RELIGION (ver1.1) hosted by Stefu

[NotLikeTea]

I agree entirely.

"Religions" are a bad idea for Civ, since they imply that different types will have different effects.

However, I still think that it can be represented, in a sense of "Identity"

Just giving all cities a sense of identity. I'm not sure how, exactly, but cities would identify more closely with longtime owners than with foreign civs. Nationalism and xenophobia, controllable by the state. In the early days, this would model religious wars well, as people would want to return to their old civs. In this era most pollitical systems are more or less alike, and religion would be the explaining factor. later in the game, idealogies would be more important, once cold wars start popping up.

I don't think that this would insult anyone.

BTW, I never tried to censor paraclet. I have sent him a nice e-mail explaining the purpose of this thread, not as an advocacy forum for belief systems but as a thread to discuss ideas related to the game.

[paraclet]

THE OCTOPUSS your analysis is great but I think it is possible to include religion and atheism in civ 3 as long as they are equal or give equal advantage to the players. In a "religion and philosophy" option pannel the player should be able to choose a historically related trend like: Animism,Polythgeism,Induism,Judaism,Zoroastrism,Bu ddhism,Christianism,Moslem,Mormonism,
Atheism, and finally :custom deism where any religious minority can create it's own name without discrimination.
But what is very important and non discriminatory is that the result of choosing any of these options should give exactly the same advantages.I mean a temple, a church, a synagog a mosq and a theater should make exactly the same number of citizens happy.
About the wonders, in each choice a wonder should give the same advantage to all.
If the JS Bach cathedral make 2 or 3 citizen happy in each city, so should do the Big Mosq of Mecca, the great temple Jerusalem or the Mixed Public Bath for the atheist choice.
Even as a 100 % atheist I would accept to be treated equally at the beginning with other deist choices...
But the game should be historically correct.
I mean right now in civ 2 if you play well you can discover monotheism and build Cathedrals in 500 BC ...Wait a minute : Jesus was not born at this time !
So a Religious trend should be historically accurate.
That would be even more fun to play because it can be a little bit (not too much !)educationnal toward more respect between peoples of different religions.
For instance if you choose "christianity" you should be in a polytheistic civilisation until at least 33 ac...(100 ac should be better because before christianity didn't spread so much...
If you choose Moslem you should be also in a polytheistic civilisation until at least 500 ac , if you choose Buddhist until 500 bc etc...because a religion cannot appear before it's founder is born...
If you choose animist you are good forever and also if you choose Judaism or Induism which started well before 4000 bc...
A window should open during the game saying if you choose Christianity " Jesus is born...you can now choose Christianity".
Because religions are not scientific discoveries!!!
They are revealed by prophets or religion founders..It is stupid to have a team of scientists researching monotheism...It is a revelation occuring at a certain time by an individual being.
Like that the game is as fair as real life, a little bit educationnal,and respectfull for everybody...
And I forgot : if you choose atheist you can have an atheist building or wonder giving the same advantage as religious options, like, from the beginning of the game, theaters or mixed public baths instead oftemples, Stadiums instead of Cathedrals, The great Turk baths instead of JS Bach Cathedral
and sex shops or Play Boy television in the modern time.
But for sure the discovery of birth control , separating reproduction from pleasure should render all religions obsolete,all churches or equivalent sold like antidated barracks (like in Montreal where a lot of emptied churches are turned to supermarket...)
Then they should be replaced by Sex shops, and wonders like birth control centers and Play Boy Television.
And to avoid giving some advantages for those choosing "atheism" from the beginning when religion becomes obsolete (after the discovery of biology or electronic for instance...)theaters should become antidated as the churches and stadiums also, both replaced in modern age by cable TV and superstadiums.

[NotLikeTea]

I don't like the idea of the real religions, but you make a good point.

All of the modern wonders, especially the religious wonders are very western based. There are no mosques, synagogues, etc in Civ, but there is JS Bach's Cathedral, Michalangelo's Chapel, etc.. More variety would be nice..

I'm posting a similar message in the Wonders thread

[Saganaga Canoer]

Hey paraclet, why don't you keep your personal biases against religion out of this thread? (e.g., "like right now in real life churches are more and more empty and will desappear except in undevelopped countries...
").

These kinds of statements belong in the Off-Topic forum.

