RELIGION in Future Civilization Games

[Panag]

hi ,

there is the religious trait in the game , if we should get anything improved then it should be more traits instead of different religions , .....

who knows , maybe civ IV , .....

have a nice day

[Azeem]

Re: Re: RELIGION in Future Civilization Games

Originally posted by Flamegrape

That is very, very debateable. I don't subscribe to that belief. I think the egyptians themseles built their own pyramids.

Actually, Flamegrape, you are very right. It has been found that the builders of MOST Egyptian monuments were done by the Egyptians themselves. They were conscripted citizens. They even had the ability to protest working conditions. At one point, a group of workers, angry that they weren't being paid on time, went on strike, causing the Pharaoh to force the overseer to pay the workers.

However, there MIGHT have been some instances where slaves were used. It is (though it's not confirmed) a possibility that during the reigns of Seti and Ramses II, the Hebrews were made slaves.


M. le Comte, judging by your post, I assume you know of Mircea Eliade and his views on that "religion" is a response to the "sacred".


Panag, I agree that the traits need a good overhaul. They need to be a bit deeper and better defined.

And Have a Nice Day to you too.

[Greetings]

Re: Re: RELIGION in Future Civilization Games

Originally posted by Flamegrape

That is very, very debateable. I don't subscribe to that belief. I think the egyptians themseles built their own pyramids.

You are correct, of course. The majority of the work to build the pyramids was done by volunteers from the Egyptian populace.

I have read, though, that some of the work is credited to Hebrew slaves.

Someone at GameFAQs did bring this to my attention (plus a lot of other "mistakes" in my post), so I apologize.

EDIT: It's been brought to my attention, recently, that there are no written records of slaves constructing the pyramids. I apologize. I must have been mistaken.

[M. le Comte]

Re: Re: Re: RELIGION in Future Civilization Games

Originally posted by Azeem

M. le Comte, judging by your post, I assume you know of Mircea Eliade and his views on that "religion" is a response to the "sacred".

Not only Mircea Eliade, but also Max Weber, Seiler...

I think this difference between "(established) religion" and the "sacred" could helpfuly mark the frontier between what is implemented in the game, and what is not.

I do not think that putting the names of "our" world's religions would add anything. Our religions are interesting in the game because of their human organisation [including rituals (happiness), myths (culture), weltanschauungen (conception of the world), hierarchies, political dogmas and secular prescriptions], not because of their identity.

As well, we could separate ideologies from governments. Communism is an ideology, like liberalism, faschism or nationalism. These are not ways of government. Ideologies and religions work in the same when used by politicians. In many former communist countries of central asia, religion fondamentalism has replaced official ideology, and religion is used in the same way as ideology was by governments.

Nationalism in Civ3 is to my mind a good example of the way ideologies/religions could be implemented in the game.

We would then have three government types:
- monarchy (one man, despotism, monarchy and communism in civ3), oligarchy (several men, republic in civ3) and democracy.

Then several organisations types, with good and bad chararteristics for each:
- clans (former Afghanistan), feodalism (westren european middle-age), empire (roman), centralised state (France, Nederland, Russia...), federalism (Germany, USA...)...

Then the ideologic/religious political support:
- Theocraty (the leader is the voice of God), Divine right monarchy (leader is king by the will of God), leninism (the leader is headspearing the revolution), nationalism...

Perhaps also an economical organisation:
- bartering, liberalism, communism....
but this could be mixed with the political ideologies/religions for simplification.

It would add a simple and great depth to the game.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azeem

That's why religions should be nameless and completely customizeable as your civilization progresses through the ages.

That's a fair rebuttal. I'd like to have a civ of Elvis Worshippers or Satanists.

I always hated the priest and bureaucrat units from CTP though. I spent more time beating back those than having fun (I hate that dumb*** with the desk - that is not a gaming piece ).

I suppose culture does this in the current game. People whom you awe take on your culture.

[Mr. President]

I think it'd be interesting, but a little controversial.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Mr. President
I think it'd be interesting, but a little controversial.

That's why no real world religions should be included. I like the idea of a "create your own civ's religion". It still could be controversial, but less so than adding our real world religions. Religion, like politics, is a touchy subject for most people. The designers would have to really put some thought into how to make it work and not set off a firestorm.

