Having read that the religions do not give individual benefits, is there really a point? It seems to me that if the religions are all essentially the same (just with different names) then it's not really a new "feature" as such, simply another form of trade or conflict between civs.

I know they don't want to offend anybody, but giving all religions the same attributes seems kind of silly to me. Thoughts?

It's so silly that I doubt it will be so.

I think it will be used mainly for diplomatic contacts. AIs may tend to be cooperative with civilizations who chose the same religion and possibly will avoid to contact civs with a different religion.

There's also buildings and wonders who will require some specific religion.

I believe each religion has it's requisite technology.

But honestly, what traits could you give each religion that wouldn't offend one or another of its faithful? I don't like how PC Firaxis is being over terrorism, but you can't blame them on this one. If, for example, you gave Islam the power of the jihad, you end up getting into all sorts of trouble because you defined Islam as violent, or because jihad isn't necessarily a military struggle and can also be a personal or social struggle, and then what do you end up with to differentiate religions, since they all teach morality, justice, and right and wrong? Islam, the power of the non-representational image?

Religion is an extension of the old culture groups from Civ III, except now you get to choose who will look on you more favorably. And it's an important change for the AI. There will be reasons why civs choose to attack one civ over another now, and different factions will mean that the largest civ isn't necessarily the strongest civ. If it's done right, it can have a huge anti-snowball effect, which is a huge gameplay advantage right there.

Presumably they'll all be the same, but there won't necessarily be enough for each Civilization.

It would be nice to have certain traits to the religions, but it would undoubtly offend people.

I completely agree with you there; the religion factor is nearly useless. Therefore, I'm going to focus all my efforts into making every civilization Buddhist, for the fun of it.

As for offending religions? Bull. I've seen many good games pull off giving bonuses to every religion, and I've rarely seen it offend someone.

Case in point: Europa Universalis. Sunni Islam has a stability bonus, Shiite Islam has better morale for their troops, Catholicism has a stability bonus, Protestantism has better colonization and trade, Buddhism has... I forget, lol, Hinduism has a morale bonus and extra stability.

But in any case, they are all play blanced so none is necessarily better on an absolute scale than any other, while different religions better fit your style of play.

This is the system they should have in Civ 4, I think.

Also note the entire game is utterly moddable, so if the players were offended by religion's bonuses, they could easily enough change them to something else, or remove them altogether.

Just because religions aren't differentiated from each other doesn't mean they can't interact to make religion an interesting new component for Civ.

Oh, and mudblood:

What if you say something and you're wrong but Firaxis listens and makes a worse game? ;)

Oh, and mudblood:

What if you say something and you're wrong but Firaxis listens and makes a worse game? ;)

Yeah, I was hoping no one would notice that. :D

There is a good reason why religions have no unique bonuses.

It prevents discussions like "X regligion is better then Y", or "why Religion Z is portraied as militaristic", or "these bonuses don't fit religion W at all".

It's called political correctness.

I liked how other games handled religon, facts only. Such as Shogun: Total War. If you coverted to the religon of the foreigners you could no longer train Buddhist Monks. Simple and easy.

Like they said it will make some wonders and buildings available. I also guess it would add to unrest if you conquered a city belonging to another religon.

A simple solution would have been to have all religions START as generic, but then have the religion aquire traits over the course of the game. What traits it would gain would depend on the civics choices, leader choice and play-style of the founding civ. So, if you found the Hindu faith, and then adopt a Xenophobic view of different 'culture groups', then Hinduism in that game might aquire a Fundamentalist trait, which makes you more resistant to religious conversion, but also gives you a penalty in dealing with civs outside of your faith (even if they are from the same culture group).
The thing is, though, that anyone who ADOPTS Hinduism in this game will get the Fundamentalist trait as well. If, however, a Hindu civ changes its civics settings to Multicultural, then there is a chance of either a change in the underlying trait of Hinduism (from Fundamentalist to Ecumenicist) or a chance of an ecumenicist sect of Hinduism forming. Aside from that, though, I think there could have been some very basic starting traits which would probably have not offended anyone-these could have been:

All the Monotheistic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have a greater chance of converting other cities, but are also more prone to sectarianism.

