Proposal: Realistic religions mod. COMMENTS NEEDED.

[spu00trb]

It would seem to me, that when viewed across the entire history of a civilisation no one religion has proved to be any more succesful in any area than another. For example in the dark ages in europe Islamic nations surged ahead encouraging technical growth and innovation, but nowadays most would agree that this is no longer true. In the rennaisance the catholic church was a source of great cultural and scientific thoughts, but this again is no longer true and nor was it true in the middle ages. All religions change with time, and so without adding a "religious development" concept to the game considering them all to be equal seems most 'real' to me.

Looking at history it would seem that what has always been most important about religion, is that some of those people over there have a different one.... How strange...... and so on

 

[civilleader]

Buddhism shoud have a missionary bonus, in its early days it spread from India all the way to Indonesia Siberia, Egypt and even Greece.

 

[Venger]

Isn't this thread proof positive of why they made the religions generic?

And so many religions have acted so differently in different eras. Take Islam. First, Islam has been spread primarily via one method - the sword. Today, the Islamic world sees Jews as a hated enemy. Yet, they allowed Jews to practive freeely in Jerusalem for hundreds and hundreds of years. Today, the Islamic world is quite backwards socially and technologically. But during the dark ages, the nations of Islam kept knowledge alive, including the genesis of algebra.

Look at Christianity. Some of the biggest opponents of science were Christians - and some of the biggest proponents. Christians sent missionaries to the New World to convert - they also sent Crusaders to retake Jerusalem and support the Byzantine empire in the East. The Christian West supports Israel - they also had bouts of killing Jews in great quantities.

So what do you do? Give a -2 diplomacy modifier between Jew and Muslim? Or a +2 tolerance modifier? Do they get a tech bonus? Or a tech disadvantage? Do Christians make missionaries, or Knights Templar? Do they support Israel, or do they blame them in passion plays?

Religion is an important component of life, but to me, it's inclusion generically is better than subjectively - being able to build a temple/church/mosque is good, and reflects it well.

Also, let's keep in mind... Civ4 is aimed at countries that are what, 70% Christian? And almost maybe 90% adherents to some religion of The Book? Hard to make that crowd happy getting too specific...

Venger

 

[Thalassicus]

I like the idea of naming them by different fundamental beliefs, rather than the common names of the major religious institutions that have become prominent in today's world. Maybe something like these seven basic faiths (I apologize if I misinterpreted the emphasis of any religion):

Animism
The belief that all creatures and objects in nature contain spirits, or souls.
(Animism actually has roots in the Latin word anima (soul), where we got the word "Animate" - "To give life to; fill with life." Animism is not to be confused with the word animalism.)

Pantheon
The belief in many gods, each embodying different aspects of the world.

Reincarnation
The belief in the continuation of souls from one body to the next, and that actions in your current life affect your next incarnation.

Enlightenment
The belief in the ability to transcend life in the physical world through meditation, and attain enlightenment, a higher state of being.

Truism
The belief that there is one true all-encompassing deity that guides or embodies the universe.

Salvation
The belief that souls can be redeemed of evil through religious acts of faith.

Traditionalism
The following of a system of moral, social, and political thought, rather than a significant emphasis on supernatural deities or actions.

This way, you could focus on the benifits or disadvantages of any one faith, rather than the particular religion that has formed out of that faith. Like mentioned previously, religions themselves have evolved many sorts of perculiarities or practices throughout history that have nothing at all to do with the underlying beliefs.

Many of these faiths often overlap with a Pantheon or Truism, such as Salvation or Reincarnation, but the emphasis is different. For example, compare the Pantheons of Greek, Egyptian, and Norse mythology with Hinduism and the belief in reincarnation: the beliefs focus on different principals of life. The Pantheonic gods were vengeful; Hinduism revolves around your actions determining your status in the next life. Likewise compare Islam, which main principle is a one true belief, with Christianity, which main principle is salvation from evil.

Religions like Sun cults or Fundamentalism are really civic choices of a particular faith, rather than the faith itself. Many Mesoamerican religions revolved around sacrifice, but the underlying belief in many supernatural gods could fit into the category of a Pantheon or Monotheism (in the case of one god).

A "Sacrifice" religious civic would actually be pretty interesting...perhaps something like the Mesoamerican scenario, where you could capture enemy units and sacrifice them at your cities for cultural bonuses and happiness.


These could be possible effects when it's the state belief:

Animism
Better understanding and use of natural resources provides +1 bread(food) to cities in addition to health for food resources.

Pantheon
Temples to the Pantheon provide +1 trade routes to cities in addition to normal effects.

Reincarnation
Pasture and seafoods grant no health; instead, grain foods give +4 health.

Enlightenment
Temples for enlightenment eliminate all unhappiness in a city. Double natural spread rate.

