Piety change

[McSaucy4418]

I actually have an idea that I just mentioned in another thread where we were discussing whether or not settlers should come with religion. Essentially whether or not new cities should have a religion without needing to convert. What I proposed is to replace religious tolerance with a policy that not only makes any new city you found start with your religion but also comes with a free shine. Not sure balance wise how that would work if it would be too redundant considering the open lets you build them in half time but it is certainly an idea.

 

[headcase]

I feel tolerance should also retain 1 citizen following each "rival" religion, or give an option for such when removing a religion*, and also reduce citizens needed for "majority" religion by 1 for every 2 religions in the city (a pop 15 city with 4 religions requires 6 citizens following a religion for it to be the majority instead of 8).

Also I would like it buffed either by giving the founder beliefs of the second-most OR giving ALL pantheon beliefs with at least 1 citizen (not just second-most) OR something vaguely Kandi-ish, like +1 faith or +5% GP production per religion in city. Speaking of which, the Kandi would get a nice buff with the "keep one citizen" option.

*(edit: actually, maybe that option should always be available, and allow you to micromanage how many citizens of each religion you want to take out - maybe a window of sliders that wipes them all out by default so you can just click "OK" to get the current effect, or adjust the sliders to your liking otherwise.)

I actually have an idea that I just mentioned in another thread where we were discussing whether or not settlers should come with religion. Essentially whether or not new cities should have a religion without needing to convert. What I proposed is to replace religious tolerance with a policy that not only makes any new city you found start with your religion but also comes with a free shine.

I like the idea of settlers having the majority religion of the city they're made in, even without an SP. One of the SPs could give the free shrine but only if the settler is of the religion of your civ.

 

[Ayestes]

I'd prefer to drop the nonsense about having other religions in the city and instead just allow you to pick a second Pantheon for your religion from a list of choices that have already been chosen for other religions.

 

[fyar]

But Great Prophets and Inquisitors are very much about "wiping out the competition" - they quite literally remove all enemy religions from cities. Even the very act of spreading your religion and making it the majority religion in foreign cities reduces the influence of other religions on your cities and makes it more likely that enemy religions will vanish from your cities. It seems silly to have a policy which discourages the use of Great Prophets, Inquisitors and even Missionaries, especially when two other policies in the tree strongly encourage their use. Piety should not have you hesitating about how much you should spread your own religion.

Anyway, there are plenty of better alternative policies that it could be changed to. How about one that puts extra religious pressure on all your cities? Or one which makes your citizens more difficult to convert?

I don't see at all how missionaries are discouraged. Great prophets and inquisitors, yes in some sense, but you shouldn't be using them in that way.

I mostly use great prophets to convert other territories (so there's no anti-synergy with Piety at all, except maybe to the opponent's), and inquisitors mainly just to stay at home and keep the opposing prophets from converting my cities with his prophets.

Now if you've got a size 15 city with 10 of your own religion and 3 of some foreign religion, then yes, this policy discourages you from "wiping out the competition." But if that's the situation in which you're using your prophets and inquisitors, then you're doing it wrong. Even if you replaced that policy with something else, this is not the way that you should be using your prophets and inquisitors anyway.

 

[fyar]

I'd prefer to drop the nonsense about having other religions in the city and instead just allow you to pick a second Pantheon for your religion from a list of choices that have already been chosen for other religions.

If you make religious freedom truly free, so that ALL pantheons work and not just #2, then you essentially can pick any pantheon from those already chosen, and you can even choose a different one for each city, by setting up a trade route with that other religion. It's simpler, more intuitive, more realistic, and more powerful.

 

[isau]

Maybe that's how YOU want Piety to play, but what you call "piety" is insulting to people of actual faith. The only people who call that "piety" or people who are not pious at all; they either claim that religion but have warped it from a God-centric faith a me-centric power struggle, or they are do not claim that religion and have shoved a stereotype of "religious nutjobs" onto the authentically religious.

If Piety is about strengthening your religion, there's nothing inconsistent about saying that it's made stronger by religious freedom.

There are no people of actual faith in this game. The reasons to found and spread a religion in Civilization are entirely self interested. You do it because there are tangible benefits for your empire, just like building a building or declaring war, not because of any actual commitment to faithfulness. This would be why a proclaimed Buddhist leader can still double cross and commit genocide to his heart's content without his prophets uttering a word. Even the word "piety" itself has a dual connotation of "zealotry" or "orthodoxy." If you want to RP a religious commitment you're free to, but religion as represented in this game is entirely strategic and Machiavellian, something you shape your beliefs on based entirely on what will benefit you most.

