A proposal for ideology names

[Enginseer]

After lurking, I don't understand why this is a problem. The civ franchise has always taught me about the history of the past. The fact we are going to obscure some thematic terms that had existed with an alternate term is disturbing.

If it bother people that much. The healthier alternative is to make a modmod of the language files. For anyone who translated the Vox Populi(or had at all), this is an easier solution catered to a certain block of the playerbase.

The news here that we need a thread on this is shocking. Create a modmod and cater to the needs of your preference there.

 

[Hosannah]

Let's focus this on something more actionable.

This is the current in-game effect of Lebensraum:
Receive Culture and Golden Age Points when your borders expand. Citadel tile-acquisition radius doubled.

Mechanically I think the policy effect is fine, even great. I think it's fitting, except you could switch culture for food or some other yield if you were picky. whatever.

This is the current civilopedia entry for Lebensraum:
'Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people. Developed under the German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany.'

The civilopedia entry is pretty barebones. People are saying giving proper context would take too much effort, but just a couple sentences is all that's needed I think. If a small blurb about exactly where that aggressive expansion was directed and what the human cost was I think that would be more satisfactory.

How about this?
'Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people into Central and Eastern Europe. Indigenous peoples of these lands were to be replaced by German colonists, either through deportation, destruction or enslavement. Developed under the German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany.'
Would that ruffle many feathers? Does that come down too hard? Too soft?

Maybe people think that this opens a floodgate of more in-depth re-evaluation of civilopedia entries for controversial real-life policies. I don't think that's really the case, I think there's maybe one or two policies which are racy enough to have just a little more context added (great leap forward for instance). Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to the civilopedia being beefed up either; that wouldn't be a BAD thing.

For instance, this is the current civilopedia entry for cultural revolution. It gives a brief clue at the end suggesting the cultural revolution didn't turn out so hot, and actually set China back:
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a social movement conducted from 1966 through 1976 in the People's Republic of China. Begun by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party, the Cultural Revolution sought to re-educate the common people by removing or repressing capitalist, traditional and religious elements, through arrests and violence if necessary. The cultural struggle spread through all levels of society, students, the military, the party and urban workers, delaying China's reemergence in world affairs for decades.

I like your approach. I still think the mechanism does not completely cover what actually happened but ok (population should be greatly decreased when conquering a city while giving you some other bonuses in return). Plus, I still belive calling the tenet something like forceful expansion or whatnot would be more sensible, but hey that's just me.

 

[Hosannah]

After lurking, I don't understand why this is a problem. The civ franchise has always taught me about the history of the past. The fact we are going to obscure some thematic terms that had existed with an alternate term is disturbing.

If it bother people that much. The healthier alternative is to make a modmod of the language files. For anyone who translated the Vox Populi(or had at all), this is an easier solution catered to a certain block of the playerbase.

The news here that we need a thread on this is shocking. Create a modmod and cater to the needs of your preference there.

I'm not asking to obscure it per se. I'm saying, if you really feel like you have to implement the concept, do it correctly. It's not just about a bit of land grab as it is used in the game at this point. You want to be taught about history, then you should be annoyed by the innacuracy of how this concept is displayed in civ.

 

[Hosannah]

Once more, here's the Lebensraum concept in all it's glory. Please read at least the third paragraph, it's the kicker and what it is and should be known for today. That is also what should be put into the civilopedia at least.

The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] ( listen), English: "living space") refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.[4]

Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe.[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ostpolicy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior and non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.[6][7][8] The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.[6]

Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, pursued by a racially superior society.[7] People deemed to be part of inferior races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space.[7] Nazi Germany also supported other "Aryan' nations" pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy's spazio vitale.[9]

 

[Gazebo]

Once more, here's the Lebensraum concept in all it's glory. Please read at least the third paragraph, it's the kicker and what it is and should be known for today. That is also what should be put into the civilopedia at least.

