have made it perfect would be a picture of an elf humping a tree.

There was also a 3e update of the NBOUCK too.

(Not sure if its still available for download, but I have a copy...)

[Eldrick Tobin]

*)Does the [PET] Tag get in the way for work and such?

For most things no. BUT If a Noble needs a weapon rack you can't see that. I'm not sure what if any hoop jumping CAN be done to assign war beasts/hunting beasts to someone. I tried using Runesmith to fix the fact that the Embark Seven weren't listed as tame... which just made things complicated. Thought it might also fix my Expedition Leader so I could assign bodyguards...
*) *paraphrased* Does anyone remain Milkable?

I still have the save so I can check. Currently the ladies SHOULD be milkable still, but they definitely can_learn... not playing Kzinti.

*) "I wonder if civ members with [PET]/[ADOPTS_OWNER] can be adopted themselves?"
IIRC one person adopted themselves. I can see it on the Animals screen. Where everyone is listed @.@

*) "Maybe instead of marrying a bunch of times a dwarf can have their spouse and a slew of concubines."
I HAD a game running (lit fire to the grass and it crashed as migrants suddenly arrived... probably other variables at work) I nicknamed the Dude "The Owned" All the War Trained Foocubi adopted him save the Succubus that was already pregnant. He was already married. Teach him for choosing his prefstrings.

*)Breeding.
Seemed to be a bit going on even before the two weddings. Not sure who is married 'Before Embark' -at least DT keeps the waves properly separate(Wave 1 The Embark Seven, Wave 2 The War Trained). Now then, 'Wave 2'... I did have 2 pairs who were bought at Embark. One pair was trained for War Successfully(cheaper to build the kennel). IIRC Both became preggers and successfully managed their kids. Other Kids from other mothers... IIRC popped up. Huh... I could check the game log `-`v *checks log* Mechanism and Music are the Den Mothers... wait... Music is a Guy... Funny that two who are so popular are not the Flash in the Pan celebrity... however that Noble position is held by a War Trained Incubus @.@ a Pet from Wave 2.

I can put the Gamelog.txt up somewhere. Or if someone wants to attempt to find out Parentage information I could put up the save. Just the creature and entity files? That can happen too.

[NW_Kohaku]

*) "I wonder if civ members with [PET]/[ADOPTS_OWNER] can be adopted themselves?"
IIRC one person adopted themselves. I can see it on the Animals screen. Where everyone is listed @.@

When I first saw this, my first thought was, "Ah, that way, they can claim themselves as their own child, and get a bigger tax credit."  Is there something wrong with me?

[Eldrick Tobin]

*) "I wonder if civ members with [PET]/[ADOPTS_OWNER] can be adopted themselves?"
IIRC one person adopted themselves. I can see it on the Animals screen. Where everyone is listed @.@

When I first saw this, my first thought was, "Ah, that way, they can claim themselves as their own child, and get a bigger tax credit."  Is there something wrong with me?

Not at all, you've just done your taxes recently. That or the psychic wave of everyone ELSE doing their taxes recently is impacting your brain. Or both. @.@

[Cervisomant]

Polygamy, as I understand it, simply refers to relationships composed of more than two people, regardless of gender.
And I would love some sex/gender ethics.

Yes, but polygamy can go either or both ways.

If one male can marry several females, it's fairly simple.

If one female can marry several males, it's a little difficult to determine who gets to be the (biological) father, but other than that, it's still fairly simple.

If females and males can both marry multiple times, it gets complicated. 

What if one man marries four women, each of which are married to three other men, each of which are married to three other women (or maybe a few of the same women married to the first guy), who are each married to three other men, and eventually, you wind up with the entire fortress married to everyone else in the fortress by three or four degrees of separation?

The last point you are describing would actually be not just a polygamous relationship, but also an open one. Which would get pritty... unorderly, if every kind of sexual relationship gets the same value.

If every member of a polygamous Marriage is mutually married to each other, it would be pritty managable (and also rather small in groupsize, probably)