The Civ4 Religions

[TechWins]

Originally posted by TechWins


That could include the most shunned religion in diplomacy but allow for the best scientific research.

Depending on the religion and its influence within the empire at a whole scientific research be slowed down. A religion, in this instance I'm referring to Christianity, creates an aparatus of formal acceptance to religious ideas, thus eliminating the propensity and to some degree allowance for new (scientific) theories or ideas. The barrier of power during the Middle Ages created a dogmatism, which gave name to the period as the Dark Ages. Civ4 (saving myself from using the coined cIV) could to some degree simulate this period -- it is completely fair, in my opinion, based on all the rest of the basis in the Civ series off of Western history, to generalize major religions, like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, into stimulating the same effects on society.

To what extent Civ 4 will have religious technologies, aside from the normal Polytheism, Monotheism, Theology -- possibly coulde include Philosophy into that category under some arguments, is unknown. At what point religious starts to develop is, also, unknown. Once a Civ does begin to generate religious influence throughout its empire is once scientific research should begin to decrease; however, there are ought to be a catch to that. [Lets assume that religious influence is city-based, just as culture is; the scientific research for that city could be decreased to some degree based on its religious influence amount.] Eventually there will reach a point in an empire where the religious influence almost reaches its epoch and scientific research is nearing a halt. This structuring of religious influence over scientific research would create a similar feeling to the Dark Ages.

Do not forget what period of history came after the Dark Ages -- the Renaissance. If certain technologies are researched, per se Astronomy*, scientific research (undecided whether religious influence should decrease and scientific research increase or whether the extent to which religious influence decreases scientific research would be minimalized--I'm leaning towards the latter...) would begin to increase once again. After a few of these scientific triggering technologies were researched it would almost envelop the appearance of a Renaissance as scientific research would be at a much higher point.


Of course there are drawback to this idea. For one the a whole new timeline system would have to be readily integrated into Civ4. Currently in Civ3 such a decrease in scientific output would throw off the game entirely, and the whorish nature of the technology trading system might throw things off a bit, as well. Maybe not to the simulating historical sense I put the religious-scientific system to but there needs to be a counter-balance between the two. A counter-balance would only add farther strategic depth to the game while emulating history.


* = formulated the helio-centric theory, which obviously opposed the Christian idea that God put forth man as the centre of the universe, hence a geo-centric viewpoint prior to astronomical findings of Copernicus. Yes, I do know the last statement has many other variants to it but sticking to the point it is a true claim.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by TechWins




Do not forget what period of history came after the Dark Ages -- the Renaissance.

You missed out the Mediaeval era.

[Nikolai]

The Medieval era is the whole thing, AFAIK. 'Cause that's the same as the Middle Ages right? That's how I've understood it at least. Of course, Norwegian uses slightly other terms than English, so it might just be me who is confused because of that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nikolai
The Medieval era is the whole thing, AFAIK. 'Cause that's the same as the Middle Ages right? That's how I've understood it at least. Of course, Norwegian uses slightly other terms than English, so it might just be me who is confused because of that.

Not quite.


It distinguishes the period between the Dark Ages (pagan Magyar and Viking invasions, Islam's assault on Iberia and southern France & Italy) and the 'rediscovery' of classical texts and knowledge- the Renaissance.


This occurred only after the Magyars and Vikings had settled down and become good Christians- and made war on other Christians.

[joncnunn]

"Non denominational" would be the wrong term entirely for a civ relgion. The correct term would be "No offical state sponsored religion." This would apply to the US since founding (Excluding a few indivudal states for the first few decades), and today much of the western world.

In the Civ context, "Athesist" might apply to ex-USSR, China since shortly after WW II, and Cuba since Fidel Castro.

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Would the idea of atheists/non denominational be a choice as well..?

[joncnunn]

Mideval = fall of Roman Empire to 1500. (Historians like to break at 1500 exactly instead of 1492.)

As to the "Dark Ages" that term is no longer used by historians. Those that failed to find any scientific progress initally were looking in the wrong places.

There were tremious strives in agriculture between the fall of Rome and 1500. And technological progress in the Roman empire was actually negative after about 100 AD. (Until the E Roman empire started reviving to become the Bryzantine empire)

"The Barbarians" were far more inventive than the Romans in it's twilight.

Originally posted by molly bloom

You missed out the Mediaeval era.

[Brent]

I always considered the dark age and the medeval age to be the same thing. Maybe the term "dark age" is more geographically restricted.

