View Full Version : So what if I don't want to get a religion?


Glassmage
Mar 15, 2012, 02:38 PM
Do I get compensated with more science if I choose to not pick ANY religion beliefs? How do I stop other religions and missionaries that want to make my city "religious"??? I hope the devs can answer this because not playing with religion is kinda ridiculous but it is still the player's choice.

Snoopaloop
Mar 15, 2012, 03:06 PM
Don't buy the expansion.
Don't build any religious buildings.
Build inquisitors (confirmed unit I believe) to rid of it.

What if the player doesn't want to build culture? Do the devs need to answer how the player can avoid building this systems also?

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 03:07 PM
You don't have to found a religion, but I'm not sure how exactly one refuses outside religion too.

Scarpa
Mar 15, 2012, 03:09 PM
Not everyone gets a religion anyway, number of religions is limited to half the number of civs in game. Also, the effects of religion start to taper off in Rennaissance era when the spies come in.

PSPSoldier534
Mar 15, 2012, 03:12 PM
Besides, if you want all the other new things in the expansion but just want to turn religion off I'm sure there is an advanced setting or something you can tick.

Louis XXIV
Mar 15, 2012, 03:28 PM
What if I don't want to play with war? What if I don't want to play with culture? These are game features that mimic history. Why is there such hostility to this?

Shurdus
Mar 15, 2012, 03:39 PM
Cutting out religion from your people sound weird. Just because you are the leader does not mean you can dictate what people believe.

wandmdave
Mar 15, 2012, 03:45 PM
These anti-religion posts are ridiculous and this is coming from an atheist who tends to think the spiritual aspect of religion does more harm than good these days. Like it or not mystical/spiritual beliefs have been a part of civilization since its inception and organized religion played a key role in allowing a modern western culture to that values free will and a balance of power between rulers and the governed to arise. Its obvious it plays or has played a very important role in South America and the Middle East as well. To top it off they phase out the importance of religion after the Renaissance. What is the big deal?

CYZ
Mar 15, 2012, 03:46 PM
I, for one, would like to play a game without civilizations. When will the devs finally make this possible for god's sake?!

cccv
Mar 15, 2012, 03:52 PM
Now that I see this thread, I actually am curious if there will be a way to suppress religion, which would be interesting because that is a thing that happens. But there'd have to be some benefit to doing so, and I don't get the impression there is. I think it'll be like culture-- all good, no negatives. Maybe you'll be able to influence which religion spreads to you, but for you to be able to suppress religion altogether they'd need to make that an appealing option. If they do so I think it would be pretty cool to have that option.

Pizzaspy
Mar 15, 2012, 03:55 PM
Seems from what I have read if you don't build a shrine you won't generate faith, and therefore could ignore it all together?

But it would still spread into your lands...unless you had a policy of destroying every religious city within 10 hexes quickly.

But that sounds like a lot of work to avoid bonuses, might as well do what the leaders of the past have done and use it as a tool of control and productivity. :lol:

MaximusK
Mar 15, 2012, 04:04 PM
I think the idea is you create a religion that augments whatever victory path your pursuing. However, if early game you don't prioritize faith and are without your own religion you can probably invest in other buildings and units that will give you an advantage. Lets say your border cities convert to a neighboring religion and your invaded, any bonuses the enemy is getting from sharing faith with your own cities can probably be easily countered by a tech lead, tactics or more units your capable of fielding.

That nerdy kid
Mar 15, 2012, 04:21 PM
the point of this thread is not that he wants to take religion out of the game, but that he wants to be able to be an a-religious civ, which should have benefits, such as science output.

SpaceJesus
Mar 15, 2012, 04:30 PM
Found a religion. Name it Pastafarianism. Problem solved.

turingmachine
Mar 15, 2012, 05:12 PM
the point of this thread is not that he wants to take religion out of the game, but that he wants to be able to be an a-religious civ, which should have benefits, such as science output.

Why? Both you and the OP seem to be confusing the last 6,000 years of human history with the last 500. The game starts in 4,000 BCE. It is historically incorrect to think that there were any atheistic states or peoples before the modern era (note, I'm talking about groups not individuals). The game mimics the shift in religion to science by having the effect of religion dwindle once you reach the Renaissance. There is no real reason to allow you to be atheist from 4,000 BCE or to get a science benefit for doing so, especially since science and religion were intertwined for most of its early history.

