Religion for 7

[dagriggstar]

I'm sure everyone has their own opinions about how best to worship Sid. Here are my thoughts

1) Each religion has an opinion to you (similar to civ 5 city-states). Religions with favourable opinions make followers happy, religions with unfavourable opinions make followers unhappy. Religion in the early game should be the primary way to keep your citizens happy.
2) Opinion is based on completing or ignoring requests. For example, a religion may hold a particular bonus resource as sacred, giving you a choice of whether to continue to use the resource (make the religion unhappy with you) or stop using it (making the religion happy with you).
3) Religions can put down stuff on the map. For example - you may give territory to a religion for them to build an abbey, which gains gold per turn for that religion. That is, unless it is "sacked" by a foreign power or perhaps you yourself decide to take the territory back.
4) Religious spread is not handled by the player. Religions are sort of playing their own game against each other. The player can influence them, for instance by adopting a state religion making it easier for that religion to spread to your cities.
5) No faith as a resource

 

[Eddie Verdde]

I hope that in Civ7 there's the option of choosing a state religion - as in Civ4.

I'd also like to see a different mechanism of spreading religion to other cities and civilizations - instead of controling individual missionaries and send wave after wave from one point to another, which I find cumbersome and tedious, they could use a system similar to the espionage missions.

 

[criZp]

Have it only function as social control and in diplomacy/war, no yield bonuses or victory or units

 

[Chekko]

I like the idea of how it plays its own game but you can influence it, I do however want to choose the beliefs. It does get a bit boring to spam religious units everywhere and have it almost mandatory to have a Holy Site in every city in order to keep up with the increasing Faith costs. For me it's like I only do that if I want to aim for a Religious Victory.

I also want there to be a higher chance for the Civ to accept my request of having them stop converting my cities. I barely ever get that request accepted.

 

[Zaarin]

Have it only function as social control and in diplomacy/war, no yield bonuses or victory or units

I strongly agree no Religious Victory and am also inclined to no religious units. However, I disagree about no yields; religion has been a strong source of culture, science, and gold yields historically--even food and hammer yields, for that matter.

I also want there to be a higher chance for the Civ to accept my request of having them stop converting my cities. I barely ever get that request accepted.

In my experience, the AI will accept the request...and then just go on converting.

 

[Eddie Verdde]

However, I disagree about no yields; religion has been a strong source of culture, science, and gold yields historically--even food and hammer yields, for that matter.

That's correct. In Civ6 I always choose the "tithe" and "work ethic" beliefs. I end up having insane yields in gold and hammers.

 

[AsH2]

..
I disagree about no yields; religion has been a strong source of culture, science, and gold yields historically--even food and hammer yields, for that matter.

Even bigger as drainage of culture, science, and gold yields.

 

[criZp]

However, I disagree about no yields; religion has been a strong source of culture, science, and gold yields historically--even food and hammer yields, for that matter.

The civ style of religion where it is just one more way of buffing some yield is pretty boring. I think if they are to implement it, it should serve a more unique function, at least as a base.

 

[Zaarin]

Even bigger as drainage of culture, science, and gold yields.

I'd like to remind you that Victorian atheists invented the Flat Earth Society because Christians believed the Earth is round. The idea that religion and science are somehow conflicted is a relic of the cult of science that came out of the Victorian age; it's as outmoded as "boys like blue, girls like pink." Saying that religion has been a drain on culture is so patently ignorant it's not worth the effort of rebuffing.

The civ style of religion where it is just one more way of buffing some yield is pretty boring. I think if they are to implement it, it should serve a more unique function, at least as a base.

Yes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'd like to remind you that Victorian atheists invented the Flat Earth Society because Christians believed the Earth is round. The idea that religion and science are somehow conflicted is a relic of the cult of science that came out of the Victorian age; it's as outmoded as "boys like blue, girls like pink." Saying that religion has been a drain on culture is so patently ignorant it's not worth the effort of rebuffing.

An alternative, more nuanced and more accurate way of depicting religion in Civ VII would be to regard it as an Alternate 'source' or driver of Science, Culture, and Gold/Production compared to 'normal' Political, Educational, or Economic forces. Because none of those are the primary purpose of Religion, you would run the risk of having that source suddenly cut off by some Archbishop, Imam, Synod, Hermit and his followers, etc. but while in effect, the effects of Religion could be huge in all categories.
Examples:
Temple Scribal Schools, Scriptoria, Monastic copyists - Religion as a source of Science-boosting Buildings and Improvements that the State doesn't have to pay for. Note also that the original European Universities and Islamic Madrasas were both Religious and Educational Institutions
Translation Movement - encouraged by the religious Caliphates, in both Baghdad and Toledo/Cordoba, that encouraged Science discoveries and recoveries in both the 'home' state and Trading Partners (Europe)

Tithing and similar Gold-concentrating Religous practices - but that Gold had to go somewhere, and so, again, the Religion can foster the building of all kinds of Buildings and Improvements. And so many Wonders are religious-related or religion-based that Religion could be a Primary Source of resources to build Wonders.

Depending on how you want to measure Culture in the game, Religion is a source of Tourism - shrines, Holy Sites, Wonderous Cathedrals, Mosques, Monasteries, etc, home sites for Martyrs or Saints and other Religious Great People - all prime Tourist Destinations.
Religious Music, Religious Art of all kinds - you are not likely to get Michelangelo's David or Handel's Messiah without rthe religious references to at least inspire them - and Religious Institution Gold to pay for them.
Cultural Buildings, Wonders or Less-Than-Wonders, were almost all Religion-related before the post-Medieval Era.

