Civ 5 Religion Mod

[Impaler[WrG]]

that would only be fair if they get an equivalent penalty, EG when the Protestants split off they started slaughtering Jews and Catholics who refused to convert, but they gained a benefit in um, uh killing people like intellectuals, wait, that's not a bonus... so yeah the Schismatic benefit is non-existant

The penalty is the eternal hatred of the original religion and all the civs that have adopted it, which means your losing significant diplomatic potential when you chose to schism. I don't think just choosing your own new/altered characteristics would be adequate as the player could just found their own religion 'from scratch' to get that. If doing a schism and founding a new religion both require the expenditure of a Great Prophet then their needs to be some compelling difference between them.

 

[civ_king]

The Schismatic Benefit should simply be the ability to choose the principle Dogma(s) of your new faith-but at the cost of losing the benefits of the old Sect. So to use the historical example of Catholicism & Protestantism: one of the chief issues of Martin Luther was the massive money that the Catholic Church was making-through its Monasteries, the selling of Indulgences & other worldly activities like this. In my system, this would probably make the Secularism Trait of Catholicism "Materialistic" (perhaps granting bonus gold from Christian Buildings). Now the thing most associated with Protestantism is the whole "Protestant Work Ethic", so a Protestant Schism might cause religious buildings to lose their gold bonus, but gain a production bonus instead. Of course, in the game you wouldn't have this forced on you-you would get to choose which of the 3 traits (Strictness, Secularism & Tolerance) apply to your new sect.
Hope that makes sense.

Aussie

This "Protestant work ethic" never happened in the US, please explain, in fact it was so absent that Catholic immigrants were noted for their work ethic.

Extreme amounts of culture would be better as much of that money was going to Cathedrals and most of the rest going to assisting the poor, what evil is there in "re-appropriating" money from the rich to aid the poor?

also

There is a common misconception that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, indulgences forgive sins: the Catholic Church teaches instead that indulgences only relieve the temporal punishment due because of the sins, and that a person is still required to have his grave sins absolved, ordinarily through the sacrament of Confession, to receive salvation.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wow, clearly I've offended someone who is a Catholic. Who built the US in the first place? The Pilgrim Fathers were protestants fleeing persecution in their home-land-long before any Catholics ever arrived. As to the issue of Indulgences, please cite your source. The reality is that the Catholic Church has a long history of amassing huge amounts of wealth, yet Catholic Countries are some of the poorest on the Earth-so please tell us again how they're appropriating money for the benefit of the poor! I do laugh at the rather sorry attempts by some to rewrite history to assuage the sins of their religion. Don't forget that Luther was a devout CATHOLIC-until he saw the horrendous corruption going on in Rome at the time!

Aussie.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

There is a common misconception that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, indulgences forgive sins: the Catholic Church teaches instead that indulgences only relieve the temporal punishment due because of the sins, and that a person is still required to have his grave sins absolved, ordinarily through the sacrament of Confession, to receive salvation.

And this misconception was at least as common in the 16th Century as it is today, and corrupt priests profited enormously by it.

 

[r_rolo1]

Wow, clearly I've offended someone who is a Catholic. Who built the US in the first place? The Pilgrim Fathers were protestants fleeing persecution in their home-land-long before any Catholics ever arrived. As to the issue of Indulgences, please cite your source. The reality is that the Catholic Church has a long history of amassing huge amounts of wealth, yet Catholic Countries are some of the poorest on the Earth-so please tell us again how they're appropriating money for the benefit of the poor! I do laugh at the rather sorry attempts by some to rewrite history to assuage the sins of their religion. Don't forget that Luther was a devout CATHOLIC-until he saw the horrendous corruption going on in Rome at the time!

Aussie.

About the Pilgrims... remember, they were running away from a protestant country when they decided to go to Northern America

I would like you to point me exactly where you got the statistics on catholics vs protestant countries in terms of wealth If that logic would hold, Liberia would be richer than Italy or Spain... or even richer than Bolivia

 

[civ_king]

Wow, clearly I've offended someone who is a Catholic. Who built the US in the first place? The Pilgrim Fathers were protestants fleeing persecution in their home-land-long before any Catholics ever arrived. As to the issue of Indulgences, please cite your source. The reality is that the Catholic Church has a long history of amassing huge amounts of wealth, yet Catholic Countries are some of the poorest on the Earth-so please tell us again how they're appropriating money for the benefit of the poor! I do laugh at the rather sorry attempts by some to rewrite history to assuage the sins of their religion. Don't forget that Luther was a devout CATHOLIC-until he saw the horrendous corruption going on in Rome at the time!

Aussie.

Source Wikipedia

The Pilgrims fled England (Anglican not Catholic), You might want to check out the torment they brought on the Quakers

IIRC France and Italy are members of the G8 and therefore not impoverished (right?)

