Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

[trader/warrior]

Civ 6 depicts Harald Hardråde as believing in odin and so forth so it's not panedring enough to me

That just makes it more PC didn't you know? Like in the new Viking Assassins Creed, colonialism is good, raiders never hurt civilians, the monks always did something to deserve it, and slavery was just some minor negligible thing. But it has to be cool mystical exotic pagans doing it to posh sounding Christians.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think I'll make a second point about this.

Wouldn't it be bigoted to choose bad examples of leaders for civs that are primarily comprised up of a minority to the perspective of a Western audience? Think about it, by giving these nations bad leaders it forces the player to kill the ethnic group that makes up their population.

When you go to war with the Zulu's, who suffers? Shaka Zulu? Or all the black people that populate his cities when you raze them?

Could you name another Zulu leader? The only one I could is Cetshwayo who was manouvered into war by the British then defeated by them.
Plenty of monsters leading western civs too.

 

[Angst]

Well, one-fourth of one percent (0.25%) of 7.5 billion is nearly twenty million people, so no, I don't think that "standard human biology" should ignore the existence of those people.
More generally, I think that letting people understand that even if they're outliers, they are valid and there's nothing wrong with them is more important than...whatever benefit you derive (and I admit, I am unclear on what that is) from pretending intersex people don't exist.

Just read some stuff incidental to this thread, and I'll add to this with the information I have at hand (I agree with you and want to expand on it). It's a bit off kilter, but I think it's important: I'm going to talk about bees for a bit.

No I'm not going JP lobster on y'all, rather I'm going to use it to nuance a point about species. I'm also going to sound a bit mechanical and blunt about a number of different "deviant" groups in the human species, but only to dismiss how relevant the 1%, 0.1% or 0.01% point is. All of this "X% of the population is too little to matter" assumes that below a certain % of a species, something isn't part of it.

In a 50,000 population bee hive, which is common, exactly 0.002% of the population deviates as a queen. Her genetic makeup isn't fundamentally different, rather a queen can be forced to exist from any larvae through drones' injection of a particular substance whose name I forget (it's a bitter, milky-yellow liquid which contains a lot of different stuff; other than nutrients, it includes stuff like hormones, which shapes the end result of the larvae into a queen). Humans recognize the queen as part of this makeup because she's key to bee reproduction, but the point is that the number of a subpopulation of a species as deviation is never really that relevant, especially for a species as behaviorally and socially complicated as humans. To put it bluntly, the point of this whole post: Evolution is weird, and species are weird.

Now you're talking about nipples and other small deviations, I'm going to bring up another point. Extreme conservatives bring up gay people, for example, particularly their lack of reproduction under a monogamous pairing of two gay individuals (let's ignore artificial insemination of lesbians for now, we're talking genetically). They argue for population growth and support this with the idea that everyone should form social bonds to reproduce because most people have the technical capacity for it. The logic is that as they don't have the ability to reproduce (they do, but let's go with it), they should be molded or controlled in order to rid our gene pool of it, it's not "human" enough to them.

In bees, IIRC the queen can lay up to 2.5 million eggs a year. The paper I read said something half a million, so we can lowball it at 500,000 (doesn't matter; point is, it's a lot for a single individual to reproduce). In humans, most of the population gives birth to only one kid at a time, and most females have the capacity for this. Twins, being about 3% chance, are still recognized as normal for humanity, although a deviation (kind of; not a deviation from humanity, but something expressed uncommonly in our gene pool). In bees, most of the individuals don't ever reproduce, but instead have a very practical function in the gene pool as to doing maintenance, defense and gathering nutrients. Male bees literally breed and die, which can be seen as nutrientially wasteful, why won't the genes let them just keep working after sex? This is evolution being weird in a sense, but bees were incredibly succesful until humans started screwing with natural fields.

If gay people can't reproduce (they can, but let's go with it), it's still not weird that they're as large a part of the gene pool as they are (~2.4% in the US), since there are innumerable other functions in human society that our genes might want. We don't bang all the time, and never have. Humans are not succesful because we are good at breeding. We are succesful because we're incredibly good at obtaining and maintaining nutrients after we become old enough to work/hunt/etc.

Back to the core point.

