Presenting LGBT Leaders in Civ Games

[Abraxis]

The only way you'll pull that off is by marrying your topics to the game's pre-existing themes. They're not going to just decide to suddenly make this series about sexual fluid.

 

[Cyon]

Kinder Garten for example would be a great building that could give a huge production bonus since it allows for doubleing the work force in a country. Sweden has almost the same rate of female and male employees which is a great bonus to our economy.

Such a building could have a high gold maintenance cost to balance it. Maybe it could give minus one amenety for 20 turns, than neutral for 20 turns and then positive for the rest of the game to simulate social conservativenes and problems social change cause before the success and change society.

So I don't think it would be weird with Kinder Garten as a building that unlocks be a sp cars named Emancipation.

I think that such development had as much right to be in the late game as laser guided missile and faster tanks.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

Man this whole thread got really weird. Hopefully this week's reveals will get some fresh discussion of mechanics.

 

[SJSerio]

Man this whole thread got really weird. Hopefully this week's reveals will get some fresh discussion of mechanics.

I agree!!! I understand the need for gender as there are women who play Civilization and female representation encourages more. But as far as the lgbt thing goes, I don't really care about a leader's sexual preference. If they were a good leader and have something to add gameplay wise, put them in. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

I will say that the discussion does bring to mind that I DO hope that they include Freddy Mercury as a Great Musician.

 

[Xen]

I agree!!! I understand the need for gender as there are women who play Civilization and female representation encourages more. But as far as the lgbt thing goes, I don't really care about a leader's sexual preference. If they were a good leader and have something to add gameplay wise, put them in. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

I will say that the discussion does bring to mind that I DO hope that they include Freddy Mercury as a Great Musician.

This. Judge a person on their merits, not sexuality.

Because if sexuality/ issues of sexual preference in ruling a country are what you're looking for, its better to play Crusader kings 2.

 

[cakes]

The only way you'll pull that off is by marrying your topics to the game's pre-existing themes.

i'm not sure that's legal yet

 

[Gangrin]

Ecology, feminism, black Emancipation /civil right movement's, Gay rights are all some of the most important issues of the 19/20/21st century, I think that these kind of social issues should be represented in some abstracted way in the game.

No, i think it should not. Ecology? Ok. Black Emancipation? No. What if in my game there are only 8 civs and none of them are Egypt or Kongo? Not only that, what if my civ never participated in slavery based on race principle? Does that mean a civic i just researched does not work? Or even worse, it starts working by literally saying "we never had a problem, but by solving it we show how progressive we are?". What's next, bonus to General points generation for slaying imaginary Frost giants? Next, gay rights. There are several instances in real world cultures where gays were not prosecuted or even frowned upon. If these cultures were dominant, there wouldn't be any problem to solve and therefore gain benefit from. Again, it's one thing to bring up such problem in Paradox-style games, which recreates and plays with real history on our planet with our socio- geo- political situation and another in Civilization-style games where America can start it's history 4000 BC in the middle of the desert near mount Fuji and bordering Siam

 

[6uho Koe]

As far as personality mixed with lgbt, it would be great to have Elagabalus lead Rome and Louis XIV's brother, and grandfather of Europe, Philippe I lead France. They have quite the personality.



But seriously, it would be better to choose a leader based on accomplishments, or in Firaxis' case, particular if not peculiar shades of one aspect of personality to match specific agendas rather than decision, ethnicity, or gender (it seems gender and ethnicity is still an issue...).

 

[Siptah]

This is not the best place to discuss this, but since the discussion already started:

I'd love a policy card "Emancipation" which increases the amount of yields per Population, while decreasing the rate of growth for your cities.

For the LGBT discussion. There was a precedent for a transsexual leader in Civ IV with having Hatshepsut and she seems to be wanted again on this forums. I know that her transsexuality may have been a lot different than most of todays (and maybe even involuntarily just to please the tradition). She is exclusively depicted as a man, exclusively called with the male word for Pharaoh (a female word would be possible in Middle Egyptian, but never used for any of the female Pharaohs AFAIK), and also addressed as male (here, too, Middle Egyptian had other options). I don't think a transsexual leader has to be in per se, but if the community likes a certain leader, such things should be at least no hindrance.

 

[Homusubi]

And besides, after a couple of minutes of research, Alexander being homosexual is no better evidenced than the claims about Gandhi. There seems no solid evidence in the case of Oda either. Believing these allegations to be certain is to take a 'no smoke without fire' approach.

I'm not really sure why you brought this up in the first place; you say you were pointing out diversity, but to have noticed this diversity you must have been thinking about it and already. I realise you are not saying developers should go out of their way to achieve representation, but , if we did think it was important to represent 'LGBT' community, what about homosexual women? We don't have any of those in Civ games to my knowledge.

Given the culture of 1500s Japan, it is almost certain Oda had same-sex relations. The most likely partner appears to be Mori Ranmaru. Having said that, he doesn't really count as LGBT representation, and he doesn't really need to - as mentioned earlier, it didn't really mean much outside of Europe and the Middle East before 1800ish. (Which is also why having a "gay rights" technology doesn't make sense)

As for homosexual women, we probably do have a few in Civ and don't know it. They have traditionally been even more secretive than homosexual men, including outside of Europe: Edo Period Japanese records are full of references to male homosexuality, but contain no references to female homosexuality, although there are a few that seem to allude to it. I'm sure it existed everywhere, and statistically, we have probably had a lesbian leader in Civ without knowing it.

