Revising the lore of each civic

[tmv]

Is it just me, or does that description sound a bit... fashy? Or, at least authoritarian? The idea that society can only be perfect if people are explicitly coerced to act within its reference of what it constitute as good morals doesn't really strike me as very utopian, and also perpetuates the idea that evil is some kind of inherent force caused by human nature, rather than a consequence of systemic ills and faulty communication

Compared to CtP I/II it is positively libertarian / anarchist. If you haven't seen it, you wouldn't believe some of the wonder movies.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Oh, I grew up with CtP 1. I am well aware of the Rouge AI and the shape-shifting hobos

 

[CreativeCaprine]

Outlaws carry out military actions, usually as a sentence.

Are soldiers under the banditry civic really penals?

I understand it as society putting together the most ruffianish types of your society and order them to attack the enemy, while encouraging them to loot as many resources and slaves as they can. Kind of a mainstay of tribal warfare through history.

Penal soldiers are more like something I associate with conscription.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

Are soldiers under the banditry civic really penals?

Not really.

From my research penal units only started to be a thing during napoleonic times, as before then there just wasn't enough ways to keep them in check, and neither their morale or discipline.

I like to think this as an alternate route that was mostly unexplored in history, where those in power allow bandits the spoils of war (or a commuted sentence) in return for being "free" mercenaries.

 

[raxo2222]

I like those refreshed history entries

 

[CreativeCaprine]

I forgot to say; I think the entries should be shorter. Not all of them, but some definitely.

I really love your initiative all in all!

 

[KaTiON_PT]

By entries you mean the history?

 

[CreativeCaprine]

By entries you mean the history?

I mean the descriptions that appear when you go through them in the civics menu.
If by history you mean Civilopedia, not I don't mind. They can be as long as informative as you want.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

Ah yes, that is something I'm working on.

On my build I already reduced some of the longest ones.

 

[KaTiON_PT]

I need your opinion on something I've been wondering lately, and it's about the inclusion of terms like "the goverment" in some civics lore.

Players can choose anarchism for role-playing reasons, so what should "the government" be changed to in order to accommodate these scenarios?

 

[Yudishtira]

If they are role-playing as anarchists, they will avoid all civics which involve active government. Theoretically, such civics should be unavailable in an anarchy.

If I have misunderstood the question (which I don't think was directed at me anyway but still), can I have an example?

 

[KaTiON_PT]

@Yudishtira It was directed for anyone interested in replying.

Take for example the economy civic Regulated, or the rule civic Magistrates:

The economy is free but the government sometimes intervenes in order to implement regulations meant to protect consumers. A few essential utilities like electricity, water, and transportation might also be under public ownership.

People could, in theory, individually regulate the economy.

An appointed governmental officer with judicial and executive powers dictates what is and isn't lawful.

A group of people could also select among themselves a so called "magistrate", so it doesn't need to be from the government specifically.

Maybe I should omit the government all together?

The economy is free but it sometimes gets intervened in order to implement regulations meant to protect consumers. A few essential utilities like electricity, water, and transportation might also be under public ownership.

An appointed officer with judicial and executive powers dictates what is and isn't lawful.

Not sure about that though...

 

[Yudishtira]

I think an officer with executive powers is effectively a government or part of one. Judicial powers are a grey area perhaps, but in my strong opinion there is no difference between a government and a magistrate telling everyone what to do.

People do "regulate" the economy, but the impact of any one individual's 'regulation' is too insignificant to really qualify for the term. If any one individual's effect as a regulator began to be noticeable, I submit that would mean that they had judicial or executive powers.

For Regulated I would have:
"A body/entity with powers of enforcement regulates the economy". You can't assume any degree of freedom in the economy, you can't make any assumptions about public and private ownership, and you can't assume that the body means to protect consumers, or even pretends to. I maintain that you can assume powers of enforcement, because unenforced regulations are simply not regulations.

If you want Magistrates to be compatible with Anarchy you definitely (imo) need to omit executive powers, but as I say above, if lawmaking and enforcement is done by some subset of the populace, the difference between that and government is negligible

 

[BackseatTyrant]

If they are role-playing as anarchists, they will avoid all civics which involve active government. Theoretically, such civics should be unavailable in an anarchy.

If I have misunderstood the question (which I don't think was directed at me anyway but still), can I have an example?

You're probably thinking of anocracy, which is the proper term to use if you want to describe a society without any rules. Anarchism, however, is an ideology that emerged in the 19th century, and strives for society and human civilization at large, to be free from any coercive authority or unjust hierarchy, which includes capitalism, the police, the military, institutionalized bigotry, etc.

 

[Yudishtira]

How do you have rules without coercive authority?

 

[BackseatTyrant]

How do you have rules without coercive authority?

That's a bit like saying there can't be morals without a divine authority. Rules can exist in anarchist societies, but they're upheld by trust rather than fear.

 

[Yudishtira]

Should anarchy by this definition be a rule civic then? By this definition, any government structure can be an anarchy (eg. despotism, a master and his - willing - slaves), as long as it's adhered to voluntarily.

Is this anarchism ever claimed to have worked in reality (I know it's a leading question implying scepticism but I don't know how else to ask it)?

 

[KaTiON_PT]

Thank you for the suggestion @Yudishtira.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Should anarchy by this definition be a rule civic then? By this definition, any government structure can be an anarchy (eg. despotism, a master and his - willing - slaves), as long as it's adhered to voluntarily.

Is this anarchism ever claimed to have worked in reality (I know it's a leading question implying scepticism but I don't know how else to ask it)?

Maybe an anarchist rule civic could be implemented, but then it would have to be named something like Mutual Aid. And no, a despotic government is definitely not anarchistic, since the despot rules and governs through coercion, "accept my role as absolute leader, or you'll face the consequences"

There have been quite a few anarchist societies established throughout history established and fully functional. However, pretty much all of them have been short-lived because they were shortly afterwards swiftly conquered by neighbouring powers, e.g. Free Territory of Ukraine got invaded by USSR for sporting the "wrong" kind of socialism

 

[Yudishtira]

Maybe an anarchist rule civic could be implemented, but then it would have to be named something like Mutual Aid.

There have been quite a few anarchist societies established throughout history established and fully functional. However, pretty much all of them have been short-lived because they were shortly afterwards swiftly conquered by neighbouring powers, e.g. Free Territory of Ukraine got invaded by USSR for sporting the "wrong" kind of socialism

I would have called it 'Voluntary Compliance'. However since it has proven the equivalent of an insta-lose in the real world, it's probably not worth implementing.

And no, a despotic government is definitely not anarchistic, since the despot rules and governs through coercion, "accept my role as absolute leader, or you'll face the consequences"

In game terms it (perfect willing obedience to a ruler/master) is Despotism, even if there is no coercion. You yourself just pointed out that the presence or absence of coercion/enforcement is a Rule civic issue, irrelevant to the Government category.

I am in favour of keeping the Anarchy Government civic as is. Apart from anything else, you draw a distinction between 'anarchy' and 'anarchism', so if you object to the game's definition of 'anarchy', you have yet to say so. We will clarify our understanding of the term as we use it (that is one important function of this 'revising the lore' process), but I hope we keep using the word 'anarchy' the way we are, which I maintain is supported by a semantic consensus, albeit a somewhat fuzzy one.