Elohims should be "Spiritual" rather than the current implementation of "Tolerant"

[WarKirby]

I think the elohim are better done in FF. They can get all sorts of extra traits from unique features, like the remnants of patria. They can actually gather a large number of additional traits. They get spiritual from Sirona's Beacon, which the flavor start tends to put them close to.

The tolerant trait was renamed Conqueror, taken away from them, and given to decius instead.

 

[Emptiness]

I've played and won with the Elohim without ever taking an enemy city - so it was like I didn't even have the Tolerant trait. I found them quite powerful without that trait.

Spiritual is a very powerful trait, imo, because there is a lot of incentive to cycle through multiple religions over the course of a game. For example, you might use RoK to boost your economy, gain early access to Iron, and unlock the Guerrilla II promotion. Then you might use FoL to upgrade your Lumbermilled Forests to Lumbermilled Ancient Forests, build some Disciples and upgrade them to Rangers (for the promotions they carry over), and unlock Woodsman II. Then you might switch to OO to eliminate unhappyness in one of your cities with the Tower of Complacency (the one where you're planning to build City of a Thousand Slums, of course) and to build an army of undead that can walk on water. Then finally you might switch to Order for its protection from a rising AC. This and other multi-religion gameplans require a fair bit of religion changes, which can add up to so many lost turns that they aren't practical - unless you have Spiritual. The savings also applies to Civic changes, which can also add up if you make them piecemeal, especially in the longer gameplay modes.

I don't see Tolerant as a "you must go conquer" trait, I see it as a flavorful element that arises when you are forced to conquer. The fact that there are some bugs that still need to be worked out (such as the 2 palaces exploit) should not be a reason to remove the trait - it should be a reason to fix the bugs. If you take a civ that does just fine without one of its traits, and replace that trait with a powerful one, then you'll be giving that civ a big power boost. I don't think the Elohim need or warrant that kind of boost, and so should not be changed.

 

[Imuratep]

I know these lore entries, but actually for those civilizations that are mentioned tolerant does not fit. Elohim that have not changed their alignement would never tolerate Infernal influence.
The Elohim lead wars but which other civilization would you call more inclined to preserve peace (Einion has Pacifism as his favorite civic)? The mechanic encourages the opposite and no other ways are given. I tried thousands of things but culture flipping is nearly impossible and trading cities with your opponent really impossible. I have nothing against leading wars with the Elohim, but that it's the only way to get Tolerant working.

 

[esvath]

Well, I used to object on Tolerant, more because I think that Tolerant was not fit for Elohim lore-wise, than their mechanic (It is not over-powered at all, imho. A vampire that can not feast, build a new palace in low-production and vulnerable city... not that great).

But after reading KC's story on Elohim, I changed my mind. Tolerant fits Elohim very much (be glad for KC's story, Kael, otherwise there would be one more nagging fan protesting Tolerant, me )

Here is the story http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7164730&postcount=71

Now, I vote for the pie. I think that defensive should be put into Civ Trait or building-granted and both leaders should gain a new trait. Philosophical and Creative is not THAT different, making Einion and Ethne almost look like one person, imho.

Spoiler :

I think between the two leaders, Einion should get traits geared toward more pacifist/builder playstyle while Ethne geared toward more aggresive playstyle (although very much still a builder). Look at the scenarios for justification of Ethne's aggresiveness

 

[Mesix]

Tolerant is great. In previous versions the Elohim were one of the least fun civs. The Tolerant trait gives them a fun mechanic to play around with.

By the way...I like pie

 

[ZHONN]

Taking away the tolerant trait from the Elohim would make them really boring. It also suits them thematically.

Also, just because a civ is peaceful doesn't mean they shouldn't be a formidable opponent on the warfield if need be. Fantasy worlds are already full of stereotyping and concepts taken to the extreme. One of the charms of FFH is that the civs aren't so black and white.

 

[Jules.lt]

I don't understand all the people saying that the current implementation of Tolerant is flavourful...

If the Elohim had to go to war, they might respect the culture of the conquered people, but would they really train troops in an unassimilated culture? The loyalty of these troops would be highly questionable, and their behaviour would probably often go contrary to the most important Elohim values. Elohims might be tolerant and peaceful, but they're not weak when it comes to protecting their values.

A tolerant trait that is not for warmongers would for example be "does not get the close borders diplomacy penalty". That reflects the fact that Elohim people will not have border clashes like other cultures, and fits well with the "live and let live" play style. It even makes it easier to get cities by culture flip.
That's not what I'm pushing for, but it shows that there are countless ways to implement a flavour, including some that have flavourful mechanics and go well with the rest of the civ's mechanics...

The current implementation is less "Tolerant" than "Melting Pot Culture", which flavour-wise fits the Kurios and Grigori better as has been pointed out by several people (which does not mean that they should get this trait...)

 

[WarKirby]

Taking away the tolerant trait from the Elohim would make them really boring. It also suits them thematically..

FF gives them other things to make up for it, though.

I know they get quite a few new unique buildings, and their monks can also achieve enlightenment, which gives the spirit affinity.

 

[Sephi]

If the Elohim had to go to war, they might respect the culture of the conquered people, but would they really train troops in an unassimilated culture? The loyalty of these troops would be highly questionable, and their behaviour would probably often go contrary to the most important Elohim values. Elohims might be tolerant and peaceful, but they're not weak when it comes to protecting their values.

Lets say the Elohim free the old Bannor cities who were overrun by the Clan. Why shouldn't they make use of highly skilled Bannor archers who are known for their ability catch assasins? There are only very few units who don't really fit like Pyre Zombies.