Having someone in your population that is gay, has a third nipple, is transsexual, has an anomalous chromosone setup, etc, doesn't make that person not part of the population. There is an incredibly numerous set of "deviations" from the conservative idea of gender and a standard body, and honestly, as long as the subject is "otherwise" "healthy", let them belong to the population and live their lives. The third nipple is useless afaik, but we're not arbiters of what evolution decided for our gene pool unless we literally want to go eugenic/genetic design.

The point is not to design our society according to bees*, but that evolution is weird, species are weird, and trying to draw borders of what does and doesn't exist in humans - when it exists in humans - is, to me, an unwelcome and alarming proposition.

Modern biology has found empirically out that human sex and gender is complicated, and honestly, I don't see why anyone would find it surprising seeing how absolutely bonkers our social structures can be - something that's actually an expression of genetics in a very concrete way.

* And JP's point about lobsters was that hierarchy exists outside humans, which is true, but missed the point everyone else makes that certain hierarchies aren't ideal. My argument is different, in that I think saying that the third nipple or intersex people aren't ideal leads us down a road I personally don't want to follow.

-

And again, sorry about the bluntness here, but saying "deviation" and stuff is the kind of thing you're forced to do when faced with these points.

 

[Joij21]

injection of a particular substance whose name I forget (it's a bitter, milky-yellow liquid which contains a lot of different stuff; other than nutrients, it includes stuff like hormones, which shapes the end result of the larvae into a queen).

Royal jelly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly

 

[Angst]

Royal jelly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly

Exactly, thanks!

Absolutely an amazing name for a substance, btw.

 

[Joij21]

Male bees literally breed and die, which can be seen as nutrientially wasteful, why won't the genes let them just keep working after sex? This is evolution being weird in a sense, but bees were incredibly succesful until humans started screwing with natural fields.

It's not weird, males are generally expendable in most species due to the cheapness in terms of calories for producing sperm. Ovum cost more to make, and in most species a female only has a limited set in their body from the moment they're born, where as the male continuously makes sperm and remains fertile throughout his lifespan.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It strikes me as rather odd to insist that metaphors do not exist in video games. Next you're going to tell me that Triumph of the Will was just a bunch of friendly chaps getting together and having a lark marching about, and that any communicated metaphors about the military and political power of the Nazi party, and the inherent singularity and force of the "Aryan people" is purely incidental and, frankly, is merely a sad reflection of your bigoted perspective if you interpreted it that way.

Are you sure you answered the right post?

 

[Kyriakos]

At least (afaik) Civ now has like 20 different greek factions.
Which I have to assume is an improvement.

As for Sparta, while they had a dual monarchy (so that one king went to war and if he died you still had a king and didn't collapse), women actually controlled most of the money and titles. So it isn't that unreal to have a female as leader of Sparta (since they sort of were, although not nominally).
Spartan women had more rights, took part in the olympic games (the first female winner was spartan), seemed to care more than anyone else about their body looking hot (went to the gym for that all the time) and had money because by spartan law only females could inherit and iirc also run trade (more or less; males had land and servants given by the state).

Many prominent athenians were in favor of the spartan system, including Socrates and Plato.

There is also historic precedent to have a female be the leader of the Byzantine Empire.

 

[aelf]

I'm not invested in the specific phrasing Joji used, but I think Civ is absolutely not PC and making it PC would require making it into a different kind of game entirely.
I play a game called Dawn of Man that's more of a building simulator than anything else, and I actually think it is very "PC" in the sense that your people don't specialize into different roles and all adult humans who aren't too old can perform the same tasks. The only possible warfare is defensive although you do have to hunt animals and fish to survive so I guess it might offend the vegans.

...

The wider point here, I guess, is that the 4X genre fundamentally isn't "PC", it's a genre that basically presupposes a world of violent zero-sum competition between groups that's best settled by annihilation warfare of the exact type that Adolf Hitler wanted to release on Eastern Europe.

And I'm not invested in the PC-or-not-PC argument. It's pointless and serves as dog whistle for the sort of people I don't usually bother debating with.

But to say that a game necessarily has to discriminate to be a game, or to be a Civ game, is clearly wrong. Discrimination falls under the umbrella of "un-PC", but it's a specific thing. Something not being PC doesn't necessarily mean it discriminates people and cultures. To suggest that because many games are un-PC and therefore everything that falls under the "un-PC" umbrella is normal, including discrimination, is insidious and frankly abhorrent - and that's the kind of sentiment I was responding to. It's also the sort of rhetoric that normalises what you are describing below.

