My brilliant idea about religions.

[Oivind]

I think the we should be able to customize our religion (like in SMAC and Civ 4). This would make the game more exiting and firaxis would avoid pissing people of.

For example one of the topic you may choose your religions policy is its openess to new thougts. A very closed religion should get followers less likely to be converted to another religion but you will have a penality on reasearch, foreign relations and maybe a longer anarchy time.

New technologies should make you able to choose new options for your religion. Like polygamism over monotheism when you research monotheism.

I think this system should work like in SMAC with civilizations having other policies than you getting pissed at you.

Of course you would be able to make a religious revelution and start all over again but this would give you anarchy and make you loose belivers. A change in religion should not be somthing you do every tenth turn.

I'm kind of proud of this idea, if you don't like it be gentle.

 

[Dearmad]

I think Firaxis should include the named religions they are including and be brave about it. We live in such a cowardly society as it is. With your line of thinking they should just not include named civilizations, but make it so you can only decide on attributes, etc, and just have fake names.

Just me, but I intend to, as much as possible, mod back in terrorist activities (mostly suitable to civs with not much power, alternatives, or political leverage), for example.

The very premise to the entire game of *one* civilization *winning* is genocidal usually (in the style i've seen most people play the game), nationalistic always (which is pretty nasty, prejudicial thinking, but typical for humans), racist almost always.

You can win by uniting everyone too, and that's noble- but the other outcomes are pretty sickening- why get to alpha centauri first?? So *your* people (whetver that means) can lrod it there over the others no doubt. And to get to this goal you warred, killed, took other people's homes away from them with no recourse, shafted them in trade deals as much as you could, etc. etc. etc...

Why is no one upset about the violence the game purpetrates and makes inescapable as a "choice" for you to make... Getting upset about eating pork, and having named religions in the game is really small and hypocritical IMO.

I for one welcome the new depth that religion will bring. When I play the game I think a little bit about what I am doing- such as, do I really want to wipe out the Aztecs? I try to balance powers against each other, usually helping other small nations to hold on, sometimes even coming to their aid if I think they were attacked brutally. I actually make a choice before developing nucleur weapons, since I find them disgusting. And when gun powder comes in, I worry about the new levels of wars and death that will no doubt follow in the game. I try to go for uniting the world first, then spaceship victory... then culture... I have never played a conquest game in Civ3- Civ1 I did, but not anymore, I find it mindless and too violent- but do you hear me complaining about all the violence in the game and asking them to take it out? I think it helps reflect the history better and I enjoy it *AS A GAME*

So why not get off this stupid religious fear horse and let thoughtful players be thoughtful, and the unthoughftul... be as they are anyway...

 

[Vitor Shen]

geeeeeeez... I can see where you get your nickname from.
Olivind did ask people to be gentle if they didn't like the idea.

DearMad however I do agree on your style of play. I do the same, always trying to get along, but if not it's ok. But if they attack me it's their funeral. I allways ally with weaker civs as well and give them money. And when I go to war with a Civ when a peace treaty is signed I return their workers and offer them money. I just wished they would do the same back.

For a peaceful guy or girl(i don't know) you're pretty raged up with this thread. But I do understand you.

P E A C E

 

[Dearmad]

I was gentle. I offered an alternative thoughtful take, rather than merely: no your idea ****s.

I don't think his idea sucks, but I think the motivation behind it is worrisome...

Huh. Really odd you think there's rage in my response... seems calm to me... now the Mali thread, that's me ragin', but only because there was such an easy target to yank around who has such a big ego and long chain.

 

[Chose]

I think the we should be able to customize our religion (like in SMAC and Civ 4). This would make the game more exiting and firaxis would avoid pissing people of.

For example one of the topic you may choose your religions policy is its openess to new thougts. A very closed religion should get followers less likely to be converted to another religion but you will have a penality on reasearch, foreign relations and maybe a longer anarchy time.

New technologies should make you able to choose new options for your religion. Like polygamism over monotheism when you research monotheism.

I think this system should work like in SMAC with civilizations having other policies than you getting pissed at you.

Of course you would be able to make a religious revelution and start all over again but this would give you anarchy and make you loose belivers. A change in religion should not be somthing you do every tenth turn.

