Leaders Firaxis considered but didn't include (from art files)

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Nikolai
We better not include Hitler because he has nothing to do in a Civ game and it would piss off all except the Nazis.

Muhammad was both a military and political leader, like all the early leaders of Islam. That does not make it any better to include him. The problems it would make is not worth it. And while I as a Christian can't say I agree with Islam on some points, I know one thing: to Muslims, Muhammad and Islam is holy and extremely important. There's no need to anger them. Show respect. I know you and me would have wanted it if it was our views and values that was in question.

And yet, people are rarely concerned about the sensibilities of atheists. Yes, I understand and respect the marketing decision behind it, but there's no need to cloak it in moral garb. There's no reason to pretend that their sensibilities, grounded as they are in superstition and faith, should be weighed as equally against those of us who attempt to live otherwise.

As for the idea of a picture of Muhammed being "offensive" somehow, the idea that a thinking person in the 21st century would believe that there mere photo of a man somehow is a sin would be offensive, if it weren't so hilarious.

Again, where are these pictures/files located? Are they complete leaderheads? Any more info here?

[kseecs16]

I don't think there is any laws against hitler, per se, so much as there are laws against NAZI symbols and such. Either way who cares? Is the leader that important - It seems pretty strait forward to me that they avoid controversial leaders because there is no justifiable reason to include them that outweighs the potential offensiveness. Friedrich the Great is a far more admirable person than Adolf Hitler - so whats the problem? The same case could be said for any civ, why include the villains when you can include the good ones?

I will say though - Can we get a male English leader? SHEESH!

[duodecimal]

You're not the one trying to sell the game.

Less people will refuse to buy the game with a triviality missing than people refusing to buy due to a triviality present.

/agnostic. Can't prove a negative.
edit: addressed to JKP

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by spy14


Do yourself a favour, and don't ever go to Iran.

Wasn't Salman Rushdies work actually offensive to muslims though, hence the ayatollah issuing a fatwa?

Do yourself a favor and read Salman Rushdie before condemning him to death.

Once more....any info on what files are included and where I might find them?

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by kseecs16
I don't think there is any laws against hitler, per se, so much as there are laws against NAZI symbols and such. Either way who cares? Is the leader that important - It seems pretty strait forward to me that they avoid controversial leaders because there is no justifiable reason to include them that outweighs the potential offensiveness. Friedrich the Great is a far more admirable person than Adolf Hitler - so whats the problem? The same case could be said for any civ, why include the villains when you can include the good ones?

I will say though - Can we get a male English leader? SHEESH!

I nominate the ultimate German sleeper candidate -- Erich Ludendorff. He was basically running the country at the end of WW1 -- and Germany came much closer to winning that war than the second.

And I agree: Churchill's absence frustrates me, too.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Whoa! I'm so glad Firaxis didn't risk making Mohammad the Arab leader, that would be to beg for some diehard islamist to declare some kind of Jihad.

Yeah, and you can say that to Omar Shariff...

Originally posted by jkp1187


Sigh. So now we let the fanatics dictate to us? That's a bit like saying that we'd better not include Hitler, because the Nazis would get angry at us....

....................................

And no-nazis too.

[dearmad]

Originally posted by LordShiva


It's not about fanatics ruling us. It's not about free speech either. It's about being considerate to other people. Something like this would be incredibly offensive to literally billions of people around the world. There are plenty of highly qualified Arab leaders to choose from, why choose someone offensive when you don't have to?

No it's not about being considerate, it's about not throwing a match into a tinder box of inconsiderate, rabid, fanatical, violent men... and in this case, I simply don't care. If I have to be "considerate" in order to avoid their "violence," then screw it- let's square off.

A crowd of Muslims killing people for expressing a woman could marry Muhammed, is wrong.

Oppressing women from voting and participating in their society equally is WRONG- I don't care what the women say (while oppressed) about their own system, or what the "cultural reason is," it's WRONG.

Muslims ritually raping women in retribution for some perceived religious crime committed by her siblings is WRONG- don't give a damn about culture.

And the offense is causes me to deal with people like this trumps their offense any day. I'm done with it.

And it IS about fanatics ruling others. No thanks for that.

Oh, and I bring up Muslims in this post because that's the topic, I have equal gripes against other religions too when it comes to opressing human beings and causing suffering.

I have gripes about violence too. Equal opportunity gripes here!

As I said: Being offended and dealing wiuth it civiliy is what being civilized is all about- I am JUST AS offeneded by the violence committed in the name of Islam and the violence committed upon women and children (hiding behind them using them as delivery agents of bombs) and all the other crap people do as they are of a damned picture of their damned ancient leader. How do I deal with it? Not by killing people... not by scaring people or threatening them...

SO they can learn to deal with it to.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by jkp1187
As for the idea of a picture of Muhammed being "offensive" somehow, the idea that a thinking person in the 21st century would believe that there mere photo of a man somehow is a sin would be offensive, if it weren't so hilarious.

