Cultural Themes and Traits

Apes have the whole "occasionally quadripedal" thing. I'm pretty sure that scio is talking about if any of our closer upright relatives had survived - Homo Erectus on forward. Or if we looked more like the other creatures of the planet - aside from apes and monkeys, most medium-large mammals look nothing like us.

We actually have less hair because we evolved in Africa, where it was very warm, and then had no natural defense when we migrated northwards... so clothes were invented. An alternative theory is that clothes were invented because we gained self-awareness and decided it would be best to cover up the reproductive bits... but I think it's more likely that that particular type of shame is instilled by society.

Pacifism probably does belong in philosophy. High patriotism is a cultural thing, mostly because it is defined as pride in one's own culture or nation... and because, though we think of it as so common now, it really wasn't a feature in most cultures (european or otherwise) until sometime near the industrial revolution, because that's when the structure of "nations" as we know them today was settled on. Family and feudal loyalty doesn't encompass a whole country.

I propose that for something to be considered a cultural feature, it has to be so common that for a member of that culture not to express it would be considered an anomaly. (For example: the ancient greeks considered violence against guests to be one of the most abominable acts immaginable.)

The Uteen wrote:

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.

Think about something similar to.. something similar to smaller dinosaurs. Give them a bit more adaptability and they should be able to become sapient while staying relatively the same.

First, rename Patriotism to Nationalism. Patriotism seems to mild for this.

Secondly, both Nationalism and Religious Fervor are the odd ducks here, as they vary drastically from Religion to religion/Nation to nation. However, I do have my reasons.

Nationalism is pretty much just fascism. Think Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, generally Orwellian states, where the main ideology is that the people make sacrifice for the nation, rather than the nation serves the people. Everything absolutely belguming everything is imbued with an ungodly amount of propaganda. In the worst cases there might be double-think. These can only exist as forced cultures, rather than naturally occuring ones, established only through slow political domination by one party, or by revolution. As such, it takes several generations before the rebellious instincts fall back.

Religious Fervor is a far milder affair. My main thought here is one of Puritanism, or other societies where religion dominates every part of life. This is one of the ones that's harder to generalize as it can work with most any religion, unlike nationalism, but we can say that the Religion must already exist as an assumed before this extreme offshoot comes up, and as such this culture shouldn't pop up for quite some time. Also note that these cultures tend to be smaller and less dominating of the landscape, as it's difficult to convert someone to such submissive extremes.

Also, going to make a thread on Witchcraft. I've been going over culture and have noted several very important aspects that I can't clenly catagorize, of which Witches are the hardest.

Tenebrarum wrote:

First, rename Patriotism to Nationalism. Patriotism seems to mild for this.

Secondly, both Nationalism and Religious Fervor are the odd ducks here, as they vary drastically from Religion to religion/Nation to nation. However, I do have my reasons.

Nationalism is pretty much just fascism. Think Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, generally Orwellian states, where the main ideology is that the people make sacrifice for the nation, rather than the nation serves the people. Everything absolutely belguming everything is imbued with an ungodly amount of propaganda. In the worst cases there might be double-think. These can only exist as forced cultures, rather than naturally occuring ones, established only through slow political domination by one party, or by revolution. As such, it takes several generations before the rebellious instincts fall back.

Religious Fervor is a far milder affair. My main thought here is one of Puritanism, or other societies where religion dominates every part of life. This is one of the ones that's harder to generalize as it can work with most any religion, unlike nationalism, but we can say that the Religion must already exist as an assumed before this extreme offshoot comes up, and as such this culture shouldn't pop up for quite some time. Also note that these cultures tend to be smaller and less dominating of the landscape, as it's difficult to convert someone to such submissive extremes.

Also, going to make a thread on Witchcraft. I've been going over culture and have noted several very important aspects that I can't clenly catagorize, of which Witches are the hardest.

Okay, so i'll change Patriotism to Nationalism. That's probably a good idea.

But not all Nationalism ends in fascism, Rex. It's an unfair jump for us as the game designers to make.

And of course a State Religion needs to be present before Religious Fervour comes into play.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But not all Nationalism ends in fascism, Rex. It's an unfair jump for us as the game designers to make.

True. But if it is what the culture itself is based on, then yes, it does.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

And of course a State Religion needs to be present before Religious Fervour comes into play.