Truism
Cities following the belief have a +50% growth and production bonus, but all other beliefs in cities produce extra unhappy faces.

Salvation
Missionary zeal gives a 75% chance to "convert" those of an opposing state belief to the new faith when successfully established in a city. Slower natural spread rate.

Traditionalism
All "temples" count as courthouses, reducing corruption by 50%.


Regardless of the belief system, cities without the state belief would recieve unhappy faces due to unrest (which could be a strategy when spreading religion).

You could also build Inquisitors under Theocracy to purge beliefs, but purging a faith would result in that percentage of the city's population turning into resistant citizens until they're quelled. (Theocracy also prevents missionaries being used in your territory or any other form of non-state belief spread.)

 

[dh_epic]

Plus, if you want to go with foundational issues, then Islam would _have_ to be tied to violence (as Mohammed himself led religious raids).

So did Moses.

The problem is it's so hard to agree on the facts surrounding a religion's evolution. Part of the evolution of a religious text is to conceal the fact that it had to evolve at all. And part of the evolution of a religion is that thousands of different intepretations of the text exist, including speculation about whether the text changed.

The reality is there ARE built in differences to the religions. But is one religion happier than the other? Is one more educated? No, there's variance according to the names of Gods, and a few things you shouldn't eat... but really, when you look at the differences that would actually impact a game of Civilization, it always had to do with circumstance and implementation.

A religion is defined by its disciples, and people are shaped by circumstance. For the sake of Civ, then, a game where you start in 4000 BC and go all the way up to 2050 AD, every single religion can have a significantly different history even if you accept that they would still have the same foundation we know in our reality. It all depends on the circumstances in which the religion appeared.

Hindus could have grown up in an area without cows and thus never known them to be sacred. Buddhism could be defined by warmongering, Islam could have held onto its top spot in education for much longer, Christianity could have solely emphasized its pacifist streak and never once picked up the sword.

Civics still seem like the best way to add more variety and realism to religion.

 

[wooga]

Civics still seem like the best way to add more variety and realism to religion.

I see your point dh_epic. I'll concede that attaching traits directly to the religions also oversimplifies the ability of various religions to change over time, and doesn't account for aspects which we associate with the religions which are actually environmental and social traditions rather than part of their core religious beliefs.

What about a compromise where fixed penalty traits are reduced/eliminated by the adoption of certain civics? For example, the adoption of "freedom of religion" would negate the military bonuses I'd give to Islam. The adoption of Theocracy could disable the "no missionary" penalty I'd place on Judaism. Some civic combination (representation gov?) would eliminate the science penalty I want on Christianity. Thinking about it this way, I can kind of see how all of the benefits/penalties I want could be fully addressed through a civic only option. After all, theocracy does give a military bonus, without attaching traits to particular religions.

But, I still want the adoption of particular religions to have some strategic significance in and of itself. Maybe unique religious units/buildings might make me happy.

Plus, I want some penalty for having too many religions in your cities, at least if you aren't running the freedom of religion civic.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I think this is a wonderful observation and would add great fun to the game.

The main problem in my eyes is that there is no way to remove it once it has spread. Much of the historical conflict between religions has been based on the fact that one does not tolerate the other but in Civ 4 world although your civilisations religion can be set and you can be engaged in a huge religious war against civilisation X your cities will be busy follwing religion x with little or no penalty and no way for you to get involved.

This makes religion abstract and vague, what is needed is positive and negative consequences for following or not following the beliefs of your people and ways to influence those beliefs.

Firstly what is needed is an inquisitor unit which can only be built in a city with a religion and all that religions buildings, this inquisitor unit would have a twofold purpose. An inquisitor fortified in a city prevents a missionary from being able to spread his religion and an inquisitor can consume himself to drive another religion from a city you own. The inquisitor cannot prevent the natural spread of religion, and so this means you cannot simply stop all religious spread with an inquisitor in each city and then sit back and ignore it.

Secondly we need a way of making religion important all the time, rather than just during war. Perhaps your people could suffer increased war exhaustion against a nation with the same faith, but hugely decreased war exhaustion if the eneamy was of a different faith but held your holy city. In my opinion this should also be a large source of tension.

Thirdly we need a way to encourage single religions, right now all the advantages are for multiple religions since they give more temples. I think that if you are at war with a nation that has another religion all your cities with that religion should suffer increased maintenance as your people become suspiscious of each other. Also being at war with another religion that is not your state main religion should cause all temples in your empire of that religion to lose their happiness increase effect.

This is all just brainstorming but right now religion is too free and easy, there is no tension between them other than between nations, your biggest challenge should be managing your own people.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Personally, I want the world religions in the game. I know that generic religions seem to be desired by some very strongly, but if that is what they want, then they can create a generic religions mod. I will be making one that keeps the existing faiths.

I think that we should stay away from the stereotypes of faiths as I said before. Instead, we should make bonuses and disadvantages based shearly on the letter of law and the rules of conduct for that faith.

