What If? Fertility Control

[Lucius]

Assume a campaign world as follows:

 

Technology is bronze to iron age; a highly advanced culture may have crossbows and arbelests, maybe even steel. Certain fields, such as farming, may have medieval techniques like the horse collar and crop rotation.

 

"Magic" is fairly common, manifestations ranging from trivial to world shaking. One person in twenty probably has some degree of ability to manifest mental or spiritaul power in a practical way. There is of course a direct correlation of power to rarity, that is, someone with a healing spell is common but someone who can restore a lost arm is NOT that common.

 

There are a number of humanoid species, such as are often seen in fantasy. A surprising number of them are capable of interbreeding and such crossbreeding is not all that uncommon. They all regard themselves as deriving from a common ancestry anyway. Dwarves in particular always have non-Dwarven mothers, as there are no female Dwarves and they can only reproduce via females of related species.

 

Partly because of the influence of magic, most individuals can expect to be vigorous and active up to at least 70 if not longer, and barring violence, accident, or exceptionally virulent illness, the average livespan for most humanoid races is close to a century - for some, longer, for a few, shorter.

 

Here's what I want opinions and ideas on.

 

Conception is rare unless deliberate. If both parties are actively intending to reproduce, they have a chance of doing so (although it will still probably take several attempts.) If both parties are just having fun and neither has parental intentions, the odds of conception are usually remote (maybe if one rolls five levels of Unluck.)

 

I'm not sure yet what mechanics to use if there is a conflict of intention; there may be a contest of Wills involved, or it may require some kind of actual thaumaturgy or theurgy to force a conception against the will of one of the paritcipants. It will in any case by a chancy business, and even harder to do it without the victim sensing it happening. It WILL however be possible; some of the world's "bad guys" are infamous for being able to induce unwanted breeding. It's one reason Dragons and their ilk are hated. Mind Control also works, as do potions that hijack the physical end of the process.

 

I haven't made up my mind as to whether the two sexes will have equal control, or one will have a greater influence. That may even vary by species.

 

Some people of course will be sterile, which may be a curable condition (note previously mentioned potions.) Others, usually as a result of a curse, will have uncontrolled fertility, unable to prevent a conception if their partner wants one, or even bearing the risk of a conception neither wanted.

 

 

Briefly, an unwanted or unexpected child will be an exception.

 

Obviously, this is a big change both from our world and from most fantasy settings. What are the possible consequences? What are the implications for biology, for sociology, for sexuality?

 

What happens to gender roles? The structure of the family? Larger political and economic structures?

 

In short, given these starting conditions, what will such a world look like for the player characters?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Don't even ask how a palindromedary reproduces.

[mhd]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Let's assume that the knowledge of magic is evenly divided, for an even more utopian scenario. So technically, it's better than our modern world, where technology/industry/knowledge ain't exactly universal.

 

Unless we're going for a straight-forward, somewhat unrealistic Star Trek TNG scenario here, there still will be war (which, as we all know, never changes). Not sure whether this will turn out okay for women. Now, at least child mortality will be *way* lower, but I still would guess that the nation that replenishes its stock of soldiers more quickly from a war will have the advantage, and that means women being as pregnant as you can be. I would almost assume this to be the normal state. Sometimes it's "a woman's duty", sometimes it's outright slavery (better leave out the discussions whether the duty is slavery, too.)

 

Now, as there will probably be some kind of magical arms race, some nations might have a different approach to this. If you can actually create warriors instead of just birthing them, you might have a chance. Especially considering that a lot of women will be more productive under this state of law, where battles are fought by proxy (sure, with magical medicine, pregnant women in the other societies won't be out, and willing to work for their Sparta, but I idealistically assume that a free society is more productive).

Created soldiers can take many forms: A created race (origin of goblins/orcs?), golems, vat-born super soldiers (replicants), chimeras, huge sentient blobs, demons/angels, even the dead.

 

How sexuality and society is different from standard fantasy worlds (or our own) will depend a lot on how a nation behaves at war.

 

And a lot of that depends on the details of magic. If one nation -- let's call them the Athenians -- pursues magical knowledge, with a bunch of free citizens, while another one -- let's call 'em Spartans -- is quite a bit more war-like, you'd want to know if the Athenians can come up with magical cruise missiles, or if magical capability evens out a lot before that. If every "war-wizard" is ultimately the same and a pinnacle of magical power has been reached, it all comes down to the number of war-wizards.