As to Latin America and the Philippines I blame the Spanish

also my appropriating comment was applicable only to indulgences which were used for two three hundred years...

BTW he wasn't a devout Catholic, he detested most of it

 

[Thormodr]

Indulgences were a huge scam. I'm sure if Jesus were alive in the middle ages he would have been overturning their tables just as same as the money changers.

 

[civ_king]

Indulgences were a huge scam. I'm sure if Jesus were alive in the middle ages he would have been overturning their tables just as same as the money changers.

uh... read the TOC of them

 

[lemmy101]

I definitely think we've made some good headway on this Religion Mod, anyway.

 

[Leonel]

Oh, just as an example btw-here's some "Traits" that I assigned for religions in CivIV-via the civics system:

Dogma:
Ascetic: +1 Health; +1 happiness. -25% Gold.
Animist: +1 happiness from forests & jungles (can't remember the penalty).
Reformist: +25% Science; +25% Production (I'm thinking of the Protestant Work Ethic here), -25% Gold
Orthodox: +50% Culture, -25% Science

etc etc

Interfaith Relations:

Evangelist: Free Missionaries (can't remember the penalty).
Insular: +25% Culture, can't build missionaries.
Militant: +2 XP; +25% Espionage. -2 happiness per non-state religion

etc etc.

I really like that idea! It'd be a trade off where you could get a bonus but over all it remains balanced.

 

[civ_king]

Yeah Protestants need a gold bonus *cough* Megachurch *cough*

 

[Chazcon]

Wow what a thread.

Some great ideas that I will refer back to once I am modding for Civ 5.

And a lot of unnecessary pot-shots at each others' religions. I should have known.

Thanks for the good ideas, much better than my original thoughts on a religion mod. This what an open forum is all about!

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Wow what a thread.

Some great ideas that I will refer back to once I am modding for Civ 5.

And a lot of unnecessary pot-shots at each others' religions. I should have known.

Thanks for the good ideas, much better than my original thoughts on a religion mod. This what an open forum is all about!

Indeed most of this last page was unnecessary, most of us seem to be in agreement that assigning all effect IN GAME is the way to go but I'd like to make a motion that

ALL EFFECTS DISCUSSED HERE ARE TO BE IN THE ABSTRACT AND NOT REFERENCED TO ANY REAL RELIGION.

Your own readings of history will of course provide you with inspiration but simply describe the effects your interested in seeing without mentioning who/ware it comes from. If we all hold to this and drop the current argument I think we could avoid any further unnecessary flare ups.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Chazcon & Impaler. I do apologize-I was merely trying to explain a concept using what seemed an entirely appropriate historical example. I do, however, get extremely annoyed at people who use historical inaccuracy to defend their rose-coloured opinion of their religions.

Aussie.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Aussie did I not just ask for the whole thing to be DROPPED? Please for the sake of the thread delete your last post and STOP DISCUSSING REAL RELIGIONS and do not encourage anyone else to do so either. You and Civ-king clearly have differing opinion and you two should not get into that discussion here, even a civil one, it will only serve to distract from the fruitful modding ideas that are being exchanged.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK Impaler, I've removed the off-topic part of my post. I promise that all further discourse on this thread-by me-will *only* relate to the topic of a future CiV religion mod !

Aussie.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Thx Aussie, I really do want to see this thread produce some good ideas and ultimately see what you and others can come up with. Religion is going to be a BIG modding subject as lots of people are going to miss it from Civ4 and insist on having a mod that adds it. I hope tasteful and fun implementations become the norm and offensive/dumb implementations are swept away right here in the planning stage.

 

[civ_king]

Aussie did I not just ask for the whole thing to be DROPPED? Please for the sake of the thread delete your last post and STOP DISCUSSING REAL RELIGIONS and do not encourage anyone else to do so either. You and Civ-king clearly have differing opinion and you two should not get into that discussion here, even a civil one, it will only serve to distract from the fruitful modding ideas that are being exchanged.

sorry, I just don't like revisionist "facts"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

sorry, I just don't like revisionist "facts"

Then why do you rely on revisionist "facts" so strongly Civ-King?

Anyway, to the point-we were speaking about the potential benefits of schisms & sects, well how about this?

Lets assume that the ability to set the "Doctrine" of a religion belongs only to the founder of the Civ or the Civ which currently controls that Religion's Holy City. This means there might be a lot of Civs who adopted that religion, but are no longer happy with the benefits/penalties they provide. Lets use a hypothetical, in-game example.

The Greeks found Hinduism, & establish it as a Fundamentalist (bonus happiness; science penalty), Ascetic (Bonus Happiness & Health; money penalty) & Militant (bonus XP, religious military unit (Thuggee); happiness penalty from non-state religions & diplomatic penalties) Religion. Now the Greeks can alter these doctrines (at a cost) at any time they want-& the changes will flow to all cities with Hinduism as the State Religion (or only those which have built the appropriate temples etc).

