Jewish Missionaries????? WHat the .....
- Thread starter jasper1
- Start date
The Q-Meister
King
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 774
I understand what you are saying, but here's the thing: while introducing the controversial concept of religions into the game, they wanted to make it as "vanilla" as possible leaving little room for controversy. One way they figured to do this was to give EVERY religion the same units and improvements; thus ALL religions get missionaries, all get temples, all get monastaries and all get cathedrials, whether they are historically or even currently accurate or not.
I know the Civ 4 makers have been taking a beating on this by some players, but personally I am willing to cut them some slack on this. Just like culture was in Civ 3, religion is brand new concept and it will obviously require some tinkering in future patches, expansions and even future versions of the franchise. Let's just be happy that Firaxis decided to make the controversial move to get into the whole religious experience to enhance our gameplay because whether we like it or not, religion has been a HUGE influence in the course of human history. So I'm a little more sympathetic to Firaxis on this topic.
I am sorry if it offends you though, I'm sure it wasn't their intention.
I know the Civ 4 makers have been taking a beating on this by some players, but personally I am willing to cut them some slack on this. Just like culture was in Civ 3, religion is brand new concept and it will obviously require some tinkering in future patches, expansions and even future versions of the franchise. Let's just be happy that Firaxis decided to make the controversial move to get into the whole religious experience to enhance our gameplay because whether we like it or not, religion has been a HUGE influence in the course of human history. So I'm a little more sympathetic to Firaxis on this topic.
I am sorry if it offends you though, I'm sure it wasn't their intention.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, as has been discussed in around half a dozen other threads-consider these points:
-Did Ghandi launch nukes at his enemies?
-Did America build the Pyramids?
-Did the Aztecs discover the 'New World'?
Of course the answer to all these questions-in the real world-is NO, of course not. But it can all have happened in any number of Civilization Games. By the same token, if you want to play a Proselytizing form of Judaism in the game-then you can. If you want to play them as they are in real life, then by all means don't build Missionaries (remember, too, that Missionary is a Generic term for ALL the religions). However, from a game-play perspective, consider this. If half of the religions had missionaries, and the other half didn't-do you honestly think that any player in their right mind would aim for the latter types? I think we all know the answer to THAT question!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
-Did Ghandi launch nukes at his enemies?
-Did America build the Pyramids?
-Did the Aztecs discover the 'New World'?
Of course the answer to all these questions-in the real world-is NO, of course not. But it can all have happened in any number of Civilization Games. By the same token, if you want to play a Proselytizing form of Judaism in the game-then you can. If you want to play them as they are in real life, then by all means don't build Missionaries (remember, too, that Missionary is a Generic term for ALL the religions). However, from a game-play perspective, consider this. If half of the religions had missionaries, and the other half didn't-do you honestly think that any player in their right mind would aim for the latter types? I think we all know the answer to THAT question!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Ivan the Kulak
King
Oy vey, come, Caesar, sit down and have a blintz, while we discuss how the citizens of Rome will be converted to Judaism. LOL. That WILL be pretty inaccurate. I wonder if it would be possible to add different properties to religions, so that, say, practitioners of the Jewish faith might not do as much converting, but instead receive a cultural bonus in their cities, while Islamic units might have a built in conversion factor when they conquer a city containing followers of certain other faiths.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Ahhh, Ivan, remember that they specifically said that they would be leaving all 7 religions as generic-both in order to lessen the chance of causing offense (though it seems some people are prepared to take offense at the very generic nature of religion in the game) and to keep the religions balanced from a gameplay perspective. I hope-as I have specified elsewhere-that they will eventually incorporate the concept of trait acquisition (rather than pre-set traits) for religions, but I don't expect it will happen until at least the first expansion!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Risbinroch
Prince
Hmm, isn't Sid Meyer himself jewish? I think I have heard that somewhere anyway, however he may not be that religious.
I think that religions should be abstract like governments are. If not, I do hope there is a chance to set flavors as in CIV3 - where some civs are more likely to be one or another religion and to even set traits to religions. That some are offensive/expansive and some are not.
And, religions have also been the cause of wars, could it perhaps also be possible to set that some religions are "warlike" or "hates" other religions?
Also, I hope there is an option to not be a religious civ too... To ban it perhaps, that would offcourse cause some very religious people among your nation to rebel... But I am not a real fan of religion IRL and would have an option to ban religion in my game.
If these points are possible, to mod the religion (easy by non-programmers) I am all for religion, if it's not, I'd rather wish they haven't included it.
I think that religions should be abstract like governments are. If not, I do hope there is a chance to set flavors as in CIV3 - where some civs are more likely to be one or another religion and to even set traits to religions. That some are offensive/expansive and some are not.
