Realism or Routine?

[Missy]

2) Because the PLAYER wants children and they aren't smart enough to RP. If you want someone to nurture, there are plenty of newspawns who could use your help in a variety of ways. Why do you want a (temporary) cripple instead of a fully functional person? Only a few, very eccentric, characters should prefer this.
Why impose OOC biological drives on Cantr?

I'm going to have to disagree here. I have characters that don't know what children are, nor do they know what they're missing, but they have an instinctive drive to reproduce and it hinders their happiness. It's by no fault of my own that my character has this "drive" since it doesn't even know what children are. The character cares a great deal for people around it, but it's not fulfilling. (Perhaps thats an error because I as a human play that character, but it wasn't purposely that this instinct was put into the character. --In fact I only realized what his problem was, when I noticed a post by Seko, where-in she mentioned it's not as if chars run around with a thing for hips. Sadly...>.> heh mine does. I always knew he did that, but had no idea why he did it.)

Second, the point is, children are far different from a simulated family in Cantr. How many people are aware of the Nosse? How many of you have characters that recognize a bond between people in the Nosse, besides those in the Nosse itself? Anyone? There-for, there is no effect by simulated families in a simulated game. (Perhaps there should be....and thats up to players characters to realize...) But it's bass-ackwards.

But is there any particular reason for grandparent to care about their grandchildren, or for that matter why parents would particularly care about their children?

Sure, your post was directed at Pirog. But I'll gladly give you my two.

As stated previously my character has an instictive drive to care. Why wouldn't they care for a grandchild or child, if they care about newspawns and people in general?

I personally don't imagine that if babies are implemented that people will run around poking it, saying "What is that?" despite not having ever seen one in Cantr before. But I do imagine that the creators of the child (Unless its in their personality to do otherwise) will have a bond to it since it came from them.

[Pirog]

NetherSpawn>

I don't really understand your logic.
The same things you use as arguments for Cantrians not having nor caring for their babies could be applied to real life humans too. As evolved as our modern society is there is no need at all for reproducing...or for families at all. From a rational perspective where emotions are discarded babies are a hell of a lot more trouble than you gain from them...yet no people are all together rational. Cantrians shouldn't (in my view) be rational beings either...that would make the game boring.

My reason for wanting children in the game has nothing to do with the wishes of my characters...that would in a way be impossible, since they can't possibly know what a baby is during the current structure. I want children because I think it will make the game a hell of a lot better and a more interesting society simulator.

Why impose OOC biological drives on Cantr?

Since not all people wants to have children I very much doubt that it is a purely biological drive...but I'm not saying it isn't.

[The Industriallist]

Why impose OOC biological drives on Cantr?

Since not all people wants to have children I very much doubt that it is a purely biological drive...but I'm not saying it isn't.

All drives are biological in a living creature. All of them.

That doesn't mean they have to be universal or consistent.

I think the rest is answered in my post to the parallel thread, but...real humans are genetically programmed, to varying degrees, to want and care for children, for evolutionary reasons. So they have a motivation other than naive economic advantage (which children don't provide in modern days). Cantrians aren't genetically programmed at all, so there is no reason to think they would be inclined to reproduce or bond to strange little things that look kind of like people.

All that said...my position is that if you don't crush the game in the process of incorporating children, I would consider it a not-bad thing. There are advantages to balance the continuity violations involved.

[Pirog]

All drives are biological in a living creature. All of them.

I'm not sure I understand. Biological in what sense? That it is in our genetics? If that is your claim I don't believe you.

[The Industriallist]

All drives are biological in a living creature. All of them.

I'm not sure I understand. Biological in what sense? That it is in our genetics? If that is your claim I don't believe you.

Biological in the sense that they are governed by involuntary brain and hormonal activity...I guess in the sense that there isn't anything but biology to a person.

On the side topic of genetic determination...a human at any given point is the result of a combination of their internal genetic programming and the accumulated effects of their environment. Which of those has 'more' effect, I don't know and won't argue, but no, I don't think humans are stupider than Pavlov's dogs.

But that doesn't mean that the drive to have (or raise) children, which is certainly significantly genetic IRL, should appear out of nowhere among the cantrian population. And you know it will...with a fervor totally unjustified by the only plausible pre-existing motivation (that I can find) of wanting to find out what it does.

