Jump to content

Persistent marriage implementation


Recommended Posts


Weddings have always been possible onboard the NSS Cyberiad, however I've noted that many would like a more concrete way of representing their marriage (post-wedding) in-session, for RP opportunities and station drama. An admirable goal not without caveats or considerations. This thread aims to be a feature suggestion to implement this, and facilitate discussion on how ParadiseStation members would like to see this implemented.

Current problems

  • Blessed rings are only partly implemented, and do not currently signify any meaning
  • There currently isn't any (automatic) way of persisting these rings post-session
  • Chaplains (AFAICT) have no mechanic involvement in blessing rings

MVP scenario outline example

  • Two characters wish to get married, and start a session with each other's ring of choice (perhaps with a preferred chaplain to officiate)
  • The couple (and the guests) make it to the ceremony unharmed
  • The chaplain successfully makes it through the ceremony opening, outlined in "Chaplain's Guide to Marriage" runbook, part I
  • Chaplain takes each ring, and "blesses" it against the other partner, returning the rings to same partner
  • Vows are exchanged ("I give this ring", etc.), giving the ring to the other partner
  • Chaplain pronounces the marriage official, celebrations ensue, and the after-party held in Cargo's "break room" follows
  • Both marriage partners finish the session alive, in possession of their ring, and with continued commitment to each other through time and space
  • Post-session processing adds the ring to their respective loadouts via the CUI implementation


In order to implement this with minimal complexity, hands-off admin approach, and tackling abuse potential, I've a few proposal ideas to cover this:

Blessed rings implementation

  • Blessed rings as implemented by @Fox McCloud gain a few additional properties: 'blessed_by' (for admin trail), 'bearer' (who should wear it), 'partner' (who the ring signifies commitment to), and have more descriptive text (similar to what I outlined here, with templating)
  • Chaplain's bless ability (or additional spell) gains the ability to transmorgify rings, applying these properties.
  • (to combat rogue Chaplains) Chaplains cannot target themselves for 'bearer' or 'partner' properties (cannot officiate their own wedding)

Persistence implementation

During round post-processing, any blessed rings that exist in the session are checked.

  • If the ring is in the possession of (or in the glove slot of) the same player as 'bearer', a custom item of the same (base) type with flattened 'name' and 'desc' is added to that player's CUI loadout.
  • (to combat rogue Chaplains) both ring pairs need to exist with this rule at the end of the session to be processed for automated CUI.
  • (to combat polygamy - Space Law) existing wedding ring CUIs are replaced by presence of a new blessed ring. Try explaining that one to your previous spouse.
  • Round summary includes any successful (or botched) weddings. Cue wedding MIDI, I dunno, have fun :D


I'm interested in alternative takes or implementation ideas, especially around the concern of automated CUI implementation. My desire behind this (if considered) is to allow relatively unknown or less prominent players to RP marriage on this station, and reduce the hands-on approach admins would need to take in the current state of affairs.




Edited by StealthCT
header image for hype
  • Like 1
  • explodyparrot 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addressing some of the excellent points raised in Discord on this idea:


@Kenken244: Requiring the rings to exist at the end of round seems annoying. Having your marriage invalidated because the station got nuked it whatever after your wedding

So that idea could be up for debate! I like the idea of botched weddings, and more the reason to reattempt them. Think of cartoons - persistence is rarely granted, and only with certain conditions met. If the world got blown up but exists in the next episode, that shit never happened.

Also, significantly simplifies implementation and attempts to counter any abuse potential.


@Kenken244: I don't think it makes sense to ban polygamy on a station with diverse species

Fair, but this keeps the implementation of CUIs and the potential for abuse to a minimum. Also, whilst polyamory isn't outlawed, marriage in law often struggles to implement this cleanly. A space station is no exception.


@Vi3trice: I'm just thinking of the tech debt.

That's why I'd like any implementation to be minimalistic as possible. Blessed rings already exist in ParadiseStation, but are unfinished. This aims to finish them in a minimalistic approach, with the additional end goal of "having a ring in your loadout", as desired by some prevalent station RPers (and without negates any meaning of having these items in the game in the first place)


@Generaldonothing: this is just entirely rpable anyway

@Leanfrog: If someone actually cares then they won't need a mechanical implementation for it to happen

@Chapitito: gives chaplains something to do besides validhunting, doing sacrifices and funerals, though I'm also afraid it might just transform into a bit of a memefest with marriages.

@MattTheFicus: i dont personally like the idea of "rules" for a "proper" marriage. issa RP game, RP it out

The SOP is already loosely defined, but the desire behind mechanic is to introduce a practical objective to that session:

  • Get in
  • Get married
  • Get out alive

despite how simple this is in concept, weddings, and space station shifts, always have hitches. Giving players something to achieve to solidify their partnership adds to the fulfilment and enjoyment of that in RP.