I mean, in Call of Duty: MW2, there is a level where you, the player character, rampage through a Brazilian favela full of black and brown people. Your squad even captures and (off-screen) tortures a guy, and it's difficult to argue that the game portrays this negatively.

In MW3 there are several levels where you're fighting African "militias", shooting down black people.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Wouldn't it be bigoted to choose bad examples of leaders for civs that are primarily comprised up of a minority

What, you mean like most leaders in Europes dynastic realm, where Austrians ruled over Portugal and Spaon, or like most of the puppet dictators installed by Westerners, like when they made a Saddam dictator in Iraq even though he was Sunni and 4/5 of the country were Shia? Or like when Rwanda was ruled by the Tutsi minority for decades because Europeans thought they were somehow more noble? The Holy Roman Emperor was for all intents and purposes a divine entity. A minority of his subjects shared his "ethnicity" (not that this was super important in the middle ages, identity works differently).

The opposite is the case: It is actually very normal to have someone who is not a representative of the majority population be a ruler, in fact that is literally the case with almost every king or noble imagineable, their whole shtick was/is that they think their own bloodlines superior to those of most other people.

And again, sorry about the bluntness here, but saying "deviation" and stuff is the kind of thing you're forced to do when faced with these points.

One could simply say variation, wich incidentally is also the most correct word in my personal opinion. A deviation implies that a norm exists. But nature is simply chaos and norms are mere temporal-spatial relations different lifeforms have. We also don't call genetic mutations genetic deviations or genetic mistakes, because while a mutation can lesser the chance for survival under specific circumstances, it can never be onjectively "bad". dinosaurs were imho extremely cool and well adapted, but ended up completely vanishing because of their genetic properties, which at once had them made the "rulers" of our planet and now were lethal for them. All in all I want to say very good post on your side and I very much appreciate people taking a more nuanced approach to evolution, genetic variance and their implications. It is one of the most misunderstood things of our time.

That just makes it more PC didn't you know? Like in the new Viking Assassins Creed, colonialism is good, raiders never hurt civilians, the monks always did something to deserve it, and slavery was just some minor negligible thing. But it has to be cool mystical exotic pagans doing it to posh sounding Christians.

This is also a problem I have with Civ 6 honestly. I don't think it's with bad intent or in any way insidious, but it is definitely very telling that, simply from my standpoint as a number cruncher, it is virtually always Classical Republic, then Merchant Republic, then Democracy which are the supreme choices for any economy, no matter whether you want a cultural, or a science, or a diplo win. You could argue that some of the other governments are useful for religious or domination victory, but the easiest way to win domination de facto is to have a strong economy and better science than all of your opponents.

The same goes for Colonialism and wars of aggression. In game one is virtually always rewarded for swallowing a weaker neighbor, or just waging war in general. The penalties are mostly laughable and diplomatic relations do not matter much in order for one to achieve their desires victory, unless it's specifically diplo.

Industrializing asap also has absolutely zero drawbacks. Most of my games end before global warming even enters the game. But even if a player drew out the game long enough, climate change can be fixed with little work (getting lots of science and building renewable improvements, basically). The subtext is essentially "science will fix climate change for us no probs". It's also funny that global warming was introduced as a way to tell the player that exploiting nature and producing insane amounts of CO2 is wrong and has consequences, but subtly the game is actually telling you that to be the first to blow through massive amounts of Coal/Oil is the most "optimal" thing in regards to winning the game. It's also unsatisfying that there are no renewable power options earlier, even though those totally existed, and that Coal is still "better" than the renewables, even though we today know that renewables can be as effective as fossil fuel power plants.

It is also very telling that the only way to win a culture victory is with blue jeans and rock bands, which is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of what culture actually is, but the more sinister explanation is of course that one culture will end up dominating the other, through tourism, capitalism and cultural imperialism, which is in itself pretty sad.

It is many things like these, and I don't even have a problem with them because they're bad political messages (they are), but because they make gameplay kinda boring. I can always be a maniacal world dictator that colonizes, raids and burns fossil fuels with impunity all while masking as a democracy and I get near zero in-game consequences for that. Sometimes I wish for Civ 5s ideology system, as bad as it was, back. That did have major consequences for your playstyle. Same for Civ 5 diplomacy honestly. I never, ever get declared on in Civ 6, even on Deity.

