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

[OrangeSfwr]

Islam is a peaceful religion, like any other. But the radicals read into the Koran (Islamic bible) and it tells them to perform a Jihad against other religions. While it is true that Islam encourages the forecful spread of religion (through tounge, sword, heart, and another one which I can not remember) some Muslims take this to the extreme. The sword part applies to the middle ages, not really today (the way I see it anyway) But those Muslims who are marters and die for their religion are basically told that they will recieve the best after life. That is why they do it.

But back to the topic...you said that with less and less possibility to be caught, an athiest will be more likely to commit a corrupt act. THAT APPLYS TO ANYONE, religious or not! I don't know where you are going with this but I have yet to see anything that supports your point.

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

[Par4]

I don't know if that person really believed in god and believe god sees all but most people don't take that too much too heart(or they wouldn't do sinful stuff). It would be nice if everyone had convinctions but most don't and human nature takes over.

Atheist
Hmm no one around Ill take that 20

Theist
Hmm no one around Ill take that 20

Maybe the Pope wouldn't but many{all} average Christians or Jews would take the money.(like I said I don't know many Buddhists/ Muslims/ Hindus)

Is it me or is this thread getting really old??

Corruption needs to be the same for all people regardless of {no} religion. Only laws and strict police, maybe society taboos(maybe) could lower corruption.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[OrangeSfwr]

i agree with Par and yes this thread is getting pointless. We need to keep corruption the same for all religions. You're just going to offend people any other way.

So lets either bring up a new idea about Religions in Civ 3, or just close the thread...

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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 10:57 AM i agree with Par and yes this thread is getting pointless. We need to keep corruption the same for all religions. You're just going to offend people any other way.

Okay.

quote: So lets either bring up a new idea about Religions in Civ 3, or just close the thread...

How about the other ideas I brought up. As in a government successfully trying to influence a religion, will lower the conviction of that religion. Also conversions made by the sword should start off with a very low conviction. Also a little mild government persecution should do wonders to raise a religion's conviction level. Too much persecution, and you'll have citizens dying off.

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-14-2000 02:01 PM How about the other ideas I brought up. As in a government successfully trying to influence a religion, will lower the conviction of that religion. Also conversions made by the sword should start off with a very low conviction. Also a little mild government persecution should do wonders to raise a religion's conviction level. Too much persecution, and you'll have citizens dying off.

I think I see what you're saying but not sure...tell me if this is right...

Civ A and Civ B

Civ A is a religion (X) and Civ B is a religion (Y)

Civ A influences Civ B that religion X is better than religion Y. So Civ B has less conviction that religion Y is correct.

???

Was that right, if not please explain. And if it was, I like it. But needs a unit (I think). My missionary unit that I'm pretty sure I brought up in this thread, would be good there. Missionaries similar to western religious 'expansion' into Far east. What do you think?

But again, we'll come back to the fact that you can't just choose one religion for your civ, it just isn't accurate.


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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 02:43 PM I think I see what you're saying but not sure...tell me if this is right... Civ A and Civ B Civ A is a religion (X) and Civ B is a religion (Y)

Wasn't quite thinking that. More like, if a nation has a large population of a particular religion, but lets say the religion encourage war, for instance, but the government favors peace. If government were to successfully change this, so that its more in line with the governments policies, the religion's conviction level would decrease.

[OrangeSfwr]

Would the opposite also be true (religion influences government? A democracy with a majority of very activly religious people who wish to spread the religion in a war like fashion can change the government to Fundamentalism?) So far: I like it

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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-15-2000 11:26 PM Would the opposite also be true (religion influences government? A democracy with a majority of very activly religious people who wish to spread the religion in a war like fashion can change the government to Fundamentalism?) So far: I like it

It might, but the government might think its owed a favor by the religion. Probably make it easier for the government to influence the religion, though. Hmm..if the government acceeds to lots of demands by the religion, then there would probably less resistance to changes the government would try to make. Maybe some sort of cumulative bonus.

[abuzayd]

Ok, first-time post for me...

I just finished reading the rather extensive proposal for religion in Civ3, and I think there are a lot of great possibilities there. As both a civ-fan and a student training to be a historian of religion, this is a feature I've been wanting a long time.

I fear that the religion model as it was presented is perhaps already too complicated to be implemented (even though I would love to have a fully baroque model with all sorts of possibilities...) Nonetheless, I'll throw in a couple of ideas that I had:

(1) what about "myth," "scripture," etc. A lot of religions are remembered for their foundational narratives. I wonder if it would be possible for a civilization to "build" a myth (perhaps as a WONDER?) Maybe "building" a myth in a particular city would allow a civ to establish more than one "sacred city" (since the city figures prominently in the myth, it would become a pilgrimage site).

(2) The "schism" model in the outline is really cool -- but should it maybe be tied circumstances within particular religions rather than, or at least in addition to, the decisions of civ rulers? Some schisms surely are the result of political decisions (i.e. the establishment of the Anglican church), while others seem to revolve around issues more pertinent to the religion itself (transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation... etc.)

(3) I hope that I am not offending any true believers here, but in from a historical point of view, no religion just comes out of nowhere... If a religion model included "types" of religions (rather than just names, ie Yahooism) when prophets "arise" in a given city (incidentally, this "Weberian model" is only one way religions comes into existence), maybe the type of religion they preach should be determined by being the *opposite* of the religion that is already dominant in the city: if a city is mostly Chinese Monotheism, the prophet would preach Chinese Polytheism, or what have you.