I'm kind of proud of this idea, if you don't like it be gentle.

I AGREE

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I was gentle. I offered an alternative thoughtful take, rather than merely: no your idea ****s.

I don't think his idea sucks, but I think the motivation behind it is worrisome...

Huh. Really odd you think there's rage in my response... seems calm to me... now the Mali thread, that's me ragin', but only because there was such an easy target to yank around who has such a big ego and long chain.

I think the motivation is that it would be more fun to design your own religion then choose from a list, a side effect would be that there would be fewer complaints, but I think that his idea works. It would be cool to design a religion. You would never be able to make a religion's stat be "violence" or "xenophobia", but many religions are violent and xenophobic. When we live in a world where nobody complains to firaxis about "insulting" religions, we can use real religions. I would rather have real stats then real names, gameplay is more important then historical accuracy (in my opinion)

 

[Quentin]

I think the whole point of religion in Civ4 was to represent differences in ideology instead of benefits or whatnot coming from said ideologies. Therefore, just having a few named religions would be better than customised religions. Imagine your cultural or military advisor popping up to say this: " Our monotheistic and xenophobic friends the Americans are being attacked by the pagan and open Mongol SOBs, shall we declare war on them?"

That said I still think Oivind's idea could be quite nice if properly implemented and not made too similar to civics.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I think that just like the Civs you play, religions should NOT be completely pigeonholed-not to avoid offending people, but to allow players MAXIMUM flexibility in rewriting history!
I have said it elsewhere, but feels it bears repeating here, and that is that though religions should have NO starting traits, they SHOULD be able to acquire them over time (based on the Founders behaviour and civics choices).
For instance, a religion can become Militant or Pacifist; Fundamentalist or Ecumenical; Scholarly or Dogmatic; Orthodox or Protestant; Ascetic or Hedonistic (to name just a few). Each trait would give benefits for the adherents to that religion AND penalties as an offset.
At the same time, though, if an adherent to a religion (not its founder) adopts a play style and/or civics settings AT ODDS with their religion, then there is a chance of a Sect of that religion popping up inside the nation.
For instance, say the Founder of the Christian faith has adopted a set of Authoritarian civic settings, then Christianity might recieve a Conservative or even a Fundamentalist trait. Later, another adherhent to Christianity-France-adopts a more Secular and less Authoritarian combination of Civics settings. Several turns later, one of France's cities has an outbreak of Protestantism. Left unchecked, this Protestant sect may spread to neighbouring cities-leaving France with the option of either adopting it as their religion (essentially Founding it), and suffering a falling out with the founder of the Christian Faith OR suppressing it, which will win Kudos with Christianity's founder, but which could spark major unrest in any Protestant cities (which may lead to an outbreak of Civil War).
Anyways, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[SenJarJar]

@Aussie_Lurker: Cripes Aussie_Lurker. How long have you been eating-breathing Civ? You have sprinkled all kinds of marvelous ideas around the forum. I am definitely on your wavelength.

 

[Oivind]

I think Firaxis should include the named religions they are incand be brave about it. We live in such a cowardly society as it is. With your line of thinking they should just not include named civilizations, but makeluding it so you can only decide on attributes, etc, and just have fake names.

Actually you are quite right about that /\, but not because I'm afraid of pissing people of. I just think that Civ should be more realistic and fun.

The identity of a people is not a part of their DNA it is shaped by the enviroment they live in and their history. Because of this Civ is unrealistic. If the vikings lived in the midddle of the pangea the would not have been a seafaring peole.

But of course if the stats of the your nation in civ were based on the spot the computer placed you gamplay would suck, so I would like to choose stats on my customized civilizations (You get to choose from different leaderheads and buildingstyles to of course) and then you play.

I think this would be fun and more realistic.

By the way dont bother about the gentleness sensitive for crtisism is not a good description of me...