The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] ( listen), English: "living space") refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.[4]

Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe.[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ostpolicy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior and non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.[6][7][8] The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.[6]

Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, pursued by a racially superior society.[7] People deemed to be part of inferior races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space.[7] Nazi Germany also supported other "Aryan' nations" pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy's spazio vitale.[9]

In all seriousness the quote is telling: the concept of Lebensraum predates nazism by decades. I’m not editing the policy because of what nazis did with it. If I started editing historical terms because of what people did with them decades/centuries/years later, we’d be removing most religious beliefs and many other tenets.

 

[Hosannah]

In all seriousness the quote is telling: the concept of Lebensraum predates nazism by decades. I’m not editing the policy because of what nazis did with it. If I started editing historical terms because of what people did with them decades/centuries/years later, we’d be removing most religious beliefs and many other tenets.

Yes it does. And before the Nazis came along, a lot of terms that they used and perverted had different or no meaning at all. However, nowadays, it's just not possible to use certain terminology out of this specific context. I'm sure someone will point out some flaw in this example, but how about this: Try to use the word negro while pleading that you're only using it in the sense or meaning it had before it became an insult. I'm quite sure you might find that difficult because the meaning and what it evokes have changed.

 

[RAuer2]

Well then. I think that "some flaw" would be that you are comparing apples to oranges. You are on the verge of implying/stating that those who do not agree with you have an issue with race. You sure that's the direction you want to go?

Edit:
The above might be a harsh reading of your words. I wrote it before the edit so I'll leave it there and say that I might have read your example poorly.

I do think that this is not the big deal that you are making it out to be. This is not on a level with racial insults. The concept is an example of genocide. In the real world, yeah that's bad. In a Civ game, that happens every time a city is razed.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I'd be okay with seeing the ideologies renamed to Liberalism, Communism, & Fascism, or something like that (and in fact, I'd prefer that) -- but I don't really see it as a needed or even an important change.

Yes it does. And before the Nazis came along, a lot of terms that they used and perverted had different or no meaning at all. However, nowadays, it's just not possible to use certain terminology out of this specific context. I'm sure someone will point out some flaw in this example, but how about this: Try to use the word negro while pleading that you're only using it in the sense or meaning it had before it became an insult. I'm quite sure you might find that difficult because the meaning and what it evokes have changed.

I'm as anti-Nazi as they come, but trying to wash away history out of a historical game is a lot of work that won't accomplish much of anything. I agree that the concept of Lebensraum (already deeply problematic) has been co-opted by Nazis. But It's also classified correctly in the game as an autocratic policy, and nothing is being done in this context to glorify it -- but rather to represent it.

Well then. I think that "some flaw" would be that you are comparing apples to oranges. You are on the verge of implying/stating that those who do not agree with you have an issue with race. You sure that's the direction you want to go?

I don't see that in his post at all. Trying to start ugly fights is also not a good direction for a thread, yeah?

 

[RAuer2]

I don't see that in his post at all. Trying to start ugly fights is also not a good direction for a thread, yeah?

Yep, I thought about my post after I made it and realized I was getting the wrong impression. I already made an edit.

 

[balparmak]

As someone with quite a literacy in this area, I mostly endorse this.
In fact, I had devised a draft back during my brief modding stint that overhaul the ideological game, to make it a bit more immersive and flexible. Basically the original naming sounds silly, especially the autocracy bit, but Order is also a very limited take on left-wing/Marxist ideologies in general, and Firaxis makes all too common mistake of equating all left-wing politics with Soviet socialism. My proposal was, or would be, to determine principles that can divide the ideological spectrum into three, set some basic common points, and then enlarge it to accommodate the variations within them, especially at the final tier.
To give a sense of what I had in mind, here's some of the changes I thought:

Spoiler :

First off, I would change the names in reference to French Revolution, to give it a nice theme
Freedom -> Liberty: To me, Freedom is more fitting as a principle of ancient times than Liberty, as it's more of a primeval instinct, whereas Liberty is a modern political concept, so I'd swap the names. It's main principles would be capitalism & individualism per the original.

Order -> Equality: Equality lies at the heart of almost all left-wing thought, including Marxism, whereas idolization of Order is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes, which includes both left-wing and right-wing ones. Doing away with the Order therefore opens up more choices for tenets, so more room for player to customize its policies. It would be centered around public control of the economy and egalitarianism.