[Cartagia the Great]

Well tea, I have to disagree with you. Although you are correct that this would seem to say that religions have diffreant affects this is, in fact, the truth. Religions are meant to appeal to the population, in the population's envirmoment, but have been shown to ahve differant affects on differant people. There is no question about this, in my opinion. The TRUE pit fall we have to look out for making one religion better than another, like sayign that Monothiesm is more advanced than Paganism. What needs to be done is to show that some religions work better in differant enviroments, which is true.

[MBrazier]

I'll open with a comment from NotLikeTea:

"I'm not sure if this is your intention, but it looks like you are describing the official state religion of the USSR as Communism. By this logic, other nations have religions of Democracy, Capitalism, Monarchism, etc... No longer religion at all."

Communism is, I grant you, an odd case, as it was both a political system and a philosophy. The Soviet Union did indeed make Communism (as philosophy) into a "state religion"; the Communist Party had all the privileges that in prior centuries were accorded to a nation's established church. Moreover, the Party in other countries required professions of faith from its members, in the exact manner of a Christian church. I think it makes perfect sense to describe Communism as a religion.

Next I'll reply to that part of Octopus' critique which applies to my suggestions:

"Totally Generic Religions: You have Religion A, Religion B, and Religion C, not any specific ideologies. How is Atheism treated under this system? I'd wager that paraclet and a number of others would be rather upset at the notion that atheism is just another religion, lumping it in with superstitious belief, shamanism, or what have you... You also imply that religions are totally superficial, not grounded in reality. What does this system say about whether or not Jesus Christ was divine? Some people may be offended by not being able to pick their favored religion."

As I said at the start, I wished to model _only_ the effect of religion on politics. The model I gave, admittedly, abstracts away all the details of creeds, social habits, ethics, and so forth; it regards religions as popular opinions, without regard for their truth or falsity. But I did that because, historically, governments _have_ usually taken just that attitude towards religions, and in Civ you take the role of a government.

Religions do have deep effects on societies, beyond the superficial level I chose to model. But 1) modeling those effects would require a simulation of monstrous complexity and 2) you'd have to assume beforehand whether, and to what extent, each known religion was in line with reality -- which puts you right in the middle of religious controversy. I think we _can_ get by with a superficial view of religion in the game, where a deep one would be fatal.

"Now, as to gameplay: It seems like a lot of the suggestions here talk about religions happening 'behind the scenes' and 'beyond the player's control'. That, to me, is a recipe for a really frustrating and annoying game. Realism is no substitute for fun. Why is what is being proposed fun?"

For my own system, the "fun" element is with the Missionary unit -- sending missionaries into a civilization with a different state religion creates civil disorder, if the missionaries are at all convincing. Moreover the disorder continues even if the other civilization deports or kills your missionaries. (And of course the computer can pull the same trick on you -- fair's fair.) Missionaries make it possible to perform a long-term subversion of the enemy, without overtly attacking him.

Since the Octopus mentions Paraclet, let's see what he has to say:

"And I forgot : if you choose atheist you can have an atheist building or wonder giving the same advantage as religious options, like, from the beginning of the game, theaters or mixed public baths instead oftemples, Stadiums instead of Cathedrals, The great Turk baths instead of JS Bach Cathedral and sex shops or Play Boy television in the modern time."

Um... to tell you the truth, religious cultures can (and did) employ "bread and circuses" to settle their citizens. I envision the theater/stadium/television as a series of improvements quite separate from the temple/church/mosque set -- where the temple multiplies the happiness (or anger) springing from religion, the stadium would simply make a fixed number of citizens content. Civilizations with state religions would build temples and Missionaries to spread contentment; civilizations without state religions would have to divert trade into luxuries and build stadiums in which to hold regular public spectacles. To balance the game, the stadium option would be more expensive (per turn) than the temple option -- temples, remember, would depend on the extent of your state religion, which you could influence but not control.

[Eggman]

Just a quick comment. The Soviet Union really wasn't an atheistic civilization. Officially, they were atheistic but in reality, many (probably most) people practiced some sort of religion in private (often a very dangerous practice). Just because the government shuts down the Churches and declares that they are religion free doesn't make it so.

What I was looking for was a civilization that is VOLUNTARILY atheist as in the majority of people are atheists of their own free will. Tough one, eh?

[the Octopus]

paraclet: "I think it is possible to include religion and atheism in civ 3 as long as they are equal or give equal advantage to the players."

Let's see what somebody else has to say on the subject...

Fugi the Great (from <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000002.html?date=19:33>Social Engineering v1.0</a>): If a nation went truly atheist, the nation would self-destruct.

Which one of you gets the game you want, and which one is pissed off because Firaxis takes the other guy's side?

