sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I know many people will consider me a sadist or just plain psycho for suggesting this. Its obvious that from a logical, reasonable standpoint that genocide and repressive purges are just plain stupid. Often though, such actions were taken to appease mob mentality and in general bad public opinion. I would be hard pressed to find someone who would say that humans in large groups usually do not think as rationally as individuals, often being more easily manipulated by emotion. Here is a model that would cause such events and the penalty for trying to stop some of them.
In every political and economic system you have someone who will demand things of you. Of course, since Civ assumes you are the state, you have control over whether you follow those demands. However, you cannot control whether or not they are happy about your actions. The idea is that whoever makes demands of you will make the people unhappy if you do not aquiesce to their request. Differences in government determine how quickly they get angry and the type and frequency of requests. Representative societies like to have a good degree of control of the state, while Authoritative societies usually accept the judgement of the state as more sound.
What kind of things would they request? Naturally they would protest wars that were not profitable for your civ, or kill a lot of the native sons. They might even want to declare war on cultures they have learned to hate. They could demand a tax break, or better facilities, or a larger military. Those are all normal kinds of requests that societies would demand of their patron state. Now all of us can agree that blaming minorities for everyday problems is something most societies have been guilty of. If your poeple aren't happy, your people may demand you take action against these scapegoats. Genocide would never be something out of your control, but refusing to do so and not improving whatever is wrong, could also lead to massive unhappiness and eventually civil disorder. Sounds wrong, but it was a force in history. It could even be used as an excuse in modern times to invade another country, either one that has lots of your nationals, or one that is in general participating in genocide.
Other demands and forces would eventually exists, but htis is just a base model.
In every political and economic system you have someone who will demand things of you. Of course, since Civ assumes you are the state, you have control over whether you follow those demands. However, you cannot control whether or not they are happy about your actions. The idea is that whoever makes demands of you will make the people unhappy if you do not aquiesce to their request. Differences in government determine how quickly they get angry and the type and frequency of requests. Representative societies like to have a good degree of control of the state, while Authoritative societies usually accept the judgement of the state as more sound.
What kind of things would they request? Naturally they would protest wars that were not profitable for your civ, or kill a lot of the native sons. They might even want to declare war on cultures they have learned to hate. They could demand a tax break, or better facilities, or a larger military. Those are all normal kinds of requests that societies would demand of their patron state. Now all of us can agree that blaming minorities for everyday problems is something most societies have been guilty of. If your poeple aren't happy, your people may demand you take action against these scapegoats. Genocide would never be something out of your control, but refusing to do so and not improving whatever is wrong, could also lead to massive unhappiness and eventually civil disorder. Sounds wrong, but it was a force in history. It could even be used as an excuse in modern times to invade another country, either one that has lots of your nationals, or one that is in general participating in genocide.
Other demands and forces would eventually exists, but htis is just a base model.