Josephias
Mar 15, 2012, 05:22 PM
Do I get compensated with more science if I choose to not pick ANY religion beliefs? How do I stop other religions and missionaries that want to make my city "religious"??? I hope the devs can answer this because not playing with religion is kinda ridiculous but it is still the player's choice.

as said by SpaceJesus

Found a religion. Name it Pastafarianism. Problem solved.

Or Atheism. Let's say Atheism for the benefit of the new explanation.

Choose beliefs you don't thing relate to religion (or relate to not having religion), such as scientific bonuses, florishing of the arts, etc.

Build a complete "Atheist Inquisition". Just purgue all those cities whose stupid citzens decide to believe in gods and not in Atheism.

If you feel so... build a Missionary army to spread the truth: that there is no God.

Take over the world with Atheism and you will be sure noone believes in god anymore.


Summing up

Jezz... you people should consider the fact, game-wise: Religion does not equal "God". Religion equals "Belief System". And atheism can be considered as big belief system as any religion, and in the same degrees (from integrist intolerance to personal choice, crossing "evangelization" in the middle). It may have no "organized church", but this is no prerequesite for other religions either.

AriochIV
Mar 15, 2012, 05:22 PM
What turing said.

You can be an atheist leader if you like and refuse to found a religion, but there's no way to force your population to be atheist, and they'll follow someone else's. That's completely realistic.

Glassmage
Mar 15, 2012, 06:06 PM
No no no. I am not against turning off religion or anything. I'm asking if the devs compensate you for not playing with religion. This is just like you don't have to pick Piety policy. If you don't pick Piety does it mean your people are not religious??? If no one had a problem with NOT picking religious "Piety" tree before then so why start now?

Buccaneer
Mar 15, 2012, 06:07 PM
Does religion always have to be dominant in a game or perhaps by circumstances, they all add up to a minor set of bonuses? Or by alternate circumstance, religion becomes very dominant, even till the end? Can these two extremes happen (I hope)? That's why quotes like "by Renaissance, religion will be on the decline at the expense of science" sounds scary for the main game. What if I and the AI opponents focus on science from the start, choosing to make religion irrelevant? What if I want to put a lot of effort into spreading my religion in order to get more gold/bonuses and keep it that way into modern? Don't tell me the main game will become like a scenario.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 06:10 PM
You will NEVER lose the bonuses from the religions, EVER, that's confirmed, the IMPORTANCE of religion will diminish, you won't be able to spread religion easily, and the diplomatic effect will decrease. that's it.

Glassmage
Mar 15, 2012, 06:11 PM
Okay so let force everyone to pick Piety policy when you get to Classical Era because history is wrong without it! And no one can get Rationalism until you get Free Religion. Are you people happy now????

Kilroy Was Here
Mar 15, 2012, 06:24 PM
Glassmage, you seem to miss the point of social policies. They're not what your empire IS, they're what it focuses on. There have been plenty of states in history that did not focus entirely on religion (Viking culture, if you could call that a "state"), and plenty that never had any sort of concept of "liberty".

Also, why on Earth would they replace religion with something else just for those who don't want religion instead of making it a separate feature altogether?

Buccaneer
Mar 15, 2012, 06:27 PM
, the IMPORTANCE of religion will diminish, you won't be able to spread religion easily, and the diplomatic effect will decrease. that's it.

To continue playing devil's advocate, why? That sounds like a great idea for a scenario but why force it into every game? Why can't there be a way for its diplomatic effect to increase instead of decreasing? If we focus on something (population, culture, production, military, policies, etc.), we can improve upon anything of them as the game progresses. Why can't it be the same for religion (which is a similar mechanic to culture and policies)? Conversely, why can't we have a game where the importance of religion has been diminished from the start?

bhavv
Mar 15, 2012, 06:37 PM
If you dont want to focus on religion, then your time spent focusing elsewhere will help you towards a different victory.

