New Religion Ideas - Well if its still possible to make suggestions.

[beyowulf]

Been going over the religion ideas. About the ideas for a one true religion, perhaps one of the ways of identifying it would be a higher than normal conviction level. Also, a religion's 'stats' would be unknown to the player unless investigated, or maybe they would be gradually become known over time.

Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions, and thus there is more graft and corruption. This might make subverting the city easier as well.

[C0ckney]

Hmmm,
not sure if I like the idea of the one true religion (Think how un-pc that would be),

Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife

Any thoughs on this?

------------------
Cockney used to be schizophereic but we'er ok now

[beyowulf]

>>
Hmmm,
not sure if I like the idea of the one true religion (Think how un-pc that would be),
>>

Well I suppose it could be an toggleable option.

>>
Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
>>

Well I think it could start in a city, but perhaps also with the chance to spread nationally, or even globally, independent of national borders.

>>
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife
>>

Well the possiblity to have more than one religion in a city should be distinct possibility.

Also one thing I forgot to add earlier. Also one thing to add, if a nation tries to tamper with a religion(i.e.change it attributes, like change a religion that encourages militarism, into one that favors pacifism(sp?) than if successful changed, the religions evangelism and conviction stats are lowered, thus making it less likely to spread, and make it adherents easier to be converted.


------------------

[Maniac]

Hey, I'm one of the makers of the religion model and I don't recall us ever talking about a 'one true religion' you should discover. Where have you found this idea in the List v2? Or is it an idea discussed somewhere else?

And why would atheists not think about the long-term consequences of their actions?? You're on the edge of personally offending me.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited May 06, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

I think that Religion should influence how much a Civ likes your reign. Example: If a city is 90% Islamic and it's under a dominatingly Christian society it may feel very strongly about joining a Civ that is majority Islamic. Maybe it can lessen the money needed to subvert a city.

Along with this, new unit - "missionary". A priest that visits other cities and converts a certain percent of the pop. to the religion you choose. (Constrain: doesn't work on a civ under a fundy gov.) Any thoughts on this?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 04-29-2000 01:21 PM Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions

This puzzles me.Just because someone is an atheist they dont care about how what they do affects the future???
They all live from day to day and dont care about how their actions affect their family or friends or others???
I'm sure if you think about that statement,it's not what you really meant...right?

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 02:19 PM I think that Religion should influence how much a Civ likes your reign. Example: If a city is 90% Islamic and it's under a dominatingly Christian society it may feel very strongly about joining a Civ that is majority Islamic.

Maybe if your civ is democratic or something similar,the city might also make a peaceful petition to you as the leader stating that they wish to become independent or join another civ,and if you refuse,maybe tensions might rise and their would be the threat of a revolt.
As far as the missionary unit goes,it could be interesting.But I think certain types of governments would consider it a threat to their national security if someone was to send a missionary onto their territory to try and "convert" their citizens.(Imagine christian missionaries going into communist China during the reign of Mao).

[beyowulf]

Hey, I'm one of the makers of the religion model and I don't recall us ever talking
>>
about a 'one true religion' you should discover. Where have you found this idea in the List v2? Or is it an idea discussed somewhere else?
>>

Was on one of the lists, forget which.

>>
And why would atheists not think about the long-term consequences of their actions?? You're on the edge of personally offending me.
>>

Okay, let me rephase. I think there would be less incentive to, say, -not- take a bribe, or be corrupt. If your not caught at it, the damage will be to society, not you, and in another few decades you'll be dead, and it won't be your problem anymore, anyway. A religious person would probably think more about how his religion views his actions, and the long-term consequence, how it would affect society.

Better?

[OrangeSfwr]

DanM ~ They have been since before 1800s. :-) (Replying to Christian Missionaries to China)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 06, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better?

No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there.

- MKL

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 11:11 PM DanM ~ They have been since before 1800s. :-)

I realize that maybe I should re-phrase.
Christian missionaries going to a place like China can be a very dicy proposition,given the fact that 99.99999% of the population isn't christian or maybe even never heard of the christian faith.The people and maybe even the government may not take kindly to foreigners coming to their country and telling them that what they have believed for the last who knows how many thousand years is wrong.(my grandmother happens to know christian missionaries who went there).
I personally think they have no business going there,but that's just my opinion.


[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 09, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

quote:

Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM
Better?



No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there.

Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder.

By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-07-2000 06:21 PM quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better? No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there. Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder. By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

You mean like this Beyowulf? It's called "reply with quote" (upper right side of the original post). I don't think that athiests have no morals and I feel that is what he is getting at. Athiests aren't always the hellraising devil worshipers that religious propoganda makes them out to be. They are more likely than not people who simply wish not to associate with one particular religion. It may be against their personal beliefs and such...



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[OrangeSfwr]

My opinion as well. But it has been an intrical part of history. The Christian's "showed the light of the one true God" to the New world and the far east. All though it wasn't overy liked by government it was a big part of the spread of religion and ideas.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

First of all, consider me agnostic (as far as I understand the meaning of the word), rather than an atheist.

Yes, you've pretty much guessed why I think your statement is a bit dodgy. Saying that aethiests are more succeptable to corruption is a huge over-generalisation based on little more than an assumption.

It's probably as bad as if I suggested that religious citizens in Civ should be more likely to be invloved in suicide cults like the one in Africa that recently locked 300 odd people in a building and set it ablaze without half of their consent.

Both statements would be very dodgy. You wouldn't like me assuming that you might join a suicide cult because you are (I assume) religious (not that I'm assuming you're about to join a cult), just the same as I don't like you assuming that I might be more open to corruption than you because I'm not religious.

If we get right down to it, perhaps there would be a very minor swing towards religious people in the first example, and a very minor swing towards aethiests in the second, but it is (if anything) minor, and not worth representing in Civ. Far too easy to offend people.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 08, 2000).]