My brilliant idea about religions.

[Graadiapolistan]

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?

This is why there should be customizaed or fake religions. Firaxis can't afford to be boycotted by religous nuts, but religion would add to the gameplay. By making custom or fake religions based on real ones or both, would make the game more fun.

Also, if you have a prophet, and you want to start a religion it would be different from other religions anyway, so making up your own religion wouldn't be too farfetched

 

[bg90069]

I like the idea of customizing religions within gameplay, and it would great if they could use it for Civ4 in time, to make the religions more flexible and transparent. Even drop down menus for the different traits sounds like it would work and be fairly easy to implement. It could even develop into a gaming tool that could foster greater religious understanding and tolerance!

 

[Oivind]

Written by Graadiapolistan: "This is why there should be customizaed or fake religions. Firaxis can't afford to be boycotted by religous nuts, but religion would add to the gameplay. By making custom or fake religions based on real ones or both, would make the game more fun.

Also, if you have a prophet, and you want to start a religion it would be different from other religions anyway, so making up your own religion wouldn't be too farfetched"

Graadiapolistan I could not have agreed more with you.

 

[Oivind]

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.

You got me wrong;I was asking what was wrong with religions working like the goverment system in Civ4.

 

[Markus6]

My point was the traits of religions don't really have much effect on world events. It's the traits of the governments behind them.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. That the civics settings, Leader and play style of a religions FOUNDER determines what traits that religion has. A religion might be limited to a maximum of 2-3 traits, and once a trait was acquired it would take a LONG time for them to change.
So, if you have a Fundamentalist Bhuddist religion, then even if your society changes to a more secular and open society, it might take 30-50 turns for your Bhuddist faith to acquire a Secular or Ecumenical trait instead.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[JavalTigar]

If religion is going to be in then it needs to be like the civics. Religions are just as diverse(sp) as goverments, to represent them as anything less is an injustice.

 

[Markus6]

I agree but how do you think they'll represent the diversity? Unlike governments diversity in religion doesn't really affect the running of a country (although perhaps muslim nations shouldn't want to trade wine?). As I see it their going to represent involvement religion has in wars without actually giving any religion any particular benefits.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, as an example Markus (ha, except for the K, you have the same name as ME !!!) lets say that the founder of Christianity has a history of constant warfare for at least 20 turns-especially against nations of different religion. Well, after 20 turns, Christianity becomes MILITANT. What does this mean? Well, first it means a better chance of getting Alliances with nations of the same religion AND reduced War Weariness when fighting against nations of a different religion. The downside, though, is that they are at a diplomatic penalty with civs of a different religion to yours AND cities that are of a different religion to your State religion will have lower health and happiness than average-and may be at greater risk of seccession.
You see, works quite well-and that is just for ONE of the possible traits. Dogmatic and Fundamentalist traits may be better for boosting the happiness of your religions followers, whilst reducing the maximum research rate of your nation. Ecumenical religions are better for international relations and multi-faith cities. Reformist religions grant greater health of your followers, whilst reducing the cultural value of your religious buildings.
Of course, these are just suggestions, but you can surely see how religious traits can be easily applied.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Markus6]

Firstly congrats on having a good name. Apart from the k but we can't all be perfect.
I can see how giving the religions traits would be interesting. I personally dont think it'll happen in Civ4 (but who knows) mainly because they'll never want the chance of one nation becoming a militant islam extremist nation in the same way that terrorism and hitler won't be getting in.
One thing that worries me is that fundamentalist and violent sides of religion would make an appearance in the game whereas some of the better religious traits, like pascifism, would never make it in. Who would want to be in charge of a civ that wudn't ever let them go to war or build a military unit?
I also think its very misleading to call a religion militant. No religions have ever been militant. The crusades/inquistion/911 did not happen because the religion involved is particularily violent, on the contary if you look into either of those religions theres going to be some form of pascfist ideas. It's just groups of people (governments/terrorists) who use religion as an excuse to be violent.
Just my pennies worth...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I would have to say that Medieval Christianity WAS incredibly militant-as both the frequent Inquisitions and Crusades can attribute. That said, I don't see why a nation would not become Pacifist-if the conditions were correct AND if the benefits were great enough (perhaps improved trade and reputation, and greater happiness from staying at peace).
I personally think that, so long as no religion automatically had or gained certain traits, then no-one needs to get insulted by said traits.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Shaihulud]

I would really like it if there was an atheist civilization, does every civilization starts out being atheist? It would also be interesting if you can determine how deeply your society is, perhaps a benefit and drawback for a deeply religious society.

