RELIGION (ver1.0): Hosted by Stefu

[CormacMacArt]

I am also a gun-toating, anti-american Bible-believing, conservative, born-again, Christian. Sorry about the first part, I can be very sarcastic, but I am the latter 4. I was going to suggest:

Use actual religions.
Give them BASIC qualities (evangelistic/not, militant/pacifist, tolerant/not; -1,0,1 as in Civ2)
Let them develop on their own, but a civ can create its own religion (maybe restrict it to emperer-[sp?] worship?)
Give each religion its own AI, and ways to interact with the different civs.

I think if value judgements are left out of the programming, everyone will be happy.

So, rocks or roses?

[Trachmyr]

Nix...

If you go with historical religions, do NOT script it to historical progression and spreading of religons. I do not want my Celtic Civilization becoming christian (from Druidism) unless I am conqueroed by the Romans. But then would you (no one in particular, you as in the reader) be willing to accept your civ if a random religion can develop within it? Especially if you are pre-disposed to a particular religion, or baisised against the one that appears?

Let us design religions, through use of Clergy generating DOGMA for that religion. We can name it, and give it attributes that we feel it deserves.

The argument that leaders have no control over which religions develop or how they evolve is ENTIRELY wrong. Leaders did just that, either by acceptance/persuction, propaganda, slight changes in interpertaions, and out-right manipulation (Do you really think that the Egyptian Pharohes had nothing to do with that whole "We are gods thing"?).

You can impose riots, religious revolutions, ect. for those who play god to frequently or with out subtlty.

One final note, Leaders weren't the ones (usually) who named cities, or game or decided (especially in the late game) what structures to build... we are given that control because we are above "leader" level, we are sculpters, we (like the active hands of destiny) shape our civs at levels no leader ever did or ever could. Religion is yet another componet of destiny for civs, and we should be able to sculpt that as well.

[CormacMacArt]

I agree that kings (and even modern politicians) use(d) religion on some level to furthur their own agenda. The Holocaust is a great example of that. Hitler used "christianity" to attempt to destroy the Jewish people, but planned to destroy Christianity afterwards. So, I would agree with giving each leader the ability to use a religion to its own end, but give them (except state-run religion, and I guess this means you would be able to take a world religion and make it state-run within your empire), that is, the world religions, their own AI and agendas. That way if you want to eliminate Christian missionaries to the Celts, you persecute them, but how successful will you be?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, just as my two cents, I don't think religion itself should be modeled, just it's effects. As in, we don't care what your religion is, but how strongly do you believe in it? How fiercely will you defend it? How tolerant is your government of it? I think the last of those should be what you choose in social engineering, and the others are determined by your populace in response to your social engineering settings.

[Eggman]

Bell, you might be onto something.

Even religions with very minor differences (see Romand Catholic vs. Protestant) have been party to serious conflicts, many of them insanely stupid. Maybe it isn't as important what the civ's religion is, just that it is different enough and the people are willing to fight for it (or not). That probably could be pulled off without having to use real names or dogma. Of course, this loses some of the value of religion and probably could just be merged into an ethnicity trait (which BETTER be in this game).

This has proven a very interesting topic.

[Aharon Ben Rav]

Here's an idea for religion. It is a simple one, as I have found that most of the ideas on these suggestions boards are unrealistically complex and unlikely to actually be used in Civ III.

Let us assume for the moment that "social engineering" will exist in Civ III similar to SMAC - in other words, you will change not only government types but also economic models, religions, etc. What religion your society follows will effect science rates, happiness, support of units, economics, etc.

With these assumptions, there is no need to name actual religions. Instead, you offer a number of different religious categories which represent actual religion as it has developed over time. Notice I say developed, not progressed. Many of us belive in religions which are near the middle of this list. I may have too many here, but I'm thinking the following:

ANAMISM -- The initial setting, representing tribal American and African religions.
POLYTHEISM -- Hinduism, for example.
PHILOSOPHICAL -- Confusicsim, Taoism - religion based on philosophy rather than worhsip. Would come with Philosophy.
MONOTHEISM -- Catholicism, Judaism, Islam
REFORMED -- A more scientific version of monotheism which makes less people happy but leads to more science. Protestantism, Reform Judaism, etc. New tech advance "The Reformation."
FUNDAMENTALISM -- a more stringent version of monotheism. Leads to less science but more police powers and unit support. Represents religions like Iranian Shi'ism, American Evangelicalism, and Jewish Hasidism.
DEISM -- the one I'm not sure we need, it represents the halfway point between REFORMED and our next choice... and represents the ideals of Jefferson and Franklin, for example.
ATHEISM -- The most scientific, but may create happiness problems as people become hedonists.