I suppose this all simply reflects the ideology of the people who worked on that game: They wanted to (consciously) make a game that shows diversity (and they succeeded at that imho) yet unconsciously they reproduce a lot of the status quo of our world., mainly that imperialism and colonialism does in fact have little to no consequences for the perpetrators, that most people think capitalism and liberal democracy are inherently the best systems, and that climate change will somehow fix itself with a little science and a few wind turbines.

The fundamental premise of Civ makes it impossible to truly be "PC." You can argue about the level of representation in the game, and I, needless to say, come down pretty hard on the side of "more non-European civs, more non-man leaders" but the fundamental structure of the game is not PC. It reifies a liberal-teleological view of history as a path of ever-increasing progress, and the mechanics essentially force you into zero-sum competitions with other civs where the optimal strategy is the complete annihilation of their cultures.

Yes, precisely this. We really shouldn't worry too much about whether Civ 6 is PC or not, but rather what the real underlying message is. And in my opinion, it's not a great one. I still think 4X games like these are good as **** gameplay wise, and I honestly don't think this needs urgent change necessarily, if one wanted a more nuanced variation of history then there are other games for that, but with my post above I wanted to detail how ideology can even influence gameplay and make a game less complex and exciting.

 

[aelf]

This is also a problem I have with Civ 6 honestly. I don't think it's with bad intent or in any way insidious, but it is definitely very telling that, simply from my standpoint as a number cruncher, it is virtually always Classical Republic, then Merchant Republic, then Democracy which are the supreme choices for any economy, no matter whether you want a cultural, or a science, or a diplo win.

To be fair, the government types don't matter so much in Civ 6. Yes, maybe you eventually want to be in Democracy just for the cheaper gold purchases, but most of the government game is about Policy Cards. Some governments like Monarchy are only bad because of their Policy Card slot configurations, but in a pinch they could even be transitional forms of government for a while, which is incidentally not ahistorical (the game still has a very Whiggish treatment of history, of course).

It is many things like these, and I don't even have a problem with them because they're bad political messages (they are), but because they make gameplay kinda boring. I can always be a maniacal world dictator that colonizes, raids and burns fossil fuels with impunity all while masking as a democracy...

Just like the USA at some points.

...and I get near zero in-game consequences for that. Sometimes I wish for Civ 5s ideology system, as bad as it was, back. That did have major consequences for your playstyle. Same for Civ 5 diplomacy honestly. I never, ever get declared on in Civ 6, even on Deity.

True, but it's part of a larger problem of Civ6 simply being too easy. There might be a steep learning curve due to the plethora of Policy Cards that you kind of have to familiarise yourself with, but once that's out of the way, the game isn't hard. It's essentially an engine-building game, where your objective for most of the game is to build the most efficient engine possible for the quickest victory possible in your chosen victory condition. Survival or even eking out a victory isn't hard, even on Deity once you're past the first two eras.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

like maybe they picked Cleo for Greece not as part of a feminist conspiracy against the fundamental order of the universe or whatever the wingnuts are trying to imply, but just because they wanted to do some bold new things that would get them talked about...

I would be genuinely disappointed if this wasn't done purely to **** off rightwingers

To be fair, the government types don't matter so much in Civ 6. Yes, maybe you eventually want to be in Democracy just for the cheaper gold purchases, but most of the government game is about Policy Cards. Some governments like Monarchy are only bad because of their Policy Card slot configurations, but in a pinch they could even be transitional forms of government for a while, which is incidentally not ahistorical (the game still has a very Whiggish treatment of history, of course).

Yes and no. Getting to Merchant Republic is probably one of if not the single biggest boost to one's economy in a single turn since it allows that many more economic cards. For many of the "speedrunning" Civ 6 community getting to Classical Republic (or really Political Phil) fast is the ultimate benchmark for the success of a game.

But in all truthfulness, most of the governments themselves don't matter, and they are really just placeholders for policy cards, as you said. The best govt is the one that allows you to have the best cards in most of the time - Sadly Red and Green one's rarely hold up to the Yellow ones

True, but it's part of a larger problem of Civ6 simply being too easy. There might be a steep learning curve due to the plethora of Policy Cards that you kind of have to familiarise yourself with, but once that's out of the way, the game isn't hard. It's essentially an engine-building game, where your objective for most of the game is to build the most efficient engine possible for the quickest victory possible in your chosen victory condition. Survival or even eking out a victory isn't hard, even on Deity once you're past the first two eras.