To continue playing devil's advocate, why? That sounds like a great idea for a scenario but why force it into every game? Why can't there be a way for its diplomatic effect to increase instead of decreasing? If we focus on something (population, culture, production, military, policies, etc.), we can improve upon anything of them as the game progresses. Why can't it be the same for religion (which is a similar mechanic to culture and policies)? Conversely, why can't we have a game where the importance of religion has been diminished from the start?

I would assume that they are trying to mimic the real world, where religion was extremely important in the earlier days of civilization, but significantly less important from around 1850 AD onwards.

Buccaneer
Mar 15, 2012, 06:57 PM
I would assume that they are trying to mimic the real world, where religion was extremely important in the earlier days of civilization, but significantly less important from around 1850 AD onwards.

Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

bhavv
Mar 15, 2012, 07:23 PM
Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

And we have liberty available from the first policy pick, but not piety untill the classical era. Silly game!

(and stoneworks can't be built on a plains tile, windmills can't be built on hills, observatories can't be built anywhere but on top of mountains, and universities are best located in vast stretches of jungle!).

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 07:32 PM
Not to mention that our planet changes with every game...

Buccaneer
Mar 15, 2012, 09:07 PM
:lol: But still, religion should not follow any predictable rise or decline pattern.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 09:16 PM
I dunno, I think we shouldn't really care that much and go into the details and find every possible flaw. I know that I even complained about the civilization's color scheme. We should be glad we're getting an expansion pack in less than 6 months :D

moysturfurmer
Mar 15, 2012, 09:45 PM
Does religion always have to be dominant in a game or perhaps by circumstances, they all add up to a minor set of bonuses? Or by alternate circumstance, religion becomes very dominant, even till the end? Can these two extremes happen (I hope)? That's why quotes like "by Renaissance, religion will be on the decline at the expense of science" sounds scary for the main game. What if I and the AI opponents focus on science from the start, choosing to make religion irrelevant? What if I want to put a lot of effort into spreading my religion in order to get more gold/bonuses and keep it that way into modern? Don't tell me the main game will become like a scenario.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Explanations of the universe? Hey, sounds like religion.

And as far as I can tell, units/buildings just get harder and harder to buy with faith in the later eras.

Buccaneer
Mar 15, 2012, 09:50 PM
All advocating aside, it's probably like culture in which after Telegraph or Radio, there are no more cultural buildings or wonders you can get. Does that mean culture becomes diminished? Hardly, the bonuses really adds up. I do hope one can make the choice to keep up the faith bonuses and the spread, even though other elements can come into play. No reason a civ can't dominate the game in the modern era via religion.

I don't recall but will there be a religion victory condition for the main game?

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 10:10 PM
You keep bonuses until you either win, quit the game, or are abolished from the world.

But the ability to spread religions is HARDER (Missionaries get expensive). but it's possible.

Babri
Mar 16, 2012, 12:27 AM
Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

To make it different from SPs & tech tree. There already many topics about three trees, imagine if religion has no such pattern, many people would start whining that SPs & religion are too similar etc.
Also the point that it would become scenario like, effect replayability or be too much uncivy, I would like to ask u about the strategic resources. Iron & horses are used earlier in the game, later in the game they are replaced by aluminium & uranium. Now why don't u call that uncivy & too much scenario like. The religion's rise & fall is very similar to already present strategic resources mechanism which change with time.

MARDUK80
Mar 16, 2012, 04:21 AM
Or Atheism. Let's say Atheism for the benefit of the new explanation.

Choose beliefs you don't thing relate to religion (or relate to not having religion), such as scientific bonuses, florishing of the arts, etc.

Build a complete "Atheist Inquisition". Just purgue all those cities whose stupid citzens decide to believe in gods and not in Atheism.

If you feel so... build a Missionary army to spread the truth: that there is no God.

Take over the world with Atheism and you will be sure noone believes in god anymore.


LOL :D

I am in favor of this. You know, "When they aren't in churches/holy places praying/worshiping they are studying/working."

CYZ
Mar 16, 2012, 04:30 AM
It'd be silly to be rewarded for not investing in faith. I mean, it's not like you get rewarded because you haven't invested in culture: ''Hey, you only have 3 policies while the rest has 5, let's give you a bonus''. would totally defeat the point.