We distinguish between the religion of a nation and the religion of a population unit. An individual population unit could be nondenominational, or mixed, or nonreligious, or belonging to a specific religion. The religion of a nation could dictate the religion of all its population units. Maybe they'd secretly follow different beliefs, but they would show up under the state religion until the nation loosens its grip.

[TechWins]

More specifically, as applied to European history, the term Dark Ages was originally used to denote the 900-year period between the fall of the western Roman Empire in the 5th century and the reappropriation and interpretation of classical Greek and Roman culture embodied in the Renaissance. This concept of a "Dark Age" was first created in the early 14th Century by the humanist Petrarch and was originally intended as a pejorative sweeping criticism of the lack of Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of cultural achievements in general.

The term is loosely connotated, according to wikipedia, but in this case, I was implying the period of the Medeival Ages was one in the same as the Dark Ages.

There were tremious strives in agriculture between the fall of Rome and 1500. And technological progress in the Roman empire was actually negative after about 100 AD. (Until the E Roman empire started reviving to become the Bryzantine empire)

Generally speaking a lot of previously known sciences were discarded during the "Dark Ages."


At any rate, though, all this is semantics and arguing back and forth on a term's precise meaning is pointless.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Mideval = fall of Roman Empire to 1500. (Historians like to break at 1500 exactly instead of 1492.)

As to the "Dark Ages" that term is no longer used by historians. Those that failed to find any scientific progress initally were looking in the wrong places.

There were tremious strives in agriculture between the fall of Rome and 1500. And technological progress in the Roman empire was actually negative after about 100 AD. (Until the E Roman empire started reviving to become the Bryzantine empire)

"The Barbarians" were far more inventive than the Romans in it's twilight.

It's still used by some, as a look at any library's history shelves or a quick internet search would show.

It's not accurate, but it did have a culturally specific meaning when 19th Century states were expanding their empires (first laying claim to Classical pedigrees and antecedents) and then in a reversal when new nationalist movements and states 'rediscovered' their 'barbarian' pasts- the Celtic Revival for instance.

The late Anglo-Saxon period of England is also referred to as Early Mediaeval (as well as being in 'the Dark Ages').

It still serves a useful purpose, given that it offers a name for a period when the international trading and military network of the Western Roman Empire broke down, when there large scale movements of peoples from outside the Empire over land and sea, and when the Western form of Christianity was split between the Celtic Church in Ireland and the British Isles and the Roman church on the continent of Europe.

The term 'Renaissance' is itself a mutable thing, given that it used to be taught that it began when the Ottomans took Byzantium, but is one of those nebulous things that has no real single starting point- there is after all a distinct northern Renaissance for instance.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
The thing about Eastern philosophies is it's hard to seperate them. In Asian cultures, people don't necessarily identify themselves as Taoist, or Confuscian, or Buddhist as they tend to overlap, particularly in China. Indeed, it's hard for non-Christian to tell the different Christian sects apart. So perhaps having Major->Minor classifications would correctly be the way to go. Civs would fall into either just one or multiple Major Catagories, which would have the effects, while in the demographics we would see the Minor catagory breakdown.

6 Major catagories with included Minor catagories I can think off:
Christianity-
-Roman Catholic
-Greek Orthodox
-Protestant
-Anglican
-Baptist
-Mormon
-Evangelical etc.
Islam-
-Sunni
-Shia
-Sufi etc
Eastern-
-Confuscian
-Shinto
-Taoist
-Buddhism etc


Giving the Minor catagories unique effects might complicate gameplay too much, and more ominously would likely be offensive to someone somewhere at sometime.

The differences in the minor groups in Islam and Eastern Religion are bigger than the differnces between the major groups. Sufism is a religion of peace, while the concept of jihad has made the other two groups contantly battling for retribution.

The Shinto religion taught that if you died for the Emporer, you'd be reincarnated in 40 days, which made convincing soldiers to go on kamikaze missions easier than any of the other Eastern religions. The Japanese committed hideous warcrimes that would be much more widely discussed if theirs hadn't been eclipsed by the Nazis.

Confuscanism emphasises duty to one's society, so it could cut corruption.

Buddhism's emphasis on nonmaterialism could dampen production.

As for Christianity, it's got hundreds of denominations: so we need to think not about teachings, but what effect it has on a civilization, and the world: Happiness, Warmaking, Production, Gold etc., which first requires you put it into categories:

Catholisism
Evangelical
Non(or mildly) evangelical

I'd leave out Russian Orthodox, because they didn't make as big as Catholosism.