[Pirog]

Biological in the sense that they are governed by involuntary brain and hormonal activity...I guess in the sense that there isn't anything but biology to a person.

So if my parents would beat me up and lock me in the cellar you would still call it a biological reason if I was screwed up?

But that doesn't mean that the drive to have (or raise) children, which is certainly significantly genetic IRL, should appear out of nowhere among the cantrian population. And you know it will...with a fervor totally unjustified by the only plausible pre-existing motivation (that I can find) of wanting to find out what it does.

How about just realizing that they can?
There are certainly strategical reasons for an area to grow in population. In areas like the Seatown Forest - Drojf - Krif region large populations can mean the difference between being a deciding power or just tagging along...just look at how the massacres set Krif back.

And either way, as I said earlier, it is a small problem. There are plenty of unrealistic, unnatural and illogical things in Cantr as it is...Cantr will never cover every aspect in a natural manner, so you just have to put a blind eye to some things.

[Robert]

If your parents did that, they had been messed up. It would still be biological heritage, they just made little or no effort to fight their biological drives. It is the mark of a truly civilized person if they can fight their natural drives of violence.

[SekoETC]

I personally don't imagine that if babies are implemented that people will run around poking it, saying "What is that?" despite not having ever seen one in Cantr before.

I would compare it to recent changes in bows, babies are only little humans just like primitive bows are little bows. Now even though I did see one wondering IC if their bow had changed, after that there hasn't been a surge of people wondering how the information of how to make a simple bow popped into their head, or how could they make bows without string before. They accept the new criteria without a noise and act like it was all normal.

But I do imagine that the creators of the child (Unless its in their personality to do otherwise) will have a bond to it since it came from them.

Yeah, if they "made" a kid then it doesn't matter if they really need it, they just wanted to see what it does. (Main reason for manufacturing anything unfamiliar in Cantr.) Now they may find out the kid is useless, but if they place it on the ground and someone steals it, they're sure to raise a fuss! (Just like with any object in Cantr. Exept that this one may have a player.)

[Pirog]

If your parents did that, they had been messed up. It would still be biological heritage, they just made little or no effort to fight their biological drives. It is the mark of a truly civilized person if they can fight their natural drives of violence.

I very much disagree. "Civilization" has nothing to do with it...rather the opposite. Many violent crimes today comes as symptoms of people being frustrated just because they have to surpress their "biological" urges to fit our modern societies norms.

Being normal by our current standards is actually often the very opposite of being natural. A lot of our behavior was constructed as diciplines for "taming" our body, to separate us from the animals.

The way we use knives and forks when we eat is one such example. It is an unnecessary complicated process that was devised just to be complicated...so that we would discipline ourselves.

Such disciplines, combined with labels like being perverse if you break from the sexual norms of society, crazy if you don't follow the routines for making conversations with strangers or behaving in public etc. is a source of great frustration for many people, making them agressive or depressed.

Talking about being civilized is outdated for me...it was just a strategy for making people in other parts of the world seem less worth and justify us exploiting, enslaving and killing them.

[Robert]

Actually, forks and knives were developed because of the state of the washing abilities of the middle ages, there was very little clean water for washing, so instead of washing every day they used tools that WERE clean.

About insanity being judged by not conforming, INSANITY IS BLISS! Where do you think the phrase came from.

[Pirog]

Robert>

I wasn't talking about why knives and forks are invented...I was talking about the way we use them. In the middle ages it was common to just have a knife...and I would guess few others than the nobility had utensils, but that is a totally other matter.

[Robert]

The main thing is we like to keep our hands unscorched and clean of the stuff of food, ever try to eat a fresh baked potato with your hands? That's where a famous game came from.

[Pirog]

Well, keeping them from warm food I can understand...but during the middle ages they didn't have a clue about jerms, so I doubt they had even close to the same demands on hygiene that we have.

[formerly known as hf]

That's why I loved India...

No cutlery, there's nothing like eating with your hands... We're so backwards in the west...

[Robert]

The Japanese make sense too, just a pair of sticks for picking up delicate and hot stuff