It is your choice to invest in religion or not. If you don't focus at it at all you will be able to focus more on other areas. However, it will mean other civs have the advantage when it comes to religion. Their religion will spread to your cities (giving you free bonusses by the way!) and this will help them. Only fair, you chose not to invest in it and they did.



I can imagine we'd have games with alot of focus on religion. With civs racing to get great prophets first and being the first to pick beliefs. With several civs trying to spread their religion all over the world. This could lead to religionbased world wars etcetera.

However, it could also be the civs don't focus on religion. then there will only be few religions with smaller bonusses and the diplomatic effect will be smaller. Perhaps even one religion will become dominant in the world, and thus the diplomatic effect will become very small.

I hope we will see this variety in games.

bhavv
Mar 16, 2012, 05:22 AM
Looking at all the pre release info about the expansion so far, I get the feeling that Firaxis will introduce Atheism into the game, and it will require faith to unlock, missionaries to spread, and will need to be organised across your empire via building many cathedrals to be of any use.

And also, Atheism will most lilely provide a science boost, just like you can't possibly be pious and rational, surely you can only be scientific as an atheist, just like Einstein, Newton and Descartes were!

Alk3Crimson
Mar 16, 2012, 08:35 AM
No no no. I am not against turning off religion or anything. I'm asking if the devs compensate you for not playing with religion. This is just like you don't have to pick Piety policy. If you don't pick Piety does it mean your people are not religious??? If no one had a problem with NOT picking religious "Piety" tree before then so why start now?

If you choose to not build buildings to produce Faith, you are inherently going to produce more Culture/Science/Production then those who do. If you want to focus on science rather than religion, then build science buildings. Sure, religions may still spread to your lands, but they won't really affect how you run your civ. You aren't "penalized" for not founding a religion.

Buccaneer
Mar 16, 2012, 12:10 PM
If you choose to not build buildings to produce Faith, you are inherently going to produce more Culture/Science/Production then those who do. If you want to focus on science rather than religion, then build science buildings. Sure, religions may still spread to your lands, but they won't really affect how you run your civ. You aren't "penalized" for not founding a religion.

I like your response; it alludes to a more situational outcome determined by choices.

Lieu
Mar 16, 2012, 12:14 PM
And also, Atheism will most lilely provide a science boost, just like you can't possibly be pious and rational, surely you can only be scientific as an atheist, just like Einstein, Newton and Descartes were!

To be clear, Einstein was non-religious and a self-described agnostic. His use of the word 'god' was a bit ambiguous. In fact, he was a humanist.

On that note, no reason we can't name one of them Humanism in-game :) (in that it is a belief system, unlike atheism. Makes more sense with bonuses, although the source is still faith and not philosophy or something :/)

Louis XXIV
Mar 16, 2012, 01:55 PM
Humanism is a Rationalism policy, iirc. Although the Humanists were somewhat backwards thinking when it came to Latin, since they viewed it as Latin uber alles. One of the best known Italian poets, Petrarch, was ashamed of his poems because they were in vulgar Italian. However, Humanists were essentially holding back creativity in order to adhere to a dead language.

That nerdy kid
Mar 16, 2012, 05:30 PM
I would feel disappointed if atheism was not involved in this game.

GRM7584
Mar 16, 2012, 05:45 PM
On that note, no reason we can't name one of them Humanism in-game :) (in that it is a belief system, unlike atheism. Makes more sense with bonuses, although the source is still faith and not philosophy or something :/)

There is already a non-religious, humanistic 'religion' in the list of 11: Confucianism. Since we don't know all the beliefs yet (right?), it seems entirely plausible that one or more of these unknown beliefs will be something non-religious to represent Confucian teachings, like "Ordered Society" or "Political Ethics". Well, I would hope for something like that, anyway.

(Mind you, I am not saying that folk religion and ancestor worship was not accepted or advocated during periods where Confucianism was the state ideology; but in the context of civ, that would be the "Pantheon belief" that you get before you founded a religion)

Lieu
Mar 16, 2012, 06:27 PM
Humanism is a Rationalism policy, iirc. Although the Humanists were somewhat backwards thinking when it came to Latin, since they viewed it as Latin uber alles. One of the best known Italian poets, Petrarch, was ashamed of his poems because they were in vulgar Italian. However, Humanists were essentially holding back creativity in order to adhere to a dead language.