Autocracy -> Fraternity (or Authority): OK, this one may sound a bit off, but I think it's the best alternative, and fits nicely with French Revolution symbolism. Autocracy by itself is a totally different notion than both Freedom&Order or Liberty&Equality, as explained by others. Fascism also diverges from those, as the others denote the essential principles. What unites Fascistic movements is an idolization of unity state&nation, and a leader that represents the will of the nation. Fraternity captures the first part, and I think the second part would come through tenets. So this would cover more of the right-wing politics, from top-down juntas, one-man rules to more grass-roots nationalism

I won't delve into my proposed tenets, but an important change I'd make would be to create some mutually exclusive tenets for later tiers. And these would impact diplomacy too. Ex: at the 2nd or 3rd tier, as an Equality civ, you would choose between tenets of State Communism - the Soviet path- or Social Democracy -"European socialism"s-. As a Liberty civ, you would choose between Libertarianism and Social Liberalism. So, in a way, this captures convergences between the three ideologies/principles, and as a result, a social democratic equality civ would have less diplomatic penalties with a social liberal liberty civ, contrary to the case of state communism vs libertarianism where you'd have the maximum penalty. It'd allow some variation between civs following an ideology, and I think would add a bit more depth to the diplomacy. But I've never tested this in-game, don't even know whether the proposed diplomacy changes can be modded.

ps: just found my blueprints, and seems I had decided to go with Authority instead of Fraternity, well good for past-me, it's the right choice.
So TL;DR: I'd suggest two trios, Liberty, Equality and Authority (or Fraternity); or Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism

Now, as for the names themselves: Freedom, Order and Autocracy. If they WERE to be changed I would call them Freedom, Equality, and Fervor/Pride

Freedom: At its core, liberal ideas like those of Hobbes, Locke and Smith are rooted in an intense interest and discourse on how to describe and maximize freedom. Freedom, in Liberalism, is an end in itself, based on a belief that individuals are best suited to defining and bringing about their own happiness. Now does that mean that everyone in a liberal society is 'free' or 'happy'? Of course not. Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” But, an obsession with freedom through individualism is what defines liberalism as an ideology, so I think it is apt.
Only a free person can be happy.

Order/Equality: Marxism is not really about order. In fact, late-stage/Utopian Marxism is best described as a brand of anarchy. The command economies which were informed by marxist ideology were more a means to an end; the core value of Marxism is emancipation of people through the elimination of inequality.
Only when we are equal can we be free.

Fervour/Pride: Autocracy isn't even an ideal, it is a system of government. This never made much sense to me. At its core, Fascism is radical nationalism; the needs and goals of the state supersede the individual. Why be free when you can be great? Why be equal with others when you can be better than? Or, if I must couch this within a discussion of freedom:
True freedom is only found in service to a greater cause.

 

[Blue Ghost]

As someone with quite a literacy in this area, I mostly endorse this. In fact, I had devised a draft back during my brief modding stint that overhaul the ideological game, to make it a bit more immersive and flexible. Basically the original naming sounds silly, especially the autocracy bit, but Order is also a very limited take on left-wing/Marxist ideologies in general, and Firaxis makes all too common mistake of equating all left-wing politics with Soviet socialism. My proposal was, or would be, to determine principles that can divide the ideological spectrum into three, set some basic common points, and then enlarge it to accommodate the variations within them, especially at the final tier. To give a sense of what I had in mind, here's some of the changes I thought:

First off, I would change the names in reference to French Revolution, to give it a nice theme
Freedom -> Liberty: To me, Freedom is more fitting as a principle of ancient times than Liberty, as it's more of a primeval instinct, whereas Liberty is a modern political concept, so I'd swap the names. It's main principles would be capitalism & individualism per the original.

Order -> Equality: Equality lies at the heart of almost all left-wing thought, including Marxism, whereas idolization of Order is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes, which includes both left-wing and right-wing ones. Doing away with the Order therefore opens up more choices for tenets, so more room for player to customize its policies. It would be centered around public control of the economy and egalitarianism.