Saganaga Canoer: "Hey paraclet, why don't you keep your personal biases against religion out of this thread?"

This is exactly my point. You can't keep personal biases out of this. What you consider to be a "personal bias" (which I assume you mean with negative connotations), paraclet probably regards as established and self-evident fact.

"As I said at the start, I wished to model _only_ the effect of religion on politics."

But the implication to someone who doesn't see your little caveat but only sees the final game is that Firaxis regards religion as a completely sociological phenomenon, not a supernatural or philosophical one. I think plenty of deeply religous people would be mildly (or not so mildly) offended by that.

"Um... to tell you the truth, religious cultures can (and did) employ "bread and circuses" to settle their citizens." (responding to the notion that atheists can have just as much "contentment" as religious people)

Again, who is going to be happy with the resolution of this question?

Eggman: "Second, if someone could give me an example of an atheistic civ, I would appreciate it. I can't think of one. Without a historical basis, I don't think that the option really belongs in Civ. Atheist minorities perhaps, but no full-fledged atheist civs..."

Again, who is happy and who is screwed over?

There is very little, if any, benefit to including religion, and many, many problems. It's a bad idea.

[paraclet]

First Saganaga Canoer, it's my right as civ player to ask for the choice of an atheist choice in civ 3...As an atheist I went through the burden of building JS Bach cathedral for many years in order to win games...If you believe in god ,it's your freedom, but you cannot impose any more like in the inquisition time your choice to other peoples...I don't try to convert you...I am just giving exemple of real civilisations where churches are sold and become supermarkets and that the catholic pope is worried because every year there are fewer priests...That's to day's trend (and I cannot say that I am not very happy with it !)
MBrazier I totally agree with you that it's great to have the "weapon" of missionaries...Because it was indeed a weapon...The best colonisation weapon...And if the Incas and Aztecs have had an higher level of science they would'nt have been so easily conquered and destroyed...Like the Japanese had who were never conquered by western countries...
But it's great to use it as long as all religions (including atheist) can use missionaries.For atheist they should be renamed science teachers. Because more you are highly science educated and more it is difficult to make you believe in supernatural things like somebody walking on water or a piece of bread becoming human flesh...
So I like the concept of misionnaries as a tool to destabilise otrher states...But they should have equal power...Or if monotheists missionaries have a greater power than animist missionaries, so should have science teaching missionaries destroying suprestitious beliefs...In fact we can imagine like for militaries units, different power of attack for missionaries like 1 for animists, 2 for monotheists, and 4 for science teachers...
And Octopus, there is a huge exemple of an atheist civilisation : buddhist countries like India and many others.Because , like the Dalai Lama remebers to the world a few months ago on CNN : Buddhist is an atheist religion...There is no god in Buddhism...And it is indead a dominant religion based on self developpement and non violence.
Buddhist missionaries should be as powerfull as science teachers because their teaching never become obsolete...
And remember that the huge british colonisation army was thrown out of India by a non violent "missionary" :Gandhi...Who created massive non violent actions like general strikes...If we could incorporate that in civ 3 that would be great...May be some supermissionaries with the power to generate long national strikes...?

[NotLikeTea]

I agree that the JS Bach cathedral is a Human achievement. Since it is not a religious achievement, why is the wonder a cathedral? Could it be represented in another way?

I think that if there are Human achievements, they should be represented as such. If they are religious wonders, they should be divided up among religions.

BTW, I don't get the impression that anyone is angry here.. it's all a reasonable discussion of ideas.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited June 03, 1999).]</font>

[CormacMacArt]

To EnochF: If I find out which one, do I win?

To NotLikeTea: I have to say that paraclet has irritated me, and I am sure (strike that - KNOW) that I have irritated some people in this forum. I apologize for that.

[MBrazier]

Octopus says "But the implication to someone who doesn't see your little caveat but only sees the final game is that Firaxis regards religion as a completely sociological phenomenon, not a supernatural or philosophical one."

So put my caveat in the printed manual, as a footnote to the "how religions work" section. How hard is that?

Moreover: Civilization is a sociological _game_, not a philosophical one. A game that seriously tried to model the history of ideas wouldn't be Civilization or anything like it. What we want is a system that models the obvious effects realistically _and_ is simple enough to understand and manipulate.

Paraclet's latest suggestions are, um, peculiar to say the least (though I'm gratified to see he likes mine!) I see no reason to change the name of the Missionary unit for different faiths, and picking "science teachers" for the atheist missionaries suggests (offensively, and wrongly) that science has disproved the existence of God. In fact no natural science can even address a religious question; a scientist who speaks about religion speaks outside his field of expertise, and is no more an authority than you or I.