I think it has to be more then that. As in, it could only be a religion or variation of a religion that had been the State religion in a large number of surrounding nations for a very long time.

Now, to everyone else: How easy it is for ecology to form isn't the issue right now. The fact of the matter is that it is no basis for a culture. It has nowhere to spread. Culture defines right and wrong. Ecology (Wrong word, but whatever) is the beleif that the environment should be concidered in that equation as well. It does not tell you anything about what is and isn't right inherently.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Now, to everyone else: How easy it is for ecology to form isn't the issue right now. The fact of the matter is that it is no basis for a culture. It has nowhere to spread. Culture defines right and wrong. Ecology (Wrong word, but whatever) is the beleif that the environment should be concidered in that equation as well. It does not tell you anything about what is and isn't right inherently.

I believe you're looking for Environmentalism, or "the Green Movement."
It should factor in somewhere, but not necessarily as a founding tenet of culture. Culture is basically the beliefs shared by the vast majority of members of a group once you factor out religion and patriotism/nationalism/clan loyalty. (By this, I mean that the remainder of "culture" besides those two elements is what people believe even if they don't attribute it to "This is good because X religion says so" or "This is good because my country has done it.)

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But not all Nationalism ends in fascism, Rex. It's an unfair jump for us as the game designers to make.

True. But if it is what the culture itself is based on, then yes, it does.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

And of course a State Religion needs to be present before Religious Fervour comes into play.

I think it has to be more then that. As in, it could only be a religion or variation of a religion that had been the State religion in a large number of surrounding nations for a very long time.

Now, to everyone else: How easy it is for ecology to form isn't the issue right now. The fact of the matter is that it is no basis for a culture. It has nowhere to spread. Culture defines right and wrong. Ecology (Wrong word, but whatever) is the beleif that the environment should be concidered in that equation as well. It does not tell you anything about what is and isn't right inherently.

But then what about Israel? Their culture is fairly close to religious fervour, and they are completely surrounded by Islamic nations. It shouldn't be a requirement, but it can help.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But then what about Israel? Their culture is fairly close to religious fervour, and they are completely surrounded by Islamic nations. It shouldn't be a requirement, but it can help.

I had not concidered that. Good point.

Alright, so I think I've figured out about half of the issues I've dealt with. I apologive for failing to keep up my daily update promise, I hit a few roadblocks and couldn't solve the issues until the source was dealth with.

Also, please don't push this towards completion, we've got more than plenty of time and, in the immortal words of Gaben: "A game will be late for a little while, but a game will suck forever."

Now, in regards to culture, there are two major things I was missing: basis of organization and basis of empathy. This will require some rethinking of themes, so bare with me.

The basis of organization is how networks form, creating the foundations of society. These exist in three known forms today: Kinship, Patronage, and Effectiveness(Better term pending).

Kinship has people form connection on familial ties, creating tribes and families. Because humanity started in small clan structures, our society is largely based around these ideas of family and blood-kinship. Case and point: All children in all cultures have care-takers that function as "parents." While in some cultures blood-ties are not nessicary for this, the concept of family spawns from these roots. Cultures that organize themselves along these lines are tribal and have to be small to retain blood-ties. There's alot of overlap with empathic kinship here.

Patronage is usually the next progression of society, organizing society in the form of debts and duties. The question is no longer one of geneology but one of who you owe. Usually this is where you see virtues of hospitality and general kindness enter the equation, as the concept of karmic "I scratch your back, you scratch mine," is the base. Some have pointed to the Roman Empire as little more than a huge patronage network that became so bloated that it could no longer support itself in the face of it's many enemies. This is very tied to class systems, which need to be discussed in further detail as well. In order for a society to advance beyond a semblance of patronage, class must also be dissolved at least partially. Most of the time you see a patron, who exists from a high position, performing acts of benefaction for his "clients," who then owe their patron. As silly as this sounds, watching "The Godfather" is probably the best way to get a solid grasp on the concept of patronage in it's purist form. This concept serves as a foundation for a miriad of more complex systems, including fealty (Love Theme).

Effectiveness is how we organize ourselves today. We do not concern ourselves with someone's geneology or even their debts and sacrifices, but with their ability to perform their job well. For example, democracy, despite the retorhic, works mainly as a way to determine someone's effectiveness at ruling, regardless of background. The issue being how quickly it falls into being a popularity contest, but effectiveness is the goal. This is also why giving preferencial treatment to people based on things outside effectiveness is seen as taboo in our society. (Ignoring basic issues of racism and the like.)

