High Theory: Government or Guiding Spirit? (or, Nations or States?)

[murielwasser]

This is very theoretical, I suppose, but it's a serious question and I think the attendant ambiguity - as things stand - fuels a lot of the disagreements on how things "should" work absent gameplay concerns: in the Civilization series, is the player supposed to be the government of a state or the volkgeist of a nation?

Let's ignore the leaderheads for a moment here - take them as a cute aside and useful metonymy - because they're not meant to be coherent under either model.

Both are assumed at various points in the game. The ability to declare a revolution followed by a new governmental system assumes the national model. The senate assumes a governmental model. Suggestions about public (which the player can control) and private (which the player cannot) production queues - as well as suggested models of capitalist vs. socialist economics where one of the drawbacks of capitalism is less control over just what is produced - assume a governmental model as well. (If the volkgeist model held, then the player should be able to say what the market "decides" to produce just as surely as she says what the government ministers "decide" to do.)

Would there be value - whether in mods or sequels - in establishing a coherency on this matter of roleplay, or is it simply best kept thought of as ambigious? How did you always think of it in the back of your head?

[Nikolai]

For me, the role I have in Civ will always be the guiding spirit one. But I am willing to let some decisions slip out of my hands for gameplay and MM reasons.

[CarnalCanaan]

I have to admit that I always thought of myself, while playing the game, as the head of an "imperium", a State or States acting in unison as a "civilization". I think the game bears me out a bit since it is based on the assumption of the city-state model.

Oh, and you forgot the The Great and Beloved Banana of the People! (Or, as our friend Hegel might've put it, die Volksbanane ... cuz you just know Hegel was a Civ fanantic.)

[Elok]

Ambiguity is necessary for control of all the features, much as you mentioned. If it were a question of realism, just being able to decide what to research isn't right; no society ever got together and said, "okay, people, wouldn't it be cool if we could develop a form of internal combustion? So let's coordinate. All you university geeks, get cracking, and God help you if I catch you working on that anthropology crap instead."

IRL, scientific discovery was often accidental, fortuitous, marginalized, or simply the result of natural pressure acting as an evolutionary force on ideas. But it would suck if people had to wait for Isaac Newton to be born before they could invent calculus, or otherwise model it "realistically," so we're given a degree of control over societal change that nobody ever had in reality. At the same time, we're allowed to control fine details like a physical emperor or president might. Giving up either aspect would turn the game into either something like Populous, or something like Warcraft.

[Nikolai]

SMAC did that in a good way, if that is what you want.

[lord of the mark]

you ARE the Spirit of the nation, which is why you can change govts, and that Spirit is expressed at any given historical moment through the executive arm of the state, which is why when its NOT a moment of revolution, you deal with Senate, private sector, etc at arms length. Sort of a right hegelian POV, I think.


where youre tripped up is the confusion of the revolutionary moment with the normal moment. At certain limited moments, the state, having previously expressed the spirit of history, and the nation, enters a period of contradiction, which can only be resolved by revolution, by the welling of historical forces up through the people, and the various classes in society, to remold the state in a way better suited for the new historical time. The revolution over, the state now again takes the lead role, and advances the national destiny, and the people return their private, and hence unprogressive life - and so naturally their private decisions, and even the decisions of the legislative branch of the state, which exists to advance private interest, leave the players control.

There, is that a sufficiently high theory approach that justifies the existing game dynamic?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Nikolai
SMAC did that in a good way, if that is what you want.

In SMAC the leaders discover early on a tech for extending life span, IIRC. Doesnt work to well if youre still trying to discover medicine, huh?

[Cyclotron]

I guess I'm the only one who assumed I was an immortal alien ruler deposited on earth to guide their lowly human forms to greatness?

[Max Sinister]

Seems so :-)

And if the player decides to change government every few turns, does that mean the spirit of the nation is confused? (Guess so...)

[Odin]

I am in the Guiding Spirit camp, your decisions represent the decisions of your civs citizens. For example, If you decide on a revolution, that represents the people getting fed up with the current governmental structure. Hmmmm.... It is a bit Hegelian.

[Sava]

Guiding spirit.

Personally, I'd like to see a system more like EU. Where leaders come and go, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Then we can have fun stuff like assassinations, coups, and when Democracy maybe the AI, representing the "people" could choose leaders instead. Maybe that could be a game-balancing trait. If you are more authoritative, you choose leaders... but in Democracy, maybe the leaders could be more skilled or somethign, but you don't get to choose them.