I meant modern humanism, but then maybe what I'm actually looking for is enlightenment-esque philosophy, which doesn't exactly fit with ancient history.

Philosophy and ethics work at the very least though. And to confucianism? I agree. That was a perk to hitting CoL early in civ 4 :)

Louis XXIV
Mar 16, 2012, 07:58 PM
Woops, apparently that's called Humanism too (there's also something specifically called Religious Humanism). That's probably more confusing than I'd like.

JEiK66
Mar 16, 2012, 09:40 PM
There should not be an active benefit to not utilizing religion (other than relocation of resources to other uses). The notion that religion and science are inherently opposite is wrong. In ancient times the two were more often the same than not.

Ancient priests/scientists looked up at the gods/stars knowing that they controlled the future. Using this knowledge they could ascertain such divine/mundane things as when to plant crops and when the Nile would flood. It was religious scribes who invented writing so information could be stored beyond memory and oral tradition. Many wonders from the ancient to modern eras are of a religious nature. Without religion's influence it is entirely likely that these wonders (as well as the scientific, engineering, and cultural advancements that came along them) would never have came into existence.

Furthermore I think it bad game design to punish a player for putting resources into anything even if it is not the best option, or rewarding a player for simply ignoring the choice. This is the same reason I think reimplementing building maintenance was a step backward.

espence
Mar 16, 2012, 09:55 PM
Has there been any information released that says whether or not you have to choose a state religion, like in Civ 4?

Surely you will have to choose, otherwise you would get all the bonuses from each religion, even if they're in the same city, and everyone would just then try to get as many religions spread to their cities as possible.

If this is true, then you could avoid religion simply by not choosing a state religion, even if you have founded a religion yourself.

Deggial
Mar 17, 2012, 02:30 AM
...you would get all the bonuses from each religion, even if they're in the same city, ...

I don't think it will be possible zu have multiple religions in one city as in Civ4. The one symbol only indicates, that, if there is already one religion, no other can be spread to this city.

--

Another point:

All this thread is about the whish to play without religion. What's about *the opposit*? Whats about modern theocraty?

Civilization is and was about alternative history. What, if I want to play as a repressive theocraty? Not, that this is so far from reality. Remember Iran? (Or even have a look on the (a bit frightening) tendencies in the USA, where Christian fundamentalism gets more and more influence. What will bring the future, here?)

As I assume, it will not be possible to play this sort of game, as we learned, that faith will be less powerful in modern eras. (Things to buy with faith will become way too expansive, IIRC).

While I am fine with the design decisions made by firaxis and I am sure I will love the game nevertheless, it would be fun to have this option, too.

Depravo
Mar 17, 2012, 03:13 AM
These anti-religion posts are ridiculous and this is coming from an atheist who tends to think the spiritual aspect of religion does more harm than good these days. Like it or not mystical/spiritual beliefs have been a part of civilization since its inception and organized religion played a key role in allowing a modern western culture to that values free will and a balance of power between rulers and the governed to arise. Its obvious it plays or has played a very important role in South America and the Middle East as well. To top it off they phase out the importance of religion after the Renaissance. What is the big deal?

My god, a balanced, sensible opinion in a religion thread. Me hat's off.

EDIT: The absence of religion in the early game wouldn't represent an atheist civilisation (nothing like which existed, or could have existed until the modern era) but a civ still worshipping various ancestral pantheons without an extensive, literate religious hierarchy or proselytism. Therefore a science / artistic bonus to such civs makes no sense.

Josephias
Mar 17, 2012, 03:51 AM
And nevertheless, summing up you can still be benefited of not going for religion. If you look at Cost of Opportunity, thats it:

- Piety/faith is a resource, and it will take some effort to achieve (buildings, citzen placement maybe...). An effort you can devote to science, commerce... if you are not pursuing the religion features.

-It is likely the "piety" SP will be reworked to improve faith production and Religion Benefits. If you are "religious" and want to make the most of your choice, you probably need to invest culture in that branch - which is made obsolete (or prevents you) when choosing Rationalism.