Autocracy -> Fraternity: OK, this one may sound a bit off, but I think it's the best alternative, and fits nicely with French Revolution symbolism. Autocracy by itself is a totally different notion than both Freedom&Order or Liberty&Equality, as explained by others. Fascism also diverges from those, as the others denote the essential principles. What unites Fascistic movements is an idolization of unity state&nation, and a leader that represents the will of the nation. Fraternity captures the first part, and I think the second part would come through tenets. So this would cover more of the right-wing politics, from top-down juntas, one-man rules to more grass-roots nationalism

I won't delve into my proposed tenets, but an important change I'd make would be to create some mutually exclusive tenets for later tiers. And these would impact diplomacy too. Ex: at the 2nd or 3rd tier, as an Equality civ, you would choose between tenets of State Communism - the Soviet path- or Social Democracy -"European socialism"s-. As a Liberty civ, you would choose between Libertarianism and Social Liberalism. So, in a way, this captures convergences between the three ideologies/principles, and as a result, a social democratic equality civ would have less diplomatic penalties with a social liberal liberty civ, contrary to the case of state communism vs libertarianism where you'd have the maximum penalty. It'd allow some variation between civs following an ideology, and I think would add a bit more depth to the diplomacy. But I've never tested this in-game, don't even know whether the proposed diplomacy changes can be modded.

It's too late in the design cycle to make such sweeping overhauls to ideologies in Vox Populi. But I do like the idea, and if you were to make a separate mod for it, I'd support it.

 

[balparmak]

Yeah, you're right, I don't even know the current state of the mod and balance is a very delicate thing. I wasn't planning to base this on VP anyway, this was more for a CP Enhanced kinda mod that I was working on, but then life happened. Who knows, I might return to complete it someday.

 

[tu_79]

As someone with quite a literacy in this area, I mostly endorse this.
In fact, I had devised a draft back during my brief modding stint that overhaul the ideological game, to make it a bit more immersive and flexible. Basically the original naming sounds silly, especially the autocracy bit, but Order is also a very limited take on left-wing/Marxist ideologies in general, and Firaxis makes all too common mistake of equating all left-wing politics with Soviet socialism. My proposal was, or would be, to determine principles that can divide the ideological spectrum into three, set some basic common points, and then enlarge it to accommodate the variations within them, especially at the final tier.
To give a sense of what I had in mind, here's some of the changes I thought:

Spoiler :

First off, I would change the names in reference to French Revolution, to give it a nice theme
Freedom -> Liberty: To me, Freedom is more fitting as a principle of ancient times than Liberty, as it's more of a primeval instinct, whereas Liberty is a modern political concept, so I'd swap the names. It's main principles would be capitalism & individualism per the original.

Order -> Equality: Equality lies at the heart of almost all left-wing thought, including Marxism, whereas idolization of Order is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes, which includes both left-wing and right-wing ones. Doing away with the Order therefore opens up more choices for tenets, so more room for player to customize its policies. It would be centered around public control of the economy and egalitarianism.

Autocracy -> Fraternity (or Authority): OK, this one may sound a bit off, but I think it's the best alternative, and fits nicely with French Revolution symbolism. Autocracy by itself is a totally different notion than both Freedom&Order or Liberty&Equality, as explained by others. Fascism also diverges from those, as the others denote the essential principles. What unites Fascistic movements is an idolization of unity state&nation, and a leader that represents the will of the nation. Fraternity captures the first part, and I think the second part would come through tenets. So this would cover more of the right-wing politics, from top-down juntas, one-man rules to more grass-roots nationalism

I won't delve into my proposed tenets, but an important change I'd make would be to create some mutually exclusive tenets for later tiers. And these would impact diplomacy too. Ex: at the 2nd or 3rd tier, as an Equality civ, you would choose between tenets of State Communism - the Soviet path- or Social Democracy -"European socialism"s-. As a Liberty civ, you would choose between Libertarianism and Social Liberalism. So, in a way, this captures convergences between the three ideologies/principles, and as a result, a social democratic equality civ would have less diplomatic penalties with a social liberal liberty civ, contrary to the case of state communism vs libertarianism where you'd have the maximum penalty. It'd allow some variation between civs following an ideology, and I think would add a bit more depth to the diplomacy. But I've never tested this in-game, don't even know whether the proposed diplomacy changes can be modded.