The Polytheistic Faiths (Hinduism so far) have a lesser chance of converting other cities, but are also less prone to sectarianism.

The Non-Deist Faiths (Daoism and Bhuddism) have an even lesser chance of converting other cities, but are also even less prone to sectarianism.

Pagan Faiths have the least chance of converting other cities, but also the least chance of sectarianism.

These two trait systems could be fairly easily adopted into the game, without causing any real offence to anyone, as the traits do not accrue to any SPECIFIC religion (i.e. no-one is saying that Christianity is more prone to sectarianism, or religious conversion, than Islam or Judaism-it all comes down to how persistant you-the player- are in trying to 'spread the word', either with missionaries or through your religious buildings and the 'culture' they produce).
Well, here's hoping that this will be in for future expansions-at the very least.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If they're going to make religions simply for relations between civs, then they should probably split up Christianity into Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism, since the three haven't exactly gotten along great in the past...then split Islam into Shi'ite and Sunni as well.

I thought they already did that.

They should have religion like they have made Government.
Customisable, and no set standards. They did it to Government, why aren't they doing that with religion off the bat?

The seven religions I see mentioned aren't even the top 7 religions in the world. It's silly. I sent an e-mail to "Ask Sid". Hopefully I'll get a reply from Sid himself clarifying the religion aspect because this something that might end up so so wrong.

Giving "positives/negatives" to religion is quite offensive. Who are they to judge? Really, give us customisable religions, pleaaase Sid pleaaase!

But they HAVEN'T given 'positives/negatives' to religion. But I don't see ANY reason why a religion can't AQUIRE said 'positives/negatives' in the course of a game-'no fuss, no muss' as they say.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

They should at least put the option for bonii in there--easier to take it away than add it.

Religion is pretty pointless in a civilization game.

Religion is pretty pointless in a civilization game.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Religion has been an important part in civilization, since forever.

As for religion bonuses, i don't agree so much to it....

I think there should be bonuses to the religion, on how long it's lasted in the area. Like harder to convert or somthing.

Or better yet, take the core beliefs of the 7 religions, and if at any point the civ is a theocracy and acts different then how the religion should act, the religion would have a schism.

So Islam to Sunni and Shia
Hinduism to Hindu and Sikh
Buddhism to ...Thravada and Mahayana....or however it's spelt and etc.


There would be no difference, in theory bonus wise, but it would increase unrest in cities, where the new sect, might want to split off and make it's own country.

Just look what's happening in Ireland, or in Pakistan, Israel and Iraq.

Lots of religious conflicts.

Not to be picky, but....

Taken from Dictionary.com (with corresponding link):

[i]pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion. [i]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pagan

I think you're meaning Pagan to be one of the ancient Earth and/or Goddess-based religions.

I think this again illustrates the precarious position that religion has in this game. I'm waiting to see how they do it, but I'm not holding my breath for anything spectacular.

Personally, I'd like to see the option for Humanism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Although technically not a "religion" per se, they serve the same functions as dictated a system of belief.

*jumps on a bad bad bad misconception*
Sikhism is NOT a schism of Hinduism. Not one bit. Since when has the sheep given birth to the lion?

I know Sikhism is much different then Hinduism...

But, what other things can we give it?

Hmmm how about Jainism? =D

is that fine?

I going to wait and see how religion is used in the game. If it bring variety to Diplomacy then it would be a big plus in my opinion. for example If I decide to declare war with my neighbor (nation A) and wanted it's neighbor (nation B) to join the war. But A and B is of the same religion so B refuses to join. Then I would have to spend time before the fighting begins converting nation B before they join with me.

Probably how well religion fits into civ 4 will determine if they will add unique bonuses and units to the expansion.

Personally, I'd like to see the option for Humanism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Although technically not a "religion" per se, they serve the same functions as dictated a system of belief.

especially since atheism is the state religion of two very prominent communist countries of the last 100 years.

