Replace Pacifism?

[Talkie_Toaster]

I think there should be a secularism civic to be honest. It could have science bonuses but state religion would have to be no state religion.

 

[fearuin]

We already have that type of civic: it is Free Religion. It gives science and has no state religion. If we're going to substitute a civic for one other, it should be one than doesn't repeat effects of an already existing one.

Good try, anyway. Any other ideas?

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Ok, I'm sorry I just thought secularism sounded good and forgot what the bonuses for free religion because I always stay on pacifism.

 

[fearuin]

Me too! Pacifism is great!

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Especially when you're playing Greece +300% GP points? Don't mind if I do...

 

[fearuin]

Plus Parthenon, 350%!! Get Caste System ASAP, and you'll be chunking GP like falanxes! In one game I had about a GP each 5 turns. Settle them as great citizens, and you'll be unbeatable!!

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

You just listed my main strategy for Greece

 

[The Q-Meister]

What ever became of this? The "Yes" actually won this vote; it would be an interesting change IMO.

 

[Cucumber]

Yeah true I just discover the existence of this poll and I must say it's a good idea ! Pacifism never really existed as a religious doctrine, maybe as a foreign affairs doctrine but well there's no column for that.

Secularism is way better than the free religion concept (very US to me--> tolerance ok but fundamentaly religious, laicity is not taking in consideration), Atheism as a communist doctrine would be great but what would be its consequences? Maybe (if possible) no more income for foreign holycities from the civ who takes that doctrine + no more bonuses from religion + hostility from civs not atheist + bonus in research and military ? It may be a powerfull doctrine (reflecting the global control of the government on its people) but giving hard malus on the international scene.

And about the great people bonus given by pacifism why not something like an enlightened despotism doctrine ?

 

[Whitefire]

Pacifism never really existed as a religious doctrine

Tell that to the billions of Buddhists in the world.

 

[Cucumber]

ridiculous argument, christianism may be also considered as a "pacifist religion" then. we are speaking of a religious politic among governments, not as a "church" ideology.

About buddhism, let see if a very buddhist country as Tibet has never done any conquest campain, an empire is never built through "pacific annexion".

Anyway I'm not historian I may be wrong

 

[Riker]

ridiculous argument, christianism may be also considered as a "pacifist religion" then

Yea! Crusades! Inquisition! HELL! War on terror!

 

[botur2young]

Tell that to the billions of Buddhists in the world.

Billions? Really?

 

[lumpthing]

Yea! Crusades! Inquisition! HELL! War on terror!

His point was that many people have a pacifist interpretation of Christianity, but that governments do not. In the same way, many Buddhists are pacifists but Buddhist governments are not pacifist.

One possible exception is civ's very own Asoka of India, who claimed to be pacifist after creating his enormous empire. I'm not convinced myself. By his own account, many thousands were killed by his pre-enlightenment wars of conquest, yet he held on to those territories for the rest of his life? I have a hard time believing those recently bloodily-conquered countries didn't rebel once during his lifetime. But anyway, his empire fits the civ version of Pacifism, because he stopped expanding and starting new wars and his inspiration for this was very much his Buddhism. There are probably examples from other religions.

Nevertheless I voted to replace Pacifism because even if it is historically legitimate State-enforced atheism (or a state-enforced pseudo-religious total ideology like Nazism) has been a more significant force and free religion/secularism just goes against the spirit of totalitarian civs.

Maybe Secularism could combine the bonuses/maluses of both Free Religion and Pacifism, plus a stability malus, because of the reduced ideological cohesiveness of the empire.

 

[OzzyKP]

Again, just pick theology and select no state religion. That prevents all religious spread in your cities.

State atheism is an extremely recent idea.

 

[lumpthing]

Again, just pick theology and select no state religion. That prevents all religious spread in your cities.

I don't see what that resolves. The state atheism issue is not gameplay issue, its a historical flavour issue. A civ that is supposed to be militantly communist shouldn't be favouring other civs because they share its state religion.

State atheism is an extremely recent idea.

So is universal suffrage and environmentalism.

 

[OzzyKP]

Actually no nation has ever had universal suffrage. In so far as you consider modern western nations to have "universal suffrage" an equal case could be made of other civs in the ancient world.

A case can be made though of other civs throughout history being environmental. Like native american peoples. You'd be hard pressed though to find a civ before the USSR that was officially atheist.

 

[Cucumber]

Actually no nation has ever had universal suffrage

I don't understand what you mean, from the american and french revolution universal suffrage slowly had becomes the rule for all western countries (and even for communist but well they had only one party...) and you may consider the "vote censitaire" (I don't know the english word) as the universal suffrage of its own time.

and by the way "environmentalism" is not a way of ruling a nation even today, that civic may also be changed to something more accurate from my point of view it will gave place for enlightened despotism, atheism, secularism, merchant republic and all other "historic" civics

 

[Whitefire]

I don't understand what you mean, from the american and french revolution universal suffrage slowly had becomes the rule for all western countries (and even for communist but well they had only one party...) and you may consider the "vote censitaire" (I don't know the english word) as the universal suffrage of its own time.

Depending on your definition of Universal Sufferage, it has never, or only recently, come to be. For instance, look at America. For hundreds of years, starting with the Colonial governments, only white males were given the right to vote. Less than 100 years ago, Women received the right to vote. Less than 50 years ago, Blacks (and, by extension, others of non-white complexion) were finally allowed to vote. And even with all those advances, every presidential election in America is seemingly mired with racial inequality via socio-economic status at polling places: Fewer polling places in poorer neighborhoods, polling hours are inconvenient for those with multiple jobs, low-income jobs are at risk for leaving work to vote (even though this is highly illegal), etc. Claiming Universal Sufferage is nice and all, but implementing it has been rough since those in power don't want to give up their contorl.

 

[Cucumber]

ok ok but all you said doesn't contradict the fact that USA claims to have universal suffrage, it just doesn't work completely as the word "universal" would have mean. You come with a very political debate which would have its place in a democrat or republican congress but not in a game where "universal suffrage" is a way to represent a new concept of ruling, Democracy from country to country is also a term with a lot of contradictions and differents point of views but it is a lot closer of what America is than Theocracy of Hereditary Rules.

By the way in Belgium vote is obligatory for everyone, representation is proportional, governments made of coalition, do you think we are closer of universal suffrage than USA?