Civ 5 Religion Mod

[Thormodr]

I am certainly not an expert on Chinese religions and philosophies but I quite enjoyed reading the Tao of Pooh. (Winnie the Pooh that is.) Hardly a very deep book but a fun read.



In it, it talked about an allegory that I found quite interesting.

Vinegar tasters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A traditional representation of "The vinegar tasters"



The Vinegar Tasters (uncommon names: 三酸圖, three sours; 嘗醋翁, vinegar tasting old-men; 嘗醋圖, 尝醋&#22270, is a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting. The allegorical composition depicts the three founders of China's major religious and philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. It favors Taoism and is critical of the others.

The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state. Another interpretation of the painting is that, since the three men are gathered around one vat of vinegar, "the three teachings are one".

The painting was popularized in the Western world by the American Taoist writer Benjamin Hoff's book, The Tao of Pooh. As mentioned in the book, the scroll painting was a popular piece of art in ancient times. However nowadays it is rarely painted in China anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters

So, in my opinion and likely from a Taoist's perspective, it was always a three way battle for the hearts and minds of China.

 

[Malkaviel]

1. "Paganism" is not a religion. It is a term used by Christians to loosely define non-Abrahamic beliefs as a whole. I'm not going to argue this with someone who calls himself a pagan. Just go do some reading.

2. All cultures (or civs) certainly do not "start with animism". By game timeline parameters, however, all civs "may" start with ancestor worship but most cultures grew on premises of their national heroes and venerated leaders (names later transliterated and conceptualization deified), so this point is moot.
I know we've all been taught cavemen ran around with their shaman guys making poultices and appealing to hunting spirits, but modern archaeology shows us this wasn't always the case. While animism is quite ancient, we see no evidence of it pre-dating ceremonial burial for example, or "appeals to forefathers". Macedonian (later Greek) culture seemed to skip animism completely, while others had a quasi-polytheistic-animism (meso-america, some of north america).

3. Polytheistic civs certainly did not simply chum-up and get effective faction bonuses for the pure concept of having pantheons. Quite the opposite, cultures clashed violently for the pure reason of "our gods are bigger than your gods". Also polytheistic cultures often had internal strife as to which god that week, month, or year had particular prevalence.

4. The transformation of a peoples' conception of spiritual belief to monotheism was mostly a difficult one, sometimes failed (ie. Akhenaten; also recently discovered dedications to "Zeus the one true god" in southeastern europe) sometimes hundreds of years in it's progress (Exodus Israelites still worshiping the golden calf, thru the draconian efforts of Ezra to bring Jews back to god).

5. I feel a state religion should grant the possibility for "specialized religious military units". Use your imagination, but some examples could be argonauts, zealots (sicarii), templars, or mujahid.

I want to add more, but alot is nit-picking on various and indiscriminate topics of mis-information about evolution of human spirituality, some of which have been cited in this thread. I think it's neato people want to include some historical realism in games like civ, but I really, really wish people would do more reading. Truly your opinion doesn't mean jack; only your educated opinion.

 

[Malkaviel]

Also, to touch on the issue of "whether atheism is a state religion", personally not for or against because I feel it a brand of mind stapling, but I submit this wiki entry..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

inb4 haha you cited wiki. But seriously, atheism has been, and is currently a "state religion" in the world.

 

[Thormodr]

1. "Paganism" is not a religion. It is a term used by Christians to loosely define non-Abrahamic beliefs as a whole. I'm not going to argue this with someone who calls himself a pagan. Just go do some reading.

2. All cultures (or civs) certainly do not "start with animism". By game timeline parameters, however, all civs "may" start with ancestor worship but most cultures grew on premises of their national heroes and venerated leaders (names later transliterated and conceptualization deified), so this point is moot.
I know we've all been taught cavemen ran around with their shaman guys making poultices and appealing to hunting spirits, but modern archaeology shows us this wasn't always the case. While animism is quite ancient, we see no evidence of it pre-dating ceremonial burial for example, or "appeals to forefathers". Macedonian (later Greek) culture seemed to skip animism completely, while others had a quasi-polytheistic-animism (meso-america, some of north america).

3. Polytheistic civs certainly did not simply chum-up and get effective faction bonuses for the pure concept of having pantheons. Quite the opposite, cultures clashed violently for the pure reason of "our gods are bigger than your gods". Also polytheistic cultures often had internal strife as to which god that week, month, or year had particular prevalence.

4. The transformation of a peoples' conception of spiritual belief to monotheism was mostly a difficult one, sometimes failed (ie. Akhenaten; also recently discovered dedications to "Zeus the one true god" in southeastern europe) sometimes hundreds of years in it's progress (Exodus Israelites still worshiping the golden calf, thru the draconian efforts of Ezra to bring Jews back to god).