Ultimately, the best way to make religions unique is the same way you make civilizations unique. Don't simply just slap some kind of a +/- one thing or another to the religion. Rather let each religion develop certain things such as unique buildings, technologies and civics and units.

As has been said, no religion has consistently throughout history maintained itself as being particularly effective in one area of life or another... but with the buildings and civics, a religion can sort of be directed in one way or another to be useful in one way or another to its rulers.

The problem is, of course, that to properly implement this will require an overhaul of the current religious system and require some of us to pop open the game's hood and start messing around with code.

But, I think, this is worth the time and energy ultimately.

 

[Thalassicus]

If you like the names of traditional religions, each of these beliefs could be more or less associated with one of the major religions:

Animism
Pantheon
Hinduism (Reincarnation)
Buddhism (Enlightenment)
Islam (Truism)
Christianity (Salvation)
Chineese Traditionalism (Taoism/Confucianism) (Traditionalism)

...giving you 7 religions, each with distinct principles. Naming by their underlying beliefs might be a better way to go though, so people don't immediately compare the advantages or disadvantages to their view of any particular religion. It would work with the religious names too.

 

[dh_epic]

Plus, I want some penalty for having too many religions in your cities, at least if you aren't running the freedom of religion civic.

I still might tie this to civics, and you could end up with a civic-like cold war.

Organized Religion: Fine the way it is -- happiness for state religion, but no happiness for others.
Theocracy: Happiness for state religion, but -1 happiness for each minority religion. (Probably change it to +3 XP to compensate).
Pacifism: Happiness for every religion, like free religion.
Free Religion: Fine the way it is -- happiness for every religion.

Outlaw Religion: Bigger science bonus than free religion, but less productivity, and -1 happiness for every religion.
Reformation: Keep all the gold from your religion, instead of giving it to the holy land. (Assuming there's a Shrine.) Happiness for state religion, none for others.
Inquisition: No war weariness against states with another religion. -1 happiness for each minority religion. State religion missionaries now have a strong chance to REMOVE another religion from a city.

Just food for thought. Not saying I have the answers, but again -- even the ability for religions to coexist has varied throughout history. Muslims and Jews lived in harmony for a while, as well as Jews and Christians. And at other points, they were fierce enemies. And once again, I think the difference is implementation and circumstance: civics.

 

[Princeps]

Islam should have an advantage in science, after all, Koran somewhat embraces science, IIRC.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Any attributes we ascribe to a religion like a bonus for science or banking, is really just a product of events, not any difference in the principles of that belief.

I disagree. In some cases, yes, that is true, but religions do have codes of conduct, religious laws, and beliefs on the way the world should work that are distinct from other religions and are imbedded in the holy texts and are thus not merely stereotypes. As I said before, however, simply giving bonuses to religions is probably not the best way to go... rather letting each religion open the door to technologies, buildings, improvements and civics or having an existing civic impact one religion over another in a different way is a much better way to go.

Because you yourself have posed a suggestion that involves using these generic religions and giving them bonuses as well... but, in the end, isn't that just changing the names? If what you say is true that over time the belief structure is not important to social institutions and that no religion has ever come out being better in one area than any other, then so too should your generic religions not give any kind of bonuses.




But ultimately, this is besides the point. It seems clear that we all have a different idea of what would be best. One group wants one thing and another wants another.

If this were prior to the release of Civ4 and we were discussing what we wanted the game to look like, I'd say that the argument between generic and real world religions would be entirely relevant...

However, since we are discussing a mod which will ultimately (given our differences in opinion) end up being two mods or more, I think that those who want generic religions should start their own thread for the creation of a generic religion mod.

Because at this point, it's really more of civilized threadjacking than anything else. It would be as if I started a thread about wanting to create an American Civil War mod, and a bunch of posters show up and try to convince me I ought to make one on the Crimean War... abbamouse clearly wants to create a mod using the real world religions and not generic ones... so why not just take this to another thread and let the discussion continue here of making a mod using the real world religions?

 

[Thalassicus]

No need to be so harsh If I misconveyed my intent, I apologize.

I understand your point, that a desirable mod would also be to give the different religions historically accurate units, technologies, or buildings that reflect what occured in their history; this would improve the historical-simulation aspect of the game. I was just focusing more on the OP's point of view, giving advantages or disadvantages to your empire if it endorses a particular belief.

I was thinking what fundamental differences in the underlying beliefs might possibly have an effect on a civilization's traits. For example, animism might lead to a better understanding of nature, reincarnation (a primary belief of Hinduism) might lead to a natural unwillingness to eat possible incarnations (animals), striving for enlightenment (a principle of Buddhism) could lead to less unhappiness. Redemption (a principle of Christianity) could produce a greater desire to missionize (if that's a word).