Alright, the other major factor in society is that of empathic connections. These are simpler but can include more options (given our understanding of societies). Basically: Who do you need to follow the rules with? Why can't you cheat X or kill Y? Why can't you deny X something that you wouldn't deny Z?

People have any number of basiseseses for this, and I imagine that alien races will have more than we do(Or could imagine for that matter), but they do shape culture very significantly down the line, so we might have to sacrifice number in favor of realistic effect. Best explanation here.

Thoughts?

I definitely like the three foundations of organisation, but we also need to think of more. And i was hoping to read more on the foundations of empathy in the game. How would these be mapped out? The same as in the video you linked to? family - religion - nation?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I definitely like the three foundations of organisation, but we also need to think of more. And i was hoping to read more on the foundations of empathy in the game. How would these be mapped out? The same as in the video you linked to? family - religion - nation?

I do agree that we should come up with a few more organizational foundations. It'll be really hard though, as humanity's never even expiremented with anything else to my knowledge.

As with empathy, I'm a little less sure about how to work that out. Note that in many ways the empathic range actually shrunk during the transition from religion to nation.

The following is somewhat irrelevant, but I think it ties in how obsessed with these empathic ranges we really are.

A while ago there was a a number of beduin tribes who joined together in an alliance to fight a rival tribe that had been plaguing them. They had no blood-ties, but it served all parties to do so. They called this alliance "The Confederacy." Eventually the rival tribe was driven away, but the Confederacy did not disband. They just kept working together. After several generations, researches returned to find that they had actually made up a geneology that tied them together, all going back to one man named "Confederacy."

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I definitely like the three foundations of organisation, but we also need to think of more. And i was hoping to read more on the foundations of empathy in the game. How would these be mapped out? The same as in the video you linked to? family - religion - nation?

I do agree that we should come up with a few more organizational foundations. It'll be really hard though, as humanity's never even expiremented with anything else to my knowledge.

As with empathy, I'm a little less sure about how to work that out. Note that in many ways the empathic range actually shrunk during the transition from religion to nation.

The following is somewhat irrelevant, but I think it ties in how obsessed with these empathic ranges we really are.

A while ago there was a a number of beduin tribes who joined together in an alliance to fight a rival tribe that had been plaguing them. They had no blood-ties, but it served all parties to do so. They called this alliance "The Confederacy." Eventually the rival tribe was driven away, but the Confederacy did not disband. They just kept working together. After several generations, researches returned to find that they had actually made up a geneology that tied them together, all going back to one man named "Confederacy."

Indeed it will be. I was really hoping you already had ideas for this, and were just holding off until somebody agreed with the idea.

So? Empathic foundations don't always have to move along in a logical progression. And remember that you would only be empathic to the people you are in contact with, which is why the Nation State increased the empathic range. Technology will allow for certain empathic foundations to arise.

So maybe there could be an Alliance organisational foundation?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Indeed it will be. I was really hoping you already had ideas for this, and were just holding off until somebody agreed with the idea.

No such luck. Sorry...

US_of_Alaska wrote:

So? Empathic foundations don't always have to move along in a logical progression. And remember that you would only be empathic to the people you are in contact with, which is why the Nation State increased the empathic range. Technology will allow for certain empathic foundations to arise.

No, they don't, that's what I was trying to say: The movement from religion to Nation was in many ways a regression instead of a progression. And I think you're right, empathy is largely based on contactability. This is why our internet generation seems so passionate about the plight of others.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

So maybe there could be an Alliance organisational foundation?

No. Alliances are formed on either familial, patronic, or mutually beneficial grounds. The point of the story is that they (and us as well) were obsessed with finding an excuse for their empathic treatmet of eachother that they created a mythology to justify it.

Tenebrarum wrote:

No, they don't, that's what I was trying to say: The movement from religion to Nation was in many ways a regression instead of a progression. And I think you're right, empathy is largely based on contactability. This is why our internet generation seems so passionate about the plight of others.

Okay. So, we have that empathic foundations are unlocked with communication technologies (or more appropriately, the use of such technologies) and that a culture can move in any direction along the empathic scale they wish. But is there anything else?

