Cultural Themes and Traits

Now, in my work on the Culture tab of the NE, I mentioned two things that didn't really get expanded upon: Cultural Theme and Traits.

Theme is the most important part here. The over-arching theme of a culture will dictate a huge amount about how the most basic person-to-person interactions take place, and a great deal about the way the organisms will simply think. All things start here. The issue: I haven't a clue as to how we are to implement that. Obviously we need to have these change the way you play the game in a major way, but beyond that, I don't know how. I made this thread to fish around for ideas on how we can do this, and once descided, maybe brainstorm a few of them for good measure.

Traits are easier: Little attributes conected to culture that, while apparently minor, effect things in a major way. Both through the form of game mechanics, and behaivioral changes. Mainly, these just need to be brainstormed and induvidually explained in a more in-depth fashion.

Hmm... Maybe it would be best to first get some real life examples and find what kind of effect they have. Then we can figure outhow to relate them to the game, and from there we can figure out non-terra examples. So list it, i think. Give us some nations and their cultural themes.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Hmm... Maybe it would be best to first get some real life examples and find what kind of effect they have. Then we can figure outhow to relate them to the game, and from there we can figure out non-terra examples. So list it, i think. Give us some nations and their cultural themes.

Medieval Europe: Love
Sparta: Honor
Athens: Wisdom/Intelligence
America: Somewhere between patriotism and liberty
Soviet Russia: Patriotism
Rome: Patronage
Ireland: Liberty
Ancient Egypt: Patriotism/Patronage
Aztecs: Somewhere between a sort of religious ferver and honor
Pre-Roman Italy: Hospitality
Imperial China: Unity

This is a very, very, VERY rough list.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Hmm... Maybe it would be best to first get some real life examples and find what kind of effect they have. Then we can figure outhow to relate them to the game, and from there we can figure out non-terra examples. So list it, i think. Give us some nations and their cultural themes.

Medieval Europe: Love
Sparta: Honor
Athens: Wisdom/Intelligence
America: Somewhere between patriotism and liberty
Soviet Russia: Patriotism
Rome: Patronage
Ireland: Liberty
Ancient Egypt: Patriotism/Patronage
Aztecs: Somewhere between a sort of religious ferver and honor
Pre-Roman Italy: Hospitality
Imperial China: Unity

This is a very, very, VERY rough list.

Okay, so now what effects did this have on the way the empires were managed and the way people interacted?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so now what effects did this have on the way the empires were managed and the way people interacted?

The only one I can vouge for with confidense is Medieval Europe, as you probably already guessed. The rest are more vague, so I'd feel guilty if I tried to explain what I don't really know. They're more guesses anyway.

Love is absolutely pervasive in their literature. It's everywhere. Obviously it's not romance that's being spoken of, but a sort of extreme respect and trust. In the form of gestures, people were far more touchy-feely than in most other cultures. Kisses, glomps, and embraces were common forms of greeting, even between strangers. On the more mechanical side of things, love propelled them to avoid militarism, especially with the added worry of having the same religion and thus risking excomunication. Love also promoted the developement other such mutual concern as seen in the guilds, and the peasant government. Charity was considered manditory, and a sortof "live and let live" feeling was pervasive when dealing with others. Love is also seen as a commodity to the extent that you were said to owe certain people your love, particularly masters and lords, as well as they were supposed to do to you.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Hmm... Maybe it would be best to first get some real life examples and find what kind of effect they have. Then we can figure outhow to relate them to the game, and from there we can figure out non-terra examples. So list it, i think. Give us some nations and their cultural themes.

Medieval Europe: Love
Sparta: Honor
Athens: Wisdom/Intelligence
America: Somewhere between patriotism and liberty
Soviet Russia: Patriotism
Rome: Patronage
Ireland: Liberty
Ancient Egypt: Patriotism/Patronage
Aztecs: Somewhere between a sort of religious ferver and honor
Pre-Roman Italy: Hospitality
Imperial China: Unity

This is a very, very, VERY rough list.

Granted some of those I disagree with, ie Sparta being based on honor, but I see what you're getting at.

I'd say that they could influence what choices a civilization would lean towards when given choices, like archtypes in Spore. Obviously they would be more specific and varied, but that's the basic idea. It could be seen as a final way of choosing what to do after eliminating all other choices. Honorable and peaceful civilization types would be more likely to not go to war, or would be more likely to try to end wars. Violent civilizations religious civilizations with a violent religion would be more likely to go to war with civilizations, in the case of the latter because of religious differences.