Religious tolerance has no strategic value in the Piety tree. If it belongs anywhere, it should in the Freedom ideology.

As to whether "people of faith" find that insulting, well, your call, but it's not out of touch with the history the game is emulating. I'd be eager to hear your interpretation on how the Inquistor unit is a representation of good feelings in any case.

 

[Ayestes]

If you make religious freedom truly free, so that ALL pantheons work and not just #2, then you essentially can pick any pantheon from those already chosen, and you can even choose a different one for each city, by setting up a trade route with that other religion. It's simpler, more intuitive, more realistic, and more powerful.

I disagree that it's more intuitive, since the general religious goal of the game is to have your religion be the most dominant. It feels counter-intuitive to help someone spread their religion, even if it's only 1 or 2 followers in your cities. I also think simply choosing one is a lot simpler then having to work other religions into your cities on purpose to take advantage of it. I agree it's more realistic, but that's not really a concern of mine for Civ5 as long as it's not too outlandish. I also agree it's more powerful, but I think that actually might be too powerful in some situations.

 

[Greizer85]

People of actual faith cannot be insulted -- or if they can, they'll get over it. They're confident that if God minds the insult, he can do his own smiting. If you burn the holy book of a pious man, he'll say the same thing every time: 'I do hope that that there fine scripture gave you the warmth that you required, friend. Maybe you could try reading it the next time, see if that'll warm you up even better.'

As for Civ V, having all Pantheons in the same city is grossly op imo (even if you'd have to work to get them). One other that you can pick from those already picked is fine. The policy should be deep enough in the tree that many Pantheons can be taken (tier 3 ideally).

 

[fyar]

There are no people of actual faith in this game. The reasons to found and spread a religion in Civilization are entirely self interested. You do it because there are tangible benefits for your empire, just like building a building or declaring war, not because of any actual commitment to faithfulness. This would be why a proclaimed Buddhist leader can still double cross and commit genocide to his heart's content without his prophets uttering a word. Even the word "piety" itself has a dual connotation of "zealotry" or "orthodoxy." If you want to RP a religious commitment you're free to, but religion as represented in this game is entirely strategic and Machiavellian, something you shape your beliefs on based entirely on what will benefit you most.

Religious tolerance has no strategic value in the Piety tree. If it belongs anywhere, it should in the Freedom ideology.

It absolutely belongs in the Piety tree, because it makes your religion stronger to be able to earn those benefits without having to "wipe out" any competing religion. It seems like those who are opposed to this policy believe that "winning" religion just means having more converts than any other religion. That's not what it means to "win" religion in real life, nor does it "win" you anything in the game. If religion is purely Machiavellian to you in the game, then why do you have a problem with earning more benefits from religion in the Piety tree? Is it because it runs counter to the "more converts is better" philosophy? But if this is your philosophy and religion is Machiavellian to you, why do you care about number of converts, so long as you get your pantheon benefit?

As to whether "people of faith" find that insulting, well, your call, but it's not out of touch with the history the game is emulating. I'd be eager to hear your interpretation on how the Inquistor unit is a representation of good feelings in any case.

What I found insulting is the suggestion that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety. I think nukes should be in the game because I don't care about "good feelings" in the game, but I do care about gameplay and historicity. I gave a suggestion which I think does service to both. Suggesting that religious persecution is an aspect of piety is insulting, AND it's a disservice to Civ V's gameplay and historicity.

People of actual faith cannot be insulted -- or if they can, they'll get over it. They're confident that if God minds the insult, he can do his own smiting. If you burn the holy book of a pious man, he'll say the same thing every time: 'I do hope that that there fine scripture gave you the warmth that you required, friend. Maybe you could try reading it the next time, see if that'll warm you up even better.'

I'm honestly not sure what any of that meant.

As for Civ V, having all Pantheons in the same city is grossly op imo (even if you'd have to work to get them). One other that you can pick from those already picked is fine. The policy should be deep enough in the tree that many Pantheons can be taken (tier 3 ideally).

This is the kind of discussion I wanted to have. It's a fair objection. But my question is, would it make Piety overpowered compared to, say, Tradition? Rationalism? Pre-patch Consulates? I think it would just make Piety more comparable. It'd leave Honor in its dust, but maybe Honor should get buffed too. As you said, you do have to work to get it, and sometimes that trade route might be too far, or it might go through dangerous territory, or it might be an otherwise weaker trade route for less gold. I think we all agree that the current "Religious Tolerance" is WAY underpowered... I believe this suggestion would be closer to "just right" than WAY overpowered in the other direction.