 

[Markus6]

Most civilizations start off worshipping the sun, at least in real life. In civilization i dont think they're gonna say there's any religion at the start of civilization. The problem with atheism is it's never been influential in a countries politics. People don't go to war to show the heathen b*#~a^%ds that there isnt a god.

My point is christianity isnt militant, it was the governments in britain/spain who were. I definitely agree that at times you should be forced into holy wars/crusades. That's would would make the religion system interesting. I just dont think it's right to say the governments shape religion and give it traits. They use it to justify their actions.
Also just because the country in which the religion was founded is militant, doesn't mean that the same religion all over the world will be militant. Just because some islam extremists think all american's are evil and are willing to use violence doensn't mean that other muslim's around the world have lost sight of the fact that their religion is peaceful.

Personally from what ive seen of the religion system in Civ4 its spot on. It's not to complex or restrictive but it seems quite realisitic (in an abstract sense) and allows for the use of religion in politics.

 

[HourlyDaily]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - athiesm or muted religion must be an option.
Being an Australian, the separation of church and state has been important in our country, excepting recent years thanks to the right wing. Religion does not play a big part in the diplomacy of all nations in the modern era, though obviously it still does for many.

Perhaps we could mod a new civics option that has its own benefits and drawbacks. Buildings such as cathedrals could be replaced with a secular version.

 

[Markus6]

There is a religion civic isnt there. As i see it there'll be different state stances on religion. So initially it'll be very much our religion is the right one. Then later u'll still have a state religion but allow some other religions (probably still oppressing 1 or 2). Finally in the modern era u'll allow religious freedom and the civilization will not have a specific state religion.

I can understand non-religious people having issues with the lack of an expressed atheism but u can surely realise how more important to world politics major religions have been. Wots the secular version of a cathedrale?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ah, but Markus, that is EXACTLY the point I am making in my idea. Its NOT that Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism or Confucianism are militant, or dogmatic or enlightened-it is that their FOUNDING STATES pursue policies which effect these relgions' approach-and vice versa. Is Christianity ecumenical today because thats what the CHURCH wants-or is it because thats what the people expect in this modern age? Same with Fundamentalist Islam. In Medieval times it was known for its tolerance and scholastic nature-but today is unfortunately known for militancy and fundamentalism. This has nothing to do with the underlying religion-which hasn't really changed-but because of the policies of the State in which it was founded. Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Markus6]

Agreed completely. Though it's not necessarily the founding states that effect their approach. Any country with that religion will give the religion traits, and their not normally the same as other countries. For example were the crusades anything to do with how the israelites (or even romans) governed? I don't think it's right to give a religion a trait because that religion is never going to be the same throughout the world. Islam is known for militancy and fundamentalism but 95% of muslims will be offended by that labelling.

How do you think they should portray the religions in the game then?

Personally i think it should be left to the player or the characteristics of the other leaders. Hopefully the religion civic will help as well. For example if your religion civic states that only the state religion is acceptable then you'd be more likely to be militant and seek to convert/destroy all the heathens. If the civic was more open to religions you'd need to go into religious wars less if at all.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Graadiapolistan I could not have agreed more with you.

Thank You . I hope if the idea of making your own religion doesn't get in the game, one can mod it in. I don't think it would be hard to mod in "Crazinessism" as a religion, but it would be hard to make it have stats like a country

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I thought of an idea the other day, What if, founding a religion you picked four traits. Two were permanent and the others weren't. For example

Pick Glory through battle, We are the chosen people
changing ones- militiristic, spiritual.

After 20 or so turns, if your society has changed, the traits may be differemnt. Militiristic, Expansionist, if you have been converting people. If another civ adopts your religion, the two main stats would remain the same, but the other two stats would change. If in the modern age, war is looked down upon, and your religion has "glory through battle", then the practicers of the religion would gain the trait "doubt in religion" Their other trait would change according to what's going on in the country.

This idea would be easy to play, yet add alot of strategy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK referring back to my previous posts, Markus, I pointed out that if a NON-FOUNDING civ has traits which differ significantly to that of the founding nation, then it would provide the opportunity for a Sect to appear. The underlying faith would stay the same (i.e. Christian, Islam, Hindu), but the sect would be described according to its new trait. So, as I said, a non-conservative mind-set against the background of a conservative or orthodox religion might lead to a reformist sect appearing within that nation (Protestant in the case of Christianity). The nation has the choice as to whether to adopt the sect as a state religion or not.
Also, I agree that traits should NOT be permanent, but should change according to changed gameplay/civics etc.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.