I've been working on a fantasy setting taking place on an

>>8901393
given 1700s tech units of time would likely be arbitrary, or defined by something other than the movement of celestial objects.

the constant sunshine would make the habitable band a center for agriculture and power generation (if theyve figured out solar cells by then), and would likely be far more affluent than the frozen region or the subsolar region. humans living a bit outside the habitable band would likely adapt to the climate too. sustainable population would probably be about 500M

>>8901393

Have you tried reading the many sci-fi stories that already explore this possibility? Stuff like Arthur C. Clarke's short story "The Wall of Darkness", or Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, or Jack Vance's "Big Planet" novella, or Roger Zelazny's "Jack of Shadows", or Robert J. Sawyer's " Quintaglio Ascension" Trilogy?

>>8901416
I'd imagine that celestial objects could only be viewable from the night side, or the darker end of the habitable zone. You'd have a lot of people who have only heard about stars, and likewise the possibility of people who have only heard stories about the sun if they live in darker parts with little sun.

naw you should read 'nightfall'

>humanlike alien species
>7 star system
>always daylight
>except for one time when the stars align to give them darkness for the first time in their civilization
>touches on alien names for human concepts n shiiii

>>8901393
Humans would never develop on a planet like that.

>>8901462

I also literally just read Clarke's 2061 and what OP has described is literally, /literally/, almost point-for-point a central plot element of the story. In the book, Jupiter has been collapsed into a star, thus permanently heating one side of Europa while leaving the other side well icy.

So I just want to join in with you on the piling-on. Get a different idea OP, it's clearly been done.

Or... you could come at it the other way, and decide that an often-repeated story element is valid for repetition.

>>8901393
It could be locked to a red dwarf and have a habitable day side, see Trappist.

You do realize planets that are tidally locked still rotate right?

>>8904737
What point are you even trying to make?

>>8901393
Life on such a planet would be very different from our. With no day/night cycle life would have to be awake and alert all the time with no sleep. Perhaps they could do partial sleep like some kinds of fish where one hemisphere sleeps at a time.

This also means you could harvest continuously. And there would be no time zones.

Unless there is a second star it would be altogether hard to define a time period. So you could have the planet in a locked orbit around a star (say a red dwarf), the pair in orbit around another star (say a far away blue giant).

To avoid all moisture evaporating on day side and twilight band and freezing out and trapped on the night side you would need a lot of weather, probably an ocean planet with a lot of rainfall. We had a discussion about this earlier and a fellow anon brought up links to scientific articles about how you could avoid trapping out the ice but I have forgotten the links.

Of course you could have more stars in orbits so that once every thousand years a close passage thawed out the night side in a spectacular flooding.

>>8906014
There is still a day and night cycle