No point in religion?

[Che Guava]

I don't see why religions in civIV are chosen and 'discovered' by the state, instead of just existing and flourishing on thier own, with some encouragement being given by city improvements and social engineering.

If I had my way, I think that religions would be more akin to a nationality: citizens have one, retain it no matter what regime they are under, can be converted if they are swamped by another religion, and get upset if you mistreat their beleivers. The only thing you would be able to do as a leader would be to try to design your empire to get the maximum benefit of the religious mix that you have. If you have a particularly homogenous empire, you could take a very fundementalist slant, getting the support of the major religion, and upsetting/oppressing the minority. If you have more of a patchwork empire, you could adopt a tolerant pose, evening out discontent between your various faithful, but losing out on having a very happy, very productive population that would appreciate a 'holy' leader to inspire them. I think this type of model could work well with ethnicity, a closely related topic, but that might be best in another thread...

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I like the way you think Che Guava. What you've laid out is very much what I was trying to get at with that big long paragraph in my last post. Combine that with generic religions, and I would be a very happy Civ player.

Erin of Arcadia mentioned in a different thread the problem of assuming that religion arose as a practical result of an earthly phenomena. Folks, especially atheists, probably believe that's exactly what happened, but for those of faith, it could be very insulting. It tells the Jew or the Christian that God is not watching over him/her, it tells the Muslim that the holy law was not divinely inspired, it tells the Buddhist that the Eightfold Path is just a nice idea instead of the way to enlightenment. It's tough to swallow.

We don't have the same problem manipulating rulers and governments because they are just human beings and the institutions created by them. We may venerate our heros, but we still realize they were just men/women who were just as mortal as we are. Same with governments. These are imperfect institutions created by us mortals. We can all imagine how a benevolent monarch might be preferable to a corrupt democracy. And by engaging in manipulating these simulations of mortals and their institutions, we are simulating actions that mortals would do. Perhaps, in different circumstances, we could rise to become like Catherine the Great or Shaka. That's what we are simulating.

When you start moving into religion, though, you begin to move beyond what mortals can do. The advance of XYZ religion might be because of their leader's wisdom, or the Hand of God. To simulate it with the player in control removes any possiblity that a deity could be involved.

I hope this makes sense. It's late and I'm tired.

 

[Che Guava]

@Crazy Eskimo

Sorry I didn't take a closer look at your post before I started mine. COmputer time has been scarce lately and I haven't been keeping up.

Hmmm, I do beleive there is a problem with, let's say sensitivity, around religions. I'm not a firm beleiver in any faith, so it's easy for me to say that I'm not offended by when/where/how religions are born, but I do recognize there are some strong opinions on this matter. Personally, I beleive that religions should arrive spontaeneously, and somewhat randomly, to simulate both the mortal and divine nature of faith on earth. I'll explain using christianity as an example, as it is the religion I am probably most familiar with (but by no means an expert).

Christianity arose 2 000 years ago in the part of the world currently occupied by Israel/palestine. Many scholars, taking a purely historical view, can argue that this was the perfect place for a religion of this nature to begin: there was a long history of monotheism within the local population, the close proximity to both eastern and western cultures allowed it to be a great place for idea exchange, it was a religion that was simple and appealed well to the poor and downtrodden (which were numerous there) and it had the right conditions around it (mainly the network of roads and protection of the roman empire) to allow it to persist and thrive.

If you take a look at why christianity arose where/when it did from a more theological point of view (and just for now ignore the more important why it arose at all), the discussion revolves more along the subject of the prophecies of the israelites, the fact that the area is considered holy land, and as a part od salvation from the cruelty of the roman overlords.

In civilization (gaming) terms, I think the appearance of prophets and religions should be more likely when conditions are right, but should keep a certain amount of randomness to allow for 'divine interpretation'. For example, if your empire has vast trading networks and roads to other empires (with thier own religions), has a tolerant outlook and is relatively successful, you have met the conditions to allow a prophet to show up in your cities. The player can decide if this is because the right social conditions exist for a successful faith to begin, or if the success and piety of thier nation has allowed them to be worthy of an emissary of god. I the end, however, the appearance is randomto allow for inference of minute events: christianity could not have begun without christ, and no-one could have predicted his cmoing, save three kings....

 

[Commander Bello]

Che Guava, I like both the analysis and the idea of how prophets should be spawned.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

...christianity could not have begun without christ, and no-one could have predicted his cmoing, save three kings....