I guess my main problem with religion is that the complexity of how the different religions interact, how they spread, how they affect the governments of their lands, etc. is difficult to simulate. I see it adding a lot of difficulty to the game without appreciable gameplay benefit. Having it affect diplomacy would be interesting (as an extension of the culture idea), though I can't say that being of the same culture affects my gameplay right now. Also, while a Religious victory condition (convert the whole world to your religion) might be fun, the specifics they've released about the unit/city interaction of religions just sounds confusing. Besides, if a civ is being difficult at the negotiating table, I don't see how a leader sending missionaries into that civ's land would be a logical response or even effective.

Also, while I can divorce myself from my patriotism and bomb the Americans into the stone age, and remove myself from my admiration of democracy to play a monarch (because after all, how democratic is a government where the leader still wields virtually absolute power?) it's more difficult to remove myself from my religious values. It's going to feel odd trying to convert people to Hinduism. There's so much more emotion invested in a person's actual religion, that I wonder if Firaxis wouldn't have been better served to create pseudo-religions (for instance - Monotheism creates people who are less likely to get upset and more likely to submit themselves to authority(less unhappiness, less WW), Polytheism allows multiple religious buildings in the same city with all their benefits, Sciencism doubles the effect of libraries, etc. but temples and cathedrals give no benefit, Hedonism converts other nearby cities much more rapidly than they otherwise would and can weaken the religious benefits of other religions in nearby cities) that they could manipulate for gameplay value (much like the Civ III civ attributes) without potentially stepping on anyone's toes.

After all, when I play Civ, I don't feel like I'm trying to historically recreate the Ottoman empire. I feel like I am building and strengthening my own civ to stand the test of time and this civ happens to be scientific, commericial, and has Sipahi. I guess I hope religion will play out the same way.

and maybe it will. Maybe I just don't understand it yet. After all, I felt similarly (but not equally) skeptical about culture and that worked out beautifully.

It seems to me that religions not offering any real bonuses is pretty accurate. o.o Religions shouldn't offer innate bonuses as all religions go through different stages -- take a look at Islam and Christianity during Europe's middle ages and look at them now. It's wrong to think that any one religion has any truly specific traits as they all can probably be and have been used for different purposes. So I'd be incredibly disappointed if religions had innate bonuses.

Now, gaining bonuses and penalties over time due to your usage of the religion? That's a good idea.

Will you have options when you capture a city with a different religion? It would be nice to have different approaches, i.e crush the opposing religion, or alternatley allow its followers to follow their religion in peace.

- religions are generic, but of two exceptions: name/symbol and perhaps the special wonder.
- atheism or humanism or agnosticism aren't religions because they can be set in the civic options (category: religion)

These two facts do seem really good for me. This way, the religions do not have bonusses/penalties, the wonder which probably will offer different bonusses can only be built by one nation of the faith.

- Religions spread and you get bonusses if your religion is sprawling
- Religion is spread by missionary units.

First thing is good, second nullifies the effect (as it looks now).

- Polytheistic and mystical faiths aren't included.

The big question! It'd be really sad, if all religions would be monotheistic or 'philosphical', because this does not represent real life. But maybe, the developers only didn't show us all the information, perhaps polytheistic religions are the generic religions of each civ, but just don't sprawl and have other effects. We do not know.

And to finish: What is the 7th religion?

mitsho

As far as I can tell, each city has 1 religion, and your Civ has a certain generic 'religious policy'. So your civ's policy could be Local Religions, or Enforced Tolerance [one being more like the Roman Empire, the other more like the Western Democracies of today, where regions can't have official religions, only individials can] as well as State Sanctioned Religion, or Theocracy (where followers of any religion other than the official one is 'discouraged' to some degree)...I'd imagine the fifth option to be general religious suppression.

Also, while I can divorce myself from my patriotism and bomb the Americans into the stone age, and remove myself from my admiration of democracy to play a monarch (because after all, how democratic is a government where the leader still wields virtually absolute power?) it's more difficult to remove myself from my religious values. It's going to feel odd trying to convert people to Hinduism. There's so much more emotion invested in a person's actual religion, that I wonder if Firaxis wouldn't have been better served to create pseudo-religions (for instance - Monotheism creates people who are less likely to get upset and more likely to submit themselves to authority(less unhappiness, less WW), Polytheism allows multiple religious buildings in the same city with all their benefits, Sciencism doubles the effect of libraries, etc. but temples and cathedrals give no benefit, Hedonism converts other nearby cities much more rapidly than they otherwise would and can weaken the religious benefits of other religions in nearby cities) that they could manipulate for gameplay value (much like the Civ III civ attributes) without potentially stepping on anyone's toes.
I agree 100% with your sentiments.