The only reason to take away tolerant trait from Elohim is so you can give them awesome stuff like in FF

 

[Jules.lt]

Except you're going to be able to build Clan stuff in there, not Bannor.
Save for exceptional situations, tolerant is only going to give you access to the troops of your enemy, not those of your friends. Wouldn't the Elohim rather use friendly troops than evil troops? If you're going to do an implementation of tolerant of this kind, you should find a way to give Elohim access to the troops of their friends.

If you really want to keep the current mechanic, it can be attributed to Decius or another civ, but the current situation is wrong.

If you take away tolerant (a powerful trait that the builders Elohims are geared for won't use) and replace it with spiritual (a powerful trait that synergises well with Elohim troops and can be used for building stuff and organising your empire too), I don't think that they will be worse off.

Edit: I found out that unrestricted leaders didn't apply to the AIs; I'm going to try a game with Varn Gosam of Elohim ; It's a pity that defender isn't a choice of adaptative, it's not like it's very powerful...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I find having the Elohim building Demonic units is the most odd thing.

 

[TheJopa]

Gameplay wise, I found tolerant Elohim much better and more fun than old boring ones. So, if anything, it IS better than it was before.

Flavor wise, Kuriotates should get tolerant, BUT gameplaywise, it would be disaster. Kurios have enough perks, plus they are suited for mega cities, and with settlement/supercity mechanic, conquered cities simply either couldn't produce or you should divert too much to make em into supercity.

Grigori are my second best candidate for this trait. Especially as they lack religion. Their lack of state religion may allow any worship in lands they take, long as it is not too fanatical.

But in any case, if Elohim lose tolerant, they should gain something else.

 

[notque]

In my minorleader mod, I have one Grigori minor leader with the Tolerant trait. Agree with everyone else, it seems to fit well.

 

[Sephi]

Except you're going to be able to build Clan stuff in there, not Bannor.

no, It works as I said. I playtestet it And you already have access to UU from perm allies / team members as long as there is a way to upgrade to those UU (like archer to flurry)

 

[Jules.lt]

Grigori could make sense, maybe on a minor leader with only this trait.
Edit: ninja'd by notque good job!

I agree that Kurio is impossible. Quoting myself: that it fits them flavour-wise does not mean that they should get this trait...

I'm not proposing to make Elohim lose tolerant without gaining something else...

As I said in post #30, Spiritual would be powerful and game-changing for Elohims, including for the builder types that are attracted to this civ in the first place, as opposed to what is _ I'm repeating myself here _ a warmonger's implementation of "tolerant" (which as Elohim I'll never see a glint of)

Spiritual would change a lot of things for Elohims, since monks would gain xp over time and get free mobility, as well as allowing Elohims to build temples faster and change civics/religions at will.

It is also the most flavourful trait for them to have. I would even like to see it being a civ trait, so they can keep it when using unrestricted leaders.

 

[Jules.lt]

no, It works as I said. I playtestet it And you already have access to UU from perm allies / team members as long as there is a way to upgrade to those UU (like archer to flurry)

Upgrading in team members' territory isn't part of the Tolerant trait, so it isn't relevant.
Edit: In fact, I don't know and I don't care. It's minor. Forget I mentioned that.

As for your playtesting: how fast did you conquer the city again after the Clan got it? Was it still in revolt, or maybe it still had a significant Bannor population?

Bah, even if it gives you access to the units of the original founder of the city that will still leave you with enemy units to build 90% of the time, and those 10% don't make warmonger's tolerant more fitting for the Elohim.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

I think the problem is not so much whether or not the Elohim ought to be tolerant (maybe some others should have it as well, but that doesn't directly impact whether or not the Elohim ought to have it) but how the Tolerant trait works.

Perhaps a better way of handling it would be instead of getting the city buildings of those that you conquer, I would propose this. (Major tweaks will be needed)

The Elohim get a new unit called an "Emissary". They would be available with say, Trade, cost 60, have 0 combat ability and move two. The idea would be that you go to a city of another civ which you have open borders with, and deploy the Emissary to "pick up" some culture of the city he visits, and then brings it back to the Elohim city, which then would get a limited ability to build stuff from the civ you got the culture from. The more culture you mix, the more stuff you get. (I realize this is not hammered out at all, but just a first idea) Any thoughts?

 

[Sephi]

Upgrading in team members' territory isn't part of the Tolerant trait, so it isn't relevant.

You can upgrade to a UU in the territory of a team member only if you have the Tolerant trait, so it is relevant . It's not as usefull as conquered cities, but still nice. And no, the city wasn't in revolt anymore.

 

[feydras]

I don't know if Spiritual is the best choice to replace it but i've always felt the inaptly named Tolerant was a bad fit for the Elohim. I'd prefer to see it for Cassiel/Grigori. It would justify him going to war (which is a natural playstyle for those adventurers) and fits perfectly with his flavor. Now that we know more lore about Decius i think it still fits him but is not the best choice.

 

[Cliftor]

I whole heartedly agree with parent. I recently played my first Elohim game and was surprised to see I could start building Clan and Infernal units o.O

The motivation and NAME of the trait are perfectly good, I don't think anyone can disagree with that. But in addition to encouraging warfare, it really is weird from a flavor perspective that they could justify recruiting demons, undead and evil demihumans into their army. Can they even get vampires? Calabim wasn't in my game.

Why not consider one of the proposed changes? "Tolerant" as a name could be kept, but made to do other things a builder civ would like... bonus to culture flipping, reduced or zero turns of resistance from a conquered city, no heathen religion/close borders penalties, stuff like that.

The current effects of Tolerant are definitely cool. What Civ could use it from a flavor perspective? Some civ that is currently lacking in neat tricks? I haven't played the Grigori yet, but they've been suggested. Why? They get... Adventurers and Dragon slayers. What else?