Genocide and other Atrocities

My personal opiion is that for simplicity we should assume that attitude become more progressive, as we define progressive.
I would agree that real nations are seldom as ruthless as a civ player, they are still very aggressive. In the modern age all warfare is economic, except for some limited skirmishes around the globe. THat is something that is represented horribly in civ, unless you count resource denial as a form of economic warfare.
As for peaceful development, the only time in history I can remember peaceful development is when Rome intimidate everyone, when people could not find each other, and after the development of Nuclear Weapons. History rewards the strong, not the devleoped, as the Moors and Incans learned in terrible ways.
I think the reason that civ players tend to war alot in the modern age is that nuclear weapons are not potent enough. A couple ways to fix that would be the ability to strike-back the instant they launch their nukes. THink MAD. I know this is discussed in a thread labeled 'Missle Silos'. Another would be make nukes cheaper. Large arsenals would definitely dissuade all but the crazy guys to fight on the marketplace.
 
I think it could have turned out some other way. Just imagine a world where the Axis won WW2.
 
But that's my point. If the Axis won WW2, there wouldn't have been a UN. It would have been Hitler saying "now we're going to do this, then that, then something else" and Mussolini saying "okay".

Even so, I think Civ is pretty telelogical about the evolution of technology. It pretty much assumes that by the time the modern age rolls around, there are movements for environmentalism and civil rights. Not to say that it could have turned out differently, but I figure this is one convenient assumption that can guide the game and make it simple to program.
 
I agree that the civ games need to award peaceful play but the world could have turned out differently and the UN probably wouldn't exist but they might have something similar to it just with another name. Since the civ games cant have 100 names for the same thing why not just call it UN no matter who controls it?
 
warpstorm said:
I think it could have turned out some other way. Just imagine a world where the Axis won WW2.

Hitler would not have survived that long, even if the axis did win. He escaped death narrowly dozens of times. Someone more moderate would have taken over and ended the worst of the Nazi atrocities(probably). A new world order of EAst vs. WEst being Germany vs. America.
 
Japan could not have conquered the US. The industrial capacity of the US was so much greater. Japan would have controlled the pacific, but for a continental invasion, it would not have gotten far, if at all. Hitler would have had no desire to try and help the Japanese invade the US once he owned Europe.

The attack at Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike to prevent the US from threatening Japanese supremacy of the Pacific Ocean.
 
I like these discussions, whatever the stances. We're all talking about "what if". The reality is Civ seldom plays out in a way where you get to experience a "what if".

I'd personally be content if the gradual move towards civil rights and human rights was considered a constant. But it would be ten times cooler if it was a variable. In one possible world, genocide against a particular race is punished. In another possible world, it is rewarded.

The game doesn't do this yet. Not for anything, really. No variety.
 
I remember that in SMAC the starting stance was that chemical weapons and planet busters were atrocities. YOu could eventually put the issue to vote whether they should still be considered atrocities. A system where conferences occured between powers to decide the rules of war would be a good way to allow for variable worlds.
 
I'm all for that system, as much as I'm all for the teleolical fact that "the socio-economics powers eventually become adverse to genocide". Either system would be fine by me, so long as genocide can be a strategy. (Without reprocussions, until they raise the high bar in the modern age, whether by choice or by a necessary technology/wonder.) Either will do.
 
I think the reason that descimination has become less prevalent and acceptable over time has less to do with social evolution and more to do with economic evolution. Nations and businesses usually do what is in their best interest. Rome treated anyone who was not a Roman as a second-class citizen to establish their position as the ultimate authority. THe Egyptians enslaved the Israelites because they feared their rising population and opulence. As the modern world produced more and more free nations, trade became the best source of prosperity and security. In order for legitimate trade to occur, the government had to stop descriminating against those whose govornments they had to deal with. People learned it was more profitable to deal equally with those of different ethnicities and nationalitieis rather than be bigotted. Slavery ended because it was less costly to use machine labour. So, the worst of human behavior makes less business since and thus disappears.
 
Japan could have beaten the US in WWII if it developed the nuke first but my guess is that without Einstein Germany would have made the nuke first.


Back the the topic though I agree with Sir Schwick that it has nothing to do with social progress and everything to do with prosperity. Nice point Schwick. Genocide should be more benificial than hurtful if it accomplishes important goals such as wealth and stability.
 
For SURE it's economical. If you can invent the corporation by the industrial age, then there's no doubt that you'll get to that level of social progress where everyone is respected because cash is accepted everywhere. There's even theorists who say that's how homosexuality will become more accepted -- gay couples have as much money as much as anyone, not to mention they don't have kids to spend it on. But that's a whole other discussion.

I guess that's what I mean by the fact that human rights would be an evolutionary FACT in Civ, because of all the other things in the game that are considered an evolutionary fact. But if they wanted to make the game completely dynamic, I'd love that ten times more. Still, I'll settle for genocide being obsolete by the modern age.
 
But genocide is still an active ongoing thing. Human rights are not a fact for all people today. It's not like human nature has changed all that much in the past generation or two.
 