Therefore if you want to play the Atheist-ideal "scientific" civilization that disregards religious explanation and pushes science instead you indeed can do it:

- You do not push to get the faith resource, and look for others instead (of course, some faith will be gathered anyhow, some of your citizens may believe in something. But as a non-believer leader, you do not have use for - it is a waste you assume since you do not consider believing in something will help, but it will be minimal, as you focus in other resources and reduce faith production to a minimum)

- You will be not choosing policies that benefit religion effects (that are likely located under piety tree - and maybe tradition), but instead focus in other policies. You do not lose much of not choosing piety policies, as their benefits are linked to something you are not pursuing. And as you are discarding piety policies, you have no drawback on pursuing rationalism when it is made available.

Yes, you may lose advantage at the early stages of the game, where religion can provide a boost, but you can build instead on other areas to be more prepared when religion fades away. Therefore, the "atheist" choice is present, at a cost (rejecting early-game benefits), but also with an opportunity (as you do not focus in pursuing these benefits, you can focus instead in other areas that can give you an edge once religion importance fades away).

So, ¿what is the problem then? :) Rejecting religion has some drawback... but you can find its benefits as well. You do have to work to get them, however.

nokmirt
Mar 17, 2012, 06:18 AM
I, for one, would like to play a game without civilizations. When will the devs finally make this possible for god's sake?!

We pretty much already do with CiV vanilla. :lol:

If you choose to not build buildings to produce Faith, you are inherently going to produce more Culture/Science/Production then those who do. If you want to focus on science rather than religion, then build science buildings. Sure, religions may still spread to your lands, but they won't really affect how you run your civ. You aren't "penalized" for not founding a religion.

If adding religion is not going to fundamentally change the game. Why devs even bother adding it? IMO that makes no sense. Especially, because it has already been stated that religion will effect early to mid game diplomacy. I would imagine if religion is an issue with someone they can just turn it off for their game. Might as well not even use it. Or just keep playing CiV vanilla. That's even better.

ShahJahanII
Mar 17, 2012, 07:10 AM
These anti-religion posts are ridiculous and this is coming from an atheist who tends to think the spiritual aspect of religion does more harm than good these days. Like it or not mystical/spiritual beliefs have been a part of civilization since its inception and organized religion played a key role in allowing a modern western culture to that values free will and a balance of power between rulers and the governed to arise. Its obvious it plays or has played a very important role in South America and the Middle East as well. To top it off they phase out the importance of religion after the Renaissance. What is the big deal?

This is what I have been saying all along.
The forums have been filled with posts along the lines of "atheists will go crazy now".
Civ is a historical game. Even the most hardcore atheists such as myself should see how important religion has been in history.
After all, it is a game.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 17, 2012, 07:26 AM
Civ is meant to be fun, i'm athiest, and I'm gonna rock the belief system!

ShahJahanII
Mar 17, 2012, 07:27 AM
Civ is meant to be fun, i'm athiest, and I'm gonna rock the belief system!

My point exactly.
Thank you.

That nerdy kid
Mar 17, 2012, 11:01 AM
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

this pretty much sums up why every game would involve religion.

bonafide11
Mar 17, 2012, 01:36 PM
Has there ever been any civilization prior to modern history that has not utilized or formed some sort of religious beliefs? No, of course not. Not that everyone believed in it, but religion has played a huge part in all cultures. There really has not been an "Atheist" civilization that rejected all religion prior to the past century, and even then, it was the state cracking down on religion while many of the people continued to practice it secretly. You don't have to put your resources in faith, and that will probably happen often, but it will still affect your people because it would be impossible to completely shield your people from all religious beliefs.

nokmirt
Mar 17, 2012, 02:20 PM
Has there ever been any civilization prior to modern history that has not utilized or formed some sort of religious beliefs? No, of course not. Not that everyone believed in it, but religion has played a huge part in all cultures. There really has not been an "Atheist" civilization that rejected all religion prior to the past century, and even then, it was the state cracking down on religion while many of the people continued to practice it secretly. You don't have to put your resources in faith, and that will probably happen often, but it will still affect your people because it would be impossible to completely shield your people from all religious beliefs.