Completely and utterly agree. If I had to boil all of my criticism of Civ 6 down to one factor it would be this: The AI never wins. It doesn't even try to. Competition is mostly imagined. Civ VI is a masturbatory exercise, and a good one at that. But there is no threat, not militarily nor in terms of win conditions, from any AI at any difficulty, even Deity with a crowded map and exclusively warmonger Civs. It is in that way the complete antithesis to Civ 4, which requires one to play well (and meta, to some degree) even at emperor, a game that essentially is constantly reminding you that utter annihilation for all your people is around the corner, and that going to space is an actual race.

It's bad that Civ 6 is too easy, but imho due to the fact that there is not any way to lose (if you enjoy playing efficiently, that is, plenty of people loose to an AI blasting off to space at t364, but I don't have that patience) the game becomes a non-game. A game where you cannot lose and victory is therefore guaranteed is not truly a game, it's a simulation at best.

 

[Lexicus]

To suggest that because many games are un-PC and therefore everything that falls under the "un-PC" umbrella is normal, including discrimination, is insidious and frankly abhorrent - and that's the kind of sentiment I was responding to.

Wait, you think I'm defending the non-PC aspects of Civ (or MW2 or MW3 for that matter? Not at all: I'm just pointing them out. I think we can enjoy these games in spite of their 'problematic' aspects but we do ourselves no favors by pretending a game like Civ isn't problematic, and it's just reactionaries inventing whatever problems there are.

It's also the sort of rhetoric that normalises what you are describing below.

I don't understand this statement given what I am describing is all just facts about those games.

And again, sorry about the bluntness here, but saying "deviation" and stuff is the kind of thing you're forced to do when faced with these points.

Sure, I understand the concept of a statistical deviation from the norm. I think this gets back to the question I asked that went unanswered: what did that poster mean by "base biology on outliers"?? To me, it basically sounded like "we shouldn't mention intersex people to kids in bio classes because it might confuse them", which I obviously think is just silly, but I have no idea since I never got an answer.

completely vanishing

birds!

 

[Angst]

Sure, I understand the concept of a statistical deviation from the norm. I think this gets back to the question I asked that went unanswered: what did that poster mean by "base biology on outliers"?? To me, it basically sounded like "we shouldn't mention intersex people to kids in bio classes because it might confuse them", which I obviously think is just silly, but I have no idea since I never got an answer.

For the record - just to be completely clear - I completely agreed with you and just wanted to expand on it, it was perfectly clear that you understood the difference.

I was a bit more vague on the practical aspect of realizing the complexity of our species, and here you're quite right in your inference IMO. I don't know what the poster meant either, but we need to teach the truth of our species in biology education. This isn't even about political correctness, it's about being rigid with what we've empirically found out. Variations (thanks yung.carl.jung!) of body type majorities simply exist as expressed by our gene pool, we know that at this point.

On the contrary, I think withholding this information from our education is what amounts to "political education" and falls under "identity politics" to a larger degree. As in, it's pure, anti-scientific political interest.

 

[Joij21]

What, you mean like most leaders in Europes dynastic realm, where Austrians ruled over Portugal and Spaon, or like most of the puppet dictators installed by Westerners, like when they made a Saddam dictator in Iraq even though he was Sunni and 4/5 of the country were Shia? Or like when Rwanda was ruled by the Tutsi minority for decades because Europeans thought they were somehow more noble? The Holy Roman Emperor was for all intents and purposes a divine entity. A minority of his subjects shared his "ethnicity" (not that this was super important in the middle ages, identity works differently).

The opposite is the case: It is actually very normal to have someone who is not a representative of the majority population be a ruler, in fact that is literally the case with almost every king or noble imagineable, their whole shtick was/is that they think their own bloodlines superior to those of most other people.

What I'm talking about are nations like the Zulus. The Zulu people are black. Black people are an oppressed minority in the United States (where Firaxis is located). So what they did is give the Zulus a leader in game who is essentially a warmonger that forces/encourages the player to kill him and in doing so wipe out his black peoples. Is that not an inherently racist decision on the part of Firaxis?

 

[aelf]

Yes and no. Getting to Merchant Republic is probably one of if not the single biggest boost to one's economy in a single turn since it allows that many more economic cards. For many of the "speedrunning" Civ 6 community getting to Classical Republic (or really Political Phil) fast is the ultimate benchmark for the success of a game.