 

[fyar]

I disagree that it's more intuitive, since the general religious goal of the game is to have your religion be the most dominant. It feels counter-intuitive to help someone spread their religion, even if it's only 1 or 2 followers in your cities. I also think simply choosing one is a lot simpler then having to work other religions into your cities on purpose to take advantage of it. I agree it's more realistic, but that's not really a concern of mine for Civ5 as long as it's not too outlandish. I also agree it's more powerful, but I think that actually might be too powerful in some situations.

Ok, so we're halfway in agreement.

By simpler, I meant that it's simpler to explain. "You receive all pantheons from all religions in your cities." That's it... no extra dialog boxes, no complicated conditions, and it'd be pretty easy to program. Now, your point was that it's not as simple to exploit, because you have to use a trade route to do it rather than clicking a button. I agree, but I think that's ok. This is a strategy game after all!

By more intuitive, I guess I just meant simpler, so maybe that was redundant. I think your "intuition" that the goal of the religious game is to be the most dominant is not universal. There's also a founder belief called Interfaith Dialogue for which that is clearly not the goal. See my previous post about "winning" the religion game... if your goal is to have the most converts, fine, you don't need that policy; but if your goal is to win Civ V, then the policy can be helpful. (Or at least it would be if it wasn't so underpowered as it is.)

We agree that it's more realistic. That's a relief!

And we agree that it's more powerful, but I disagree that it'd be overpowered compared to Tradition and Rationalism. It won't always be so ideal to set up that particular trade route... there's always a cost-benefit analysis to giving up some other trade route for more gold, more food, more science, more production, or more security.

 

[Greizer85]

What I found insulting is the suggestion that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety. I think nukes should be in the game because I don't care about "good feelings" in the game, but I do care about gameplay and historicity. I gave a suggestion which I think does service to both. Suggesting that religious persecution is an aspect of piety is insulting, AND it's a disservice to Civ V's gameplay and historicity.

I'm honestly not sure what any of that meant.

I may have spoken beside the point, now that I read a few previous messages. I just stumbled into this thread and spotted the words' insult' and 'religion', and assumed you're one of those people who wants to ban religious mockery etc. Even if you ought to have a thick skin and not mind it too much (which was the point of my quote), it's a fair objection that 'Piety' shouldn't be associated directly with persecution. 'Religion' would be a better title for the tree imo, reflecting the organized side of things more than personal faith.

Besides the naming, the problem is, perhaps, that the Social Policy trees give grand benefits upon completion, so you're compelled to finish them even if they contain policies that make you queasy. While one solution is to man up and not mind it since it's a video game, I'm sure there are others. For the record, I would build Auschwitz in my game if it gave more benefits than drawbacks, but I wouldn't feel nice about it... And it's ahistorical from all conceivable viewpoints (humane ofc, but also economic etc).

As for whether religious persecution can have benefits associated with it, well, it might unify the majority faith in that it gives them a common enemy. But would it have been more beneficial to work towards tolerance in the historical cases that persecution occurred? I would think so, in most cases. However there are cases like the Aztec religion that stretch the limits that tolerance can go to. Human sacrifice is kinda hard to mesh with, say, Buddhism. In the game this could be reflected by way of various synergies: certain beliefs and policies would work better with each other, others would be contradictory. So if you took 'blood cult' Pantheon, 'Religious Tolerance' policy would weaken you or offer little benefit; while with some other, more peaceful Pantheon it would give greater benefits. Again the problem is that the policy trees are meant to be completed... But I'm sure it could be worked out.

This is the kind of discussion I wanted to have. It's a fair objection. But my question is, would it make Piety overpowered compared to, say, Tradition? Rationalism? Pre-patch Consulates? I think it would just make Piety more comparable. It'd leave Honor in its dust, but maybe Honor should get buffed too. As you said, you do have to work to get it, and sometimes that trade route might be too far, or it might go through dangerous territory, or it might be an otherwise weaker trade route for less gold. I think we all agree that the current "Religious Tolerance" is WAY underpowered... I believe this suggestion would be closer to "just right" than WAY overpowered in the other direction.

All those benefits from just *one* policy is a bit too much. If they could somehow be split into two or three policies, then maybe it'd work but I don't see an easy way to do that. Maybe allow you to pick two extra Pantheons? It still seems cluttered somehow but from a balance pov it could be made to work. Again the policy should be tier 3, to make you work for it.

 

[isau]

What I found insulting is the suggestion that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety. I think nukes should be in the game because I don't care about "good feelings" in the game, but I do care about gameplay and historicity. I gave a suggestion which I think does service to both. Suggesting that religious persecution is an aspect of piety is insulting, AND it's a disservice to Civ V's gameplay and historicity.

