Why add orthodoxy and protestantism but not an African or Native american religion?

Since people were wondering:

According to the XML:
Catholic
Austria, Aztec, Brazil, Celts, Denmark, France, Inca, Maya, Poland, Polynesia, Portugal, Rome, Spain, Venice

Not sure why Polynesia and Denmark are here, they probably just didn't change the tags (Catholic civs are tagged as "Christian")

Protestant:
America, England, Iroquois, Germany, Netherlands, Shoshone, Sweden, Zulu

Eastern Orthodox:
Byzantium, Ethiopia, Greece, Russia

Islam
Arabia, Babylon, Carthage, Egypt, Morocoo, Ottomans, Songhai

Hinduism
India and Indonesia

Zoroastrianism
Assyria and Persia

Tengriism
Huns and Mongolia

Taoism
China

Shinto
Japan

Buddhism
Siam

Confucianism
Korea
 
The estimates for Shinto are between 27–65 million today. Why is there such a range gap? Because its mostly syncretized with Buddhism and many people are only nominally or nationally Shinto. The number is far less if you're trying to find "pure" Shinto followers. I would argue using contemporary population numbers is also the wrong way to go about it, as a) I view that as a corollary of my "still living" argument, and b) modernity has lead to exponential growth of several cultures yet that increased growth only really has had significance recently and is a poor system for a game that starts in 4000 BC in judging significance on a world stage.

I'll still argue that in terms of numbers, at best you can say that Shinto is equal to Hellenic religion even before AD 380. However, in no way can you argue that Shinto was more significant on the world stage. Particularly Hellenic religion as expressed by Neoplatonic mysticism, whose impact can be seen in the theological beliefs and framework of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. You can also argue just the mere cultural and aesthetic influence of Hellenic religion in terms of art. There are even forms of Hellenic religion that were monotheistic if that's important to some people.

If we also talking about influence on a world stage, I'm going to bring up Sikhism. I don't mean to offend anyone, but Sikhism is largely limited to one area, and really only began to spread worldwide in the 19th century. Ancient Hellenic religion and Manichaeism had for more impact on world history. You also can't argue it was included because a civ that had a chance of being in the game would use it. Why is it in? Because today it is one of the largest religions in the world. But again, this is today.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that size and significance, although certainly a factor, was not more of a factor than including living religions.

I'm saying you can certainly make arguments about the "odder" choices out of the 11 (now 13) included religions. You can find religions that were more significant historically than some of the 11. I'd say you can even make an argument in terms of size even if you include modern populations. However, you can't find any larger and/or more significant that are also still practiced today.

And no, I don't care about indigenous religions. For geographic distribution they might be nice, but were never very significant historically nor do they exist today outside of forms syncretic with Christianity or Islam.

I would argue that both a Hellenic religion and Manichaeism should be included with the 11-13 official religions, they can stand on their own in terms of size and impact, and both were certainly more than "just polytheistic or pantheistic religions" as you would say.

I'm also saying that "pantheon" was a poor choice on Firaxis' part as a label for primitive religions, and I think people use the poorly chosen label to discredit valid choices like Hellenic religion. Actually, I think Firaxis might have gotten confused with pantheon and pantheistic as well. As a pantheistic religion would fit with the belief system of giving bonuses to natural land, while a pantheon inherently has nothing to do with that.

The exact same can be said of Christianity or religion in many Western Nations. Although, we could get into a very interesting debate about what it means to be Shinto, as there are some intriguing arguments that can be made on that particular topic. The point remains that there is still a huge number of people who are considered to be Shinto followers.

The issue of using the modern world plagues the game as a whole. The game is massively biased towards the modern world right down to the inclusion of the Shoshone and Iroquois. The religion system already has some vague sense in that regard though, and does offer some historic options for religion, namely Zoroastrianism and Tengriism.

The point about the Hellenic religions is now so watered down that I don't even get what you're trying to get at. Are you now saying that if you amalgamated all Hellenic religions together, and took that total, that it would be larger than the particular set of people that your particular definition fits as Shinto? If so, then we're in for an even longer debate about what defines a religion, what defines Shinto and what gives you the right to declare who are and are not worthy of being counted as adherents. Keep in mind though that the total number of "Hellenic Religious followers" were almost certainly less than 25 million in any case, even in the early 1st millennium. Please keep careful note that I don't see anyone arguing that Shinto was more important, and I in fact was bringing up the the Roman, Greek etc religions as examples of what has been left out as "Pantheon" beliefs within the game. Shinto is a bit of an odd one out though, but due to their size these days (they are within the top 8 religions in the World Today).

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for now, do you want Hellenic religions included as some blob entity? Do you feel that allowing for Pantheon beliefs and having that represent a lot of the religions that would later die out world wide as somehow inappropriate? That is what they seem to have done, whether right or wrong.

You're not wrong about Manichaeism, but they just seem to have gone with other options. While we're talking about Sikhism and Shinto though, I'm curious as to why you've not called Judaism out, which in effect only acted as a precursor religion, and it in and of itself was never all that influential in terms of spread at least on it's own. There have been influential people who are Jewish yes, but at no point was it a major religion in the same way as the others, and in terms of shear number today sits below both Shinto and Sikhism.

As for having Hellenic Religions, having them as a blob would be a bit inappropriate due to the differences between them. Moreover it might be worth noting that the Italy effect might come into play again here. As with the Italian City states and the city state mechanic, here with the Pantheon beliefs almost certainly being largely in reference to the Greek and Roman pantheons, it would seem a bit silly to have them as the base form of that and a major world religion.

Speaking of the differences of Hellenic Religions though, it is worth noting that the Roman Empire was actually quite tolerant with religion. It at it's core followed the Roman pantheon, but as you put it, it was largely Hellenic religions in the "core" region, but varied greatly throughout. No single religion before Christianity really dominated Rome as a whole as such, but rather it was the local beliefs that were allowed to exist, but that's a whole other story and more to do with the complexity of Roman Society than some stickers used as labels in a computer game.
 
Or differing branches of Islam.
 
Or differing branches of Islam.

They split Christianity so there would be a better distribution of religions for Civs to pick. How would you split Islam, and how do you think it would help?
 

For "Hellenic Religion", I'm talking about the religion of the Hellenistic period (~300BC-AD300) in the Greco-Roman world. Academically, there is a defined continuity in terms of religion in this period and an underlying ideology even among the various offshoots and cults. An umbrella "Hellenic Religion" to represent this specific period would be no more inappropriate than the umbrella Hinduism the game uses, or even the umbrella Christianity it used to use. Or actually an umbrella anything. Christianity today is completely different than Apostolic Christianity circa ~30 AD. Temple Judaism is completely different than Rabbinic Judaism. Various denominations of religions are so so different you might even consider them different religions, yet you can usually still identify an underlying ideology or belief. There's no argument for the inclusion being watered down when that is what the game does for all its religions, an overall umbrella. And I'll certainly get into defining the underlying ideological schema of religion during the Hellenic period in the Greco-Roman world if you want.

Your argument against Hellenism, is the same argument you used for Tengri. You specifically cited its importance due to the size of the Mongol empire, except Tengri was only followed by a very small portion of that land area and population. If you want to exaggerate that by citing the influence Tengri beliefs had on local belief systems, then I can certainly include the influence of Hellenic religion on local belief systems.

Also, I don't seen Hellenic religion as the obvious inspiration for Pantheons, certainly not in the way Italy was for the city-states. You say it would be a bit silly to have a pantheon and a major religion, but many of the pantheon beliefs are the precursor beliefs of the included religions. You can easily chose a historical set of beliefs (including pantheon) for most of the 11 included religions.

And my point of the argument is that they looked to living religions as the most important factor in choosing which religions to include, even over significance or size. And yes, I would argue a "Hellenic religion" should be included. And no, pantheon beliefs just read like a poor man's understanding of "primitive religion" and don't exclusively represent religions that have died out as there are included pantheon beliefs that are still believed today among the 11 included religions.

Also, you can't touch Judaism. If it was left out, people would complain to no end. I'm leaving it out of my argument because I don't want to deal with the hassle of that argument.
 
Good points well made. Although I'm near certain that the move from the Roman Pantheon (and from Folk beliefs in the Roman Empire) to Christianity was a major inspiration to the religion system as it is in the game, but that's only a minor point in all of this. Hellenic religion would sound a bit odd, but I'm sure they could come up with a good name to cover it.
 
I don't really see a major problem with this. The symbols and names can easily be modded and edited if you want (there are quite a few mods for this). The problem with a Mesoamerican religion is that while they are certainly related what would we call it? While we could probably give it a distinctly Maya or Aztec name, the Spanish killed so much religious knowledge it would end up being futile imo to name a religion to try and cover multiple civs in Mesoamerica. You could theoretically name it after one of the major gods or one of the major inner-pantheons of gods, but it would draw criticism probably either way. IMO - it just wouldn't really make sense to try and name a Mesoamerican religion and mods do a good enough job if we want to have a feel after certain cults like chaac's

From a gameplay perspective, the change makes sense. With the amount of European civs in existence, plus the already existing assets, + the previous congestion with just Christianity it adds a little more immersion and there is nothing wrong with this decision
 
Just throwing some infamous religions out there:

Animism - Aztec
Druidism - Celts
Duma - Shoshone
Huaca - Inca
Huna - Polynesia
Karihwiio - Iroquois
Popol Vuh - Maya
Saan - Zulu
Swedenborgianism - Sweden

Also your list is wrong on quite a few of these - but just to point out one particular one, the Popol Vuh is a book (it means Sacred Book) and is not a religion onto-itself. While the current version of the Popol Vuh survives from the Quiche version its a collection of beliefs, legends, folklores, etc. from millennia [And quite possibly one of the earliest holy texts out there as we have stone stelae records from it at El Mirador, a site that ranges from 1,000 B.C. to 100 A.D.] - but you certainly couldn't call it the name of a religion
 
The demographic argument against adding indigenous american religions isn't exactly fair - if it wasn't for smallpox and hepatitis there would have been more! And why not get rid of the Shoshone?

I don't really see a major problem with this. The symbols and names can easily be modded and edited if you want (there are quite a few mods for this). The problem with a Mesoamerican religion is that while they are certainly related what would we call it? While we could probably give it a distinctly Maya or Aztec name, the Spanish killed so much religious knowledge it would end up being futile imo to name a religion to try and cover multiple civs in Mesoamerica. You could theoretically name it after one of the major gods or one of the major inner-pantheons of gods, but it would draw criticism probably either way. IMO - it just wouldn't really make sense to try and name a Mesoamerican religion and mods do a good enough job if we want to have a feel after certain cults like chaac's

What about "Teotlism" or "Nagualism"? These are the Nahuatl terms which refer to particular aspects in the theology in the Maya and Aztec religion.

As for the northern native americans, just go with the sun dance religion.

From a gameplay perspective, the change makes sense. With the amount of European civs in existence, plus the already existing assets, + the previous congestion with just Christianity it adds a little more immersion and there is nothing wrong with this decision

Yes but the Mayans and Aztecs are currently "Catholic" while the Shoshone and Iroquois are currently "Protestant" so adding some native american religion would have the same effect


As far as ancient Polytheism is concerned it could have combined the Roman and Greek religion together, bringing in the other ancient civilizations? They could have called in "Paganism" or something like that. One of the fascinating things about the ancient Mediterranean was the way in which these various civilizations traded Gods and Deities so that the Egyptian goddess Isis was worshiped in Northern Europe, the Greek god Apollo was worshiped in Egypt, the Middle Eastern god Dionysis was worshiped in Greece and so on.
 
Something similar might have been said already, but...

Religion has always been an important part of empires and civilizations. Even the lack of it becomes important because it is usually hostile towards religion (historically speaking).

Still, the major world religions as we know it today are different because they can be seen as being the engine of change (good or bad). They aren't passive like some of the previous religions. The key, perhaps, is that they are more theological. For the most part, the God (or gods) that the religions in CiV have seen this God in control from the very beginning to the end, rather than some arbitrary deities we have no hope (or desire?) of knowing. They are personal. Basically, it is more about the nature of these religions, rather than simply being about number of followers. The Roman republic's (toward the end at least) had such a superficial religious expression that it boggled their minds to see Christians dying simply for their faith. They thought "Why not just pay lip service to the gods like we all do, and just worship however you want afterwards?" Not so.

And I would like a secularism mechanic in there, though I don't see atheism as the same thing. Although, the rationalism tree did a good job of representing it, and I am glad that it is not mutually exclusive with piety. That was way to historically inaccurate.

That been said, how hard is it to add every religion ever into the game?
 
It would make sense to replace Sikhism with something the Native American civs could choose. An umbrella "Animism" could work for a number of existing civs (Aztecs, Iroquois, Inca, Maya, Shoshone, Zulu) - I know in practice it differs very little from what the game considers a "Pantheon", and obviously those groups had widely different spiritual traditions, but this is more about adding flavour than anything, doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense. (Heck it doesn't make sense to include Sikhism when there is NO civ which chooses it by default.)
 
For the same reason there is no Greek or Roman or Egyptian religion (which I dare say were much more sophisticated than African religions) - these tribal and pagan religions, limited to a single tribe or civilization, are represented by pantheon beliefs.

The religions in Civilization V are all big world religions with followers around the globe.

Agreed. The topic here is pretty silly.

Except Zoroastrianism of course. That for some reason has become a pet project of just about every historical game out today. Don't know why. Am I wrong in saying it is the only practically extinct religion included in the list?
 
That been said, how hard is it to add every religion ever into the game?

Maybe not. As long as they limited the number that can be founded per game it probably doesn't matter. But right there is the point, it doesn't matter. We have a healthy selection already.
 
Agreed. The topic here is pretty silly.

Except Zoroastrianism of course. That for some reason has become a pet project of just about every historical game out today. Don't know why. Am I wrong in saying it is the only practically extinct religion included in the list?

I wouldn't say that the topic is silly, just that there are intricacies within religious beliefs that aren't immediately obvious.

If I'm not mistaken there are only less than 5000 followers of Zoroastrianism, but I can understand its inclusion in the game. It was certainly a world religion in its time.

I think there is a tendency to approach Civ in an overly-egalitarian fashion. Civ has to be a balance between what people generally expect and a naturalistic approach.

For the most-part, I think they've done a great job of striking this balance.
 
What about "Teotlism" or "Nagualism"? These are the Nahuatl terms which refer to particular aspects in the theology in the Maya and Aztec religion.

As for the northern native americans, just go with the sun dance religion.



Yes but the Mayans and Aztecs are currently "Catholic" while the Shoshone and Iroquois are currently "Protestant" so adding some native american religion would have the same effect

I am not a fan of either using Teotlism or Nagualism - Teotl means god. There is no term that exists that is either called Teotlism or Nagualism, both of which are probably western made up terms and imo shouldn't be done by a game of Civ's magnitude.

It would sort of be like calling Christianity Godism or Jesusism. And then you run into the problem that you are using a nahuatl bastardization to also cover the Maya. Again I don't see as large a problem with having the Maya and Aztecs follow Catholicism. Today the majority of Maya and Aztec descendants follow Catholicism and over the centuries Mesoamerican Catholicism has been one of the most interesting religious structures out there as Pre-Colombian religious beliefs have fought and even become a part of Catholicism in the region.

Heck in the 1800s northern Maya established an independent Maya Kingdom that gained recognition of its independence from the English, Russians, and others in the world community. The San Chanta Cruz state created their own religion a mix of Catholicism and former Maya beliefs. The Cruzob church is probably the best example of how this unique form of Catholicism emerged across Central America. Catholicism isn't historically inaccurate for the region actually
 
It was an Islamic Empire with Orthodox subjects at first, before they converted.



Atheism is by definition not a religion, and it would be inappropriate to list it as one in the game.

As for other religions, the game makes it quite clear that pantheon beliefs are religions like the Greek, Roman and Norse religions, some of the most influential on the modern world, so why is it such a stretch to apply the same to American and African religions?



Referring to meso-american religions as simply "Animism" is hugely offensive and in it's essence a massive over simplification. Animism is a western term for any religious belief to do with the spiritual nature of the physical worl or animals. Saying that "animism" is the "religion is america" would be like calling Christianity "Monotheism". It can be classified as a monotheistic belief, but itself is not some vague monotheism.

Whilst "level" probably isn't the right way of describing it, to give any religion in the Americas precedence over the others would be offensive in and of itself, and in a game where the Norse, Roman, Greek and various religions of Mesopotamia aren't represented directly, and instead considered "pantheon beliefs", it surely isn't hard to see how they are representing American and African beliefs.

In addition, lumping all the religions of all the cultures from North America would be like saying Christianity, and all its versions should just be lumped in with all the versions of Judaism and Islam. Religions are both drivers and reflections of the culture of their followers, and, at least in my opinion, should be treated with respect, even if they are no longer practiced. For all we know one day our religions may be spoken about on future forums as barbarous, simple and easily grouped and equivalent to the others within the geographic location.
 
Something similar might have been said already, but...

Religion has always been an important part of empires and civilizations. Even the lack of it becomes important because it is usually hostile towards religion (historically speaking).

Still, the major world religions as we know it today are different because they can be seen as being the engine of change (good or bad). They aren't passive like some of the previous religions. The key, perhaps, is that they are more theological. For the most part, the God (or gods) that the religions in CiV have seen this God in control from the very beginning to the end, rather than some arbitrary deities we have no hope (or desire?) of knowing. They are personal. Basically, it is more about the nature of these religions, rather than simply being about number of followers. The Roman republic's (toward the end at least) had such a superficial religious expression that it boggled their minds to see Christians dying simply for their faith. They thought "Why not just pay lip service to the gods like we all do, and just worship however you want afterwards?" Not so.

And I would like a secularism mechanic in there, though I don't see atheism as the same thing. Although, the rationalism tree did a good job of representing it, and I am glad that it is not mutually exclusive with piety. That was way to historically inaccurate.

That been said, how hard is it to add every religion ever into the game?

I don't think all Native American religious practices were just empty, passive pantheons. These traditions made serious demands on their members, and that is part why these religions are often still taken seriously by native american tribes to this day. They didn't do what the Greek and Roman slaves did and abandon their religion as a bunch of empty mythology :p

I wouldn't say that the topic is silly, just that there are intricacies within religious beliefs that aren't immediately obvious.

If I'm not mistaken there are only less than 5000 followers of Zoroastrianism, but I can understand its inclusion in the game. It was certainly a world religion in its time.

I think there is a tendency to approach Civ in an overly-egalitarian fashion. Civ has to be a balance between what people generally expect and a naturalistic approach.

For the most-part, I think they've done a great job of striking this balance.

There were tens of millions of Aztecs and Mayans at the time of conquest, meaning that theirs were world religions too. The whole point is that this game includes inquisitors.

Why can't my Spanish Catholics find any human-sacrificing Aztecs to throw to the inquisition? because they founded catholicism :crazyeye:

I am not a fan of either using Teotlism or Nagualism - Teotl means god. There is no term that exists that is either called Teotlism or Nagualism, both of which are probably western made up terms and imo shouldn't be done by a game of Civ's magnitude.

It would sort of be like calling Christianity Godism or Jesusism.

Hinduism is a term invented by Europeans to translate a term invented by the Persian and Arab world to refer to Hindus. The Hindus never historically referred to themselves as such. Hinduism goes back to a phrase that means just "on the other side of the Indus river". Some Hindus refer to themselves as Sanatana Dharma but they are referred to as "Hindus" in game because that is what most people (and probably most Hindus nowadays) know themselves as. If you had gone to the founding figures of Hinduism though and called them that, they might look at you funny. Incidentally I dont think Zoroastrians call themselves "Zoroastrian" either.

Its undeniable that the Aztecs and Mayans shared a wholly distinct world vision informed by their religion, and that it was utilized as state ideology frequently too. I'm sure a better term could be found, but the point is that we could isolate and refer to particular parts of their theology to come up with a term. There are plenty of scholars on Aztec religion particularly in Mexico who could provide Firaxis with that kind of info.

Nagualism might work for the reason that it refers to a common belief in Mesoamerican religion that seems to go back to the Olmecs of a spiritual connection between man and animal. Teotlism for the fact that it refers to a particular vision of the creator (like Christianity, which in a sense is "Godism" as Christ is the god who is the savior). Maybe they're not the best but it would be more interesting to use those terms and reflect the religious diversity (then perhaps bring in some religion options for founder and follower beliefs that reflect the Aztec and Mayan vision)

Consider too that in this game the default is for the Huns to follow "Tengriism" despite the fact that they never identified themselves as such. If the Huns are "Tengriist" by default there's nothing wrong with using a Nahuatl word for the Mayans, especially considering the fact that the Mayan city states were ruled by a Nahuatl elite at some point who brought their language and further synthesized their religious ideas.

And then you run into the problem that you are using a nahuatl bastardization to also cover the Maya. Again I don't see as large a problem with having the Maya and Aztecs follow Catholicism. Today the majority of Maya and Aztec descendants follow Catholicism and over the centuries Mesoamerican Catholicism has been one of the most interesting religious structures out there as Pre-Colombian religious beliefs have fought and even become a part of Catholicism in the region.

Yeah they are Catholic because Spain went on its biggest mission of mass conversion in history!

And for the syncretism to occur, they needed to have a bunch of religious beliefs which they were already seriously committed to. It seems that having a religion for the indigenous peoples would better reflect that history of mass conversion and syncretism which went on.

Heck in the 1800s northern Maya established an independent Maya Kingdom that gained recognition of its independence from the English, Russians, and others in the world community. The San Chanta Cruz state created their own religion a mix of Catholicism and former Maya beliefs. The Cruzob church is probably the best example of how this unique form of Catholicism emerged across Central America. Catholicism isn't historically inaccurate for the region actually

I'm aware of the syncretism of the rebels in the Yucatan and other Mayan movements. It's pretty interesting stuff. I dont know if thats a reason to make them Catholic though. Pacal sure wasn't a Catholic, nor were the various later kings ruling from Chichen Itza.

The books of Chilam Balam and other texts indicate that the beliefs died hard and some people still try to practice them, even if mixed with Catholic belief.
 
That been said, how hard is it to add every religion ever into the game?

It is possible to have too many of ANYTHING in a game

More of something means

Balance difficulties..( if it actually affects gameplay)

Lack of uniqueness (ie low interest) do you want the Baptists or the Southern Baptists?

Time for assets to be produced (usually art)

Lack of ability to tell the difference (is that city Saudi Wahhibism or Jovian Imperator?)

Lower interest options (what is Eristroel... why did they bother putting it on?)


These can all be seen with civs in the game (colors are too close on the minimap, UAs are too similar, are unbalanced)

Religions aren't gameplay issues, but you still have a 'natural limit' to the number of religions that are a good idea in the game.

And since religions don't do anything Interesting in the gameplay (like say Venice the civ does) it seems silly to expand them when you have a perfectly good mechanism for representing an extra wide variety (city-states v. civs and pantheons v. religions)
 
Top Bottom