What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

[Artaraxl]

So, I have read there will be religions to choose from, each with its own advantages.

But will there be an option to choose none??? Might not there be advantages associated with a lack of religion?

It seems silly that a civilization be required to have a state religion. And this idea of religions being "spread" I find particularly worrying. Some religions do not have "missionaries," and spreading them is not an overt objective. E.g. Isn't "Jewish missionary" an oxymoron?

Besides, religions arguably carry disadvantages as well: Consumption of time, money, and resources might be one.

I'm not trying to advocate for or against a religion or secularism, but it seems to me there are good reasons why this aspect of civilization has been avoided in previous versions. It's interesting that the developers are trying to tackle it, but can they do it well?

[1889]

Religion has been an importent factor in the development of civilization.

Humanism motivates individuals, not societies.

[Boris Godunov]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136641

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 1889
Humanism motivates individuals, not societies.

That's not true, either.

[Jaybe]

I just love all these people who make broad assumptions based on statements from Firaxis or previewers.

Religion is a concept in the game for enhancing your civ, culture and income. It is a game mechanic that goes by the handle of "religion". It is not religion itself. Not wanting to have a religion in civ4 will be like never building temples and cathedrals in civ3.

There! Now I have made broad assumptions....

[Solver]

I don't recall a preview which explicitly said that you HAVE to choose a state religion. We don't have proof to the contrary, either, but I don't see why "No state religion" couldn't be an option.

And yes, religions expand. Remember, religions are in cities. There may be officially atheist states (the USSR was such a state), but religion has spread everywhere in the course of history, and there were no cities where no people or virtually no people were religious. Didn't happen.

Jewish missionaries... well, Judaism also expanded, and you don't have to see the Missionary as, well, a Missionary. It was Christians mainly who really had missionaries, with a Bible in their hands and going to educate the pagans about the true ways of their religion or whatever. Yet, other religions, Judaism included, did spread, and largely due to people. Think of religious people moving to a new area, they bring their religion with them. Or a famous / influential person moving somewhere with his religion. I think of the Civ4 missionaries more like that, as indeed not all religions have missionaries in the traditional sense.

[Tassadar500]

Think of Jewish missionaries as Chabad shlichim.

[Solver]

[Artaraxl]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Religion is a concept in the game for enhancing your civ, culture and income. It is a game mechanic that goes by the handle of "religion". It is not religion itself.

I'm not sure I take your point. Everything in the game is a game mechanic. Why does that make the debate any less meaningful? The game designers control the game mechanics, and I'm suggesting that this particular mechanic be questioned.

Originally posted by Jaybe
Not wanting to have a religion in civ4 will be like never building temples and cathedrals in civ3.

The analogy doesn't hold, so I disagree and here's why: Temples and cathedrals bring benefits and they also have costs, and these must be weighed in deciding to build them, but the vast majority of city improvements are civic, and you could chose between various improvements which make people happy, or for that matter, you could forget this class of improvment and give luxuries to your people -- not an advisable strategy, but possible.

From what I've read about Civ4 (obviously it's still in development, so of course we're making assumptions!) the religion concept works differently. You don't get any benefit by chosing NOT to establish/research/discover a religion. Therefore, the only good strategy would be to adopt a religion -- and this is the crux of my question:

Why is that?

[Xorbon]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that secularism is an option in the game. I don't think "atheist state" is an option though.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Artaraxl

...You don't get any benefit by chosing NOT to establish/research/discover a religion. Therefore, the only good strategy would be to adopt a religion -- and this is the crux of my question:

Why is that?

Is there a benefit is choosing not to have religion (ie not building temples etc) in civ 1/2/3? Sure, there is the maintenance cost, but that is pretty trivial unless your economy is truly tanked.

[Solver]

From what I've read about Civ4 (obviously it's still in development, so of course we're making assumptions!) the religion concept works differently. You don't get any benefit by chosing NOT to establish/research/discover a religion.

You're missing the fact that there are two main things with religion. One thing is founding a religion, another thing is adopting it. To found a religion, you research a certain tech first. To adopt a religion, we don't know, but you choose to have a state religion. There are, I assume, no benefits to trying to stay religion-free, but founding a religion is quite likely a tradeoff.

[molly bloom]

Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by Artaraxl


Besides, religions arguably carry disadvantages as well: Consumption of time, money, and resources might be one.

Quite true, but they can also be unifying motivating forces too- and they can generate money, as Thomas a Becket's shrine at Canterbury did, and the Pilgrimage to Compostella- it would be interesting to find out how much of the money spent on the way to Santiago de Compostella helped fund the Spanish kingdoms' wars against the taifa states in Spain.


On the other hand, as the ruinous Thirty Years' War shows, they can cause the wrecking of economies, devastate agriculture and whole cities and cause populations to revert to cannibalism to survive.

[Artaraxl]

Re: Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by molly bloom

Quite true, but they can also be unifying motivating forces too- and they can generate money, as Thomas a Becket's shrine at Canterbury did, and the Pilgrimage to Compostella...

Of course, the money had to come from somewhere. The pilgrimages may have juiced the economies of Canterbury and towns on the road to Canterbury, but the pilgrims could have spent thier dough on coffee and cigarettes, or their time inventing a better catapult, or the telescope...

Originally posted by molly bloom

On the other hand, as the ruinous Thirty Years' War shows, they can cause the wrecking of economies, devastate agriculture and whole cities and cause populations to revert to cannibalism to survive.

Cannibalism might be a bit extreme for the game, but it would seem relevant to incorporate the religion concept into diplomacy, in a way that can be unifying, but also has the potential to cause hostility. The role of religion (organized at least) in international conflict is universally recognized at this point, is it not?

Actually, this could be interesting -- if there were a "non religious" option, you might find yourself alone in the world with all other civs adopting some religion different from yours, and thereby generating hostility towards you. That would be an argument for adopting a religion -- perhaps the religion of the most powerful civ on the planet. Eerie...

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think there are two major disadvantages to having a State religion, within Civ4. The first is that it will be very rare indeed to have a nation with a completely homogeneous religious belief. From what I understand, adopting a State religion which is different to those of individual cities will cause unhappiness within those cities-until at least Freedom of Religion is adopted (which, I think, represents the state adopting a 'Secular Humanism' approach, where all religions are treated fairly equally).
The other major disadvantage is that your state religion will have an impact on your relations with other civs. Again, as I understand it, having friendly relations with civs with a different state religion to you will be quite difficult-particularly if you are a theocratic state. I get the feeling that this disadvantage too will be reduced (or eliminated) by the adoption of 'Freedom of Religion'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.