And, religions have also been the cause of wars, could it perhaps also be possible to set that some religions are "warlike" or "hates" other religions?
Also, I hope there is an option to not be a religious civ too... To ban it perhaps, that would offcourse cause some very religious people among your nation to rebel... But I am not a real fan of religion IRL and would have an option to ban religion in my game.
If these points are possible, to mod the religion (easy by non-programmers) I am all for religion, if it's not, I'd rather wish they haven't included it.
ogmoir
Arctic Troops
In one screenshot that I saw last month, there was an advisor asking if the player wanted to convert his civ to a religion or to restrain the religious movement. So I think your hopes (and those of many others) are being answered in that aspect.Risbinroch said:
ThERat
Deity
we all know the answer to the way we would play, don't we? If having a religion and sending missionaries (ah, again a unit based sort of thing,
) would give you advantages that you will not get without them, who would forgo that just to be historically accurate?I, for one, want the game to be level even if my Civ decides to ditch religions and hence, to be given some other advantages. For example, having an option to be open to any form of religion and thus, attracting people from all religions that are threatend in their Civ due to religious differences. That would result in a nice alternative, wouldn't it?
Or if someone decides to send out missionarries, other affected Civ's should act upon and start to get agitated and cut trade etc. There MUST be a trade off and I don't think it's so difficult to implement.
Stilgar08
Emperor
The thing is, if having a religion is giving you certain benefits I very much doubt you will reject having one for your civ...
I'm not a very religious person, but in cIV I will make use of it.
Like I'm not a warmonger trying to take over the world in real live... It's just a game after all.
I agree, it is controversial to even implement religion in a game, but it is a good thing to do it anyways, IMO.
I'm sure, Firaxis tries hard to keep the balance not insulting people on the one hand but still implementing religion since it has been very important in history and in the way things went. Religion STILL is a very important aspect of live to many people and very likely always will be, as we can see by the many discussions about this topic. Nevertheless concerning cIV, the GAME, we should try not to take it as seriously as it might be for many people. We should differentiate more between realism and a cIV. After all, Mongolia has never been a nuclear power and I wouldn't use nuclear weapons in real live even if I would have the power to do so. But in a GAME...
Religion, like many other aspects of the game, don't even pretend to be realistic in that sense! The best solution would be what Aussie Lurker said:
We'll see about that... Hopefully this will happen.
I'm not a very religious person, but in cIV I will make use of it.
Like I'm not a warmonger trying to take over the world in real live... It's just a game after all.
I agree, it is controversial to even implement religion in a game, but it is a good thing to do it anyways, IMO.
I'm sure, Firaxis tries hard to keep the balance not insulting people on the one hand but still implementing religion since it has been very important in history and in the way things went. Religion STILL is a very important aspect of live to many people and very likely always will be, as we can see by the many discussions about this topic. Nevertheless concerning cIV, the GAME, we should try not to take it as seriously as it might be for many people. We should differentiate more between realism and a cIV. After all, Mongolia has never been a nuclear power and I wouldn't use nuclear weapons in real live even if I would have the power to do so. But in a GAME...
Religion, like many other aspects of the game, don't even pretend to be realistic in that sense! The best solution would be what Aussie Lurker said:
We'll see about that... Hopefully this will happen.
Ivan the Kulak
King
Hmm, I foresee lots of complaints about the way religion works, and lots of PC screaming going on as well. Maybe in civ 5, it will work like this:
(1) Religions have generic, made-up names, so as not to offend followers of actual religious beliefs.
(2) The way your civilization develops determines the nature of the religion long-term. By this I mean:
If a society has to fight many wars, its priests become fanatical, preaching fire and brimstone to the followers. Military units have a chance to convert citizens in conquered cities.
If a civilization has a chance to follow a peaceful path, its religion focuses on the mystical. Cultural buildings become a bit cheaper, and science flourishes due to the many educational institutions founded to reflect upon and study the nature of the world.
If a formerly strong civ that founded a religion goes up against the ropes, the religious practices change. Followers in conquered cities may become fanatics, and take up arms against the city (partisan units outside the walls). Or, they may follow a pacifist path to resistance, refusing to work tiles or pay taxes.
(3) There are no missionary units. Your citizens may have a chance to convert to a specific religion based on trade routes with your civ. Proximity also matters. Citizens in border cities may become enamored of a different religion in a neighboring civ and convert. Even wars would be a factor; exchange of ideas through contact with alien civilians and soldiers might bring about new converts.
(4) Religion makes a difference to your citizens in a way that nationality cannot. If 2 other civs are at war, and you are friendly with both, atrocities perpetrated on other cities makes your own citizens of the same religion unhappy. They may protest and agitate for war.