[Brent]

It seems to me if any internal division of Christianity were to be included you would at least need Catholic and Orthodox. Orthodox is the largest division that can be grouped together other than Catholic, and the two divisions (Catholic and Orthodox) were the first major split within Christianity, certainly the oldest one that has any relevance today. Everything else today is either reformed from Catholicism or made up from peoples which once fell under Catholicism. And geographically the Christian world is split into Catholic influence and Orthodox influence.

[lajzar]

I think the best way to have religions is that they e non-state actors, so the player cannot control a eligion directly.

The religion AI may choose to build religious improvements in any city, depending on the religion of the pop heads. The player cannot normally directly build religious improivements or wonders. The religion's AI will not build wonders by itself.

A player may declare a particular religion to be the state religion, at which point he may build improvements and wonders of that religion. He alo gains certain trait benefits depending on the religion, if enough citizens are of that religion. However, citizens of other religions then become unhappy. The religion AI will contribute resources to any religious improvement/wonder the player builds.

Declaring a state religion also exposes the player to 'requests' from that religion's AI, which can have diplomatic consequences (declare war on the heathen civ ABC'), or economic ('we demand a tithe').

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Maybe a list like this:

Christianity:
- Catholic
- Orthodox
- Protestant

Islam:
- Sunni
- Shia

Judaism

Eastern:
- Hindu
- Buddhism
- Shinto
- Taoist

Indigenous/Pagan:
- Graeco-Roman
- Egyptian
- Mesopotamic (Babylonian/Assyrian/Sumerian...)
- Animist (for Africa, some parts of Asia, non-high-Native-American cultures)
- High Native American (Inca, Maya, Aztec)
- Zoroastrianism (a special case as this religion has mainly been an Iranian/Persian affair that was all but wiped out with the Islamic conquests. Represented due to very important effects on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It wasn't a fully monothiesm either, except for a short while.)

Atheist (this one should be included, but tied to the Communist government type as they alone have tried to regulate religion* by doing away with it -unsuccessfully)


There's no need to include all the different subdivisions of for example Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Not important enough for the scope Civ simulates.

*regulating religion: depending on how religion works in the game a "State Religion" policy may be available?? (Maybe tied to Theocracy if that goverment type is in?)

[Elda king]

Good, only add "Jainism" to the Easterns.

[jmp]

People seem to be discussing these religions as if they all existed from day one. (That's always been one of my issues with Civ. It ignores that some of the civs involved are offshoots of declines or splits in others. You wouldn't have Americans without the English, nor would you have the French without the Romans. Religions are similar.)

Large groups of religions have common ancestry, with splits along the way. Some splits take hold over the long term, while others don't. Splits have a variety of flavors. There are splits that center around a major figure, whether prophetic (Jesus, Mohammed) or intellectual (Martin Luther). There are splits that happen because of geography, especially before 20th century technology allowed for easier communication (Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox, Sephardi/Ashkenazi/Ethiopian Jews). There are also political splits (Church of England, asserting the power of the King above that of the Pope).

With just these types of splits, you could track the major Western monotheistic religions from Judaism, through the proto-reformation Judaism underwent around 2000 years ago (only one side of the split lasted), to the split off of the early Christians. From there, things change substantially when Rome officially adapts Christianity, spreading it throughout Europe. A few centuries later, Mohammed took the combined Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition and built on it to create Islam, which rapidly spread through the Arab world and some surrounding areas. Later splits created the subdivisions of these major faiths that everyone's been talking about in this thread.

The key thing to remember is that today's major groups were yesterday's small splinters. If we were having this discussion around 1950 years ago, Christianity would be considered relatively unimportant while the discussion would focus on the differences between the Greek and Roman implementation of similar religious systems.

That said, it makes more sense for religion to be an evolving state over the course of the game. Religious groups will change and split for various reasons, some having to do with the actions of the player (like adopting an official state religion), and others having nothing to do with them. Religion can be an aid to expanding an empire or working with allies, but can also be a hinderance when trying to assimilate people of different belief systems or working with allies who have economic interests in common but believe that you're destined to rot in eternal damnation.

I think it would be a mistake to have all of the religious groups exist from the getgo at the beginning of the game, as it would completely contradict the role of religion in the path that western society has taken to get to where it is today. (Whether or not you think the role has been for the better, it's had a major role.)

Just a few thoughts on the matter...
-JMP