WARNING: RANDOM BRAIN SPLURTS AHEAD
I can see there being different amounts of each, for instance Muslims identify with all Muslims, but Sunnis especially with Sunnis. The same could be said about nation states, with all Americans identifying with each other, but Texans especially with Texans. Okay, city-states. What would they fall under? Because they are not empathic towards each other, even if they share a religion (Looking at you, Greece). And they are too big to simply be a family group. Would this fall under nation states even though they were a single SC?

Hey, maybe another could be Racial Empathy? Or Language Empathy? People who look similar and sound similar are more likely to be empathic towards one another, no? I can certainly relate a lot better to everyone online because they either speak English or Google Chrome can translate it to English.

Tenebrarum wrote:

No. Alliances are formed on either familial, patronic, or mutually beneficial grounds. The point of the story is that they (and us as well) were obsessed with finding an excuse for their empathic treatmet of eachother that they created a mythology to justify it.

But isn't it true that after the alliance they were empathic to one another? The fact that it spawned a mythology is irrelevant, because it happened afterwards. Like you said, they had to explain their empathy. But i guess that that would just drop back to religion once the mythology arose...

US_of_Alaska wrote:

WARNING: RANDOM BRAIN SPLURTS AHEAD
I can see there being different amounts of each, for instance Muslims identify with all Muslims, but Sunnis especially with Sunnis. The same could be said about nation states, with all Americans identifying with each other, but Texans especially with Texans. Okay, city-states. What would they fall under? Because they are not empathic towards each other, even if they share a religion (Looking at you, Greece). And they are too big to simply be a family group. Would this fall under nation states even though they were a single SC?

Hey, maybe another could be Racial Empathy? Or Language Empathy? People who look similar and sound similar are more likely to be empathic towards one another, no? I can certainly relate a lot better to everyone online because they either speak English or Google Chrome can translate it to English.

Remember that contact is most important. I'm from Delaware, and no one speaks to eachother here, so I actually empathise better with people out of state. It's a matter of living with a 50s style area, suburban and so spread out that you cannot actually walk to anywhere, you have to drive. The lack of communal grounds means that communities cannot form.

And I agree whole-heartedly with the language point. Note how Latin was used to bind medieval Christians together.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But isn't it true that after the alliance they were empathic to one another? The fact that it spawned a mythology is irrelevant, because it happened afterwards. Like you said, they had to explain their empathy. But i guess that that would just drop back to religion once the mythology arose...

The empathic range does not determine who we feel empathy for, but what we use to justify empathy or lack thereof. I feel awful watching an animal die, especially if it appears similer to us humans in either appearance or behaivior, but I will justify the death by saying it was non-sentient(sapient). In the same way, extended empathy also requires justification, hence the story. Empathy is instinctual. If we are able to recognize the emotion or sensation we percieve something experiencing, than we ourselves mimic the experience. This is why there is porn. But it's also why there is such an advantage to art, as a way to safely experience that which we cannot experience ourselves (Safely).

Tenebrarum wrote:

Remember that contact is most important. I'm from Delaware, and no one speaks to eachother here, so I actually empathise better with people out of state. It's a matter of living with a 50s style area, suburban and so spread out that you cannot actually walk to anywhere, you have to drive. The lack of communal grounds means that communities cannot form.

And I agree whole-heartedly with the language point. Note how Latin was used to bind medieval Christians together.

Obviously no contact = no empathy. But the idea of a community not being empathic towards each other is interesting. Maybe the way to mend this would be with TOs tagged "Communal" or some Belgium like that? Of course, that could lead to public toilets boosting empathy within a community...

Tenebrarum wrote:

The empathic range does not determine who we feel empathy for, but what we use to justify empathy or lack thereof. I feel awful watching an animal die, especially if it appears similer to us humans in either appearance or behaivior, but I will justify the death by saying it was non-sentient(sapient). In the same way, extended empathy also requires justification, hence the story. Empathy is instinctual. If we are able to recognize the emotion or sensation we percieve something experiencing, than we ourselves mimic the experience. This is why there is porn. But it's also why there is such an advantage to art, as a way to safely experience that which we cannot experience ourselves (Safely).

But what effect does this have on gameplay?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Obviously no contact = no empathy. But the idea of a community not being empathic towards each other is interesting. Maybe the way to mend this would be with TOs tagged "Communal" or some Belgium like that? Of course, that could lead to public toilets boosting empathy within a community...