(5) Since you may have multiple religions in one city, it is possible to build multiple religious temples. churches, etc. The more citizens you have of one particular religion, the cheaper the religious structure is to build, up to a point.
(6) Occasionally, religious strife may occur in a city. Two opposing factions clash with one another. There is the possibility of religious buildings being destroyed, riots, citizens unwilling to work tiles, etc. Military force may quell the fighters, and it may be necessary to expel some citizens from the city.
(7) Finally, in the Modern Age, organized religions can exert political influence. If you are following a peaceful path, with most citizens being in a pacifist religion, you may find it impossible to build nukes in a city because many citizens walk off the job. You may find yourself unable to get out of a war if the followers of an aggressive religion are in the majority; when you try to make peace in the diplo screen, you find that you cannot.
(1) Religions have generic, made-up names, so as not to offend followers of actual religious beliefs.
(2) The way your civilization develops determines the nature of the religion long-term. By this I mean:
If a society has to fight many wars, its priests become fanatical, preaching fire and brimstone to the followers. Military units have a chance to convert citizens in conquered cities.
If a civilization has a chance to follow a peaceful path, its religion focuses on the mystical. Cultural buildings become a bit cheaper, and science flourishes due to the many educational institutions founded to reflect upon and study the nature of the world.
If a formerly strong civ that founded a religion goes up against the ropes, the religious practices change. Followers in conquered cities may become fanatics, and take up arms against the city (partisan units outside the walls). Or, they may follow a pacifist path to resistance, refusing to work tiles or pay taxes.
(3) There are no missionary units. Your citizens may have a chance to convert to a specific religion based on trade routes with your civ. Proximity also matters. Citizens in border cities may become enamored of a different religion in a neighboring civ and convert. Even wars would be a factor; exchange of ideas through contact with alien civilians and soldiers might bring about new converts.
(4) Religion makes a difference to your citizens in a way that nationality cannot. If 2 other civs are at war, and you are friendly with both, atrocities perpetrated on other cities makes your own citizens of the same religion unhappy. They may protest and agitate for war.
(5) Since you may have multiple religions in one city, it is possible to build multiple religious temples. churches, etc. The more citizens you have of one particular religion, the cheaper the religious structure is to build, up to a point.
(6) Occasionally, religious strife may occur in a city. Two opposing factions clash with one another. There is the possibility of religious buildings being destroyed, riots, citizens unwilling to work tiles, etc. Military force may quell the fighters, and it may be necessary to expel some citizens from the city.
(7) Finally, in the Modern Age, organized religions can exert political influence. If you are following a peaceful path, with most citizens being in a pacifist religion, you may find it impossible to build nukes in a city because many citizens walk off the job. You may find yourself unable to get out of a war if the followers of an aggressive religion are in the majority; when you try to make peace in the diplo screen, you find that you cannot.
Stilgar08
Emperor
@Ivan: Personally I agree with most of your propositions, but I doubt they will ever make it into the game. Especially point 5,6 and 7 won't make it since this is considered as 'no-fun-element'.
I was angry at the senate in civ2 from time to time myself, but personally I liked not being god, but the leader of a civ who couldn't do anything as he liked, so I accepted it. But this doesn't seem to fit into the "all-new-vision" of the player has to be able to do what he likes, no matter what it takes. (this is couched a bit harsh maybe.)
I would like the option to choose a name for religion and maybe you should be able to choose your symbol for religion as well. The human player could make up a name or use a real religion, just as he/she likes. If AI-players "discover" a religion the human player might get to choose a name and a symbol, as well. This way you could play with the real world-religions or with the "Humpty-Dumpty-religion". Would this take out the heat on the debate??
BTW, religion is in cIII already and if you are jewish you ALREADY build a cathedral although it is (in your mind) a synagoge. If you see it this way, there shouldn't be as much of a problem, right?
I was angry at the senate in civ2 from time to time myself, but personally I liked not being god, but the leader of a civ who couldn't do anything as he liked, so I accepted it. But this doesn't seem to fit into the "all-new-vision" of the player has to be able to do what he likes, no matter what it takes. (this is couched a bit harsh maybe.)
I would like the option to choose a name for religion and maybe you should be able to choose your symbol for religion as well. The human player could make up a name or use a real religion, just as he/she likes. If AI-players "discover" a religion the human player might get to choose a name and a symbol, as well. This way you could play with the real world-religions or with the "Humpty-Dumpty-religion". Would this take out the heat on the debate??
BTW, religion is in cIII already and if you are jewish you ALREADY build a cathedral although it is (in your mind) a synagoge. If you see it this way, there shouldn't be as much of a problem, right?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Ivan, you make many good points-some of which I have made myself on occasion (just check my Sig if you don't believe me 
!)