Notice that with this system, the Fundamentalist government choice is no longer existant. It would be replaced with a government choice "Theocracy," which would be similar to Fundamentalism in Civ II but cannot be chosen if your religion is ANAMISM, PHILOSOPHICAL, REFORMED, DEISM, or ATHEISM. They also might want to create a bonus for choosing both the Theocracy government choice and the Fundamentalism religious choice.

I think it is also a good idea, like SMAC, to make governments which have differing religious views more likely to have wars, and governments with more "advanced" religions like MONOTHEISM and FUNDAMENTALISM are more likely to send "spy" units (or a unit like CTP's Cleric) to try to stir civil wars in cities of Civilizations with earlier religions. This would represent missionary work, a very important historical movement throughout time.

Aharon Ben Rav

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Aharon Ben Rav writes:
What religion your society follows will effect science rates, happiness, support of units, economics, etc.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing that could get Firaxis in serious hot water . . . that and, who's to say what effects each religion would have?

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

[Aharon Ben Rav]

Bell writes:

"I think this is exactly the kind of thing that could get Firaxis in serious hot water . . . that and, who's to say what effects each religion would have?"

I think you missed my point, Bell. The religions represent classes of religious beliefs which have been existant at different times. Actual names of actual religions would not be used. Therefore nobody should be offended.

As far as "who's to say what effects each religion would have?" the answer is the Firaxis developers. But I think it can be easily accepted that, for example:

1) Atheistic societies show a quicker development of science, but less happiness because "the great questions of the universe" go unanswered and life lacks structure.
2) Fundamentalist religions have very little scientific development but have an enormous morale boost.
3) Temples have a greater effect in polytheistic or monotheistic religions than they do in anamist religions because of a greater organizational effect of having specific gods (or one god) to worship.

As I said, these are just examples. But I would not want to see the names of actual religions used in the game under any circumstances.

Aharon Ben Rav

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think it matters if you use real names or not, everybody knows that Christians are monotheistic, and Ancient Greeks were Polytheistic, etc. People will still realize that you're talking about their or their friends religion. I even got a little momentary twinge when you talked about Atheists being less happy, and I'm not particularly religious or easy to offend. Not that I particularly care, but I noticed it.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 25, 1999).]

[MBrazier]

On Aharon Ben Rav's list of religion types:

I think that the four types ANIMISM, POLYTHEISM, PHILOSOPHY, and MONOTHEISM pretty much cover the ground; REFORMED and FUNDAMENTALIST are just variations of monotheism, and DEISM/ATHEISM is a variant of philosophy. If you start with those four basic types and add two scales -- one for "degree of faith", and one for "toleration of infidels" -- then you've said as much about religion as needs to be said, for game purposes.

Though if you want to be _really_ complete, there is one missing basic type. Call it DIABOLISM -- representing the really vicious cults and mythologies, ones that involved mass human sacrifice for instance. The Aztec state religion is the classic real-world example. Game effects of such religions would of course be mostly bad; you'd want to root them out as fast as possible.

[Giant Squid]

Adding my input:

I. How religion works

Religions spontaneously appear in cities. For example, I cold be hapilly worshipping Judaism one turn when I get a message that Christianity has been founded in Jerusalem. Firaxis will give a "growth statistic" to every religion. If Christianity has a growth rate of, say, 5, and Judaism one of 4, then Christianity will slowly displace Judaism in my empire, starting from where it was founded and slowly reaching new cities. I can elect to stop its growth by persecuting it like Stefu said, which will maybe make it a bit less appealing to people. Also, there might be some innate resistance based on the amount of time people have been worshipping Judaism in my empire. If it's a very new thing, then it will be easy for faster-growing Christianity to replace it. If it's been practiced faithfully for thousands of years, it may be so ingrained in the minds of my citizens that Christianity will have to spread somewhere else, like in Greece. As it grows, the religion Christianity will become almost like a minor civilization. It will have a capital in its oldest city (which can be moved), and might conduct negotiations with you (say, capture this city for the Church and they'll give you some gold.) You can shut down the official centers of religion, but it isn't going to make your people all that happy. It also might strain relations between you and the other Christian powers.