 

[Oivind]

[/QUOTE]Well, I think that just like the Civs you play, religions should NOT be completely pigeonholed-not to avoid offending people, but to allow players MAXIMUM flexibility in rewriting history!
I have said it elsewhere, but feels it bears repeating here, and that is that though religions should have NO starting traits, they SHOULD be able to acquire them over time (based on the Founders behaviour and civics choices).
For instance, a religion can become Militant or Pacifist; Fundamentalist or Ecumenical; Scholarly or Dogmatic; Orthodox or Protestant; Ascetic or Hedonistic (to name just a few). Each trait would give benefits for the adherents to that religion AND penalties as an offset.
At the same time, though, if an adherent to a religion (not its founder) adopts a play style and/or civics settings AT ODDS with their religion, then there is a chance of a Sect of that religion popping up inside the nation.
For instance, say the Founder of the Christian faith has adopted a set of Authoritarian civic settings, then Christianity might recieve a Conservative or even a Fundamentalist trait. Later, another adherhent to Christianity-France-adopts a more Secular and less Authoritarian combination of Civics settings. Several turns later, one of France's cities has an outbreak of Protestantism. Left unchecked, this Protestant sect may spread to neighbouring cities-leaving France with the option of either adopting it as their religion (essentially Founding it), and suffering a falling out with the founder of the Christian Faith OR suppressing it, which will win Kudos with Christianity's founder, but which could spark major unrest in any Protestant cities (which may lead to an outbreak of Civil War).
Anyways, just a thought.

I think that’s a rather good idea, expect for one thing. Religions don’t change that much, it is societies that change. Therefore I think that my idea of choosing religions the same way as you choose governments is better. (The first post)

 

[Oivind]

I don't think his idea sucks, but I think the motivation behind it is worrisome...

Dearmad, my motives are purely about getting a better game. I think that the tolerance of intolerance (I'm talking about the intolerance of extreme Muslims) in the western world today is against our deepest values. Europeans denial of having anything to teach people from other cultures is a sad outcome of a collective bad consciousness for imperialism. So don't worry I’m all for feeling free to criticising other peoples religions.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

I'm just hoping its possible to play as a civ that doesn't really care what religion its people are. I don't care if that makes it harder to keep control or anything like that, I just want it to be an option.

Failing that a customized "Rhinoism" religion or something I would vastly prefer to one of the choices included in the game.

I like all the civilizations and all they have done for world history. I don't much care of any of those religions.

 

[Pablicosta]

I'm just hoping its possible to play as a civ that doesn't really care what religion its people are.

YES! I want to marry you!
But seriously, I'd like to be able to choose like that-I'm sure someone will be able to mod it in pretty easily, even if it just involves reconfiguring the stats or whatnot for a perticular religion, and then choosing that one. (I mean, if Christianity was 5,6,3,8 or whatever, you could make it 0,0,0,0 so it doesnt effect anything) But then again, I dont even know how the religion aspect is going to work.

Failing that a customized "Rhinoism" religion or something I would vastly prefer to one of the choices included in the game.

I agree, but only if I may name my Rhino God Geoffrey.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

Well thank you I think. And don't worry, the supreme great Rhino is above petty things such as what he is called. Geoffrey is fine.

If no one else does I'll mod in a religously nuetral government approach. Shouldn't be too tricky.

 

[Avayaman]

hmmm... that's a good idea... neutrality. after all, neutral states like the vatican and switzerland become pretty important during times of war....

 

[Markus6]

Has anybody seen any evidence that the religions will have different stats? As I saw it all the religions were exactly the same. In which case the only things that will need modding are the name of the religion and the symbol and you've founded rhinoism .

Giving the religions different personalities makes them too much like governments in my opinion. And it causes less controversy if there's no difference. I can't see firaxis making the religious system that complicated seeing as it's a new concept and there trying to make this version more accesible for people who have never played before.

 

[Oivind]

The Religions will have no stats. Wich is good for public relations and bad for gameplay. What is wrong with religionns working much like goverments?

 

[Markus6]

In my opinion religions aren't like governments. Religious wars (which lets face it are what we're really interested in) tend to be started by civilization rulers using a religion as an excuse. Not by a religion because that religion is particularily violent.

 

[Darwin420]

I think Religions, once founded, should appear as a SIXTH category under Civics, with 5 options available for customizing the religious effects. Let's face, even though Catholicism (for example) is present in many many many countries, there are variations in the religion between the countries... this would alleviate the issue of 'offending' anyone, but also allow more interesting variations in gameplay.