[Pizza Man]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

If fertility was a conscious act, all the races would be at the knife's edge survival wise. children have always come at unexpected times, and forced all sorts of ingenuity to prepare for them.

 

__Kings would be forced to have court mages cast secret fertility spells, invisible power effects, mega scale.

 

On the other hand large families could be a cultural thing...Pioneer America for instance. But once TV was introduced, the birth rate went down...After an Hour of Lawrence Welk, no one's gonna reproduce. Zip. Nada. NObody!

[Steve Long]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

I don't recall to what extent the social implications were discussed, but IIRC there were several Fantasy novels/series in the Nineties (I think -- perhaps earlier, perhaps beyond) where foolproof contraception was available. For a while there it seemed like any stories written by women seemed to feature it, and probably some by men as well. The Liavek series had some sort of contraceptive herb women chewed (if memory serves), and there may've been something similar in the Thieves' World stories (or some other "shared world" anthology).

 

An awful lot of them also seem to have analogs to coffee, which is near and dear to even more writers' hearts I imagine.

[mhd]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

If fertility was a conscious act' date=' all the races would be at the knife's edge survival wise.[/quote']

 

If it would just be fertility control, then I'd agree. But if the total medi-magical system is good enough, then the extended lifespan and low infant mortality rate should more than make up for that. Women could actually plan having children in their 30s...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

If it would just be fertility control' date=' then I'd agree. But if the total medi-magical system is good enough, then the extended lifespan and low infant mortality rate should more than make up for that. Women could actually [i']plan[/i] having children in their 30s...

 

Indeed. Plus, since magic is common, presumably it could be used for things other than just the medical references made. I think one reason farmers tended to have a dozen kids was to put them to work on the farm; if the farmer knows a magic spell or two to assist with farming (creating water, some minor plant growth sort of stuff) then he doesn't need so many kids.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Unless pregnancy and childbirth were made dramatically easier (given the medical magic, ok, I can see it) the birth rate would go down.

Lower birthrate=less warfare. Population pressure (real or percieved) is a major cause of warfare. And exploration. And colonization. And migrations.

[mhd]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Also, if the magic is commonplace enough, it's harder to establish a feudal system. If one out of every twenty peasants has the magical equivalent of penicillin & pistol, it's harder to subjugate them.

 

This, of course, becomes quite a different matter if you need a lot of education to focus/channel your magical powers, or if the magical talent is genetically stable and certain lineages would be more powerful (also: if the gene is strictly maternal or paternal, this changes a lot).

 

Again, this depends a lot on the magical theory. Never mind that we don't know whether this contraception is due to the mages (i.e. wizardly monthly birth control enchantments) or separate from that (i.e. inborn ability). In the first case, I'd wager a bet that most societies wouldn't even get that far. There are those who fight, those who cast, and those who breed and till the soil.

[Steve]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Actually, if magical ability is that common, you could end up with more of a feudal magocracy than a feudal sysem based on warriors. Those who have magical ability would be over those who don't, and the more powerful you are, the higher your rank. It could be quite a polite society, since any random stranger dressed in poor clothing might be able to blast you to ashes.

 

With increased health through magical aid and magical birth control, there would still be some stratification in societies. The people without a family member able to do magic might still have larger families to work the farm, but they would be smaller than in the real world due to lower child mortality rates.

 

The nobility would tend to keep their families very small due to lower child mortality and keep inheritance issues down.

 

Some cultures might still favor big families, and they would press outward in expansion or colonization efforts.

[Lucius]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Not sure whether this will turn out okay for women. Now' date=' at least child mortality will be *way* lower, but I still would guess that the nation that replenishes its stock of soldiers more quickly from a war will have the advantage, and that means women being as pregnant as you can be. I would almost assume this to be the normal state. Sometimes it's "a woman's duty", sometimes it's outright slavery (better leave out the discussions whether the duty is slavery, too.)[/quote']

 

Amazingly enough, I hadn't thought of that. I had considered that there would be social pressure involved, and magical ways to force the issue, but I had not considered the kind of out and out coercion involved in slavery or in makng reproduction legally mandatory. A mistress could say to a slave or captive "If you don't impregnate me within the year, I'm selling you to the Dwarves to toil in the mines!" (or to the Goblins for food.) No matter how much he may hate the idea of his child raised by her, he'll be trying.