ps: just found my blueprints, and seems I had decided to go with Authority instead of Fraternity, well good for past-me, it's the right choice.
So TL;DR: I'd suggest two trios, Liberty, Equality and Authority (or Fraternity); or Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism

It seems sensible to me. Liberty for liberalism (be it wild capitalism or regulated by States). Equality for Socialism (may it be Communism or socialist democracies). Fraternity for Nationalism (be it Fascism or democratic neocons) is the less fitting name. Fraternity, brotherhood, is not only for our own people, but for every people of the world. Maybe 'Motherland' or 'Homeland' fits better.

 

[saamohod]

Honestly, as a German, I'd be more willing to take autocracy than fascism... Don't know why, maybe I'm a bit biased...

You are, my friend.
But in my humble opinion the Germans is the only nation that deserves to be proud of such a bias. The rest of the nations should be free to call a spade a spade.

 

[Magean]

I come late to the battle but I agree that Autocracy feels a bit off, since it refers to a government type while Freedom and Order are social values. I think of Freedom and Order as Individualism vs Collectivism, whichever is more valued in a society. Meanwhile, an Autocratic government need not be expansionist.

In Victoria 2 there are three basic national values: Liberty, Equality and Order. The excellent PDM mod adds Might, which allows to differentiate between conservative nations focusing on internal stability (Order, as in "everyone knows its place and contributes to the greater good") and nations with a militarist and expansionist bent (Might, no need to explain).

If ideologies are to be renamed, it could be possible to draw from this example and just rename Autocracy into Might (or something along those lines).

This way we avoid delving into never-ending debates pertaining to political correctness or historical appropriateness of either concept.

 

[pineappledan]

@balparmak had an interesting idea of naming them after the three ideals of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity. I purposefully avoided those words in my own suggestion so as to stay clear of comparisons with revolutionary France, but it would equally valid to go all-in on those terms. They work relatively well.

@Magean is right though, order does conjure ideas of ultraconservative, feudal or caste-based societies

 

[Magean]

@balparmak had an interesting idea of naming them after the three ideals of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity. I purposefully avoided those words in my own suggestion so as to stay clear of comparisons with revolutionary France, but it would equally valid to go all-in on those terms. They work relatively well.

@Magean is right though, order does conjure ideas of ultraconservative, feudal or caste-based societies

Renaming Autocracy into Fraternity would anything but extinguish the controversy though, considering what it entails... It's practically an oxymoron. Likewise, I think Order is fine as it is, renaming it into something directly referring to socialism/communism would attract even more controversy - as leftists stand for Equality but usually don't like what the Eastern bloc did in its name (which is what the tree is mostly built on), so we would see yet additional battling on ideologies' names.

For me, the triad Freedom (individualism, pluralism, self-accomplishment...) / Order (inner stability, prosperity through devotion to the collective good...) / Might (domination, expansion, "manly" virtues...) manages to be vague enough to convey the broad ideas underpinning each tree without directly targeting such or such political group or delving into controversial historical labelling.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I support renaming Autocracy to Might. It seems there's a broad consensus at least that Autocracy should be renamed?

 

[Gazebo]

I support renaming Autocracy to Might. It seems there's a broad consensus at least that Autocracy should be renamed?

3 people hardly equal 'broad.' This feels very much so like change for the sake of change.

G

 

[Blue Ghost]

3 people hardly equal 'broad.' This feels very much so like change for the sake of change.

G

There have been more calls for renaming Autocracy to something more like an ideal further up the thread.

I tend to be conservative with change proposals, but Vox Populi has already changed the names of most of the policy trees. Some of them (Fealty, Industry, Imperialism) were tied to changes in function, but others (Progress, Authority, Artistry) seem more for the sake of flavor and consistency. And I think there is a consistency issue with Autocracy being a system of government while Freedom and Order are ideals.