I wonder about how using tactical missionary units to convert other cities is going to work out. Traditionally, states have sponsered missionary efforts, but usually only when it fit in with their nationalistic goals. Usually it is the Religion itself that sponsers these efforts that know no borders. I am afraid that missionaries will simply become an exploit in the game to be used as a psuedo combat unit to help weaken your enemy. Or that we will have to continually buld them because the other civs will keep reconverting the cities we convert. I really really cringe at the thought of having to be a nation that sends out missionaries all the time...I will have a hard time personally with that concept as my personal convictions will be challenged. As CE said, I can deal with the nationalistic stuff - personally that doesn't bother me as I am not a fanatical flag waver. Nation states come and go. But my religious convictions are deep seated and I will have to meditate long and hard to violate them for a mere game, no matter how good it is. But I am reserving judgement until I see the finished product.

Yes, I am all for athiesm and humanism - they must be included or modded in. In the tech tree they could appear (Humanism is from the Low Countries is it not?) when (modern) Universities do.

Certainly religion should be divided within a civ whether by schism or by enforced military control over un-receptive border areas.

I think adding a possible control that limits the spread of religion later in the game would be a good idea - arguably the world is becoming more hardline in its beliefs. You don't see the Vikings raiding, colonzing and converting to Celtic christianity anymore.

How about Religion can be used to increase score, for example if your christain then you are encouraged to change certain civics, if you set these civics you get a small bonus in score, different civic combonations will be for different civilizations

especially since atheism is the state religion of two very prominent communist countries of the last 100 years.

Atheism isn't a religion. To represent the state atheism of the Soviet Union, it would be a state with no religion and no religious freedom (or something like that). Its a forced absense of religion, not a forced religion.

BTW, I've said this before, but I'm hoping that religion might also slowly spread, instead of always requiring a missionary.

They have already indicated that it will slowly spread, but that missionaries 'help things along'. I have a feeling that, without an underlying 'religious strength', your missionaries will have precious little chance of successfully 'spreading the word'. That is all well and good, I just wish they could do it WITHOUT having to actually move missionary units around!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I hope religions do a little bit more than just diplomacy bonuses, LOS, and their wonders; in multiplayer games no one's going to feel constrained in their diplomatic options because of another player's religion! Thus, unless more effects are planned religion will end up being a glorified reconnaisance system with an attached wonder.

I agree 100% with your sentiments.

I wonder about how using tactical missionary units to convert other cities is going to work out. Traditionally, states have sponsered missionary efforts, but usually only when it fit in with their nationalistic goals. Usually it is the Religion itself that sponsers these efforts that know no borders. I am afraid that missionaries will simply become an exploit in the game to be used as a psuedo combat unit to help weaken your enemy. Or that we will have to continually buld them because the other civs will keep reconverting the cities we convert. I really really cringe at the thought of having to be a nation that sends out missionaries all the time...I will have a hard time personally with that concept as my personal convictions will be challenged. As CE said, I can deal with the nationalistic stuff - personally that doesn't bother me as I am not a fanatical flag waver. Nation states come and go. But my religious convictions are deep seated and I will have to meditate long and hard to violate them for a mere game, no matter how good it is. But I am reserving judgement until I see the finished product.

It was only in the 20th century that nations stopped trying to convert others to their religion. But anyway, I think that religion will be the key component in the early game, but will not be as important for the end game, as I suspect established nationwide religions will severly limit the more useful civics options that will appear as the game progresses. If it bothers you too much, try to always convert to the religion of your choice or mod the names of the religions in the game to the different factions of your own religion -- there have to be seven species of almost every religion, and that has to be more tolerable.

I suspect the first thing there'll be a lot of mods for is religion, so you'll have lots to choose from.

I know Sikhism is much different then Hinduism...

But, what other things can we give it?

Hmmm how about Jainism? =D

is that fine?

We can have Sikhism be one of the seven religions, because it's the world's fifth largest! ;)

Again, there's the problem of having set religions. Oh well.
I guess I'll just use the editor.