 

More food for thought. Keep the ideas coming.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ruminates

[Lucius]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Never mind that we don't know whether this contraception is due to the mages (i.e. wizardly monthly birth control enchantments) or separate from that (i.e. inborn ability).

 

It's inherent. I thought that was obvious in the initial post, when I said people who had uncontrolled fertility were exceptional somehow, such as being under a curse. Controlled fertility is the default state; you need a potion or ritual to change that state, not to establish it.

 

 

If fertility was a conscious act, all the races would be at the kn

ife's edge survival wise.

 

I don't see how this follows.

 

__Kings would be forced to have court mages cast secret fertility spells, invisible power effects, mega scale.

 

Why invisible? If people don't expect unexpected children the jig is up once the bellies swell.

 

 

Unless pregnancy and childbirth were made dramatically easier (given the medical magic, ok, I can see it) the birth rate would go down.

Lower birthrate=less warfare. Population pressure (real or percieved) is a major cause of warfare. And exploration. And colonization. And migrations.

 

Heck, with less dense population, there's less likelihood of an urban civilization even starting.

 

As for warfare, while I had sort of assumed there would be warfare between tribes and nations, even if there's less or none of that, there will still be a more or less eternal on again off again conflict between the Gathic Peoples (the humanoids we're discussing) and the Attaric Abominations ("monsters" like Goblins, Trolls, and Dragons.) This conflict alone will inspire population growth, I'm sure.

 

 

 

Lucius Alexande

 

Sometimes the palindromedary takes a byte out of my r's

[mhd]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

It's inherent. I thought that was obvious in the initial post' date=' when I said people who had uncontrolled fertility were exceptional somehow, such as being under a curse. Controlled fertility is the default state; you need a potion or ritual to change that state, not to establish it.[/quote']

 

I just meant that even with a system like that, where no constant inoculation or even a "blessing" at birth might be necessary, it could be a fact because aeons ago some wizard magically brought this onto the population. There definitely has to be some kind of reason why this is so persistant, or I can imagine lots of societies where breaking that spell would be highly beneficial, at least to the ruling caste. So either some unsurpassed wizardry from the Golden Age/a great magical genius or even a divine judgment. Speaking of which, do the gods play a role in that society? As with the power of magic, this could change the setting's foundation.

[Markdoc]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

This sort of thing would wreak major changes in every society.

As far as costing it goes, I wouldn't bother: it's the default. Everybody gets "conception is voluntary" as a 0 point complication. Those individuals able to force conception could buy a major transform (probably cumulative) the magnitude reflecting how "potent" they were. Or a higher skill roll, if it were skill vs skill to generate conception (though if that were the case, then unwanted pregnancy would be pretty common, and the discussion would be moot).

 

As for social effects, the ability to choose to have children and better life expectancy would almost certainly mean fewer children. It always has here.

That means quite a lot of things, by itself.

First off, fewer children means fewer people to share wealth among, means a wealthier population in general. Add that to less disease and longer life expectancy, and you could expect to see significant accumulation of wealth - across all spectra of society. I'd expect the ability to support a large family would be a status symbol - so relatively speaking, you might see larger families higher up the economic scale: the reverse of the historical scale in Europe, but exactly what we saw in the Middle East.

Secondly, fewer children means that children are likely to be more highly prized: which means in turn that some characteristics of poor societies on our planet - like child labour/exploitation and child abuse would be far rarer. You'd expect fewer street urchins and less street crime.

 

Outcome: societies would generally be more affluent, even before you took the potential effect of widespread magic into account. I'd expect they'd be much more affluent, in total.

 

On the question of war, I honestly doubt it'd have much affect on frequency. With the exception of Volkswanderung episodes like the Germanic peoples in Europe, most wars are not started by population pressures: they're traditionally started over economic and control issues. The first crusades exported lots of soldiers to the Middle East, but back then the amount of forest being cleared for new - fertile - land just barely surpassed the amount of fertile land being allowed to fall fallow and go back to woods. Population pressure wasn't the problem. The problem was lots of younger sons trained and equipped for war with no income and nothing to do. I doubt people are going to be less greedy or controlling, so this sort of problem will continue - but the "excess sons" thing, won't necessarily.