Of course, the major focus of this thread seems to be the concept of 'moral relativism'! The important question though, as far as this forum goes, is 'how can you incorporate these concepts into Civ4' ;)?
Well, I see it being do-able in 3 ways-none of which are mutually exclusive!
One is via the tech tree-especially if you are using a more expanded tech tree and a semi-blind research model! In this, there would be a host of 'cultural/socialogical' techs which can be acquired throughout history which, though they provide economic, diplomatic and sociological benefits, they also make it more difficult to commit atrocities without drawing the ire of your own people or other nations! Of course, how other nations respond to your atrocities will depend largely on THEIR current level of 'human rights'. The second approach is via 'social engineering' where you can have varying levels of 'nationalism', 'sufferage' 'Emancipation' and 'libertarianism'! Again, positive settings in these traits will create certain tanglible 'game benefits', but will also tie your hands when it comes to 'doing whatever the hell you want' :D ;)!!
The third method is via 'Small/Great Wonders', like a 'Geneva Convention', 'Emancipation declaration' etc. Again, building them gives benefits, but also makes it more difficult to do truly evil things!!
The flip-side of this, of course, is how to measure 'attrocities' in a way that makes for a good game whilst retaining some sense of realism! The only thing I can think of is an 'atrocity counter' Each 'type' of atrocity will have a certain scale (say from 1 to 5), and will increase your 'additive atrocity level'! Your own people, and other civs, will have a certain 'atrocity threshold' based on their current level of 'enlightenment', when you cross that threshold, your culture and reputation decrease internationally, and/or your happiness, stability and productivity decrease domestically! This will effect trade and diplomatic deals, culture flip chances and the chance of revolution and/or civil war! Of course, each turn you go without commiting an atrocity, your current atrocity level will drop-slowly (much like with pollution in civ3!)!
Anyway, just some ideas. Didn't have a chance to read the entire thread, so hope I didn't repeat anyone elses ideas ;) :)!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
 
Doesn't matter if people still commit genocide, the fact that there's international law is a modern day reality. The real question is if Civ should reflect this as a necessary fact, or a possible fact. (The same dilemma for many other concepts.) Atrocities are a special case because they aren't really a fact represented in Civ at all, and they should be in one form or another.

I like your suggestions, Aussie. To me, the world is all about intersubjectivism and the tyrrany of the majority. Not just population majority, but the power majority. If the worlds superpowers get together and say "eating meat is wrong", then by God, it's wrong. And wars will be waged, and revolutions will be started, and governments will be changed, and economics will be determined by who commits the atrocity of eating meat. ... of course, I'm not interested in Civ reflecting this in the least, even as a possible reality.
 
Well, this is why your international relations should be determined by several key factors:

1) Cultural might-this is pretty much reflected in civ3, but could be slightly improved.

2) Your military strength-pretty obvious, really, the more POWERFUL you are, the more likely weaker civs are to be nice to you and do as you say, just out of fear-at least to your face ;)!

3) Your Economic Strength-if you are much more economically powerful than another nation, those nations are more likely to fawn on you-if only to attract more trade and wealth (hell, just look at the relationship between the US and MY country-sheeesssssh :rolleyes: !)

4) Government/religious and cultural similarity factors-this reflects the fact that nations of a similar culture/religion/government type are more likely to get along with each other than those who are completely different!

5) Atrocity Score-This deducts equally away from factors 1 and 3 and, to a much lesser extent 4-though it will probably ADD to factor 2 ;)! Of course, if factor 2 is high but all the others are low, then you are more likely to attract MPP's and Alliances with YOU as the target! You are also more likely to attract unconventional attacks against you!
The additive and subractive effects of these factors are what will decide your relationships with other civs, if not your reputation :)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I like Aussie's ideas... BUT:
You have to account for things like Rwanda, where the world shrugged. Or Sudan being chosen to chair the Human Rights Committee (or whatever it is) in the face of it's genocidal behavior. Or the failure of the World Court to convict officials of genocide because they only killed males. (The women are faced with either mix-breeding or asexual reproduction: whichever they choose.)
 
Just a couple of things, though. First of all, the atrocity scale doesn't necessarily mean any action will be taken on you, just that the governments of an 'enlightened' civilization might snub you and, eventually, even go to war with you-if only to keep their OWN people onside!
Also, one of the factors I failed to mention above is governmental/religious/Cultural Factors. This goes some way to explaining the Sudan situation, because many of those who elected it to chair the HRC were of the same 'Culture Group' (African), same religious Group (Islamic) and similar government type/atrocity levels! Its not a perfect system, I'll admit, but it will go some way to explaining why atrocities alone do not get your nation isolated!
Finally, the thing with Rwanda is that there was outrage at what had occured but, after the genocide, the government was changed to one which comprised a majority of the victims of that slaughter! To reflect this, then, perhaps changing government could be a way of more quickly reducing your current atrocity levels!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
it seems that dh_epic and aussie lurker are real creative fans!!!
yes, atrocities, penalties and awards for them!
also yes to assimilation and dissimilation!!! when then conquered nation conquers the conquerors!!! just think the mongols and china.
demographics should be rethinked in Civ4.

OFF topic: what if the Axis won? well, 1. it is impossible to think of it, because the Axis did not won :) 2. if they won even so, go to point 1. - no that's just a joke. if the Axis won, the cruel system of Germany would have been softened up in one or two decades and become a kind of semi-Fascistic autorither system. And in this case, the US most likely had turned on its own ultranationalistic system, too. Japan would have remained to be the same.
this is my "professional oppinion" (i am a historian researching the 20th century's Hungarian nazi movements - visit www.terrorhaza.hu)
 
Back
Top Bottom