Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hamsmagoo]

But civilizations don't really have unique cultures in the game yet. The architecture conforms to the race and everything else about society is across-the-board identical between all civs. Civs are attached to races and if generated racial affinities were developed, they would organically end up defining the civs and vice versa.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Maybe I'm not clear enough, so to put things extra clear : I really like the idea that race and culture are detached.

I really want elves to integrate into humans communities and vice versa. In my world, humans very often go abandon civilization and join retreats to live on trees and adopt the elven mentality and way of life. I like it and I'd prefer it to stay that way.

I do not like the idea that a dwarf should "think like a dwarf" and automatically have a "dwarven culture" - instead he should behave how he has been raised, by the people he has been raised. It wouldn't make sense that an elf risen in a human civ use wooden weapons or would want to live in a tree.

In worldgen, maybe if a population of meat eater joins a civilization - like hyena men or the like - maybe it should influence the amount of cattle, or add new sizes in the clothes that are produced locally to accomodate the population.  But aside that... no thanks.

Civilizations have a culture, races do not.

Under those same assumptions why wouldn't the meat eaters just adopt the diets of wherever they are raised? Limiting innate traits to just what they eat seems weirdly random. If it's humans moving to another human civ it makes more sense to assume such a thing, but different fantasy species need to have some innate things setting them apart or there's no point really to have them at all. Not that that means they should all be the same, just as they aren't now, but with how the system works now they are more likely to have certain personality traits than others which is the perfect way to do it imo and is how things would be determined for these purposes as well. So there'd still be humans leaving to join a forest retreat and adopt their way of life if they had the appropriate personality and history for it just like now, but that there be other potential outcomes as well like say the human refugees that were taken in by the elves making their own little hamlet at the base of the giant tree, with those most elf-inclined joining them up in the canopies, etc etc.

[Cathar]

Civs do have a culture. Maybe people do not care or do not pay attention because it's not frontloaded, but once you start digging, you realize that they do, and it's extremely consistant.
Clothing styles will differ for exemple ; in my world, you can distinguish where does someone come from just by looking at their clothes. Gods differ from civ to civ, dances, songs and other cultural aspects, their haircuts and beardcuts, also ethics and cultural preferences depend mostly on civs. Also pieces of clothing/armor are dependant on civ - every dwarven civ for exemple, do not know how to make High boots. All of that combined makes the culture of a civilization.

They differ wildly from each other in human civ, a bit less in others. But still they do.

[Hamsmagoo]

This is something I hadn't noticed because I haven't really spent time in adventure mode in years. In light of it, though, I completely agree with you.

[Pillbo]

I vote lock the thread, this isn't the place for crusading against "intolerance".

Paradox of Tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." The paradox of tolerance is an important concept for thinking about which boundaries can or should be set.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

"I vote we lock this thread now that I've posted my position on the topic. Quick! While I still have the final word!"

[...] palpable prejudice [...] hivemind mentality
If you disagree with a viewpoint, debate it intelligently.
[...] fascism [...] The corrupt [...] narrow-minded philosophy.

No, I never said if I agree or not. I said I'm not interested in having this conversation. You have twice now spoken for someone else then argued aggressively that they were wrong and morally corrupt. 

You are a troll, end of story. I am here to talk about a video game, you are here to crusade for your political agenda and pick fights. This isn't a free speech zone, it a private person's message board who has made it clear this isn't welcome.

[Hamsmagoo]

I vote lock the thread, this isn't the place for crusading against "intolerance".

Paradox of Tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." The paradox of tolerance is an important concept for thinking about which boundaries can or should be set.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

"I vote we lock this thread now that I've posted my position on the topic. Quick! While I still have the final word!"

[...] palpable prejudice [...] hivemind mentality
If you disagree with a viewpoint, debate it intelligently.
[...] fascism [...] The corrupt [...] narrow-minded philosophy.

No, I never said if I agree or not. I said I'm not interested in having this conversation. You have twice now spoken for someone else then argued aggressively that they were wrong and morally corrupt. 

You are a troll, end of story. I am here to talk about a video game, you are here to crusade for your political agenda and pick fights. This isn't a free speech zone, it a private person's message board who has made it clear this isn't welcome.

If you don't think an argument is appropriate, don't keep it going by posting some quotes of some half-baked culture theory that directly responds and tries to refute the argument.

Also " I am here to talk about a video game"
Then how come your only contributions to this thread have been to re-spark the argument after discussion has gotten back on track?