Naming them by their belief system would simply allow the player to imagine their own religion or religions to follow that belief, to avoid arguments. We could possibly give the player the choice: when the mod is loaded, they could either use the modern religion names, or the belief names.

Regardless of the naming conventions, what do you think of the underlying advantages or disadvantages described above; what might be better or more accurate attributes of these religions?

 

[dh_epic]

True. Anyone who wants to make religions less realistic should start their own thread.

 

[Thalassicus]

Naming a religion by their beliefs isn't less realistic, it's just a broader view that avoids arguments people might have. Again, as far as naming goes, we could simply give the player the choice: use the 7 names of the religions, or use the 7 names of the beliefs. The main point is what advantages or disadvantages they might provide, which is what I discusses.

I made suggestions exactly in the same format and principles as the OP's...you could at least address whether these attributes might be realistic or not and why, rather than denouncing them entirely... :\

 

[abbamouse]

I think the religion = system of belief mod would be interesting, but the one I'm making uses proper nouns (ie names of real religions). I've heavily edited the original post in this thread to show everyone where I am. I need advice on Taoism and Zoroastrianism as well as some problems I'm having implementing Islamic banking. I also need to figure out graphics for Zoroastrianism.

 

[spu00trb]

I really think that before people worry about what bonuses and penalties a specific religion or school of thought should recieve we need somebody to try and find out if the "missionary blocker" I described in my previous post can actually work. I called him an Inquisitor but clearly different religions would have different names depending on who their most vocal group of preachers have been through history. Confucionism with its veneration of elders might build an Aged Teacher unit for the same purpose, Islam might build an Imam, Buddism a Monk.

If we want to make individual religions different and make which religion your cities have a powerful source of benefits then we have to let the player get involved in the decision beyond the inititial spreading of the faith. How irritated would you be if your vast empire following religion X which you had converted to to get its science bonus following a difficult job of building missionaries fell under the natural spread of a religion that gave a science penalty? Or what if your eneamies during war saw that your cities were vastly reliant on religion Ys bonus health from grain and sent in a wave of missionaries to convert all your cities to religions that did not get this bonus? Or perhaps an eneamy with free religion that let him avoid religious strife and so had lots of religions might see you had organised religion and send out missionaries from all sorts of different religions to really cause some discord in your cities. Without a missionary blocker all these tactics would be impossible to stop. I mean, if we diferentiate relgions these should be viable new tactics, spreading your religion before you has been the tactic of many people in history but they should not be unstoppable tactics.

I mean, after all if we are going to give religions bonuses we will have to make them be something you have to work to get, unlike now when you can convert to any religion you want at any time and only take a tiny happiness hit. And if we make people work to get them, they have to be able to work to keep them too.

 

[abbamouse]

spu00trb: Civs can't take away your faith by spreading their own, so you'd still keep your extra health from grain, etc provided by your chosen faith's temples. The XML files don't have an "X science for each 10% of pop with religion Y" option; all the bonuses are all-or-nothing. So no one can deprive you of a bonus without trashing your improvements or taking your cities.

 

[spu00trb]

I know they cant, but if we want to make religion exciting we need to make it so they can. I had just assumed that any attempt to add modifiers to religion would also include an attempt to encourage the player to choose a state religion their people want. Players should have to work for their state religions and so forth, if they dont have to it is just an exploit and everyond will use the same ones. Otherwise imagine this situations.

Player A has two religions, X and Y. One has a science bonus and the other has a bonus to the XP of produced units. During peacetime the player uses his science bonus religion, during wartime he immediately switches without penalty to his unit XP bonus religion. Clearly the player shouldnt be allowed to bounce back and forth getting whatever benefits he pleases from his state religion. The state religion should be a concept that can only exist if a large fraction of the people are all about that religion. The computer certainly plays it that way ("Not enough of my people believe in that faith for me to convert!"), we should have to as well. I cant remember if Anarchy ensues when you change state religion? But even if it does it seems rather a boring and colourless way of handling things.

In fact surely ading bonuses to different religions would just make religions into a "gotta collect em all!" affair, since anyone who didnt have access to all the religions would have fewer choices as to which bonuses they used that turn. So in fact all your efforts to make religion more interesting would have ended up abstracting it altogther into a simple choice you make on the civics bar.

 

[CyberChrist]

I need advice on Taoism and Zoroastrianism ... I also need to figure out graphics for Zoroastrianism.

Zoroastrianism was(is) all about the struggle between good and evil and is best described as 'nearly Monotheistic' even though there were a Pantheon(of sorts) of minor 'forces' - but none that was worshipped (afaik).

The most important place of worship was(is) the temple of fire where a fire always burns as a symbol of the sacred fire of Ahura Mazda(the good and nearly - but not quite - almighty god). Because of this then a flame of some sort would probably be the most obvious symbol for Zoroatrianism.