So each type could come with some procedural gestures such as greetings, as well as being more inclined towards certain actions. Also, we could have the arbitrary mechanics that fit certain culture themes become more popular within the nation. For example, a leader that is a pacifist is not likely to be popular in an Honour Themed Nation.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

So each type could come with some procedural gestures such as greetings, as well as being more inclined towards certain actions. Also, we could have the arbitrary mechanics that fit certain culture themes become more popular within the nation. For example, a leader that is a pacifist is not likely to be popular in an Honour Themed Nation.

Exactly. Phew, I was worried that that wouldn't make any sense. Glad someone understood.

This topic is especially interesting if you apply it to something else Tenebrarum brought up at one point. I forget where I saw it, now, but it was a reference to a game mechanic in the Total War series. Faction leaders might acquire "Personality Traits" randomly, or through player actions. These would be something like "Savage in Battle", "Drunkard", or "Good with Taxes", and each would have a corresponding effect on what that particular leader might be better or worse at doing.

This topic seems to go hand in hand with that, as USofA started to point out above. A "Pacifist" leader might not do so well governing a warlike nation; a "Drunkard" might do fine ruling an "Honor" nation, but create civic unrest in a "Wisdom" nation. Perhaps these traits could influence the likelihood of insurrection or overthrow?

This would be really fascinating if these traits were generated as a result of the player's decisions. Would they be able to change over time? If so, how? What (in-game) could affect that kind of change?

I ought to go read everything else in this section, I guess. If you don't hear from me for a week, you'll know why.

Redstar wrote:

YAYREDSTARLIKESTHEIDEA:3

The idea for people traits has been agreed upon as something we'll use, but you make a wonderful point. How will player actions alter these, and more importantly, do the effects change depending on theme? In fact, I think almost all of the arbitrary mechanics could have alternate trait effects depending on the theme. It would only be a little extra work, and we've got ALOT of time on our hands.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Redstar wrote:

YAYREDSTARLIKESTHEIDEA:3

The idea for people traits has been agreed upon as something we'll use, but you make a wonderful point. How will player actions alter these, and more importantly, do the effects change depending on theme? In fact, I think almost all of the arbitrary mechanics could have alternate trait effects depending on the theme. It would only be a little extra work, and we've got ALOT of time on our hands.

So do you mean unique effects for each trait according to the cultural theme? Because to do that, we really need to come up with a list of cultural themes first...

US_of_Alaska wrote:

So do you mean unique effects for each trait according to the cultural theme? Because to do that, we really need to come up with a list of cultural themes first...

Yup. I merely putting this down for greenlighting/redlighting. We needn't discuss it further untill the foundations are laid.

Okay guys, we really need to knuckle down on this Culture Section. It's the last piece we need to get down to have a complete Nation Editor. Rex, this is your baby. You're in charge of keeping this thread alive and making sure we get as good a Culture Section as possible.

I want every man we have to focus on this. We've finally finished a concept for the Economy Section, this is the last piece of the puzzle for the heart of Strategy Mode. Just keep it in the back of your head all the time, and think about it when you're bored or about to go to sleep. We need to turn this from idea spam into a concept. Go!

Maybe this could be influenced by buildings and laws (if the player can even do anything about those). Like, looser business laws would push your nation more towards being business-based, more churches, religious-based, etc.

As for how it effects the game, maybe it could effect how quickly certain things develop, and give you certain bonus's that can only be unlocked if you're that type of nation.

For example:
Religious based;
Has better relations with other religious-based species.
Worst relations with science-based species.
A happiness bonus, bonus increases with the number of followers.
Develops communications systems faster.
Has the ability to take over planets through religious-conversion centers. Doesn't anger non-religious species.

Some of the different themes could be;
Military
Religious
Economic
Media
Science
Peace
Nature
Multi-Themed

Feel free to add any others you can think of.

I also think that they should be able to change over time, but it should take a lot of time and work on the players part. Otherwise they could just change their theme when they wanted another's bonus.

In process of knuckling down, AK. Put something up in the Devblog for maximum Knucklage.