Anyway, early in the game the neighbouring Romans adopted Hinduism as their State Religion, but now no longer like the Doctrines of the Faith. They have a few options open to them: (a) they can use diplomacy to urge the Greeks to change the doctrines, (b) they can launch a war to capture the Hindu Holy City, (c) they can change to another religion or (d) if they have an available Great Prophet, they can force a schism. By forcing a schism, they gain long-term control over doctrine-an option not open to them in (a) or (c), but without the cost associated with (b). They will earn the instant enmity of the Greeks (though this should be modified by how strong a religious flavor the Greek leader has), but this could be overcome-in time-through conciliatory gestures.

Of course forcing a schism should *not* cause all your cities to change religion. Indeed, very few cities should convert at first-forcing you to expend the effort to spread your new Sect. There should also be issues with spreading the new Sect to cities where the old religion still resides, dependent on the respective Tolerance of both the new Sect & the former religion However, another benefit is that it allows the player to form entirely new diplomatic blocs-in a way that Static Religions don't allow!

Aussie.

 

[civ_king]

Spoiler offtopic :

Then why do you rely on revisionist "facts" so strongly Civ-King?

1) In the US there the Catholics were noticed for their work ethic,
2) I do concur that the purchase of indulgences is messed up
3) Indulgences were part of why Martin Luther didn't like the Church

Wow, clearly I've offended someone who is a Catholic. Who built the US in the first place? The Pilgrim Fathers were protestants fleeing persecution in their home-land-long before any Catholics ever arrived. As to the issue of Indulgences, please cite your source. The reality is that the Catholic Church has a long history of amassing huge amounts of wealth, yet Catholic Countries are some of the poorest on the Earth-so please tell us again how they're appropriating money for the benefit of the poor! I do laugh at the rather sorry attempts by some to rewrite history to assuage the sins of their religion. Don't forget that Luther was a devout CATHOLIC-until he saw the horrendous corruption going on in Rome at the time!

Aussie.

I resent the misrepresentation of WHY they are poor, most were exploited by countries, did you know most of the revolutions in Central America had priests as integral parts? they fought to liberate them, so don't make it seem there is a connection between Catholic and poor...

The Catholic Church is also the biggest educator in the world, most of the poor Catholic countries have their education subsidized by hard working Catholics in other countries and by past generations

also why does it matter that the Pilgrim came to establish there theocracies before most Catholics came? (also did you know the guy that saved them, Squanto, was a Catholic?)

Anyway, to the point-we were speaking about the potential benefits of schisms & sects, well how about this?

Lets assume that the ability to set the "Doctrine" of a religion belongs only to the founder of the Civ or the Civ which currently controls that Religion's Holy City. This means there might be a lot of Civs who adopted that religion, but are no longer happy with the benefits/penalties they provide. Lets use a hypothetical, in-game example.

The Greeks found Hinduism, & establish it as a Fundamentalist (bonus happiness; science penalty), Ascetic (Bonus Happiness & Health; money penalty) & Militant (bonus XP, religious military unit (Thuggee); happiness penalty from non-state religions & diplomatic penalties) Religion. Now the Greeks can alter these doctrines (at a cost) at any time they want-& the changes will flow to all cities with Hinduism as the State Religion (or only those which have built the appropriate temples etc).

Anyway, early in the game the neighbouring Romans adopted Hinduism as their State Religion, but now no longer like the Doctrines of the Faith. They have a few options open to them: (a) they can use diplomacy to urge the Greeks to change the doctrines, (b) they can launch a war to capture the Hindu Holy City, (c) they can change to another religion or (d) if they have an available Great Prophet, they can force a schism. By forcing a schism, they gain long-term control over doctrine-an option not open to them in (a) or (c), but without the cost associated with (b). They will earn the instant enmity of the Greeks (though this should be modified by how strong a religious flavor the Greek leader has), but this could be overcome-in time-through conciliatory gestures.

Of course forcing a schism should *not* cause all your cities to change religion. Indeed, very few cities should convert at first-forcing you to expend the effort to spread your new Sect. There should also be issues with spreading the new Sect to cities where the old religion still resides, dependent on the respective Tolerance of both the new Sect & the former religion However, another benefit is that it allows the player to form entirely new diplomatic blocs-in a way that Static Religions don't allow!

Aussie.

How do Thuggee work as a military unit? they were somewhat like a Mafia. They joined long distance convoys and long distance into it (after they gained the group confidence) they killed and robbed their fellow travelers. I'd like to see how that works as a military unit.

How does Fundamentalism work as a part for a starting set? Fundamentalism is usually a return to basic ideas/ideals (also revolts in spreads to cities with old religion), wouldn't that be better as a Revival thing?

usually a schism causes the new to attack the old, this seems universal: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism (only exception is Confucianism because it isn't a religion), with score of 6/6 religions in civ IV...

otherwise seems good