However, it does mean that wars would be fought differently: if you don't have an excess mass of very poor people, you're not going to field armies of levies and if people have few excess children I doubt they'd stand for the children they actually depend on for the family's survival being conscripted en masse. It suggests that armies would typically be smaller and better equipped/trained. You wouldn't expect the gross mortality from injury/disease that we saw historically either, so that trends in the same direction. If you joined the army, you'd have a better chance to survive to be a veteran than was historically the case.

 

Outcome: There'll still be wars, but they'd probably look more like modern-day wars, fought by well-supported, well-trained armies - and better equipped, given access to both minor magic and more affluent societies. Not US marines, perhaps, but certainly, say Swiss pikemen or German landsknechts, or Italian condotterie.

 

Urbanisation. It was commented that lower population growth might lead to less urbanisation, but I don't buy it: affluence is one of the major drivers of urbanisation. Populations don't urbanise to save space. They urbanise so that they can trade or provide for their shared defence. In a world with monsters and goblin warbands, I'm guessing that defence - and the ability to field a well-organised militia - would be pretty damn important. As far as trade goes, we've already suggested that populations would be more affluent. What's the point of being affluent in a small village? In years when you have good crops, everybody else in the neighbourhood does too - so your produce is nearly worthless. In years when you have bad crops - everybody else does too, so you end up fighting over half a melon. On the other hand, if you are near a trade hub, you can sell your excess in good years and import in bad.

Even more, if you live in or near a city, your ability to sell means that you can afford to buy: it's not just about half a salted goat any more. Larger communities provide more specialised tradesmen, which means better quality goods. Even today, people flood from the countryside into cities in developing countries, because even living at the bottom of the social heap in an urban slum is better than living out in the country. The bucolic rural counties of the developed world are utterly dependant on their network to cities.

 

Outcome: I'd expect this world to be at least as urbanised as our own past, perhaps more so. Rural communities will probably be concentrated along trade routes and on the most fertile land, with extensive areas of wilderness in between. Cities will probably support thriving communities of craftsmen - with the magical ability to send messages - and possibly even goods - at high speed, supporting thriving business communities as well. Think of the renaissance states of Italy or the city-states of the Hanse, just jazzed up a bit.

 

Social change. It astounds me that no-one has discussed what would be the most profound change of all - the upending of the gender balance. In the past, women were seen as a valuable resource - just like, say cattle - because men needed them to make babies, and needed babies to continue the family line and run the family business. Women usually got little or no say in the matter. If they could choose whether or not they had babies ... well. That puts a totally different spin on things. Men would need to negotiate to get babies, and negotiation implies power on both sides. You could always try the "Have babies or I'll sell you to the salt mines!" but what do you think the chances are a guy like that getting a second spouse if he does? With lower population densities, the possibility of forced baby-making really doesn't seem like it'd be viable in anything expect the most draconian of societies.

Add to that the fact that one woman in 20 has access to some sort of magical power, and that women could choose - exactly as they do today in the west - to delay childbearing until they were better economically established or to have a fling without getting landed with a baby to support, and I think you'd see much more gender equity than we have seen in any historical societies beyond the hunter-gatherer level.

 

Outcome: Like Lysistrata, but more terminal. I'd expect a great deal more egalitarianism: after all, even a misogynist warlord might revise his ideas about women in the army, when his opponents have access to twice as many wizards and healers as he does - and their population is growing faster besides ...

 

cheers, Mark

[Orion]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

"Whadda you mean yer preggers! I didn't want a kid! Who'd you sleep with?"

 

"Nobody baby. It's just been you. No one but you. I swear it!"

 

If pregnancy is mostly under conscious control, then the odd case of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy could be seen as a bigger problem, and many would take it as proof of cheating. And the converse - not being able to have a child, when both say they want one - would be taken as proof someone is lying.

[Bloodstone]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Can most STDs be cured by magic?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Can most STDs be cured by magic?

 

I would assume so, if you're even going to broach the subject in a game ...

[Bloodstone]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

At that point we are essentially talking about sex without consequences.

 

Speaking for myself, the only checks I have on attempting to bang every moderately attractive female I meet are:

 

- risk of unwanted pregnancy

- risk of STD's

- cost (be it in time, money or the trade of services)

- society's pressure towards serial monogamy

 

However, I don't know that that last item would exist without either of the previously mentioned risks though...