It was only in the 20th century that nations stopped trying to convert others to their religion.
They stopped? As far as I know, there are missionaries at work e.g. in New Guinea even today.

I wonder about how using tactical missionary units to convert other cities is going to work out. Traditionally, states have sponsered missionary efforts, but usually only when it fit in with their nationalistic goals. Usually it is the Religion itself that sponsers these efforts that know no borders.

Your "without borders" comment really captures the essence of my main problem with guiding the religion of my civilization.

You don't see the Vikings raiding, colonzing and converting to Celtic christianity anymore.

Certainly, not nearly as much as you see them just plain raiding and colonizing nowadays. ;)

Atheism isn't a religion. To represent the state atheism of the Soviet Union, it would be a state with no religion and no religious freedom (or something like that). Its a forced absense of religion, not a forced religion.

Granted. Some would argue that a forced absense of a religion is a type of religion, but that's not important to our debate. The point was that if Christianity, Islam, etc. are included as religions, the forced absense of religion like from the USSR and China should be included as well. Their atheism certainly affected the world quite a bit, as would the the atheism of those in more liberal countries (even here, we see the difference between hard line and soft line differences).

They have already indicated that it will slowly spread, but that missionaries 'help things along'. I have a feeling that, without an underlying 'religious strength', your missionaries will have precious little chance of successfully 'spreading the word'. That is all well and good, I just wish they could do it WITHOUT having to actually move missionary units around!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

You may be onto something there. If religion was in the game, but not something that the player controlled the spread of, it might not be so bad. Religions would grow, spread, and interact through the control of the AI and according to certain rules (for instance, it'll spread between two cities that are roaded much more quickly than two unconnected cities separated by mountains). The player, then, reacts to religion. Diplomacy is easier with civs that are populated by adherents of similar religions and War Weariness less against civs with different religions. The player could use civics options, such as "Suppress Religion" to try to prevent cultural flip, but at the risk of more unhappy citizens. Different tiles could have different religious values, some areas more pious than others. The player would have to react to the religion the same way the player would have to react to the terrain. The player could build religious buildings to "improve" religious value in that area or... for lack of a better term... secular buildings to lower the religious value in the area, depending on that players strategy. The players would also have to react to the religious climate - highly pious areas might react badly to the use of slaves, while less pious areas would have no problem with it. And so forth.

Now, what I laid out above would be intensely complex and I have no idea if it's at all feasible to implement. But it would remove one of my problems which is the idea of religion being nothing more than a tool for world leaders to manipulate to achieve their ends. For it to exist as a gameforce that one reacts to (like terrain) seems far more realistic and palatable.

In the end, I still would prefer generic religions. Like OldStatesman, I have great difficulty removing myself from my religious beliefs just for the sake of a game. But the above would be better than nothing, if it's even possible.

It was only in the 20th century that nations stopped trying to convert others to their religion.

Maybe so, but that was more conversion by the sword than with missionaries. I feel that that type of conversion was adequately simulated by the culture aspect of Civ III. In the end (if I am thinking about the same type of instances that you are), those sort of conversion efforts were more about worldly power than heavenly aims.

They stopped? As far as I know, there are missionaries at work e.g. in New Guinea even today.

Yes, but those are the work of Churches rather than nations. I think mud blood was focusing on conversions as a matter of national policy, not those sponsored only by churches. Most missionaries I know were not commissioned by a government to do their work.

I'd think that religions would have seperate benefits, but not insulting. Daoism- people will be happy and such.

Confusianism- improves social order

Hinduism- improves social order

along those lines- differences in religions that aren't insulting

I'd think that religions would have seperate benefits, but not insulting. Daoism- people will be happy and such.

Confusianism- improves social order

Hinduism- improves social order

along those lines- differences in religions that aren't insulting

Edit: sorry I misread your post. Never mind. ;)

I don't see why religions in civIV are chosen and 'discovered' by the state, instead of just existing and flourishing on thier own, with some encouragement being given by city improvements and social engineering.