(4) "Axial Age": there is a theory that ca. 600 BCE there occured a shift in worldview throughout the Eurasian culture sphere, one that is reflected in (within 2 century span or so) the rise of Plato, the Buddha, the classical Israelite prophets, Zoroaster. Whether the theory of the "axial age" is sound or not, it might be cool to have something like this as a random event (say, for two or three turns, the chance of prophets appearing in cities increases?)

Ok enough... any comments?

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by abuzayd on 05-17-2000 01:06 PM (4) "Axial Age": there is a theory that ca. 600 BCE there occured a shift in worldview throughout the Eurasian culture sphere, one that is reflected in (within 2 century span or so) the rise of Plato, the Buddha, the classical Israelite prophets, Zoroaster. Whether the theory of the "axial age" is sound or not, it might be cool to have something like this as a random event (say, for two or three turns, the chance of prophets appearing in cities increases?)

Okay, if I am reading you right, then there should be at time, perhaps randomly chosen, in which a lot of different religion spring into existence? Fine with me, might make for some religious competition in a particular city.

[raingoon]

abuzayd -- THank You! Speaking on behalf of the many who worked on that religion model, it's great to see such a well thought commentary. A lot of it was common sense and debate. Your knowledge on the subject is a welcome relief.

I think your suggestions are compelling. Though I'm sure it's accurate to history, I don't know if antithetical religions springing up in cities is necessary. It might complicate things.

You mentioned your suspicion the model as it stands is too complicated to be implemented. I'd like to see your thoughts on a version that would NOT be too complicated, as I too would very much like to see religion modeled in the game... Excellent comments.

raingoon
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 18, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

Some other stuff I've just been recently(read, 'this evening') thinking of...

Superstition & Magic
Superstition is an attack on an enemy religion. Works by introducing numerous pointless, but easy follow rules, and or rituals, these provide a sense of security for there adherents and feel less compelled to follow the main tenets of their religion, thus canceling out any benefits the religion provides and possibly excerbating any negatives.

Magic is a condition where the regular populace of a nation no longer understands the technology that sustains it, it is thus viewed as magic. Research ceases or is slowed.

Oh and another I just thought of, Red Tape, similar to Superstition(heh) in method rather than effect. Works either on production, or maybe economy, by slowing, or halting it.

Some ways of implementing it. Not sure, perhaps these can be options availible to some units. Sort of similar to SMAC probe team.

However, the effects should not be instantanious, perhaps taking place only over a number of years.

Whatya think?

[OrangeSfwr]

I don't think it goes with Civs theme. Sounds a little like Populous. That's just my opinion. I look at Civ as a history game, not a fantasy game.

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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-18-2000 09:58 PM I don't think it goes with Civs theme. Sounds a little like Populous. That's just my opinion. I look at Civ as a history game, not a fantasy game.

Yeah, but I am not talking about fantasy here. Go over the post a little more carefully next time.

[abuzayd]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-18-2000 03:01 AM You mentioned your suspicion the model as it stands is too complicated to be implemented. I'd like to see your thoughts on a version that would NOT be too complicated, as I too would very much like to see religion modeled in the game... [This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 18, 2000).]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there's no real agreement (here I'm not talking of the religion in civ proposition, but in more general terms) about why religions exist, and how they affect societies. Some would hold that religion is really just something that people use to explain society -- particularly in its more unappealing qualities -- so as to keep people happy. (The old Marxist "opium of the masses" adage.) Others think the exact opposite, that the institutions, material culture, even technology of a civilization are really expressions of that society's values and world-views, etc.

A further problem is the question of whether "religion" and "civilizations" are equivalent. Here it gets really complicated: in the case of Christianity or Judaism, you have many different political units professing the same religion. But the first couple of centuries of Islam, for example, politics and religion where pretty much inseperable -- the Caliph was not only the political ruler of the Islamic empire, he was also the heir of the Prophet's mantle.

As a 4X game, Civ tends to equate civilization with culture with political dominance with geographic distribution. My "civilization" is a bunch of cities that are all the same color, pretty much. How one can include something like religion, which may (or may not) be equated with a particular political entity, and do it in a way that remains playable, is a question indeed.

I was thinking last night that maybe it would work to have an interface for religion that looked sort of like the city screen. That is, the player "establishes" a religion like he founds a city; the religion gets resources (perhaps determined by the number of adherants to the religion, the number of temples, etc.) sort of like cities, and the religion can use those resources to "build" various things: myths, religious personalities, doctrines, etc. The availability of those things would be determined by the tech tree (example: in order for a religion to "build" the improvement "Scriptures," the civ. would have to have discovered "writing.") These religion advances might have different effects, including increasing the religions ability to attract new followers ("evangelism"), allowing a religion to declare jihâd, etc.

The problem is how to make these religions accessible to other civilizations, which I think is pretty important. Maybe religions function "autonomously" (sort of like Governor mode in SMAC) until a civ develops the technology to control it ("Theology"?). But what if two powers are struggling to control the same religion?

Looking back over this I realize that, while I started by thinking about a way of simplifying the model, I ended up just making it more complicated!

Well, as long as it's better than the way it's treated in Civ II ("now I'm a Polytheist, I think I'll go build some Elephant units..." ) I'll be happy.