World-spirit or ruler? (split out from guessing thread)

I actually don't get that event at all, but if I try to fathom who I'm playing as at that moment, it has to be the argentarius (even though the narrative is in the third person), because only he is in the position to decide which of two things he wants to write with his stylus.

Or is it that I, as the spirit of the culture at large, inspire him to write which of those messages I think is most appropriate to the culture? If so, I have a level of command over my citizenry that no autocrat has ever dreamed of: I can control their every stylus marking. I really am a god. But I'm a weirdly powerless god, because I'm limited to only two options. Why isn't "take better care of your damn clothes. Pay someone to watch em, ya skinflint; spread a little of that argentum around" an option?

But here are the things I most don't understand. So what? He writes down whichever of the two I favor. What does it matter that on some particular tablet near the baths is one message or another about thieves and their proper punishment? Is that put into effect as a law within my culture? Is that because I, as the being powerful enough to direct this argentarius' mind and hand also have the power to implement any law I please? If so, why do I do it in an indirect way like having an argentarius write it on a tablet? There's a weird mix between the argentarius' agency and mine, the god of the culture.

It seems to me as though you are correct generally speaking, Potworny. That whichever box I click represents the ethos of the culture at large, and the incident is giving me the opportunity to declare what that ethos will be. I'm just not clear about the mechanics of how the manner in which this event transpires translate to that broad cultural level.

I think I just don't understand events.

Also, from where does he pull the stylus and tablet? If they were in his locker or whatever, why didn't the thieves steal them too, when they stole his clothes?
 
Last edited:
But here are the things I most don't understand. So what? He writes down whichever of the two I favor. What does it matter that on some particular tablet near the baths is one message or another about thieves and their proper punishment?
It's a curse tablet meant to cast a spell to hex the intended victim or invoke the gods to curse the victim. It was a type of magic found pretty much anywhere people were literate, found on ostraca, tablets, papyri, graffiti, etc.
 
Ok, that means that the particular thieves that he is mad at get cursed. How does the resolution of any one particular conflict among a small number of my citizens manifest generally or matter beyond that incident? Why am I involved at all? Does the argentarius not know how he wants the thieves punished? If he's as indecisive as all that, why should I be making up his mind for him?

Again, I probably just don't get events, as such. And possibly I'm derailing my own thread by asking these questions. (Though Potworny takes them as evidence bearing on the core question: that the being controlling the game is the culture at large.)
 
Last edited:
A really common defixio found on Phoenician and Punic funereal stelae and sarcophagi might be paraphrased as roughly, "If you disturb my grave, may all your sons die, may all the gods hate you, and may your ancestors kick you out of the afterlife." :D
 
I would assume that the event is less about that specific incident, and more about the general zeitgeist, the general mood of your society ; ie, how do people in your culture *tend* to react to these incidents and what it says about them.

IE, who would your people naturally curse in these circumstances?
 
Yeah, that's Potworny's sense of it.

Again, I find having just two options pretty limiting. What if my sense of my people's ethos is that they don't believe in curses at all? Or think they're wicked and don't cast them. This event actually has the effect of telling me that there are only two things my culture could feel about thieves. And one thing they must believe about curses.
 
Last edited:
But here are the things I don't understand. So what? He writes down whichever of the two I favor. What does it matter that on some particular tablet near the baths is one message or another? Is that put into effect as a law within my culture?
I interpret it now as us having influence over customs and convictions of the people of our civ - after all we get to choose a pantheon and religion tenets, so getting to change what thievery is associated with makes enough sense. In my opinion the event is hard to interpret if we reject the zeitgeist approach. If we are solely the leader and commander there is little reason for us to suddenly become the argentarius or to decide what he does in his free time. The zeitgeist also subsumes the immortal leader, as in whatever the spirit of our civilization is, it would grant total or partial control over its leaders.

Or is it that I, as the spirit of the culture at large, inspire him to write which of those messages I think is most appropriate to the culture? If so, I have a level of command over my citizenry that no autocrat has ever dreamed of: I can control their every stylus marking. I really am a god. But I'm a weirdly powerless god, because I'm limited to only two options. Why isn't "take better care of your damn clothes. Pay someone to watch em, ya skinflint; spread a little of that argentum around" an option?
Yup, that's kind of what we get to do when we pay Civ VII if you ask me! As a zeitgeist we only seem to be constrained by a higher instance, a spielgeist, spirit of the rules of the game if you will.

Also, from where does he pull the stylus and tablet? If they were in his locker or whatever, why didn't the thieves steal them too, when they stole his clothes.
Now this is something that could diverge into its own thread again. To me it also seems to be doing of a higher power. A hypothetical spielgeist is so much of an overpowered discussion tool that explains everything, that it's not even worth discussing - it explains everything after all and that's that. But I feel strangely as if I was skewing towards theology in this Civ discussion.
 
Again, I find having just two options pretty limiting. What if my sense of my people's ethos is that they don't believe in curses at all? Or think they're wicked and don't cast them. This event actually has the effect of telling me that there are only two things my culture could feel about thieves. And one thing they must believe about curses.
Generalizations are rarely helpful, but if your people exist before the late 18th century I think it's fair to say that your people believe in the efficacy of curses. Even in Christianity, which generally frowns upon curses ("But I tell you bless those who curse you, do good to those who harm you," etc.), curses continued to be part of folk religious practice for a very long time.
 