I agree!!! I understand the need for gender as there are women who play Civilization and female representation encourages more. But as far as the lgbt thing goes, I don't really care about a leader's sexual preference. If they were a good leader and have something to add gameplay wise, put them in. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

This. Judge a person on their merits, not sexuality.

Because if sexuality/ issues of sexual preference in ruling a country are what you're looking for, its better to play Crusader kings 2.

Well, you know what, Thorburne? There are gay people who play Civ too! As I said before, I'm not going to campaign for equal LGBT representation in Civ. However, I do take offence with gender being somehow "more important". Not every civ has had notable female leaders, or female leaders at all for that matter (I'm looking at you, America!). Either go completely Politically Correct and vet every leader for gender, sexuality, and everything else, or do the sensible thing and, as Xen said, judge them all on their merits rather than sexuality - and rather than gender as well.

That's not to say there shouldn't be female leaders. Elizabeth, Victoria, Catherine, Hatshepsut, and the like are perfectly good Civ leaders regardless of gender. If a leader was particularly notable for becoming a female ruler in an incredibly male-dominated society, sure, include her, but also consider people who faced similar struggles for other reasons (e.g. being born a peasant).

And besides, I actually like the choice of Catherine de Medici, if only because it saves me from getting all the Louis mixed up.

 

[Metecury]

What the he'll is wrong with you people? The last thing we need is to bring whatever politically correct issue into the game. Why make a policy regarding emancipation and lgbt rights? That is stuff you can roleplay, there is no reason to force everyone to have these things into the game because you want whatever issue you care about to be included in the game.



Also the inclusion of such policies/ civics would imply that the civ universe does have discrimination based on race and sex. Why on earth would you force those things in a strategy game? Leave the player the chance to create whatever society he wants by role playing not by forcing political issues on it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

As a gay person, I couldn't give to flying fudges about if there's a gay leader in the game.

We don't need representation EVERYWHERE, and quite frankly, this also applies to the whole "filling up the female quota agenda"

A game like Civ has no "story", I'd much prefer representation in games that tell a story of sorts.

This game has been nothing but a glorified board game since pretty much the very beginning (or was a form of empire management).

Let's just enjoy the uniquness of every civ and not focus on stupid silly representation.

 

[Acken]

As a gay person, I couldn't give to flying fudges about if there's a gay leader in the game.

You must like how people take offense in your name xD

 

[GermanSettler]

I am gay myself and also do not need this issue over-represented.

A social policy called something more generalistic such as "Anti-discrimination laws" or something like that would make sense, though.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If anything, this discussion REALLY needs to be extracted by a moderator and made into its own thread in the ideas and suggestions forum, cos this is getting quite off topic from the leader portraits discussion now.

 

[SJSerio]

Well, you know what, Thorburne? There are gay people who play Civ too! As I said before, I'm not going to campaign for equal LGBT representation in Civ. However, I do take offence with gender being somehow "more important". Not every civ has had notable female leaders, or female leaders at all for that matter (I'm looking at you, America!). Either go completely Politically Correct and vet every leader for gender, sexuality, and everything else, or do the sensible thing and, as Xen said, judge them all on their merits rather than sexuality - and rather than gender as well.

I never said that there wasn't. I was just pointing out that there are women who play civilization and some do prefer playing as women, just as there are some men who like playing as men, and gay people who DO want representation. The thing is, all of those have been represented in Civilization since the first iteration, so it is a moot point. Gender is NOT more important and my point is that I could care less about those things. All that matters to me is the gameplay and having a good time. Perhaps I miscommuniticated my point.

What bothers me is when it is emphasized, like when I went to see the movie Alexander. The fact that he had homosexual relations does not matter to me... I went to see him conquering the world on the battlefield, not in bed. It was a blatant force of political correctness onto the audience, which is why the movie was not all that great and is mostly forgotten.

As Marshmallow Bear implied, it should be about gameplay and not about making sure every group in the world is represented.

And I STILL want Freddy Mercury in the game... not because he was bisexual, but because he was phenomenal and a true icon of Rock/Metal/Opera/Pop/etc.!!!

If anything, this discussion REALLY needs to be extracted by a moderator and made into its own thread in the ideas and suggestions forum, cos this is getting quite off topic from the leader portraits discussion now.

I think the accidental reveal really curtailed the original topic, though there are still some mysteries regarding that poster.

 

[sukritact]

Personally it influenced my choice just a tad. My plans in terms of Roman leaders are to do Hadrian and Claudius. I decided to work on Hadrian first primarily because a good number of people seemed excited for him, though partially because he was gay.

What bothers me is when it is emphasized, like when I went to see the movie Alexander. The fact that he had homosexual relations does not matter to me... I went to see him conquering the world on the battlefield, not in bed. It was a blatant force of political correctness onto the audience, which is why the movie was not all that great and is mostly forgotten.