...and the prophet Isiah.

I like the system you've laid out. I'd like it even better with generic religions, but what you've said would allay quite a few of my misgivings.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there needs to be some randomness to "simulate" divine action. The idea that religion is merely and completely controlled by rulers of nations is going to offensive to those of faith who believe that there is something supernatural guiding their religion. Personally, I don't much care where and when the religions pop up, because I believe God loves all people (reading the OT, there's nothing special about the Jews aside from the fact that God chose them) and does things in His time (hence the randomness), though I would imagine those who are more hardline on Christianity or Islam or whichever religion would have a problem with their religion not beginning in Jerusalem/Mecca/wherever. But to have the player CONTROL when and where just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[oldStatesman]

To play the devils advocate here - I agree with the way that Religions are founded in the game could take away the Divine interpretation. I will not argue that point. I dislike how the player can choose to 'found' a Faith.

However, once a Faith has become divinely introduced, then secular man tends to create Institutions that can be more secular based than spiritually guided. The game does seem to show how Religious INSTITUTIONS are controlled and eventually corrupted by secular interests. (See the Roman Catholic Church of the Dark and Middel Ages; King Henry's blatent use of the Reformation to cement his secular reign, etc.)

This dichotomy has me divided on Religion in the game. On the one hand, it is a pervasive developing force through history and needs to be included somehow; on the other it is a case of emphasizing the secular aspects of religions and perhaps a trivialization of their spiritual ones. But thinking about it, this seems to reflect the history of religion throughout the ages...

Personally, I am a person of Faith - I will not discuss my religion; they are different things in my view - it's Faith that is important, the religion is simply how that Faith is interpreted and practiced by imperfect humans. That is where my hesitation about religions in the game arises - but as I said I will wait and give it a chance; if I feel it is actually violating my Faith I will not play; if I feel it is only violating tenets of my chosen religious Institution I will not be as bothered. Things like the potetial use of missionary units as pseudo combat units (I don't know if this can occur or not - but until we see the game the possibility is there,) and converting others forcefully against their will using religion as an excuse violate my principles of Faith - things like naming buildings the wrong way violate my sensabilities - I can live with one but not the other.

I also hope that the gamemakers are not trying to capitilize on the popular 'rise' of awareness of Religion in today's socity by emphasizing it at this time....I pray they are not that cynical and are doing it because there is a need to show how religion has influenced civilization's development.

Very complicated subject - I can see years of debate ahead on it. Seeing how passionate some people defend their views on the natioanalistic threads on what civs should be in or out of the game, I almost cringe at the thought of the tenor of the debate on religions in the future....hope I am worrying for nothing.

JMHO

 

[Commissar_Yari]

Does anybody know if it's possible to have no religion? Because I really don't want to be forced into having one. I don't want to be a religious Civ when I play.

 

[Che Guava]

Does anybody know if it's possible to have no religion? Because I really don't want to be forced into having one...

Y'know, I was thinking the same thing a little while back. I hope that a lot of the new features are options rather than being hardwired into the game. Kind of like that 'regicide' option: I thought it was silly but never had to use it, thank god (no pun intended).

... I dislike how the player can choose to 'found' a Faith...(C)onverting others forcefully against their will using religion as an excuse violate my principles of Faith - things like naming buildings the wrong way violate my sensabilities - I can live with one but not the other....

Couldn't agree more with your points. Leaving aside the possibly offensive nature of the way religion is portrayed, assuming that a newly founded religion in your empire is just another tool to use against your enemies is just plain wrong! From a completely secular view of history, religion can be a feirce double-edged sword: use it well and you can gain more control over your people, abuse it and you can expect to receive the fury of the devout. I mean, missionary units? Come on! Can't you just pictures it? "Morning Pilate! J. Christ reporting for duty! Should I head east of west today?"

I know I've said it before, but religion needs to be in the game, but out of the hands of leaders. I'd like to think of prophets in the ghame as being more like the way 'leaders' are described: play it thier way, and they'll be happy. Cross them, and they'll get pissed. And so will thier followers....

 

[stormbind]

I suspect Religion will have a big influence over conquered cities & colonies! Look at Northern Ireland...

There many be post-conquest economic commitments, and if you ignore it, perhaps rebellion and succession...

 

[OrpheusPrime]

I'd say its not no point in 'religion,' rather, no point in 'discussion of religion on these non-OT-forums.'