5. I feel a state religion should grant the possibility for "specialized religious military units". Use your imagination, but some examples could be argonauts, zealots (sicarii), templars, or mujahid.

I want to add more, but alot is nit-picking on various and indiscriminate topics of mis-information about evolution of human spirituality, some of which have been cited in this thread. I think it's neato people want to include some historical realism in games like civ, but I really, really wish people would do more reading. Truly your opinion doesn't mean jack; only your educated opinion.

That was an interesting read until your last paragraph. If you are going to make the assertion that others are uneducated and don't know jack then you are going to have to back up what you said a little better. Otherwise it's just another opinion that is no more valid than the others.

 

[Malkaviel]

Yeh, I suppose in retrospect it's an affront, but there are people itt throwing around terms, labels and concepts without consideration. If religion's inclusion is important to one, be a little more knowledgeable or one can make others aggressive, or worse, stupid.

 

[Thormodr]

Yeh, I suppose in retrospect it's an affront, but there are people itt throwing around terms, labels and concepts without consideration. If religion's inclusion is important to one, be a little more knowledgeable or one can make others aggressive, or worse, stupid.

Well, I think people are open to new ideas. You seem to know a great deal on the subject. Provide some links where you think they've been lead astray then.

I think that would be more productive and could lead to a better religious model. That and they (including me) will have learned something new.

 

[Malkaviel]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Animism

 

[Thormodr]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Animism

Thank you. It seems that it is related to Wikipedia. I shall enjoy reading it anyway.

 

[Janig]

If you're entire nation is Buddhist, but one city is Hindu, that city should be pretty unhappy, for example. In foreign diplomacy, if your Buddhist border cities are next to a Toaist nation, both nation's cities should suffer some unhappiness.

Why?

Would be nice to see something like two allied nations of different religions go to war against a third nation with a third religion to delvope a positive relationship(diplomatic bonus)

That already happens in Civ4 "our mutual military struggle brings us closer together". Regarding your third point that demonstrates unfounded prejudice which will not improve diplomacy, unless you like stupid leaders that is.

Given the lack of suggestions regarding religion in diplomacy I doubt whether it should have such a role

 

[Malkaviel]

Why?

I also feel there should be some small happiness penalty for towns with religions conflicting the state's, possibly even a massive penalty if a captured city has an opposing religion's holy shrine. An early religion value civic of religious tolerance, akin to free religion, could be added to avert this penalty but would not add the happiness and science benefits of free religion. The obvious benefit would be income from the shrine.

citing polytheistic culture influence over monotheistic culture...

597BC neo-babylonians conquer jerusalem, largely destroying Solomon's temple. A long period of insurrection and civil strife results wherein neo-babylonian kings like Nebuchadnezzar II need to institute reforms, not the least of which involving physically transplanting swaths of population from the levant to Babylon and vice versa (an occurrance later iterated by the Jews as slavery under Babylon).

539BC Cyrus the great captures mesopotamia and, subsequently, the levant. In a demonstration of wise religious mandate, Jews are allowed to return to Jerusalem and again openly practice their faith. 538BC Cyrus approves rebuilding of Solomon's temple which is completed in 516BC under Darius' reign. So from this we get 2 things:1)Some cultures had wisdom (tech) to practice philosophies (civics) wherein religious freedom can be accommodated in the ancient world. Cyrus was actually seen by many as a "deliverer" or "messiah". 2)Religious holy shrines can be rebuilt.

flash forward

6AD Jerusalem and much of the surrounding area come under control of Roman authority as the Iudaea Province. Over following years extremist Jewish sects who find control by a foreign occupying imperialism aberrant, attempted numerous times to usurp Rome's influence, eventually organizing a political front which led to the confrontation we know now as the first Jewish-Roman War (Titus, 67-70AD). This culminated in the destruction of the second temple and a mortality rate among the region's cities in the tens of thousands between casualties and ritualistic suicide.

Similar events too numerous to list occurred between conflicting polytheist cultures, monotheist vs polytheist cultures (re:Winfrid, later known as St. Boniface, altho essentially non-violent, a good short read), and monotheistic vs monotheistic cultures (re:crusades thru modern day). Perhaps missionaries should have the ability to not only spread religion but also remove religion from cities (complete conversion). Perhaps as culture is disseminated, likelihood of "conflicting religious corruption" could diminish (Alexander's initiated Hellenistic period).