Perhaps line of site is needed, or perhaps it's just taboos that prevent it. ROman public bathrooms were seen as places to chat, and I know women who will chat in restrooms as well.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But what effect does this have on gameplay?

The Empathic range effects who (cultural) laws apply to, essentially who they concider a person. Prolonged contact creates empathy, and thus the empathic range is extended or the new group is dragged into the current range.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Perhaps line of site is needed, or perhaps it's just taboos that prevent it. ROman public bathrooms were seen as places to chat, and I know women who will chat in restrooms as well.

Good point. So taboos would be handled in this section too, right?

Tenebrarum wrote:

The Empathic range effects who (cultural) laws apply to, essentially who they concider a person. Prolonged contact creates empathy, and thus the empathic range is extended or the new group is dragged into the current range.

Okay, so it will be who the NPCs consider friends in Org Mode, and decrease happiness with deaths from those who are in your empathic range in Strat Mode?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Good point. So taboos would be handled in this section too, right?

Yup! Not sure how we're going to set up taboos, though. Make note that it's not that taboos are in organization or empathic range, but just in culture. We'll pigeon hole them later.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so it will be who the NPCs consider friends in Org Mode, and decrease happiness with deaths from those who are in your empathic range in Strat Mode?

Got it. There will still be a few issues with that though. Think "No Irish need apply." They're not within empathic range, but they're not shown open physical hostility.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Good point. So taboos would be handled in this section too, right?

Yup! Not sure how we're going to set up taboos, though. Make note that it's not that taboos are in organization or empathic range, but just in culture. We'll pigeon hole them later.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so it will be who the NPCs consider friends in Org Mode, and decrease happiness with deaths from those who are in your empathic range in Strat Mode?

Got it. There will still be a few issues with that though. Think "No Irish need apply." They're not within empathic range, but they're not shown open physical hostility.

Okay, so we could have levels of empathy. And then we could have levels of prejudice that are at the other end. In the middle of the scale, your culture is ambivalent. At the top, your culture feels strongly connected to them. At the bottom, your culture views them as cockroaches. And, as always, you can try to influence this opinion by spending resources (providing you have a state-owned media outlet).

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so we could have levels of empathy. And then we could have levels of prejudice that are at the other end. In the middle of the scale, your culture is ambivalent. At the top, your culture feels strongly connected to them. At the bottom, your culture views them as cockroaches. And, as always, you can try to influence this opinion by spending resources (providing you have a state-owned media outlet).

I suppose, but that's a tricky line to walk if we so choose. There are virtually no cases in which people will act with hostility on sight. Even the Nazis wouldn't act that way toward a Jew.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so we could have levels of empathy. And then we could have levels of prejudice that are at the other end. In the middle of the scale, your culture is ambivalent. At the top, your culture feels strongly connected to them. At the bottom, your culture views them as cockroaches. And, as always, you can try to influence this opinion by spending resources (providing you have a state-owned media outlet).

I suppose, but that's a tricky line to walk if we so choose. There are virtually no cases in which people will act with hostility on sight. Even the Nazis wouldn't act that way toward a Jew.

Well that again would be because of laws and other cultural rules, not because they are empathic towards them.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Okay, so we could have levels of empathy. And then we could have levels of prejudice that are at the other end. In the middle of the scale, your culture is ambivalent. At the top, your culture feels strongly connected to them. At the bottom, your culture views them as cockroaches. And, as always, you can try to influence this opinion by spending resources (providing you have a state-owned media outlet).

I suppose, but that's a tricky line to walk if we so choose. There are virtually no cases in which people will act with hostility on sight. Even the Nazis wouldn't act that way toward a Jew.

Well that again would be because of laws and other cultural rules, not because they are empathic towards them.

True, but my point is, an excuse is required.

Tenebrarum wrote:

True, but my point is, an excuse is required.

I still think there should be a prejudice value between different nationalities and races. After all, they're present in real life.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

True, but my point is, an excuse is required.

I still think there should be a prejudice value between different nationalities and races. After all, they're present in real life.

We need to sit down and talk about demographics, including the uncomfortable ones. The lesbian transsexual gamer in the room is all too well aquianted with prejudice, and the more I look into Thrive the more I realize how impossible it's going to be to simply not talk about this, considering the myriad of alternative sexualities that will be present in other races.