If I had my way, I think that religions would be more akin to a nationality: citizens have one, retain it no matter what regime they are under, can be converted if they are swamped by another religion, and get upset if you mistreat their beleivers. The only thing you would be able to do as a leader would be to try to design your empire to get the maximum benefit of the religious mix that you have. If you have a particularly homogenous empire, you could take a very fundementalist slant, getting the support of the major religion, and upsetting/oppressing the minority. If you have more of a patchwork empire, you could adopt a tolerant pose, evening out discontent between your various faithful, but losing out on having a very happy, very productive population that would appreciate a 'holy' leader to inspire them. I think this type of model could work well with ethnicity, a closely related topic, but that might be best in another thread...

I like the way you think Che Guava. What you've laid out is very much what I was trying to get at with that big long paragraph in my last post. Combine that with generic religions, and I would be a very happy Civ player.

Erin of Arcadia mentioned in a different thread the problem of assuming that religion arose as a practical result of an earthly phenomena. Folks, especially atheists, probably believe that's exactly what happened, but for those of faith, it could be very insulting. It tells the Jew or the Christian that God is not watching over him/her, it tells the Muslim that the holy law was not divinely inspired, it tells the Buddhist that the Eightfold Path is just a nice idea instead of the way to enlightenment. It's tough to swallow.

We don't have the same problem manipulating rulers and governments because they are just human beings and the institutions created by them. We may venerate our heros, but we still realize they were just men/women who were just as mortal as we are. Same with governments. These are imperfect institutions created by us mortals. We can all imagine how a benevolent monarch might be preferable to a corrupt democracy. And by engaging in manipulating these simulations of mortals and their institutions, we are simulating actions that mortals would do. Perhaps, in different circumstances, we could rise to become like Catherine the Great or Shaka. That's what we are simulating.

When you start moving into religion, though, you begin to move beyond what mortals can do. The advance of XYZ religion might be because of their leader's wisdom, or the Hand of God. To simulate it with the player in control removes any possiblity that a deity could be involved.

I hope this makes sense. It's late and I'm tired.

@Crazy Eskimo

Sorry I didn't take a closer look at your post before I started mine. COmputer time has been scarce lately and I haven't been keeping up.

Hmmm, I do beleive there is a problem with, let's say sensitivity, around religions. I'm not a firm beleiver in any faith, so it's easy for me to say that I'm not offended by when/where/how religions are born, but I do recognize there are some strong opinions on this matter. Personally, I beleive that religions should arrive spontaeneously, and somewhat randomly, to simulate both the mortal and divine nature of faith on earth. I'll explain using christianity as an example, as it is the religion I am probably most familiar with (but by no means an expert).

Christianity arose 2 000 years ago in the part of the world currently occupied by Israel/palestine. Many scholars, taking a purely historical view, can argue that this was the perfect place for a religion of this nature to begin: there was a long history of monotheism within the local population, the close proximity to both eastern and western cultures allowed it to be a great place for idea exchange, it was a religion that was simple and appealed well to the poor and downtrodden (which were numerous there) and it had the right conditions around it (mainly the network of roads and protection of the roman empire) to allow it to persist and thrive.

If you take a look at why christianity arose where/when it did from a more theological point of view (and just for now ignore the more important why it arose at all), the discussion revolves more along the subject of the prophecies of the israelites, the fact that the area is considered holy land, and as a part od salvation from the cruelty of the roman overlords.

In civilization (gaming) terms, I think the appearance of prophets and religions should be more likely when conditions are right, but should keep a certain amount of randomness to allow for 'divine interpretation'. For example, if your empire has vast trading networks and roads to other empires (with thier own religions), has a tolerant outlook and is relatively successful, you have met the conditions to allow a prophet to show up in your cities. The player can decide if this is because the right social conditions exist for a successful faith to begin, or if the success and piety of thier nation has allowed them to be worthy of an emissary of god. I the end, however, the appearance is randomto allow for inference of minute events: christianity could not have begun without christ, and no-one could have predicted his cmoing, save three kings....

Che Guava, I like both the analysis and the idea of how prophets should be spawned.

...christianity could not have begun without christ, and no-one could have predicted his cmoing, save three kings....