Okay, so putting together the list of cultural themes seems like a good place to start. Rex gave us:
- Love
- Honour
- Wisdom/Intelligence
- Patriotism
- Patronage
- Liberty
- Religious Fervor
- Hospitality
- Unity

And PCaddict's:
- Military
- Religious
- Economic
- Media
- Science
- Peace
- Nature
- Multi-Themed

Okay, i've been thinking. I think some of these could be handled with importance sliders (haven't heard anyone talk about this for a long while). So the importance sliders would include the major specialist areas: Science, Production, Health, Military and maybe Happiness. There would also need to be sliders for Religion and maybe Corporation. These would be automatically adjusted to how much importance the player is putting on these things (ie, a state religion would boost religion importance). The bonuses of these are obvious.

So, that eats up Military, Religious and Science from the list.

So here's my list:
Wisdom
The search for truth and justice.
Gameplay effects: Increases political dissent and makes researcher specialists more common.
Aesthetic effects: Makes public lectures, debates and discussions more common.
Patriotism
National Pride.
Gameplay effects: This will decrease the power of dissent, and make extreme foreign policies more acceptable.
Aesthetic Effects: Places national symbols on many TOs, and leaders will be followed by celebrations.
Patronage
Servitude through money exchange.
Gameplay effects: This will make leaders with "Rich" and "Charismatic" traits more likely to appear.
Aesthetic effects: Upper cast people to be followed around by lower caste clients.
Love
The idea of mutual respect and trust.
Gameplay effects: Caste gap will be undesirable to the people.
Aesthetic effects: Greetings will be more physical, like hugs and kisses.
Zealous
Religious Fervor.
Gameplay effects: State religion happiness increased. Non-State Religions unhappiness increased.
Aesthetic effects: Changes according to religion traits.
Liberty
Freedoms.
Gameplay effects: Higher freedoms sliders will be desirable to the people.
Aesthetic effects: Peaceful protest may occur in the nation.
Unity
The nation being united.
Gameplay effects: SC revolts are less likely to occur.
Aesthetic effects: National celebrations may occur in all SCs.
Hospitality
Being friendly to all.
Gameplay effects: Medic specialist more common. Health bonus in all SCs.
Aesthetic effects: Homeless, slaves or lower caste may be gifted survival resources on the streets.
Peace
The end of violence.
Gameplay effects: "Philosophical" and "Humanitarian" traits are more likely. Military specialists increase unhappiness.
Aesthetic effects: Protests will abound when wars are in progress.
Nature-Minded
Ecological care.
Gameplay effects: Gathering too many resources will cause unhappiness.
Aesthetic effects: Plants are more common in SCs.

Alright, stop where you are!

We have to be INCREDIBLY careful with themes. Their point is not aspect of the culture, but the very core of culture. As such, I'm vetoing Peace and Ecology as neither of those have very strong philosophical and cultural roots.

I also want to remind that these will have Org Mode gameplay effects, like hospitality based nations letting you stay in their homes without paying, much like most Earth cultures did early in their history.

There's also a TON of small, background manipulations that take place. Love for instance reduces corruption and streamlines beuracracy.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Alright, stop where you are!

We have to be INCREDIBLY careful with themes. Their point is not aspect of the culture, but the very core of culture. As such, I'm vetoing Peace and Ecology as neither of those have very strong philosophical and cultural roots.

I also want to remind that these will have Org Mode gameplay effects, like hospitality based nations letting you stay in their homes without paying, much like most Earth cultures did early in their history.

There's also a TON of small, background manipulations that take place. Love for instance reduces corruption and streamlines beuracracy.

Why do philosophy and culture have to be separate? If that's how it is, then shouldn't patriotism also be cut out because it is a philosophical thing? And patronage can be seen as a governmental philosophy. Nearly everything can be ruled out if we are doing this. Why can't culture be philosophical?

Also, it's all very well saying "there's a TON of small background manipulations", but that doesn't get us any closer to a concept. You have to suggest what these background manipulations are.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why do philosophy and culture have to be separate? If that's how it is, then shouldn't patriotism also be cut out because it is a philosophical thing? And patronage can be seen as a governmental philosophy. Nearly everything can be ruled out if we are doing this. Why can't culture be philosophical?

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you there. I said that both must be present for it to make itself a candidate.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Also, it's all very well saying "there's a TON of small background manipulations", but that doesn't get us any closer to a concept. You have to suggest what these background manipulations are.