You think it's not historical for the religions featured in this game to have Inquisitor units or act aggressively toward each other? Keep in mind it doesn't matter what the actual adherents of said religions supposedly populating these religions in-game think, this is all about the policies a shrewd leader is adopting out of expediency. You can read an insult into that if you want but the way this game presents it religion is entirely mechanistic and manipulative, not unlike "Declarations of Friendship" and various other overtures of good will that are in fact strategic and political.

PS might be informing to look up a certain number of Popes with the name "Pius."

 

[Galgus]

I'd change Religious Tolerance to allow players to pick a bonus Pantheon, which could be selected from options already picked by other civs and would not bar other civs from picking it.

 

[McSaucy4418]

Greizer actually brought up an excellent point. The tree doesn't exist so much for the adherents of a faith but rather for the government. We could turn to any number of examples of leaders taking advantage of religion for political gains (my personal favorite is Charlemagne). In such a situation this idea of religion being used to strengthen your empire and advance your goals makes much more sense. It is state controlled and exists entirely for self-interest. Fyar the way I understand it the biggest issue you have with some type of intolerance or persecution is that it isn't historically accurate but it is. Look at the Catholic church in general, the crusades, Spanish inquisition, Anglican England, the American pilgrims, Spanish conquistadors (I know I'm euro-centric, please forgive me as I have limited knowledge of the mid-east and almost none of pre-20th century Asia).

 

[fyar]

You think it's not historical for the religions featured in this game to have Inquisitor units or act aggressively toward each other? Keep in mind it doesn't matter what the actual adherents of said religions supposedly populating these religions in-game think, this is all about the policies a shrewd leader is adopting out of expediency. You can read an insult into that if you want but the way this game presents it religion is entirely mechanistic and manipulative, not unlike "Declarations of Friendship" and various other overtures of good will that are in fact strategic and political.

PS might be informing to look up a certain number of Popes with the name "Pius."

I never said to get rid of the inquisitor unit. It's fine, it's historical, and it has its uses in the game. Let me state it one more time: What is insulting (and ahistorical and makes for inferior gameplay) is the suggestion that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety.

 

[Dralix]

Let me state it one more time: What is insulting (and ahistorical and makes for inferior gameplay) is the suggestion that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety.

I don't think isau is suggesting that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety, the state of being pious, but of Piety, the social policy tree in the game. Even that might be a little strong. He rather said that it's not about tolerance. There's a difference between intolerance and persecution, but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Personally, I'd say that religious intolerance is a characteristic of religion*, not Piety. Whether it's historical or not, the way it plays out in game is that human and AI players alike to try spread their religion at the expense of other religions. I'm sorry if you find that insulting. It's a game. Don't overthink what it says about reality.


*Remember, we're talking about game concepts, not real life.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You think it's not historical for the religions featured in this game to have Inquisitor units or act aggressively toward each other? Keep in mind it doesn't matter what the actual adherents of said religions supposedly populating these religions in-game think, this is all about the policies a shrewd leader is adopting out of expediency. You can read an insult into that if you want but the way this game presents it religion is entirely mechanistic and manipulative, not unlike "Declarations of Friendship" and various other overtures of good will that are in fact strategic and political.

PS might be informing to look up a certain number of Popes with the name "Pius."

The Piety tree is about using religion... eliminating other religions is ONE way to use it... Having benefits to other religions is another way.

Essentially stealing some of their benefits (taking some of someone's UA).. sounds machiavellean enough for me.. like "Universal Suffreage" to keep the petty bourgeoius rabble quiet.

The problem is the Game mechanic of spread religion does not currently support secondary religions... (ie only majority religions that control a city can spread from that city)... on the other hand if a Piety Policy both made it Possible and Beneficial to have secondary religions it would be good.

I would say religious tolerance should
1. give you a benefit to having other religions in your cities (already does that)
2. give you a way to maintain them as Secondary religions (+2 pressure on Standard for city founder's religion, Pantheon and for Any world religions with 1+ followers in Your civ.. not this city, your civ) x 3(+6 instead of +2) for Your religion/pantheon

(your cities would get +6 of your religion/pantheon..+2 for other religions.. your Captured cities would get +2 of the native pantheon.. +2 of other religions, and +6 of your religion if you had a full religion)

This would allow you to run a religiously tolerant pantheon only "Roman empire"... each city keeps the pantheon of its founding civ.. and receives the benefits thereof

This would also make it a lot easier to maintain your religion in cities against enemy missionaries... and you would have a secondary religion available all of your cities...