 

This changes the structure of marriage in particular, relationships in general and societies attitudes towards sex on the whole.

[Steve]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Even with an absolute control over pregnancy, I doubt that monogamy would disappear.

[Bloodstone]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Even with an absolute control over pregnancy' date=' I doubt that monogamy would disappear.[/quote']

 

Oh, I'm not saying monogamy would disappear entirely.

 

It would likely remain for both emotional and financial reasons. I just don't know that it would be the default state.

[Lucius]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

This sort of thing would wreak major changes in every society.

As far as costing it goes, I wouldn't bother: it's the default. Everybody gets "conception is voluntary" as a 0 point complication. Those individuals able to force conception could buy a major transform (probably cumulative) the magnitude reflecting how "potent" they were. Or a higher skill roll, if it were skill vs skill to generate conception (though if that were the case, then unwanted pregnancy would be pretty common, and the discussion would be moot).

 

I haven't decided how to deal with the exceptions mechanically, but yes, obviously it is only the exceptions that need to be dealt with mechanically, not the default.

 

As for social effects, the ability to choose to have children and better life expectancy would almost certainly mean fewer children. It always has here.

That means quite a lot of things, by itself.

First off, fewer children means fewer people to share wealth among, means a wealthier population in general.

 

Wouldn't it also mean fewer workers producing wealth?

 

Add that to less disease and longer life expectancy' date=' and you could expect to see significant accumulation of wealth - across all spectra of society. I'd expect the ability to support a large family would be a status symbol - so relatively speaking, you might see larger families higher up the economic scale: the reverse of the historical scale in Europe, but exactly what we saw in the Middle East.[/quote']

 

Which ties into points addressed below....

 

Secondly, fewer children means that children are likely to be more highly prized: which means in turn that some characteristics of poor societies on our planet - like child labour/exploitation and child abuse would be far rarer. You'd expect fewer street urchins and less street crime.

 

Hm. Not looking for utopia and I probably want "thief" to be a viable character background.

 

Outcome: societies would generally be more affluent' date=' even before you took the potential effect of widespread magic into account. I'd expect they'd be [b']much[/b] more affluent, in total.

 

On the question of war, I honestly doubt it'd have much affect on frequency. With the exception of Volkswanderung episodes like the Germanic peoples in Europe, most wars are not started by population pressures: they're traditionally started over economic and control issues. The first crusades exported lots of soldiers to the Middle East, but back then the amount of forest being cleared for new - fertile - land just barely surpassed the amount of fertile land being allowed to fall fallow and go back to woods. Population pressure wasn't the problem. The problem was lots of younger sons trained and equipped for war with no income and nothing to do.

 

See above remark about high status/wealth families producing more children. Sounds like some cultures would get a supply of "knights errant." And see below again....

 

I doubt people are going to be less greedy or controlling, so this sort of problem will continue - but the "excess sons" thing, won't necessarily.

However, it does mean that wars would be fought differently: if you don't have an excess mass of very poor people, you're not going to field armies of levies and if people have few excess children I doubt they'd stand for the children they actually depend on for the family's survival being conscripted en masse. It suggests that armies would typically be smaller and better equipped/trained. You wouldn't expect the gross mortality from injury/disease that we saw historically either, so that trends in the same direction. If you joined the army, you'd have a better chance to survive to be a veteran than was historically the case.

 

Thus we get a "warrior class." Probably led by sons and daughters of high status families.

 

Outcome: There'll still be wars, but they'd probably look more like modern-day wars, fought by well-supported, well-trained armies - and better equipped, given access to both minor magic and more affluent societies. Not US marines, perhaps, but certainly, say Swiss pikemen or German landsknechts, or Italian condotterie.

 

Or adventuring parties...

 

Urbanisation. It was commented that lower population growth might lead to less urbanisation, but I don't buy it: affluence is one of the major drivers of urbanisation. Populations don't urbanise to save space. They urbanise so that they can trade or provide for their shared defence. In a world with monsters and goblin warbands, I'm guessing that defence - and the ability to field a well-organised militia - would be pretty damn important. As far as trade goes, we've already suggested that populations would be more affluent. What's the point of being affluent in a small village? In years when you have good crops, everybody else in the neighbourhood does too - so your produce is nearly worthless. In years when you have bad crops - everybody else does too, so you end up fighting over half a melon. On the other hand, if you are near a trade hub, you can sell your excess in good years and import in bad.