I actually don't get that event at all, but if I try to fathom who I'm playing as at that moment, it has to be the argentarius (even though the narrative is in the third person), because only he is in the position to decide which of two things he wants to write with his stylus.

Or is it that I, as the spirit of the culture at large, inspire him to write which of those messages I think is most appropriate to the culture? If so, I have a level of command over my citizenry that no autocrat has ever dreamed of: I can control their every stylus marking. I really am a god. But I'm a weirdly powerless god, because I'm limited to only two options. Why isn't "take better care of your damn clothes. Pay someone to watch em, ya skinflint; spread a little of that argentum around" an option?

But here are the things I most don't understand. So what? He writes down whichever of the two I favor. What does it matter that on some particular tablet near the baths is one message or another about thieves and their proper punishment? Is that put into effect as a law within my culture? Is that because I, as the being powerful enough to direct this argentarius' mind and hand also have the power to implement any law I please? If so, why do I do it in an indirect way like having an argentarius write it on a tablet? There's a weird mix between the argentarius' agency and mine, the god of the culture.

It seems to me as though you are correct generally speaking, Portworny. That whichever box I click represents the ethos of the culture at large, and the incident is giving me the opportunity to declare what that ethos will be. I'm just not clear about the mechanics of how the manner in which this event transpires translate to that broad cultural level.

I think I just don't understand events.

Also, from where does he pull the stylus and tablet? If they were in his locker or whatever, why didn't the thieves steal them too, when they stole his clothes.
That particular one I think you (as the spirit of your civilization) are inspiring a cultural shift through how this guy thinks about the best way to curse his neighbor.
 
That's fine, Zaarin, but the cost of assenting to that explanation of curses is that the two options regarding thieves are the more discordant. I would frankly venture to wager that no culture ever has thought sleep deprivation the proper punishment for theft.

And that's fine, Krikkit1, but I, the real life human being Gori the Grey, who tries to resist reducing things to binary options, will find it grating that as the spirit of a civilization, I will be limited to two options, maybe both of which I think are flawed, or goofy, or whatever.

This is pulling my whole civ through the needle's eye of one thing that happened one time at the baths and two things that could be thought about it.
 
Even if they don't believe in curses, they would certainly have a conception of curses, and would certainly believe in expressing ill wishes toward those who have angered them (even the enlightened twenty-first embraces that), even without any belief that the ill wish will have any actual impact (indeed, without any real belief that the ill wish is even possible - people who don't believe in the fiery place still tell people to go there!).

What particular ill-wish they think most appropriate for a thief would be revealing as to their nature.
 
What particular ill-wish they think most appropriate for a thief would be revealing as to their nature.
Really? I want to test this.

Everybody write down which of these two options they think Ethiopians, Babylonians, Chinese and Mayans would regard as the right curse on thieves.

Don't reveal it yet, but lock in your answer. I'm counting on you all to play in good faith. For now just say whether you're "in" for the test or not.
 
Really? I want to test this.

Everybody write down which of these two options they think Ethiopians, Babylonians, Chinese and Mayans would regard as the right curse on thieves.

Don't reveal it yet, but lock in your answer. I'm counting on you all to play in good faith. For now just say whether you're "in" for the test or not.
That assumes we know as much as we seem to about all those cultures…a better test would be to say what We would choose for ourselves and then list our cultures and see if it makes sense.
 
Alternately, pick any four world cultures where you feel you could say which of these two curses their people would wish on thieves.
 
I view the Civilization player as a sort of world-spirit, but not in an essentialist sense as Andrew described. Rather, the leader is an avatar of fate itself--that is, a particular thread of fate that entwines certain people and which is in contention with other threads of fate that entwine other people.

So to use everyone's favorite example, Gandhi isn't nuking other countries. Fate is wearing a Gandhi costume and compelling India to engage in nuclear war.
 
I honestly really like this event. Something as granular as what my citizens see as the most reasonable punishment for a thief, what they view as a more important loss, is an interesting and potentially meaningful part of a culture that previous game mechanics did not suggest. As someone who likes to imagine what life in my empire would be like once I’m in the end game, getting these glimpses accompanied by a literal moment of someone’s life throughout the entire game is a dream come true.
 
Yeah, never mind my challenges, everyone. You all have already helped me figure out how I'm going to incorporate this into my playstyle. I'm going to ignore the moment where there was a choice. Just go with whichever I do select. And then work it into my narrative as a quirky little detail about my civilization: "Perhaps oddly to modern sensibilities, the curse Romans most commonly uttered against a thief was that he suffer sleep deprivation." I already do this without narrative events. If I tech Calendar on the same turn as I earn Warrior Code, I try to make up a quirky-to-that-culture link: "Of course, many early cultures had a warrior code, but only for the Koreans did that involve a stricture that every warrior sharpen his sword every full moon."
 
I generally play the game to make use of whatever is unique about the game start. Then I expect the game to unfold in a way that would let me tell a story about the people that either became or were the civilization I am playing as.
I will often just invent a story for say a dark age that my "civilization" is in fact three different kingdoms competing with one another until I trigger a golden age that unites them all together. I might even do that multiple times over the course of a game.
The game is about 6000 years of history, the only way to get through that is to tell history as super generalized blobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom