Characteristics of world-religions

Anyone know if there will be different characteristics for different religions? or will there only be blocs and ways to use religion to conquer??

I haven't seen any info or discussion on this but shouldn't different religions influence the people in different ways. First of all there should be a liberal-fanatic scale of somesort, but I wonder what the differenses would be between different religious civs.
If the US had been a muslim nation, had it been more agressive? less agressive? less technological? had less poverty? a larger population?

I hope Fireaxis does some deep religious research and puts some pluses and minuses on the religions but that probably won't happen, civ4 will be too politically correct.

Anyway do you have any good traits or drawbacks for the worldreligions based on the religious sources?

I think that religions should develope in Civ4.
For instance, in the begining, your small and primitive civ has a kind of totemism. But, bypassing the centuries, the civ becoming bigger, richer, the society getting more complex etc - and thus, polytheism arises.
That's good enough as a basic idea?

The problem as I see it is that religion is shaped by who's in charge of the religius organisastion. Since religion is a way to control allot of people. The ones att the top can interpret the religius texts in many ways which will reflect on the society in which the religion is practiced.

Perhaps world leaders for each religion should be introduced, also, adding another layer to diplomacy. Having certain religion for or against you would also influence other civs opinions of you.

No, not a terribly original idea. ;(

How about a new government available in the Middle Ages, which would be like the Church (Catholics) or Mosque (Muslim) e.t.c running the country? This was popular in the real Middle Ages, and the Church decided what went where, but over time, when more governments become available, players see more benefits it govt's like Democracy, e.t.c...just like in real life when not as many ppl are bothered about religion nowadays compared to past ages, due to Scientific developement

I personally think detailed pluses and minuses for real world religions is a very bad idea. What this would accomplish is that real world people will be offended at your game. CIV is targeting the mass market, to offend a potential buyer by telling him that his religion is inferior to the other religions in the game doesn't strike me as a good sales technique.

Dauntless said:

How about a new government available in the Middle Ages, which would be like the Church (Catholics) or Mosque (Muslim) e.t.c running the country? This was popular in the real Middle Ages, and the Church decided what went where, but over time, when more governments become available, players see more benefits it govt's like Democracy, e.t.c...just like in real life when not as many ppl are bothered about religion nowadays compared to past ages, due to Scientific developement

Click to expand...

You talk about this as if it were something from the ancient past. Open your eyes, there are still theocracies and people willing to kill and die for religion these days. Religion is not a thing of the past.

warpstorm said:

I personally think detailed pluses and minuses for real world religions is a very bad idea. What this would accomplish is that real world people will be offended at your game. CIV is targeting the mass market, to offend a potential buyer by telling him that his religion is inferior to the other religions in the game doesn't strike me as a good sales technique.

Click to expand...

It would be a bit controversial, but on the other hand it's just a game. If it's a feature that makes the game more fun - I'd like to see it implemented.

If they implement drawbacks and advanteges with different, specific religions they could do it based on history - both Christianity and Islam +1 agressiveness for example - opposed to basing it in their beliefsystems.

You could see the traits and aggressionlevel as offensive too if you don't look at them through a historical perspective - are we Scandinavians dumber and lazier than the Persians were? is it in our nature to be aggressive? Maybe it's farfetched but the idea's the same.

I personally think detailed pluses and minuses for real world religions is a very bad idea.

Click to expand...

warpstorm
It is a game. anyone could be offended by its nation missing from the game, by its nation lacking the religious trait etc.
so, no one should play, if he/she is offended by any parts.

It is just a game, but religion is one of the strongest factors in many peoples' lives (much stronger than nationalism in most cases). I think Firaxis would be foolish to say that all Christians are better than all Muslims, for example. By putting stats to this they would in fact be doing that (well the stats might work out that all Muslims are better than all Christians for all I know). All I know is that if it were my call to make, I'd steer way away from it.

Not to mention just the internal inconsistencies of religion. Christianity is more conducive to militarism? I know a lot of Christians who'd be disappointed with justifying war in their name. Christianity is then a religion more conducive to peace? I know a lot of people who'd be offended with that too.

Probably best to leave it alone.

How will Firaxis implement Relegion. In what way will it influence the game. Will it be as culture is now?

dh_epic said:

Not to mention just the internal inconsistencies of religion. Christianity is more conducive to militarism? I know a lot of Christians who'd be disappointed with justifying war in their name. Christianity is then a religion more conducive to peace? I know a lot of people who'd be offended with that too.

Probably best to leave it alone.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get offended if they told me that Chritianity( more likely Roman Catholic) is (was) one of the most gruesome religions of all time.

I know plenty of people who'd disagree with the idea of a Christian nation being inherently more war-like. It's kind of a question of if you're a part of the Christian right, or the Christian left. I only point it out to show that trying to assign specific traits to specific religions will be misrepresentative at best, if not outright offensive.

Religion ought to be abstracted, with no references to real world religions, and be available to the player as another empire-management tool. Rather than selecting a religion from a list, players could simply "create" the state religion by checking (or not checking) a number of "traits" or "practices" (this portion would be the only part to derive much of its substance, although indirectly, from real world religions).

This would allow not only religious differences but religious similarities as well. In addition, gameplay effects should be assigned to the traits/practices so that religion would be significant in terms of gameplay.

While this may sound somewhat similar to the "plus and minus" system already mentioned in this thread, the critical difference is that every trait/practice would have its pluses and minuses, defining each trait but avoiding connotations on any religions as a whole (besides the fact that real world names should not be used anyway).

Players should simply custom-name the religions they make for their civs. Perhaps players could even save certain "templates" of religions they have made and use them in the future. That way, individual players can create a "Christianity" or "Islam" or whatever but it would be their own creation and therefore their own views and preferences. Firaxis would then be able to avoid any controversy with putting religions in, while including the effects of religion in the game and allowing players to be comfortable with it.

Is there any possibility of fundamentalism coming back (although in a more balanced way than Civ II)? How about theocracy?

For those who say that religion should be modelled perfectly (historically, anyways...) and that people should just get a grip and play it or leave it because it's "just a game" should read this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1286066,00.html

Just imagine what would happen if Firaxis attached labels like "aggressive" and "unscientific" (or something similar) to Islam. The game would be banned in 1/3 of the world and the bad press would lead others to investigate, and then you'd get all of the Christians up in arms...

The odds of Firaxis triggering that (and they know it would) are well below 0. They want to make money and not go bankrupt, after all.

Exactly, Trip, it's a big deal, and not just around the world but right here in the Western world. A lot of people have emotional ties to things other than America, Christianity, European Descent ... after all, America is the great cultural melting pot.

Humans are irrational, but Python is there to solve it.

Trip said:

For those who say that religion should be modelled perfectly (historically, anyways...) and that people should just get a grip and play it or leave it because it's "just a game" should read this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1286066,00.html

Just imagine what would happen if Firaxis attached labels like "aggressive" and "unscientific" (or something similar) to Islam. The game would be banned in 1/3 of the world and the bad press would lead others to investigate, and then you'd get all of the Christians up in arms...

The odds of Firaxis triggering that (and they know it would) are well below 0. They want to make money and not go bankrupt, after all.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to portrait religion perfectly (not even historically).
But it is just a game , not that people needs to get a grip or leave just because of that, just that it needs to be fun or else no one will play it.

I've read the article and it was interesting, though it's nothing new that people and countries get offended by various things.

The thing is that I believe it's possible to implement the world religions and still sell more copies than you would by making the religions abstract. As I see it the fun-side wins over the offended-side. Of course they'll have to try not to offend too many people/countries...