But in all truthfulness, most of the governments themselves don't matter, and they are really just placeholders for policy cards, as you said. The best govt is the one that allows you to have the best cards in most of the time - Sadly Red and Green one's rarely hold up to the Yellow ones

Oligarchy used to be good, maybe even better than Classical Republic due its military bonus - until Firaxis switched the slots around with Autocracy. Monarchy could be a good stopping point before Merchant Republic (if only for the era points) because it has easier inspirations leading up to it - the 1 economic slot is not so painful if transitioning from Oligarchy of yore after a warmongering early game. Same for Communism on the way to Democracy (who builds so many sewers?).

Which late game government after that is better really depends on your victory of choice.

Wait, you think I'm defending the non-PC aspects of Civ (or MW2 or MW3 for that matter? Not at all: I'm just pointing them out. I think we can enjoy these games in spite of their 'problematic' aspects but we do ourselves no favors by pretending a game like Civ isn't problematic, and it's just reactionaries inventing whatever problems there are.

I don't understand this statement given what I am describing is all just facts about those games.

No, my points have always been in response to what Joji said. I'm only responding to you insofar as you're defending what he said. And given that you acknowledge that Civ doesn't discriminate per se, I'm honestly puzzled why this has even continued. As I've said repeatedly, I'm concerned about the idea that the game has to be discriminatory, rather than the nebulous question of PC or not PC.

The FPS games you described exhibit truly discriminatory themes and gameplay, and these are not universal to games, even those featuring different cultures like the Civ series. The concern is that in saying that Civ is discriminatory and must necessarily be so for it to work, someone is just normalising the kind of bad stuff seen in those FPS games.

 

[Joij21]

The subtext is essentially "science will fix climate change for us no probs".

I think it has to be solvable somehow within the game or else players wouldn't tolerate climate change as a feature to begin with due to how punishing it is. This has happened to the franchise before, where every time they tried to add global warming the community complained it was OP and unfair to their already steamrolling empire, which is essentially why it was cut from Civ 5. The first two Civs also had a pollution system but that was cut from Civ 3 for similar complaints by the fandom.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What I'm talking about are nations like the Zulus. The Zulu people are black. Black people are an oppressed minority in the United States (where Firaxis is located). So what they did is give the Zulus a leader in game who is essentially a warmonger that forces/encourages the player to kill him and in doing so wipe out his black peoples. Is that not an inherently racist decision on the part of Firaxis?

You don't wipe out the Zulus unless you raze all their cities, you conquer them. The point would only be valid if only black cultures had aggressive leaders, if exterminating them was clearly the best option, and it clearly wasn't for other cultures. Of the 4 black African leaders in Civ VI 2 are peaceful so no, I don't think Firaxis are encouraging genocide of black people. Becoming friendly with Shaka or Montezuma and getting them to attack your enemies is a clear alternative to exterminating them.
There are some valid criticisms of the Civ series I think like cultures being fixed regardless of their environment and unchanging regardless of their history but thats more a criticism of how the game works than anything to do with PC

 

[Samson]

I think it has to be solvable somehow within the game or else players wouldn't tolerate climate change as a feature to begin with due to how punishing it is. This has happened to the franchise before, where every time they tried to add global warming the community complained it was OP and unfair to their already steamrolling empire, which is essentially why it was cut from Civ 5. The first two Civs also had a pollution system but that was cut from Civ 3 for similar complaints by the fandom.

I never quite got the complaints in Civ 3. In a zero sum game, as it hurt everyone it really hurt no one. But they definitely existed.

The only bit of this series that makes me a little uncomfortable is occasionally FFH. Can it really be right to play as Hyborem and try and turn the world into literal hell on earth? Or Lord D'tesh trying to rule a world of zombies?

 

[Joij21]

The only bit of this series that makes me a little uncomfortable is occasionally FFH. Can it really be right to play as Hyborem and try and turn the world into literal hell on earth? Or Lord D'tesh trying to rule a world of zombies?

Well FFH is a mod, so that's kind of beyond the scope of the conversation. Besides it is fantasy so none of the cultures in FFH are based on IRL ones.

Though I suppose you could make the argument that FFH is religiously offensive to Christians do to the fact that the Hyborem are clearly based off of Christian depictions of Hell and demons. FFH clearly endorses the use of magic as well, which according to Christians is satanic.