Paraclet's ideas about rating religious strengths are equally eccentric. I'll list a rough relative classification, based on my suggested rating system:

Evan. low, Conv. low -- the pagan religions of the ancient world. These often lacked the very concept of "conversion", and borrowed freely from each other when they met.
Evan. low, Conv. high -- Judaism is the only good example here; the Jews have historically stood by their faith under great pressures, but have never shown much interest in converting other people to it.
Evan. high, Conv. low -- religions that sweep rapidly through a population, but lack in staying power. Here I would put the odder Christian heresies, the Manicheans and Catharists for instance. Here also I would place the atheistic philosophies (be honest, now, Paraclet; has any version of atheism been held to for long, by many people?)
Evan. high, Conv. high -- Christianity and Islam, in all major variations. Here again the historical record is our basis; both Christianity and Islam spread out swiftly from their origin, and then persisted for many centuries thereafter.

Finally, to CormacMacArt: what do you mean by "city-based"? Each city, not each tile, holding a single religion? If so, how would you define the "neighbors" of a city?

[CormacMacArt]

Well, I like MBrazier's ideas (except I think that it should be city based).

atheism - 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (websters)

religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (websters)

I don't think that it is unreasonable to consider Atheism a religion. I do think that it is unreasonable to give different "benefits" to each religion or to make the rise or fall of each religion follow history. The former because it is insulting and unnessesary. The latter because it was not done for the civilizations, so why do it for religions? If you want to play out certain historical moments, you can make a scenareo. To place the past in the game puts unnessesary burdons on the programmers; to put the future development of religions in the game is to preach. I would think it the height of arrogance to insist that the return of the Messiah and the setting up of the Messianic Kingdom be programmed into the game.

As to the Wonders, J.S. Bach's Cathedral is not a wonder because of its religious significance, but because it is a HUMAN achievment. If for a moment, I assume that paraclet is right and the belief in a god will go the way of the dinosaur, all of the Wonders in Civ II will have value because they are human acheivments.

Let us return to the debate, wondering how to (or not) expand the role of religion in the game. Not whose religion and not how one is superior to the other, but how are they different and how best to make it so that they can interact with themselves and civs.

Joe Palmer

PS - I think that it is a good idea to program an "out" as it were, so that those who think we should leave Civ II alone on this issue can return the game to that condition.

[EnochF]

As long as everyone here is pissed off at each other, here's a suggestion:

The One True Religion could be randomly chosen at the beginning of the game, and it's up to you to discover which one it is.

Discuss!

<DUCK!>

[Black Dragon]

Actually, religon is not at this moment "ending", but rather just the opposite. Currently, the numbers of religous are actually INCREASING. However, the number of priests is decreasing, and the Catholic Church will have to find a way to deal with it, but somehow I doubt the way they deal with it will be saying "OK, we are out of priests, you have to be atheists now."

But whatever you do, DO NOT MAKE A TECH THAT MAKES RELIGON OBSOLETE, that would *really* piss people off.
And parcalet, putting "Sex Shops" in the game for atheist temple will just piss off atheists who do not use/want those things. Also, using "Science Teachers" as Atheist missionaries would piss of Science Teachers who are non-atheist.

Also, I do not think you should be able to choose your societies' religon, that should be something determined by the people, and you would have the options of "fundamentally worship, Offical, Tolerate, Persecute"

Another factor in each religon should be it's "Centralization", and have three factors.

Very High: Like the Catholic Church, with one central body controlling the faith.

Moderate: Too much lay interpation discouraged, but has nothing like the Vatican. The Theocratic governemnts of the Middle East would be an example.

Low: Like Lutheranism, preaches priesthood of all believers.

Centralization would affect how much the religon will do, say for example:

Your civ, civ A is mostly religon A, which has high centralization. Civ B with religon B is persecuting religon A. Religon A would then ask Civ A to declare war on Civ B, and if Civ A refuses, some of your military units will "Defect" and appear in the control of religon A near Civ B to attack Civ B.

As far as atheism, have it instead of causing happiness like other religons, would actually create UNHAPPINESS, but increase science.

I think using real religon would just piss some people off, ("This Evil game says my religon is dumb and has low science, so I won't buy it"), so instead use things like Fuhdasism, Zaomerism, Turywenzism, and of course, Atheism.