IMHO opinion this is a shows problematic attitude (as least as it's phrased, I do not know if you actually hold the views as I interpret them from this paragraph, so please don't read this as an accusation). Many movies have romantic subplots to them (Owen + Claire in Jurassic World, Rey + Finn in The Force Awakens). People don't really care about those. But lots of people raise a massive stint if there ever is a gay subplot. That's heteronormativity in action. I dunno how it is with Alexander though, not having seen the movie; because these things can feel too forced (both for gay and straight romance).

My opinion on the whole matter: there's no reason to actively search for and force LGBT leaders in just for the sake of it; and they shouldn't be chosen over someone who is distinctly more noteworthy (likely I will not be making another LGBT leader for a very long time). Regardless, I will mention their sexual orientation in flavor text and dialogue if I feel it is significant to their histories. With Hadrian it certainly is, and Antinous will be mentioned in Hadrian's defeat speech. It will not be popping up beyond that and the civilopedia however (since it will be copied from wikipedia, which does mention Antinous.)

As Marshmallow Bear implied, it should be about gameplay and not about making sure every group in the world is represented.

Gameplay is not a bar to representation. At least in terms of cultural representation I disagree strongly with this. History can be interpreted into gameplay a good number of ways, and often the more 'exotic' cultures can provide unique and unexpected mechanics.

 

[SJSerio]

IMHO opinion this is a shows problematic attitude (as least as it's phrased, I do not know if you actually hold the views as I interpret them from this paragraph). Many movies have romantic subplots to them (Owen + Claire in Jurassic World, Rey + Finn in The Force Awakens). People don't really care about those. But lots of people raise a massive stint if there ever is a gay subplot. That's heteronormativity in action. I dunno how it is with Alexander though, not having seen the movie; because these things can feel too forced (both for gay and straight romance).

I don't want to make this a big OT debate about the movie, but the problem was not that they included the aspect, it was that about 90% of the movie was Colin Farrel kissing other men. I went to the movie to see battles and Alexander conquering the world. If they had a scene or two that demonstrated his sexual preference, even if it got somewhat explicit, I wouldn't have cared as long as the rest of the movie was about what I expected... war!

Anyway, my point is that the game should not be made to focus on these elements. If it is mentioned in the civilopedia about the preferences of Alexander, Trajan or whoever else, that is fine by me. But I do agree that including these elements purely for the sake of including them takes away from the experience and purpose of the game.

Gameplay is not a bar to representation. At least in terms of cultural representation I disagree strongly with this. History can be interpreted into gameplay a good number of ways, and often the more 'exotic' cultures can provide unique and unexpected mechanics.

If it works for gameplay, by all means. But not just for the sake of inclusion.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: New thread created by moving related posts from this thread.

 

[MadDjinn]

For the LGBT discussion. There was a precedent for a transsexual leader in Civ IV with having Hatshepsut and she seems to be wanted again on this forums. I know that her transsexuality may have been a lot different than most of todays (and maybe even involuntarily just to please the tradition). She is exclusively depicted as a man, exclusively called with the male word for Pharaoh (a female word would be possible in Middle Egyptian, but never used for any of the female Pharaohs AFAIK), and also addressed as male (here, too, Middle Egyptian had other options). I don't think a transsexual leader has to be in per se, but if the community likes a certain leader, such things should be at least no hindrance.

random aside: you know that waaay back then, they could have had only one word for 'leader' and the difference could be as simple as 'the leader' is pharaoh and their spouse is the other name. So while there could have been a word akin to 'queen', it wasn't used for the actual ruler even if female. and wiki seems to have some agreement there (she had multiple titles, some feminine before becoming pharaoh)

"In Egyptian history, there was no word for a "queen regnant" as in contemporary history, "king" being the Ancient Egyptian title regardless of gender, and by the time of her reign, pharaoh had become the name for the ruler. Hatshepsut is not unique, however, in taking the title of king. Sobekneferu, ruling six dynasties prior to Hatshepsut, also did so when she ruled Egypt. Hatshepsut had been well trained in her duties as the daughter of the pharaoh. During her father's reign she held the powerful office of God's Wife. She had taken a strong role as queen to her husband and was well experienced in the administration of her kingdom by the time she became pharaoh. There is no indication of challenges to her leadership and, until her death, her co-regent remained in a secondary role, quite amicably heading her powerful army—which would have given him the power necessary to overthrow a usurper of his rightful place, if that had been the case."

What bothers me is when it is emphasized, like when I went to see the movie Alexander. The fact that he had homosexual relations does not matter to me... I went to see him conquering the world on the battlefield, not in bed. It was a blatant force of political correctness onto the audience, which is why the movie was not all that great and is mostly forgotten.


I think the accidental reveal really curtailed the original topic, though there are still some mysteries regarding that poster.

You know, if it's a movie about the 'person' (Alex) rather than the wars (could be called something different) they're likely to do more personal/character development type things in the movie.


else...
Well, the original reason for the thread is definitely over, and now it's getting used for off topic discussions.

So.. may be time to call it done and have the other discussions start their own threads.