And if it is ALL Pantheon beliefs available give a benefit, all of those religions would be useful (especially including ressurecting foreign pantheons.. or preserving your own, which would be fun).

[get a Pantheon, but miss out on religion... go Religious Tolerance and get your Pantheon back.. in every city you founded]

 

[isau]

I don't think isau is suggesting that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety, the state of being pious, but of Piety, the social policy tree in the game. Even that might be a little strong. He rather said that it's not about tolerance. There's a difference between intolerance and persecution, but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Basically yes.

I am saying it's a policy tree with an overriding objective of making the player a dominant religion player, in the same way that "Honor" is a policy tree with an overriding objective of making the player a dominant war player (and not an "honorable" one at that). Neither tree really succeeds at this goal but that's beside the point. Part of the reason Piety doesn't succeed at its goal is because of muddled policies like "Religious Tolerance" that provide bonuses to things every other aspect of religion (as it is presented in this game) and the Piety tree suggests should be stamped out. This is no different than if the Liberty tree gave some bizarre bonus like "+20% defense if you have fewer cities than your rival."

In the religion game, the design focus was to maximize bonuses for yourself and minimize them for your rivals. This is why Great Prophets strip rival religions right out of a city after you use them. This is a strategy game. Everything about "religion" is opportunistic and competitive. That comes built in prior to there even being a Piety tree. It just follows that a tree that supposedly helps you boost your Religion should do that and not have some weird sidelong ability tied to failing at your main objective.

Where a policy like Religious Tolerance might work would be in the Freedom ideology. It would be the sort of thing you could take if you missed out on your own religion. It makes more sense later on because you might have a few extra religions floating around.

Not the Piety player. If you're playing Piety you should be working at eliminating your opposition and securing yourself as the world religion. The fact that Piety isn't very good at doing that is a huge part of why it sucks and what needs to be fixed. See also: why Honor sucks at war mongering.

 

[fyar]

In such a situation this idea of religion being used to strengthen your empire and advance your goals makes much more sense. It is state controlled and exists entirely for self-interest.

Again, history shows that religious freedom DOES strengthen an empire and DOES advance its goals. So why are you opposed to a policy that reflects the history, and also helps strengthen your empire and advance your goal of winning Civ V?

I'm not going to go into all of your historical "examples" other than to say that it's a terribly simplistic reduction of religious history and that none of them prove that religious persecution is an attribute of piety. Listening to the ideas in this thread, you might think that Hitler was a man of piety for murdering Jews all for the sake of "advancing" his cause of Aryan supremacy. I know nobody suggested that, but if Firaxis were to adopt Religious Intolerance as a policy, those are the kinds of examples you would have in the Civilopedia under Piety. If you want to design a mod with Persecution as a policy tree, be my guest. You can even have it give you +100 if you want. But it's not piety.

I would instead argue that piety in a political leader is someone like Leo the Great, Mahatma Gandhi, Jeanne d'Arc, Saladin, Nelson Mandela, John Paul II, or the current Pope Francis.

 

[fyar]

I don't think isau is suggesting that religious persecution is a characteristic of piety, the state of being pious, but of Piety, the social policy tree in the game. Even that might be a little strong. He rather said that it's not about tolerance. There's a difference between intolerance and persecution, but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Personally, I'd say that religious intolerance is a characteristic of religion*, not Piety. Whether it's historical or not, the way it plays out in game is that human and AI players alike to try spread their religion at the expense of other religions. I'm sorry if you find that insulting. It's a game. Don't overthink what it says about reality.


*Remember, we're talking about game concepts, not real life.

Well, believe it or not, the game is about real life. If there was no historical immersion to the game whatsoever, I probably wouldn't be playing it. So if you call it piety but it's not piety, I'm going to object. If you call it France but their leader is Mao Zedong, I'm going to object. If you call it a battleship and it loses to a trireme, I'm going to object.

Let me just ask one simple question, for everyone in this thread:

What is the primary purpose of the Piety tree?

There seem to be two camps on this:
1. On the one hand, some have argued that its purpose is to have the dominant religion, the most converts, to wipe out other religions.
2. Krikkit has stated several times, and I agree with him, that its purpose is to have a strong religion which helps advance your goals of victory in Civ V.

Now, some of you seem to be using #1 to accomplish #2, and that's fine. I wouldn't take that away from you. But I'm asking, which is the first and foremost reason? Because #1 by itself doesn't actually accomplish anything. If you still answer #1, then there's no point in debating it... there's no arguing that Religious Intolerance would help to accomplish that goal. But if the answer is #2, then why can't a strong, and useful, Religious Freedom policy help you to accomplish that goal?