 

[Janig]

I also feel there should be some small happiness penalty for towns with religions conflicting the state's,

Cities without state religion in Civ4 already suffer a sort of unhappiness. If you agree entirely with sbrylski06s quote based only on a feeling then youre wrong as far as discussion is concerned.

 

[Malkaviel]

Cities without state religion in Civ4 already suffer a sort of unhappiness. If you agree entirely with sbrylski06s quote based only on a feeling then youre wrong as far as discussion is concerned.

In the 6th century Judea and Israel were conquered. The following deprivation of order on several occasions culminated from the denizens' spiritual convictions, not from outside cultural influence. Because of differing religious concepts there was extreme civil disobedience, uprising, and repeated destruction to the region. Those are not feelings, those are facts.

It was possible to institute reforms, and in many cases even placate followers, but that required caring and active effort on the part of the occupiers which were likely to come at some cost, be it material or conceptual. But then, the sicarii would just come along and assassinate everyone...

edit: 6th century BC ^^ mneh

 

[Janig]

Im not trying to argue your description of religions conflicting, its a simple term, but sbrylski06 gave no mention of conflict so you cant "also feel" in this regard. Besides people conflict not religion. Youve addressed me but havent answed why this quote makes sense

If you're entire nation is Buddhist, but one city is Hindu, that city should be pretty unhappy, for example. In foreign diplomacy, if your Buddhist border cities are next to a Toaist nation, both nation's cities should suffer some unhappiness.

Please try again if you want.

From what I remember the developers only negative statement about religion in civ4 concerned diplomacy, so far I still dont see any positive diplomatic options for religion in civ5.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, I have a sugestion to make:

In Civ IV all the civs are in a binary state: a city has it or does not have it. That, besides stupid ( because a city with the 7 religions would have 100% hindu, 100 % jewish ,... ) also limited a lot of what you could do in terms of religious balances . So, I would sugest making the presence of religions in a city not binary, but linked to a certain % of the pop in that city.

P.S Just a dent in the "Atheist" issue : some posters are confusing Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheism can be defined as the belief that there are no deities ( even the greek roots of the word say exactly that ), but Agnosticism is basically not knowing it they exist or not The first might be seen ( justly or not ) as a religion because it implies a faith , the second doesn't.

 

[Jecrell]

I think every civilization should be able to create their own religion (perhaps when they enter the mysticism tech), and then from there they can choose to cultivate it. [Edit] If we're going a step further, on a different level every civilization should have its own culture that they can also choose to invest in that can be separate from religion (Then again that should already be in the game obviously!).

Well, I have a sugestion to make:
P.S Just a dent in the "Atheist" issue : some posters are confusing Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheism can be defined as the belief that there are no deities ( even the greek roots of the word say exactly that ), but Agnosticism is basically not knowing it they exist or not The first might be seen ( justly or not ) as a religion because it implies a faith , the second doesn't.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in deities, and thus not related to a faith.

 

[r_rolo1]

Atheism is a lack of a belief in deities, and thus not related to a faith.

Wrong, becauce that definition includes Agnosticism. That was my whole point

 

[Jecrell]

No, becauce that definition includes Agnosticism. That was my whole point

I apologize, but I have understood Atheism as a position of a lack of belief in a deity. Whereas Agnosticism implies that such things are unknowable. They are different positions, of course.

 

[r_rolo1]

Agnosticism is not only the position of those that think those things are unknowable, it is also the position of the ones that, regardless of thinking that is unknowable or not, are not sure of the existance of deities.

Atheism, as I said , is the position that states there are no deities.

From Britannica

in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

A lot of those that would fall in your definition of Atheists would actually be Agnostics, specifically the ones that simply don't know if deities exist or not... lack of faith in X existance is not the same than faith that X does not exist, after all

 

[Thorburne]

Agnosticism is a person who is spiritual, but does not follow an organized religion.

 

[Jecrell]

Agnosticism is not only the position of those that think those things are unknowable, it is also the position of the ones that, regardless of thinking that is unknowable or not, are not sure of the existance of deities.

Atheism, as I said , is the position that states there are no deities.

From Britannica


A lot of those that would fall in your definition of Atheists would actually be Agnostics, specifically the ones that simply don't know if deities exist or not... lack of faith in X existance is not the same than faith that X does not exist, after all

Well to be honest I don't really have a problem with some overlap of Atheism and Agnosticism. My real point was to point out that Atheism is a lack of a belief, (whereas you stated it was a belief in a lack of a deity) and thus it's not necessary to be a believer or a follower and so forth. For instance I wouldn't say I have a belief of no fairies, but rather I have a lack of a belief in fairies. This is the point where I disagree with you that atheism is a belief. I say it is a lack of belief. Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying, for which I apologize.