Even more, if you live in or near a city, your ability to sell means that you can afford to buy: it's not just about half a salted goat any more. Larger communities provide more specialised tradesmen, which means better quality goods. Even today, people flood from the countryside into cities in developing countries, because even living at the bottom of the social heap in an urban slum is better than living out in the country. The bucolic rural counties of the developed world are utterly dependant on their network to cities.

 

Outcome: I'd expect this world to be at least as urbanised as our own past, perhaps more so. Rural communities will probably be concentrated along trade routes and on the most fertile land, with extensive areas of wilderness in between.

 

Vast tracts of wilderness. Goblin haunted hills. Sylvan forests inhabited by Elves, Nymphs, or mysterious and terrifying monsters like giant spiders. Desert wastes created by wars between powerful entities in ages past, where lingering curses guard the ruins of their towers and citadels. Mountain ranges in which, if you wander of the trade path that cuts through the easiest pass, you might find an abandoned Dwarven mine - possibly now the lair of one of the last of the Dragons.

 

YEAH! Now you're talking!

 

Cities will probably support thriving communities of craftsmen - with the magical ability to send messages - and possibly even goods - at high speed' date=' supporting thriving business communities as well. Think of the renaissance states of Italy or the city-states of the Hanse, just jazzed up a bit.[/quote']

 

I do need to figure out exactly what I want the magicians to be able to do or not do.

 

Social change. It astounds me that no-one has discussed what would be the most profound change of all - the upending of the gender balance. In the past' date=' women were seen as a valuable resource - just like, say cattle - because men needed them to make babies, and needed babies to continue the family line and run the family business. Women usually got little or no say in the matter. If they could [b']choose[/b] whether or not they had babies ... well. That puts a totally different spin on things. Men would need to negotiate to get babies, and negotiation implies power on both sides. You could always try the "Have babies or I'll sell you to the salt mines!" but what do you think the chances are a guy like that getting a second spouse if he does?

 

I think that depends on how one acquires spouses in that culture. If one can credibly threaten the other with sale to the mines, that does imply something about the power relationship.

 

After all, while slavery may not be the most efficient of economic institutions it has always been pretty popular and its based on appropriating the slave's labor - and labor is something that is normally done consciously and "voluntarily" in the biological sense, that is, done with intention and not something that just sort of happens, like circulation or digestion (past the point of swallowing.) An individual can choose not to work, but if you make the alternatives unpalatable enough, you can count on most slaves putting in an effort - even if only minimal effort.

 

Reproduction could just be another kind of - pardon the expression - forced labor.

 

With lower population densities, the possibility of forced baby-making really doesn't seem like it'd be viable in anything expect the most draconian of societies.

Add to that the fact that one woman in 20 has access to some sort of magical power, and that women could choose - exactly as they do today in the west - to delay childbearing until they were better economically established or to have a fling without getting landed with a baby to support, and I think you'd see much more gender equity than we have seen in any historical societies beyond the hunter-gatherer level.

 

Amazons viable, as either a set of cultures or as a subculture or "lifestyle/career choice" in larger societies. Without celibacy.

 

Outcome: Like Lysistrata, but more terminal. I'd expect a great deal more egalitarianism: after all, even a misogynist warlord might revise his ideas about women in the army, when his opponents have access to twice as many wizards and healers as he does - and their population is growing faster besides ...

 

cheers, Mark

 

So, we could easily have cultures in which all social roles/occupations/statuses are available equally to both genders. Hm, the language might not distinguish between "he" and "she."

 

Do you see the couvade phenomenon?

 

And I think we've only begun to scratch the surface of the social ramifications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a Y chromosome and a Y-not? chromosome

[Lucius]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

I just meant that even with a system like that' date=' where no constant inoculation or even a "blessing" at birth might be necessary, it could be a fact because aeons ago some wizard magically brought this onto the population. There definitely has to be some kind of reason why this is so persistant, or I can imagine lots of societies where breaking that spell would be highly beneficial, at least to the ruling caste. So either some unsurpassed wizardry from the Golden Age/a great magical genius or even a divine judgment. Speaking of which, do the gods play a role in that society? As with the power of magic, this could change the setting's foundation.[/quote']

 

Suppose for a moment that I proposed something different. That I suggested a world in which reproduction is mostly random - there are natural cycles involved but even knowing and trying to utilize them can only modify your odds a little. Most sexual contact between males and females (assuming that, as is usually the case, the reproductive organs are brought into alignment such that they function for breeding purposes) will not result in conception, but every such contact carries some chance of it.