Originally posted by Agathon
I'd like to have a civ of Elvis Worshippers.

Ha ha, I love that one!

[Dr. A. Cula]

Originally posted by Rhothaerill
My personal views on religion in Civ tend to follow the others. It is a good option to have and could give depth to the game, but I don't think any "real world" religions should be added. Religion is a senstive topic for most people (me included, though this isn't the forum for that) and including real world religions could create a backlash that no one wants.

I think you have a point there. A lot of people might be upset that their favourite religion, while present in the game, has not been depicted according to their personal view of it. On the other hand, other people may be upset to see abstract religions depicted in the game, but THEIR favourite religion.


Hail Caesar: Yes, I had some free time then. What's your excuse?

[Panag]

hi ,

an idea , we could use the traits , there should be 4 - six new traits , a combination of traits would lead to different " religions " , for example , fundamentalism and religious would destroy all religous buildings an they would build new ones at a cheaper price , ......

nationalism and religious would lead to " orthodox " and they would take over buildings and get the culture from it also , ......

some civs should have three traits , others only two , ....

this would lead to a unique number of traits for each civ , .....

with 32 civs and who knows how many more on the way at least 4 new trait are needed , .....

Firaxis , .....

have a nice day

[ktaek]

I think you're confusing religion with politics.

There's nothing in Egyptian mythology that would religiously validate or encourage the enslavement of a completely unknown tribe of people. Egypt was imperialistic; they conquered.

At the time, remember Christianity was just a cult in the Roman Empire. What's a cult? Any religion that clashes with the religion of the establishment. Cult = unhappy face, you quell it.

The great schism was all driven by politics since by that point the pope was an extremely political figure.

The crusades were just more imperialism. If all those middle eastern countries were a sect of christians, they would have just declared war based on that sect being blasphemous.

Religion has mostly been used as a tool to condone and sanctify political actions by unscrupulous people.

I don't think the various religions have interesting gameplay on a Civ level. Do protestants produce more shields than baptists? Do pagans research slower than jews?

In order to make religion interesting, you'd have to start making some judgements about the world's religions and that's a dangerous and totally subjective area.

[Panag]

Originally posted by ktaek
I think you're confusing religion with politics.

There's nothing in Egyptian mythology that would religiously validate or encourage the enslavement of a completely unknown tribe of people. Egypt was imperialistic; they conquered.

At the time, remember Christianity was just a cult in the Roman Empire. What's a cult? Any religion that clashes with the religion of the establishment. Cult = unhappy face, you quell it.

The great schism was all driven by politics since by that point the pope was an extremely political figure.

The crusades were just more imperialism. If all those middle eastern countries were a sect of christians, they would have just declared war based on that sect being blasphemous.

Religion has mostly been used as a tool to condone and sanctify political actions by unscrupulous people.

I don't think the various religions have interesting gameplay on a Civ level. Do protestants produce more shields than baptists? Do pagans research slower than jews?

In order to make religion interesting, you'd have to start making some judgements about the world's religions and that's a dangerous and totally subjective area.

hi ,

who is confusing politics with religion , ...

have a nice day

[CobraA1]

Not a good idea, IMHO.

[Blaupanzer]

Religion as happy faces is in the game. To go beyond that you would need benefits and penalties associated with each religion or religious type -- see Dracula's post. I don't think this is an area where introducing the trait adds to the learning value. It WILL precipitate flame wars about the selected solution.

Firaxis would gain more ou of separating the economic systems from the political systems and having them interact than they will gain from the intoduction of religion beyond the level currently represented.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer

Firaxis would gain more ou of separating the economic systems from the political systems and having them interact than they will gain from the intoduction of religion beyond the level currently represented.

I agree. However different types of religions (polytheist, monotheist...) and different states of research in theology could be implemented as ideologies are (nationality).

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer

Firaxis would gain more ou of separating the economic systems from the political systems and having them interact than they will gain from the intoduction of religion beyond the level currently represented.

I agree. However different types of religions (polytheist, monotheist...) and different states of research in theology could be implemented too as ideologies are (nationality).