I hope the changes you mention can actually make it into Civ4-XP pack, perhaps-rather than having to wait another 3 years for it!
1) As Ivan suggests. I think it would be ideal to have Generic religions based on culture group-which you have the option to name (so, Germany discovers polytheism, and founds West European Polytheism, which the player renames Daedraism, for instance).
2) Once a specific Culture Group+Religion combo is 'spoken for', then other nations from that culture group cannot found the same kind of religion (so, Germany has Daedraism, so France-another West European civ-cannot found its own Polytheistic faith, but can adopt Daedraism for itself, or perhaps a Mediterranean Polytheistic faith).
3) In other threads, as I have stated, you will see simple models for the acquisition of traits-for a religion-based on the Founder's gameplay style and Civics choices.
4) Though I would not want to see a return of the Civ2 senate, I would really love to see a greater impact from the various 'factions' within your society-be they from your religious leaders, your military leaders, your workers, your scientists etc etc. This could take the form of demands and requests that you can choose to implement-or ignore-and your choice effects the overall happiness/health of your society.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!)I hope the changes you mention can actually make it into Civ4-XP pack, perhaps-rather than having to wait another 3 years for it!
1) As Ivan suggests. I think it would be ideal to have Generic religions based on culture group-which you have the option to name (so, Germany discovers polytheism, and founds West European Polytheism, which the player renames Daedraism, for instance).
2) Once a specific Culture Group+Religion combo is 'spoken for', then other nations from that culture group cannot found the same kind of religion (so, Germany has Daedraism, so France-another West European civ-cannot found its own Polytheistic faith, but can adopt Daedraism for itself, or perhaps a Mediterranean Polytheistic faith).
3) In other threads, as I have stated, you will see simple models for the acquisition of traits-for a religion-based on the Founder's gameplay style and Civics choices.
4) Though I would not want to see a return of the Civ2 senate, I would really love to see a greater impact from the various 'factions' within your society-be they from your religious leaders, your military leaders, your workers, your scientists etc etc. This could take the form of demands and requests that you can choose to implement-or ignore-and your choice effects the overall happiness/health of your society.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
eddie_verdde
Warlord
jasper1 said:Jewish Missionaries I want to see what they look like .. The very idea is offensive.Doesnt Sid do any research??? Judaism does not believe in proselytizing .
come on guys, let's be honest...if you're going to complain about each historical inaccuracy, there's no point in creating a new game...sure, jews didn't have missionaries, but Napoleon also didn't live in the middle ages, or russians never contacted with Inca, and playing CIV grants both these possibilities...
CIV is about changing history, not about following history as we know it...
and this is not the first thread raising problems with Jewish religion, there seems to be lots of people offended by Jews or something, maybe your problem is not the historical accuracy after all....
I guess the game should hold a warning such as: "Warning, not recommended to Fundamentalists" or something
dc82
Prince
well think about ancient/biblical judiaism - there were plenty of times when "missionaries" or prophets have called for a conversation of faith in certain cities/nations. e.g. jonah, who was called to tell the people in the assyrian city of nineveh to change their ways, in a way, moses who went back to egypt to revive the faith of the jews living in captivity, or any of the prophets in the age of kings who had to keep israel/judah from worshipping the foreign idols - either way, i think "missionaries" are fine representing at least this period of judaism
ThERat
Deity
well, don't we all like the idea that in Civ3 all Civs are a tad bit different in their traits? so why must missionaries and religions all be the same when historically they aren't. Then christ/islam/judaism/bhuddism etc becomes a boring placeholder, might just have 1 religion then.
If the concept is introduced, why not have slight differences as we have in traits for Civs right now. I don't think anyone would mind that.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
and what traits would you assign to each religion ThERat? People had enough problems with the traits which were assigned to civs in Civ3-with many people complaining that Germany wasn't always Industrious, or England wasn't always Seafaring etc etc. This is probably the main reason why they have associated traits with leaders instead! Imagine how aggro people would get if you tried to assign traits to RELIGIONS !!! 
There would likely be blood on the streets.
As I suggested above, though, traits for religions WOULD be good for differentiation purposes, but the traits should be determined by how the founder behaves-NOT in any pre-determined fashion!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
There would likely be blood on the streets.As I suggested above, though, traits for religions WOULD be good for differentiation purposes, but the traits should be determined by how the founder behaves-NOT in any pre-determined fashion!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
ThERat
Deity
well, I would have my own ideas, but you are right, most probably get slaughtered for it
I like your ideas as well. I just don't want such a concept with every religion being the same. How boring.