There were many strange cults in several early cultures, such as Egypt. These cults were present throughout Hellenistic times and Roman times as well. However, I have never heard of an "Atheist" Civilization. Or even a cult who practiced Atheism. There was always some powerful higher deity of some sort, animal, or beast, within the scope of the belief system that is worshipped.

IMO religion should be a foundation within CiV, it makes perfect sense to me.

bhavv
Mar 17, 2012, 10:12 PM
Not only Confucianism, but most Asian religions can be theist, agnostic or atheist - budhism and Jainism neither require a belief in God, and you can be a follower of either religion while also being an atheist. Toaism might be like that too but I don't know much about that and confusianism.

Asian religions are much more philosophical that the monotheistic religions, the only exception being Hinduism which is the only polytheistic religion still popular today.

Callonia
Mar 18, 2012, 01:30 AM
You don't have to found a religion, but I'm not sure how exactly one refuses outside religion too.



By sending in the Spanish inquisitors! They'll never see them coming!

GenjiKhan
Mar 18, 2012, 06:55 AM
If Pantheism is considered as a form of atheism,then there are so many religions out there that might "represent" the "atheism religion" in ancient times .

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 18, 2012, 07:01 AM
I'm actually curious how exactly religion spreading works, because atm it doesn't seem like we can have multiple religions in cities (which I think is wrong). I'm also curious what happens to your Pantheon belief if another religion spreads to your city/nation, do you lose the pantheon belief?

theadder
Mar 18, 2012, 09:30 PM
I'm actually curious how exactly religion spreading works, because atm it doesn't seem like we can have multiple religions in cities (which I think is wrong). I'm also curious what happens to your Pantheon belief if another religion spreads to your city/nation, do you lose the pantheon belief?

It isn't clear yet whether the religions vie for influence or not; it is possible that when a religion is established in a city it stays there until it is removed with an Inquisitor.

It might be more interesting if the religion in a city changes based on the 'power' of that religion; for example, this might be measured by the total amount of faith accumulated during the game for each, or the sheer number of believers for each.

Hopefully it won't be too static.

GRM7584
Mar 19, 2012, 08:46 AM
I think, based on the overall 'feel' of Civ 5, and there being only one religion icon per city, it is safe to say that there will only be one religion in each city at any given time.

I would definitely like a bit more of a robust system, less for gameplay reasons and more for thematic ones (and therefore unlikely, for a commercial release). For instance, you could have other minor (visible only in city screen) religions present in a city besides the dominant (icon) religion, which don't actually exert their religious 'effects' from belief on that city, but which make it easier for foreign missionaries to change the dominant religion. It could also act as an interval step for missionaries, IE, you have to establish your religion as a minority in the city first before sending a second missionary to make it dominant, and inquisitors remove all minority religions and downgrade a dominant non-state religion to a minority.

But I seriously doubt they'd implement that. Very probably, in my eyes: One religion per city, period. Missionaries add your religion to an empty city, Inquisitors replace not-your-religion with your religion, religious spread happens randomly and only to empty cities. Civ 5 has, generally, been more about accessibility and streamlining than Civ 4, so having a religious spread system that is unusually complex compared to other features doesn't seem likely to me.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 19, 2012, 08:51 AM
Guess we'll have to wait and see. I do hope that we can change between religions in each city.

But then how will "State" religion work.. and all of the screenshots showed the same religion all over the cities. (controlled by one player that is)

Louis XXIV
Mar 19, 2012, 08:56 AM
Cities have a religion that may or may not be connected to their Civ's religion. Instead, the cities get a "follower bonus" connected to the religion in that city.

GRM7584
Mar 19, 2012, 09:26 AM
Cities have a religion that may or may not be connected to their Civ's religion. Instead, the cities get a "follower bonus" connected to the religion in that city.

I think it is likely that they will only get this bonus if they follow the state religion, since that would be a logical incentive to switch state religions; otherwise, it would be a purely diplomatic tool, completely disconnected from the actual situation in your civ.

Louis XXIV
Mar 19, 2012, 09:33 AM
Yeah, I think that'll be the case. However, such bonuses are city specific, not nation specific.