And the purpose of this proposal is to provide players with what's been asked about - CUI wedding rings. Those limited objectives are likely the bare minimum to allow for generation of CUIs of a practical session wedding, to avoid abuse/misuse. as @Chapitito points out, it also adds to the mechanic set of what Chaplain's can do.

Weddings have always been RPable - this proposal isn't about that. It's about covering what RPers have asked for - having that signifying item (the ring), validating your achievement making it through a session successfully, including getting married, and pointing to that saying "look, I've been to hell and back for this person". Not everyone on this station would avail of this opportunity, but for those who play for this RP - this might provide them with a fun, and meaningful objective to do once on a session. After all - not all features implemented are for the sole benefit of all station crew. This is for those players who desire more mechanics surrounding their RP.

Edited by StealthCT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to clarify the purpose of this feature request, in as little detail as possible:

  • Blessed rings already exist in ParadiseStation, but are unfinished. This finishes them with descriptions and properties, and the Chaplain's ability to bless them.
  • Within session RP, some players have desired persistence of aspects of their RP. Adding wedding rings to CUI loadout helps solidify that side of RP for involved players, and adds purpose behind having blessed rings to begin with.
  • Automating CUI (based on above strict conditions to reduce abuse and create a sense of objective fulfillment) aims to put the onus of achieving this objective on the RPing players, and removing any and all requirement for admins to have to be pro-actively involved in wedding ring CUI management (outside of removals as normal).
Link to comment
Share on other sites





We're a space simulator, not a dating simulator. We shouldn't be making weddings a mechanically enforced/viable thing, especially if it grants a mechanical benefit with the blessed rings.



Not in favour in the slightest. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romance between players is already a contentious subject, it tends to lead to less than acceptable behavior or "RP." If you wish to marry another players character in-game, just change your characters names and roleplay it out. There's such little tangible benefit to creating an object with a different description that requires another column in the DB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. “Player marriage” as a mechanic:

  • Encourages meta-friending.
  • Is tonally removed from the rest of the game.
  • Is shallow: It ties into no other game systems and only concerns the two people who are being wed, and the chaplain.

Contrast marriage with, for example, radiation, which concerns engineering, medical, and regular Joes wandering maint while the SM explodes. Or bananas: Clowns who want bananas can grow them, but Botany exists. So if Clown wants bananas, funny boy is encouraged to ask Botany to grow them, which I claim is good because it makes the station more interconnected and alive.

Two random Civillians getting married discourages interesting cross-station interactions, and instead encourages metafriend navelgazing.

I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to add more role-play opportunities into the game. I wish Paradise was less LRP and NoRP. But I don't want player marriages.


… (to combat polygamy - Space Law) existing wedding ring CUIs are replaced by presence of a new blessed ring. Try explaining that one to your previous spouse.


Also, whilst polyamory isn't outlawed, marriage in law often struggles to implement this cleanly. A space station is no exception.

So, NanoTrasen, banal corporate evil that it is, allows its employees to marry one another! But to one and only one other person. Why are we emulating weird marriage bureaucracy in funny spess game? What have you got against polyamory?

Edited by nokko
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all excellent points, thank you! I especially like @nokko's observations on "player marriage" and its relation to the wider game and other systems. At the end of the day, "does this improve the synergy and operation of the station as a whole?" - likely not.

My proposal of these mechanic changes was aiming to tie up what seems to be a partially implemented feature (as per this code from @Fox McCloud). Whilst I'm a big fan of mechanic improvements and micro-objectives within the station (especially if they may lead to some sort of persistent reward that suitably reflects the challenge overcome), I can't dispute that the mechanic we're improving here is one that doesn't contribute to the working of the station, and this is important.

If there was any way in which player marriage did contribute to the station, this might be a different story. Right now I don't see that, so I concede on the idea of introducing a mechanic around this. What I might suggest to help those simply wanting to point to their ring for character backstory (long lost partner, etc.) would be fixing up names & descriptions, and offering these in loadout for that simple purpose. That at least covers the separate goal of giving these items purpose and meaning (when they are chosen to be used).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Gotta admit, this just feels like a way for players to do affectionate RP in place of erotic RP. And believe me, that type of roleplay can be just as disturbing as the latter.

Not to mention this just gives an excuse for two players to get married and then meta-gang from then on with the excuse that they're married. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 10:01 PM, nokko said:


So, NanoTrasen, banal corporate evil that it is, allows its employees to marry one another! But to one and only one other person. Why are we emulating weird marriage bureaucracy in funny spess game? What have you got against polyamory?

Just to explain as someone with legal experience, it's not that he was saying polyamory = bad, it was that polyamory as a legal concept is extremely hard to parse out. If you have 6 spouses, it's gonna get contentious on who owns what after you die, and is the primary reason it is still banned in most western nations. It's simply too complex.

Why he was bringing this up about spessmen though? Not sure since the suggestion didn't have any 'rights' attached to the spouse(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use