...and the prophet Isiah. ;)

I like the system you've laid out. I'd like it even better with generic religions, but what you've said would allay quite a few of my misgivings.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there needs to be some randomness to "simulate" divine action. The idea that religion is merely and completely controlled by rulers of nations is going to offensive to those of faith who believe that there is something supernatural guiding their religion. Personally, I don't much care where and when the religions pop up, because I believe God loves all people (reading the OT, there's nothing special about the Jews aside from the fact that God chose them) and does things in His time (hence the randomness), though I would imagine those who are more hardline on Christianity or Islam or whichever religion would have a problem with their religion not beginning in Jerusalem/Mecca/wherever. But to have the player CONTROL when and where just rubs me the wrong way.

To play the devils advocate here ;) - I agree with the way that Religions are founded in the game could take away the Divine interpretation. I will not argue that point. I dislike how the player can choose to 'found' a Faith.

However, once a Faith has become divinely introduced, then secular man tends to create Institutions that can be more secular based than spiritually guided. The game does seem to show how Religious INSTITUTIONS are controlled and eventually corrupted by secular interests. (See the Roman Catholic Church of the Dark and Middel Ages; King Henry's blatent use of the Reformation to cement his secular reign, etc.)

This dichotomy has me divided on Religion in the game. On the one hand, it is a pervasive developing force through history and needs to be included somehow; on the other it is a case of emphasizing the secular aspects of religions and perhaps a trivialization of their spiritual ones. But thinking about it, this seems to reflect the history of religion throughout the ages...

Personally, I am a person of Faith - I will not discuss my religion; they are different things in my view - it's Faith that is important, the religion is simply how that Faith is interpreted and practiced by imperfect humans. That is where my hesitation about religions in the game arises - but as I said I will wait and give it a chance; if I feel it is actually violating my Faith I will not play; if I feel it is only violating tenets of my chosen religious Institution I will not be as bothered. Things like the potetial use of missionary units as pseudo combat units (I don't know if this can occur or not - but until we see the game the possibility is there,) and converting others forcefully against their will using religion as an excuse violate my principles of Faith - things like naming buildings the wrong way violate my sensabilities - I can live with one but not the other.

I also hope that the gamemakers are not trying to capitilize on the popular 'rise' of awareness of Religion in today's socity by emphasizing it at this time....I pray they are not that cynical and are doing it because there is a need to show how religion has influenced civilization's development.

Very complicated subject - I can see years of debate ahead on it. Seeing how passionate some people defend their views on the natioanalistic threads on what civs should be in or out of the game, I almost cringe at the thought of the tenor of the debate on religions in the future....hope I am worrying for nothing.

JMHO :blush:

Does anybody know if it's possible to have no religion? Because I really don't want to be forced into having one. I don't want to be a religious Civ when I play.

Does anybody know if it's possible to have no religion? Because I really don't want to be forced into having one...

Y'know, I was thinking the same thing a little while back. I hope that a lot of the new features are options rather than being hardwired into the game. Kind of like that 'regicide' option: I thought it was silly but never had to use it, thank god (no pun intended).

... I dislike how the player can choose to 'found' a Faith...(C)onverting others forcefully against their will using religion as an excuse violate my principles of Faith - things like naming buildings the wrong way violate my sensabilities - I can live with one but not the other....

Couldn't agree more with your points. Leaving aside the possibly offensive nature of the way religion is portrayed, assuming that a newly founded religion in your empire is just another tool to use against your enemies is just plain wrong! From a completely secular view of history, religion can be a feirce double-edged sword: use it well and you can gain more control over your people, abuse it and you can expect to receive the fury of the devout. I mean, missionary units? Come on! Can't you just pictures it? "Morning Pilate! J. Christ reporting for duty! Should I head east of west today?"

I know I've said it before, but religion needs to be in the game, but out of the hands of leaders. I'd like to think of prophets in the ghame as being more like the way 'leaders' are described: play it thier way, and they'll be happy. Cross them, and they'll get pissed. And so will thier followers....

I suspect Religion will have a big influence over conquered cities & colonies! Look at Northern Ireland... :eek:

There many be post-conquest economic commitments, and if you ignore it, perhaps rebellion and succession...

I'd say its not no point in 'religion,' rather, no point in 'discussion of religion on these non-OT-forums.' :rolleyes: