Guest
12/1/2018
|
I think I've made my point.
(Being on the receiving end of inter-sectional rhetoric isn't much fun, is it?)
|
|
|
-16
link
|
Kylestien
Posts: 749
12/1/2018
|
I think the main "issue" the Masters would have with the idea is due to the whole wanting love stories thing. If it was just a case of passion, we would have so many polygamous marriages it's not even funny. Hell I have one or two people I'd marry here if they were up for the idea.
But the thing is it's very specifically love they are looking for, and the more people you throw in to a tale, the harder it becomes to love everyone in it. The idea of loving, genuinely loving more then one person is not impossible, but it's a case of the more you add the more chances to go wrong in the eyes of the tale I guess. Plus it's a case of what sort of love it is: if you are head over heels in love for one of the people, but platonicly love the other, how does that work? DOES it even work.
Simply put, as fun as it would be to gather a bunch of people round for marriage and other exercises, the more you add the more complex the story becomes. Which may work in their favor, or may not, but i don't think they will think it will.
--
I will accept all actions, though I hold the right to refuse for my own reasons. However, if you explain WHY you send me a harmful action like Loitering or Dantes,And I feel the reason good, I will consider it more. http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kylestien
Persuasive patron. You want a lesson, send me a message asking for one.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
12/1/2018
|
There is another explanation, too: for a long time, humanity has leaned towards monogamous marriages while other forms of romance flourished around it. So the Masters are enforcing the rule which spawned the most romantic, tragic tales so far. After all, they cannor regulate love, but they can regulate the law and this is what they are working with.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
So just to be clear, the social norms of the era and established tradition doesn't matter when it comes to homosexuality or gender identity, but does when it comes to polygamy?
And the Bazaar, a space crab stuck in an unrequited love triangle with two celestial bodies, *doesn't think complicated romance would be useful to its cause*?
Bullet proof reasoning in both instances, truly.
edited by Isaac Gates on 12/1/2018
|
|
|
-3
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
12/1/2018
|
Is that a question for me, or the creators?
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Well considering you're the one who proposed the idea that The Masters cottoning to surface tradition and/or the Bazaar having no interest in romances involving more than two parties on the basis that they *aren't tragic or romantic enough* (an assumption made with no explicit proof drawn from the lore or real life I might add) would be a valid explanations...
edited by Isaac Gates on 12/1/2018
|
|
|
-1
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
12/1/2018
|
I'm repeating myself then: the formula for human love stories historically, is a monogamous marriage and a variety of non-marital romances. My guess is they are enforcing the formula in their human laboratory that is London.
The creators might have other ideas, of course. My guess is that Honeyaddict made the thread for us to speculate, even if we know that there are game design reasons for the choice.
Kylestien's explanation works too, for me.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
0
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Except the Bazaar doesn't care what's formulaic for humans, does it? Because its primary interest isn't love between humans, it's love in the most abstract and widely applicable sense possible- because it's an interstellar crab in love with a giant fireball who's in love with another fireball.
(And again, if what's formulaic and common for humans matters then there shouldn't be intersex or gay marriage either.)
Hell, there's explicit examples in lore that it takes an active interest in love that only involves *one* party- hence its deal with the masters pursuing all their loves for activities & objects (hunting, drinking, precious stones, etc.).
edited by Isaac Gates on 12/1/2018
|
|
|
-2
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
12/1/2018
|
I will stick with Saklad's explanation. The lore can tell us the rest in time.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
0
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Said explanation being:
"It's arbitrary and inexplicable."
?
|
|
|
-2
link
|
Kylestien
Posts: 749
12/1/2018
|
A more spoilerish explanation then:
[spoiler]Perhaps the reason the Bazzar would want monogamous love stories is because it only wants to win over one being. The perfect story for it's situation, in theory, is one where a manogamous love conquers even the worst situation or social standing.[/spoiler]
edited by Kylestien on 12/1/2018
--
I will accept all actions, though I hold the right to refuse for my own reasons. However, if you explain WHY you send me a harmful action like Loitering or Dantes,And I feel the reason good, I will consider it more. http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kylestien
Persuasive patron. You want a lesson, send me a message asking for one.
|
|
|
+11
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
12/1/2018
|
Personally, I feel that polygamy in real life should be allowed if and only if all participants mutually love all other participants. Which happens, but is extremely rare.
In Fallen London, I think not allowing it is fine. Not everything has to change from Victorian morality, and the mechanics of allowing it would have extremely unfortunate narrative implications.