 

Would you conclude that the world could only be that way as the result of either a Divine Decree or some ultrapowerful spell cast by a wizard in ages past?

 

"Whadda you mean yer preggers! I didn't want a kid! Who'd you sleep with?"

 

"Nobody baby. It's just been you. No one but you. I swear it!"

 

If pregnancy is mostly under conscious control, then the odd case of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy could be seen as a bigger problem, and many would take it as proof of cheating. And the converse - not being able to have a child, when both say they want one - would be taken as proof someone is lying.

 

Good point. Even though it's common knowledge that some people are cursed with barrenness (in some cases literally cursed) and others with uncontrolled fertility, people are not always reasonable - and honestly, in such a context, someone lying is probably more likely than the alternatives.

 

Can most STDs be cured by magic?

 

I'm going to say yes, but not necessarily cheaply, easily, or effortlessly.

 

At that point we are essentially talking about sex without consequences.

 

There are still consequences.

There are possible emotional consequences. The degree to which the act creates a bond will vary by species, culture, and individual temperament, but there will often be at least a temporary bond of mutual trust and concern.

There will be spiritual consequences. Especially for the first time, because there will be items, creatures, forces, and rituals that distinguish between those who have or have not experienced carnal congress. But every new intimate partner leaves a spiritual "mark" that could be read by someone with sufficiently advanced spiritual senses.

 

Speaking for myself, the only checks I have on attempting to bang every moderately attractive female I meet are:

 

- risk of unwanted pregnancy

- risk of STD's

- cost (be it in time, money or the trade of services)

- society's pressure towards serial monogamy

 

However, I don't know that that last item would exist without either of the previously mentioned risks though...

 

This changes the structure of marriage in particular, relationships in general and societies attitudes towards sex on the whole.

 

The last sentence is, in my opinion, absolutely correct, but I do have to add another possible check to your admirable carnal ambitions:

 

- she might not be attacted to you (no offense I hope.)

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A palindromedary did it

[Bloodstone]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

The last sentence is, in my opinion, absolutely correct, but I do have to add another possible check to your admirable carnal ambitions:

 

- she might not be attacted to you (no offense I hope.)

 

None taken

 

But that ultimately has no real bearing on my attempts to woo her... only on the likelihood of the desired outcome...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

I suppose a lot of this depends on what you want to happen. Realism isn't necessarily a positive; if you want this effect to be mostly positive, well, that's just how things fell in the game world.

[Markdoc]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

Wouldn't it also mean fewer workers producing wealth?

 

It would, but the relationship is not 1:1. To take a contemporary example or two:

India and China have had similar economic growth (in raw terms) for the last 20 years. China however, has a much lower population growth rate. Guess which one is richer - both at the individual level and national level.

In the US, the population is growing at about 3% a year. The US economy is actually growing relatively robustly right now: more than in in many western countries. So why doesn't it feel like things are getting better? Because the economy is growing about 2% a year, and you need 3% just to break even ...

 

So yeah, generally, slower population growth and fewer children associates with faster accumulation of wealth, for the existing population. In fact, off the top of my head, I cannot think of any exceptions to that in Earth history (though I am sure we could find some ...)

 

Hm. Not looking for utopia and I probably want "thief" to be a viable character background.

 

I don't think that would be a problem: crime and abuse are with you always. It's just that I suspect the level of problems would be more akin to LA in the 1990's, not Victorian England, or present day Lagos.

 

 

See above remark about high status/wealth families producing more children. Sounds like some cultures would get a supply of "knights errant." And see below again....

 

Thus we get a "warrior class." Probably led by sons and daughters of high status families.

 

Or adventuring parties...

 

Yup. Could easily happen. And it had not escaped my notice, that the situation I had laid out is "adventuring party-friendly"

That's not entirely accidental.

 

I do need to figure out exactly what I want the magicians to be able to do or not do.

 

That's key to any fantasy game!

 

I think that depends on how one acquires spouses in that culture. If one can credibly threaten the other with sale to the mines, that does imply something about the power relationship.

