Hebrews: Chosen People, but not for Civ?

[Solver]

problems and lawsuits could occur for firaxis later on with these decisions

Care to mention a specific example? You don't think a neo-Nazi would sue Firaxis because including Hebrews offends his belief that Hebrews are untermensch, right? Hebrews are a nation, not a symbol in any way - I can see many problems with the theoretical inclusion of Hitler, who is the symbol of a murderous evil dictator in the Western world, or the inclusion of General Ishii who would probably offend lots of Japanese...

[ZEE]

solver,

i didnt want to go into detail but i guess i should. quite simply it would offend iran and the palestinians and terrorist organizations who have spies all over the world. say one of these spies sees the hebrews on one of our games and a figure like king soloman leading them and jewish music in the background. these radical islamists would get quite offended and i think we all know how dangerous that can become. perhaps there will be no lawsuits, and reading too much into this or not, i know personally how much some terrorists flat out HATE the jewish people and how the trouble in the mid east for decades has mirrored this fact. this is very very sad to me but im afraid its the truth of our world. i just dont see firaxis adding them anytime soon... piece

[Solver]

I think that, if you were, we'd be better off. But terrorist organizations aren't particularly concerned with what's in games - they're more concerned about blowing real people up. They don't pay attention to things such as games.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure there aren't many people in the Palestinian Autonomy playing Civ4. They aren't exactly rich there and don't all have Internet-connected computers - I think that computer games like Civ are very rare in that population.

Thirdly, the main issue these terrorists have is the existence of Israel. Israel as a country, whereas Hebrews in Civ4 (or Civ5, or whatever) would be as a nation, as a people, not exactly as a country. I don't think it would have any more potential to annoy Iran or anyone than the current inclusion of Judaism has. The inclusion of the current State of Israel would be maybe more annoying, but that's outside the scope of a Civ game, anyway.

So, I am positive that the only people who could really notice the inclusion of Hebrews in Civ and be really angry about that are neo-Nazis and general fanatical anti-Semites. And these people are not the ones that Firaxis wants to please...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by AAHZ
these radical islamists would get quite offended and i think we all know how dangerous that can become.

I wouldn't want to live my life trying to placate extremists anyway.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Solver
The inclusion of the current State of Israel would be maybe more annoying, but that's outside the scope of a Civ game, anyway.

you are right solver. perhaps i misconstrued the State of Israel as the Hebrews and vice versa. when i said the Hebrews i meant the Jews and Israel and my previous points were pointing to that fact. Adding the Hebrews in general would be less annoying than adding say Israel as a nation. And it is also outside the scope of a civ game (you are right again) for reasons such as dozens of city names to come up with, unique units, civ traits, and so forth. there may be more reasons as well...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by AAHZ

And it is also outside the scope of a civ game (you are right again) for reasons such as dozens of city names to come up with, unique units, civ traits, and so forth. there may be more reasons as well...

Though modern Israel is outside the scope of the series, the ancient Hebrews as a nation is feasible, I think.

UU: Slinger, Zealot, or Levite
UB: Synagogue
Leader: Solomon
Traits: Spiritual, Creative (reassign Hatshepsut)

[Solver]

you are right solver. perhaps i misconstrued the State of Israel as the Hebrews and vice versa. when i said the Hebrews i meant the Jews and Israel and my previous points were pointing to that fact. Adding the Hebrews in general would be less annoying than adding say Israel as a nation. And it is also outside the scope of a civ game (you are right again) for reasons such as dozens of city names to come up with, unique units, civ traits, and so forth. there may be more reasons as well...

Much of the reason is simply that Civ doesn't do countries - it does do nations and civilizations. You don't have Germany or Great Britain in the game, you have the Germans and the English as a nation. Which is why many doubt the legitimacy of Americans as a civ in the games, but that's another issue.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander01
(reassign Hatshepsut)

Nevarr!!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Nevarr!!

Okay then, take your pick out of these (available trait combos).

Agg/Cha, Agg/Org, Cha/Cre, Cha/Ind, Cha/Phi, Cre/Exp, Cre/Fin, Cre/Phi, Cre/Pro, Exp/Fin, Exp/Imp, Fin/Org, Ind/Imp, Ind/Phi, Imp/Phi, Imp/Pro, Imp/Spi, Org/Pro, Phi/Pro

[ZEE]

solver,

the fact that civ dosent do countries is a fascinating analysis that i never thought of. that changes a few perspectives on the CURRENT civs in the game as well! unfortunately, i just dont think the Hebrew have the governmental base as a society to warrent them as a civ, country or not. they are a culture of people, and it was wise of firaxis to include the Jewish religion in the game rather than a civ.

[Solver]

The Hebrews have a very strong governmental base. How not? If we're talking Ancient Hebrews, their laws are put forth in the Tanakh/Old Testament. Also, they had a fully-fledged kingdom back then, with a king, ministers and everything you'd expect of a kingdom. It didn't last very long as an independent kingdom, but it sure was one in every sense.

[Alexander I]

The earliest Hebrew United Monarchy began with Saul c. 1030 BC, David c. 1000 BC, and Solomon c. 970 BC. After the Civil War, the nation was divided into two: Israel and Judah. Israel was conquered by Assyria, c. 721 BC, and Judah by Babylon, c. 587 BC.

So that's 500 years of monarchical history, which of course does not included the two to four hundred years of theocratic judocracy (rule by judges) dating back to Moses (depending on which chronology you use).

[Solver]

Exactly, I think that any civilization which had some kingdom/country for a century or more can be viewed as a civilization with a governmental and state-having history.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
Exactly, I think that any civilization which had some kingdom/country for a century or more can be viewed as a civilization with a governmental and state-having history.

Agreed.

[Solver]

Then again, of course, I shouldn't be advocating the inclusion of Hebrews in a Civ game too much because of my own inevitable bias.

Still, comparing them to the other civs that are and have been in the games, I'd say Hebrews are at least "on par" in every way, except for size - there weren't exactly many Hebrews at any point if you compare them to some other contemporary empires.