II. The effects of religion

Each religion would have various benefits. Firstly, the effectiveness of temples and cathedrals (or whatever their equivalent is in Civ3) might depend on your religion. A Buddhist, who believes in moderation and a humble setting, would get signifacantly less happy from a grand cathedral than, say, a pagan who feels he must honor the gods. Some religions could have small effects on science or even trade (become a Scientologist state and watch your gold shoot straight up ) Additionally, if you can keep good relations with the Church (or organized Islam, or the Greek Gods), your people might get a benefit in fighting "heathen"

III. Various suggestions

Animism: Your whole civilization has this at the start. It doesn't do anything special. Growth-1

Paganism: Might generate itself after you discover something about equivalent to Mysticism. Slightly better than Animism, and spreads a bit faster. Pagans get large benefits from their temples. Growth-3

Judaism: May generate after monotheism. Gets a small science bonus. Growth-3

Christianity: Might generate in a Jewish city after (?). Bonuses include a very strong central orgaization and high growth rate.
Growth-6

Islam: Generates in a Jewish or Christian city after (?) Maybe a very small science bonus as well as some military plus.
Growth-4.5

Buddhism- Generates in an advanced city that hasn't discovered monotheism. Gives some bonus to luxuries or happiness, but a minus to military. Growth-3.75

Atheism-Comes after development of Age of Reason or something. Increases science by quite a bit and makes you not have to worry about keeping organized religion happy, but religious states don't really like you. Growth-3.5

Of course, you can persecute, encourage, or just destroy any religion you want, if you're prepared to accept any penalties.

------------------
Invertebrates of the world, UNITE! Don't just be a bunch of spineless....ah....never mind
<=O=&gt=E

[Stefu]

Some additions to list of Squidboy:

Maniceanism - random religion that unifies the good sides of existing religions. However likely to be persecuted as heresy. Growth 2.

Mithraism - Followers get militarity bonus. However efficiency suffers: This is more of secret society than religion. This will spread quickly among Talents. Growth 2.5

Confucianism - This gives small bonuses to efficiency, military and science. However, it spreads efficiently only in the nation where it first came to life. This is religion of perfectionist, not expansionist. Growth:4.

I'd give Christianity 4, too. It's not that fast spreading.

Also, don't remember monetary gifts to increase growth rate. How about 30 golds per turn means +1 growth?

[NotLikeTea]

I am very opposed to any idea of giving particular religions, or types of religions, innate bonuses of any kind. Boo! Hiss! ;-)

Giving cristianity a bonus over judaism is essentially the same as saying that it is better, and that animism (still important in modern native culture) is the most primitive, and therefore the worst. Ug.. we don't want to be implying this.

No religions should have any innate bonuses. Period.

However, application of religion should. Religion in itself does not impede research. It is the application of the religion that might do so. Same with growth rate, millitancy, etc. Any religion has the potential to be millitant, or grow, or dislike research.

There is no reason why you cannot have a millitant animistic religion, or a fundamentalist athiest state, having "holy" wars with other groups.

I also hate with a vengance the idea of "diabolism" as a choice. Sure, allow sacrafices if you want (important in most religions, at one point or another, human, animal or otherwise (Buddhism leaves little bowls of rice, or a mirror for the drahlas)), but don't call it "diabolic". That's the name for religions we don't like.

Looking at real history for stats is a bad idea. The whole point of Civ is to let you replay history as you like. Having real religions is a bad idea, not only for the vicious arguments, but because it only serves to limit the player, not encourage creativity.

[Stefu]

Having real nations is a bad idea. Who is to say that Zulus were aggressive people? I object against using real nations. Better we stick with Blue, Green and Yellow.

[NotLikeTea]

I don't know if you're serious or making fun of me, but I agree, in part.

No civilization is agressive by nature saying so verges on racism.

However, a civilization can be agressive by culture. What determines culture? Past actions, and leaders. A civilization that fights a lot, and chooses agressive action becomes agressive. Who makes the civilization fight, and makes these decisions? The leaders.

If a civilization is going to be agressive, it should be because their leader (Shakka of the Zulu's) is an agressive leader. This would be a good factor to randomize. That way, you could have te agressive Zulu's under an agressive Shakka, or peaceful Zulu's under a different leader personlaity.

I discuss this in the civilizations list.