This is stupid. You can pretty much make this argument against any religious belief ("Oh, it's ok to slip pork into a Jewish or Muslim person's food, because the idea that a thinking person in the 21st century would believe that pork is contaminated by the devil would be offensive" or "Oh, abortion is alright, because a foetus is really only a bunch of non-sentient cells" or "Oh, nevermind that religion X forbids its adherents to do Y because I think that's just silly").

The simple fact is, it IS offensive (and taking offense is not, as you seem to imply, a reaction under one's conscious control). There's NOTHING to be gained for you or me (I happen to be a militant atheist) from offending people in such a fashion. End of debate.

[dearmad]

Dude get a clue- the JEWS in CIV EAT PORK! There's a pork food, it's in my ALL JEWISH EMPIRE, THEY EAT IT!! Am I offened? Are Jews up in arms? Are people defending the jews threat to a violent/unpredicatable reaction to this?

NO!

Do you defend the rights of xtians to BOMB health centers that provide abortions because they're offended? They have a "legitimate right" to be, offended no doubt... but the PROPER way to react is through a civil process of changing the laws of the land.

Defending a tinderbox's propensity to explode is bull****.

Get a clue. End of debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's NOTHING to be gained for you or me (I happen to be a militant atheist) from offending people in such a fashion. End of debate.

Indeed. Why lose money unneccesarily by going out of your way to offend others?

[dearmad]

LOL Imram

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by dearmad
No it's not about being considerate, it's about not throwing a match into a tinder box of inconsiderate, rabid, fanatical, violent men... and in this case, I simply don't care. If I have to be "considerate" in order to avoid their "violence," then screw it- let's square off.

A crowd of Muslims killing people for expressing a woman could marry Muhammed, is wrong.

Oppressing women from voting and participating in their society equally is WRONG- I don't care what the women say (while oppressed) about their own system, or what the "cultural reason is," it's WRONG.

Muslims ritually raping women in retribution for some perceived religious crime committed by her siblings is WRONG- don't give a damn about culture.

And the offense is causes me to deal with people like this trumps their offense any day. I'm done with it.

And it IS about fanatics ruling others. No thanks for that.

Oh, and I bring up Muslims in this post because that's the topic, I have equal gripes against other religions too when it comes to opressing human beings and causing suffering.

I have gripes about violence too. Equal opportunity gripes here!

There's simply no excuse for what the fanatics might have done had Firaxis gone ahead with Mohammed. There's no excuse for all the horrible things that zealots do in the name of Islam (or Hinduism or Christianity of Judaism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism). That's not the point. I don't want to be considerate towards them - they can go screw themselves.

What IS considerate is refraining from doing something needless that would offend millions of people who ARE NOT fanatics - people who would NOT kill because of the offense but would nevertheless be made uncomfortable by it. Whether or not it's "rational" for them to be offended is besides the point.

[Boris Godunov]

Excluding Mohammed out of respect for the religious beliefs of others doesn't mean those who decided such did so because they feared violence. THat's utter speculation. More likely, they were being respectful of someone else's beliefs. What's wrong with that?

I notice there's no prophet Jesus Christ in the game. I bet that's for the same reasons.

I'm an athiest myself, and I'm baffled as to why anyone would have a problem with these decisions. Especially since there are plenty of other good candidates for Arab leaders that wouldn't offend a bunch of people.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by dearmad
Dude get a clue- the JEWS in CIV EAT PORK! There's a pork food, it's in my ALL JEWISH EMPIRE, THEY EAT IT!! Am I offened? Are Jews up in arms? Are people defending the jews threat to a violent/unpredicatable reaction to this?

NO!

Do you defend the rights of xtians to BOMB health centers that provide abortions because they're offended? They have a "legitimate right" to be, offended no doubt... but the PROPER way to react is through a civil process of changing the laws of the land.

Defending a tinderbox's propensity to explode is bull****.

Get a clue. End of debate.

Dude, get a clue - the MUSLIMS in CIV LOOK AT PICTURES! There are great works of art, it's in my ALL MUSLIM EMPIRE, THEY LOOK AT THEM!! Am I offened? Are Muslims up in arms? Are people defending the muslims threat to a violent/unpredictable reaction to this?

NO!

(quoted with modification for SHOWING HOW STUPID THE POINT IS - having computer characters eat pork and ACTUALLY EATING PORK are, despite what you seem to suggest, NOT THE SAME)

I don't defend anyone's rights to do anything violent because of simply taking offense to someone. I'm not defending anyone's tinderbox propensity to explode.

What I AM defending is a decision to refrain from taking a pointless action that would needlessly offend non-violent, non-crazy people. Maybe since this is my 4th or 5th post with the same point YOU might get the clue. End of debate (I hope).

[LordShiva]

Boris

Thanks for summing up EXACTLY what I've been trying to say for 5 posts now.