 

After all, while slavery may not be the most efficient of economic institutions it has always been pretty popular and its based on appropriating the slave's labor - and labor is something that is normally done consciously and "voluntarily" in the biological sense, that is, done with intention and not something that just sort of happens, like circulation or digestion (past the point of swallowing.) An individual can choose not to work, but if you make the alternatives unpalatable enough, you can count on most slaves putting in an effort - even if only minimal effort.

 

Reproduction could just be another kind of - pardon the expression - forced labor.

 

True, that's why I said that it would really only be viable in really draconian cultures. It essentially means that the gender relationship would be literally master/slave and presumably that acquiring a wife would be a matter of capture or purchase rather than wooing. Societies like that have existed in the past, but they certainly haven't been the norm (and historically, they haven't been very successful, either).

 

Amazons viable' date=' as either a set of cultures or as a subculture or "lifestyle/career choice" in larger societies. Without celibacy.[/quote']

 

Yup.

 

So' date=' we could easily have cultures in which all social roles/occupations/statuses are available equally to both genders. Hm, the language might not distinguish between "he" and "she." [/quote']

 

Possible - that depends to a great extent on how much sexual dimorphism you see, and cultural differences: plenty of real world languages have three genders, despite the fact that we only have two, and many assign genders to things like chairs and books. Gender in language appears at best, tenuously attached to gender in biology. I do see less emphasis son gender-specific roles being less pronounced, but you're not talking about altering biology, just access. So women will still bear babies, which means that for a pair who want to start a family, some roles would be better suited to women than others.

 

Rather than total gender equality, I suspect what we'd see are blurred gender lines, much as control of fertility led to in our modern world. The difference would be that such blurring would be seen as "natural", since it would have been that way. Gender roles in occupation have always been more culturally determined than biologically. There's noting inherently "male" in engineering, for example, nor inherently "female" in teaching. Teaching in many societies was/is a male-only occupation ... and in recent western society (like the last century), it suddenly became a female-heavy role.

 

Do you see the couvade phenomenon?

 

Not really. 'tis exceeding rare. It has been reported over the centuries, so it's a general phenomenon, but I can't see any reason it'd be more common in this situation.

 

And I think we've only begun to scratch the surface of the social ramifications.

 

Yup.

[Lucius]

Re: What If? Fertility Control

 

True' date=' that's why I said that it would really only be viable in really draconian cultures. It essentially means that the gender relationship would be [b']literally[/b] master/slave and presumably that acquiring a wife would be a matter of capture or purchase rather than wooing. Societies like that have existed in the past, but they certainly haven't been the norm (and historically, they haven't been very successful, either).

 

I could even have two cultures like that - a matriarchy and a patriarchy.

 

Possible - that depends to a great extent on how much sexual dimorphism you see,

 

For some species, not that much dimorphism; for others, extreme. Dwarves, for example, will all be male, and need to breed with females of other Humanoid species.

 

Rather than total gender equality' date=' I suspect what we'd see are blurred gender lines, much as control of fertility led to in our modern world. The difference would be that such blurring would be seen as "natural", since it would have been that way. Gender roles in occupation have always been more culturally determined than biologically. There's noting inherently "male" in engineering, for example, nor inherently "female" in teaching. Teaching in many societies was/is a male-only occupation ... and in recent western society (like the last century), it suddenly became a female-heavy role.[/quote']

 

And yet, curiously, almost all cultures do have gender roles. The Hopi and the Navaho are neighbors, yet I understand that weaving is women's work among the Navaho, but men's work among the Hopi. But both agree that weaving is something that "naturally" belongs to one gender or the other.

 

This might be a good place to interject a theory I have about that. I think gender is like language.

 

No one is born knowing a language, but everyone is born mentally equipped to learn one. The specific language one learns is culturally determined but there is a biological "drive" to learn language, at least during the first several years of life. I think that while specific gender roles are not innate, there is an innate tendency to not only identify with "role models" of one's own biological sex, but to differentiate from the complementary sex.

 

Of course, even if my speculation matches the reality, it doesn't necessarily have a bearing on how things work in a fictional world....

 

Not really. 'tis exceeding rare. It has been reported over the centuries, so it's a general phenomenon, but I can't see any reason it'd be more common in this situation.

 

I seem to recall that it's associated with cultures in which the status and available roles of the sexes are far less differentiated than average?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a Y chromosome and a Y-not? chromosome