Seriously, think about how this would work. If you could have multiple active spouses at once, and gain all their benefits, it would be irrational not to do that. If you could switch between them, It would make spouses just another companion slot. Collect them all!
And think of the spouses: do you think any given spouse would truly love any other given spouse? If not, it’s extremely immoral to force them into that.
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
12/1/2018
|
Fun fact: the category for spouses is still called “Constant Companion” behind the scenes. A term that has now been redefined to mean something quite different.
Well, probably different. I’m sure someone wants to marry the gigantic fear-sensing aquatic death spider.
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Saklad wrote:
Personally, I feel that polygamy in real life should be allowed if and only if all participants mutually love all other participants. Which happens, but is extremely rare.
*gasp*
Do you realize how insensitive that is? There are literally tens of people who would take exception to such brazen bigotry.
|
|
|
-18
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
12/1/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
*gasp*
Do you realize how insensitive that is? There are literally tens of people who would take exception to such brazen bigotry.
I can’t tell if you are agreeing with what I said or not.
Note that I’m talking about marriage as a romantic relationship. Many cultures, both historical and contemporary, think of marriage differently, to the point that calling it “marriage” is arguably a mistranslation on our part.
edited by Saklad5 on 12/1/2018
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
0
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
12/1/2018
|
Could someone please move this thread out of The Bazaar? I’m not sure where it should go, but it shouldn’t be here.
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
0
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Saklad wrote:
Could someone please move this thread out of The Bazaar? I’m not sure where it should go, but it shouldn’t be here.
It's basically request for a change to a specific mechanic, makes sense to me.
|
|
|
-3
link
|
Jason5237
Posts: 298
12/1/2018
|
We are still in a world where the foundation is rooted in late 1800s England. I understand that many things have changed drastically; however, many have not. Even if there’s no opportunity to currently have more than one spouse, there are opportunities to fool around with more than one person at a time.
--
H.G.R.: Adventuer, Explorer, Paramount Londoner https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/User766505
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Guest
12/1/2018
|
Here's the problem with that: every time I've ever made the point that this or that wouldn't be unquestioningly accepted in Victorian England, the automatic response has been:
"Don't be *RIDICULOUS*! This setting isn't about historical accuracy or period drama! It's about escapism for modern people with modern sensibilities and anything that would make them feel more accomodated and comfortable can, should and *must* be a reality."
Except polygamy, apparently. That's just a step too far... because... something something The Bazaar isn't interested. The Bazaar. An *ambiguously gendered lovesick crab/building that gave birth to a mountain that's presently trying to woo a star* is apparently only interested in bog standard human marriage.
In point of fact The Bazaar's say so is the *only* thing that would make all the rules about intersex and homosexual relationships make sense- and the same goes for polygamy. *It* has every reason to scour every possible avenue of romance for some scrap of information to help it make its case, *especially* romances that involve multiple parties because that's precisely the type of romance it's entangled with.
The thing is, you've got a point: Victorians wouldn't (and shouldn't) just unquestioningly accept changes to the status quo like that- they're an incredibly conservative and narrow minded culture by our standards. There would naturally be resentment, and resistance not just to polygamy, but gay marriage and people openly flouting gender norms. Thing is, The Bazaar has the means to *force* changes like that anyways because spoiler: it owns the city and everyone in it.
TL;DR - Y'know how to fix the lore? Implement polygamy, leave all the gender identity and sexual preference options exactly as is, have all the Victorians: tutting, huffing & harrumphing about those facts in game at various points, then simply have The Masters & Bazaar respond thusly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbGGIV45Ng
edited by Isaac Gates on 12/1/2018
|
|
|
-10
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
12/1/2018
|
Nobody thinks the lore is broken.
And most of us understand that romantic choices have changed from 19th century norms to make the game more enjoyable for 2018 people.
The lore allows for that because this is not a historical game. In speculative fiction you can take things any direction you want, as long as you provide some internal constistency. Now, the degree of consistency can vary. In magical realism and in weird (the FL genre) you can be freer in how things work.
So FL allows for non-persecuted homosexuality and fluidity to accomodate its players, and the weird setting allows them to explain why the mores changed that particular way. As long as you realize why they made that change in the first place, you don't sweat the in-game explanation.
As for polygamy, it might get implemented in the future, or we might get an in-game explanation of the 'one spouse, one ship' rule. Given that so many of the Masters' rules and reasons are hidden, cryptic and cosmic in nature, either way is fine.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+4
link
|