I understand, however, I was trying to make it clear that we're all gonna have to work on that.

Also note that their will be some overlapping effects.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why do philosophy and culture have to be separate? If that's how it is, then shouldn't patriotism also be cut out because it is a philosophical thing? And patronage can be seen as a governmental philosophy. Nearly everything can be ruled out if we are doing this. Why can't culture be philosophical?

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you there. I said that both must be present for it to make itself a candidate.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Also, it's all very well saying "there's a TON of small background manipulations", but that doesn't get us any closer to a concept. You have to suggest what these background manipulations are.

I understand, however, I was trying to make it clear that we're all gonna have to work on that.

Also note that their will be some overlapping effects.

Okay, so why can't nature-minded and peaceful be culture themes? I'd say that there have been big cultural swings towards both in recent decades.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why do philosophy and culture have to be separate? If that's how it is, then shouldn't patriotism also be cut out because it is a philosophical thing? And patronage can be seen as a governmental philosophy. Nearly everything can be ruled out if we are doing this. Why can't culture be philosophical?

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you there. I said that both must be present for it to make itself a candidate.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Also, it's all very well saying "there's a TON of small background manipulations", but that doesn't get us any closer to a concept. You have to suggest what these background manipulations are.

I understand, however, I was trying to make it clear that we're all gonna have to work on that.

Also note that their will be some overlapping effects.

Okay, so why can't nature-minded and peaceful be culture themes? I'd say that there have been big cultural swings towards both in recent decades.

I have to agree. I'll share a little theory with you about evolutionary psychology that I have. Ready?

To start off with, mankind has a big superiority complex- we think we're way better than all of the other organisms on the planet. And in some ways, we're way more advanced than almost all of them. This is why many religions and belief systems see animals as "automations" that don't think, but simply react to stimuli. There really aren't any cultures that view animals on the same lavel as humans. In Hinduism, animals cannot gain Karma; in Christianity, animals don't have souls (these are both generalizations, of course as some peoples' beliefs may differ). The point is that we're generally separate from other organisms in our mind. Now, a lot of this will stay constant- any highly intelligent species like us is going to feel a bit superior. However, I think many species will not feel as separate as us, and it's because of a simple variable- shape.
Look at all of the other animals on earth. There are zero other animals that have our body type. Because we look drastically different, we assume that we are drastically different. My guess is that a sentient species whose body shape parallels other animals around it will have a much different progression through culture than us, simply because it can understand where it came from. Things like evolution, animal intelligence, etc, that many people today refuse to accept or don't understand would be much easier for these species to wrap their head around, because they look like the animals around them. In this way, a philosophy based on connections with nature would be a very natural one to take.

Alaska: The philosophy of pacifism and ecological care are both great philosophies, but not cultures. They do not dictate how people interact, and that's the thing. You're still thinking too general. On the person to person level, they give us nothing to work with and therefore cannot exist as core aspects of cultures.

Obviously they exists as codes and philosophies, they simply have nowhere to expand.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Alaska: The philosophy of pacifism and ecological care are both great philosophies, but not cultures. They do not dictate how people interact, and that's the thing. You're still thinking too general. On the person to person level, they give us nothing to work with and therefore cannot exist as core aspects of cultures.

Obviously they exists as codes and philosophies, they simply have nowhere to expand.

Okay, i get it now. Person to person interaction. I suppose you're right there. But what person to person interactions does Patriotism incur, really?

Scio has a great point, though. If a two legged creature would evolve it's other two unused legs to graspers but otherwise stay relatively the same, they would gain sentience and still look very similar to some other species. They would notice it easily and the species would most probably worship and protect nature and their "brethren".

Commander Keen wrote:

Scio has a great point, though. If a two legged creature would evolve it's other two unused legs to graspers but otherwise stay relatively the same, they would gain sentience and still look very similar to some other species. They would notice it easily and the species would most probably worship and protect nature and their "brethren".

True point, but how close do they have to be? We look similar to apes, we just have less hair and are generally weaker (without technology). And this would probably almost always occur when a species begin wearing thick, tough clothes and using tools, which can easily replace our natural defences, so how could a species stay that similar to a non-sentient species? They would have to not use their new creations, and so not use their sentience, to preserve their appearance.