And, of course, people's identification of themselves and their Group ('Nation', Tribe, City State) almost always included their Religion as part of their Culture - and therefore Religion is also part of any Loyalty or Political Cohesion mechanic in a game.

 

[Zaarin]

An alternative, more nuanced and more accurate way of depicting religion in Civ VII would be to regard it as an Alternate 'source' or driver of Science, Culture, and Gold/Production compared to 'normal' Political, Educational, or Economic forces. Because none of those are the primary purpose of Religion, you would run the risk of having that source suddenly cut off by some Archbishop, Imam, Synod, Hermit and his followers, etc. but while in effect, the effects of Religion could be huge in all categories.
Examples:
Temple Scribal Schools, Scriptoria, Monastic copyists - Religion as a source of Science-boosting Buildings and Improvements that the State doesn't have to pay for. Note also that the original European Universities and Islamic Madrasas were both Religious and Educational Institutions
Translation Movement - encouraged by the religious Caliphates, in both Baghdad and Toledo/Cordoba, that encouraged Science discoveries and recoveries in both the 'home' state and Trading Partners (Europe)

Tithing and similar Gold-concentrating Religous practices - but that Gold had to go somewhere, and so, again, the Religion can foster the building of all kinds of Buildings and Improvements. And so many Wonders are religious-related or religion-based that Religion could be a Primary Source of resources to build Wonders.

Depending on how you want to measure Culture in the game, Religion is a source of Tourism - shrines, Holy Sites, Wonderous Cathedrals, Mosques, Monasteries, etc, home sites for Martyrs or Saints and other Religious Great People - all prime Tourist Destinations.
Religious Music, Religious Art of all kinds - you are not likely to get Michelangelo's David or Handel's Messiah without rthe religious references to at least inspire them - and Religious Institution Gold to pay for them.
Cultural Buildings, Wonders or Less-Than-Wonders, were almost all Religion-related before the post-Medieval Era.

And, of course, people's identification of themselves and their Group ('Nation', Tribe, City State) almost always included their Religion as part of their Culture - and therefore Religion is also part of any Loyalty or Political Cohesion mechanic in a game.

Yes, this is precisely the direction I want Civ7 to take. Combine that with detaching religion from direct control by the player/civilization, enhance passive spread and downplay directed spread, and emphasize the formation of religious blocs (and religious schisms), and I think you have a much more interesting, nuanced, and historical take on religion. I'll admit there are things that are fun about the current system, especially modded--spreading the good news of Haida Paganism as China has a certain kind of delight that is inherent to the Civ formula. But I think the system I've been advocating for (as have others) would be a lot richer and a lot more exciting in the long run.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, this is precisely the direction I want Civ7 to take. Combine that with detaching religion from direct control by the player/civilization, enhance passive spread and downplay directed spread, and emphasize the formation of religious blocs (and religious schisms), and I think you have a much more interesting, nuanced, and historical take on religion. I'll admit there are things that are fun about the current system, especially modded--spreading the good news of Haida Paganism as China has a certain kind of delight that is inherent to the Civ formula. But I think the system I've been advocating for (as have others) would be a lot richer and a lot more exciting in the long run.

Instead of the carpet of Religious Units that plague the Civ VI maps now, use Religious Influence generated by Religious Tenets, Buildings, Districts, Improvements, etc. to accomplish most of the spread and counter-spread, and save Units for Religious Great People, which could include both the current Great Prophets and Great Theologians to modify established Religions and 'push' Spread/Counter=spread events. Set up a debate/battle between two Great Prophets or Great Theologians and you might have a genuine excuse for flying Thunderbolts . . .

 

[Zaarin]

Set up a debate/battle between two Great Prophets or Great Theologians and you might have a genuine excuse for flying Thunderbolts . . .

As demonstrated the time that Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli were in the same room together... (TBH it tended to happen when Martin Luther was in the same room with anyone except his wife, with whom by all accounts he had a very warm and affectionate marriage... )

 

[dagriggstar]

The main reason I put the happiness thing in there, is that it can act as a check on larger empires. Like, the bigger your empire, the more likely it is you will have different religions in your empire. Do you go all in appeasing one section of your society, gaining a bunch of bonuses from that specific group but having to deal with a bunch of negative modifiers (Revolts) to everyone else in your empire OR do you sort of try to keep things level and all your citizens work at an about average rate ?

Another reason I went with suggesting an opinion system and stuff on the map, is that if you wanted to you could more easily use the same system for other non-government entities. Like if you wanted to include Corporations for example.

 

[AsH2]

I'd like to remind you that Victorian atheists invented the Flat Earth Society because Christians believed the Earth is round.
The idea that religion and science are somehow conflicted is a relic of the cult of science that came out of the Victorian age; it's as outmoded as "boys like blue, girls like pink."

Wow! So much BS. Really outmoded and not relevant.
Ever heard of a guy named Galileo Galilei?
I'm pretty sure he's not the first (or only) scientist in conflict with religious institutions.

Saying that religion has been a drain on culture is so patently ignorant it's not worth the effort of rebuffing.

Yes, ignorance seems to be your thing.
Ever heard of Religious persecution or Inquisition?

It's not like there wouldn't have been any culture without a religion, but without culture there wouldn't been any religion.

 

[Evie]

AsH2, sorry, but you're parroting nonsense popular history myths here. Zaarin is, by and large, right.

The Earth was known to be spherical throughout the Middle Ages. They had some weird conceptions about the nature of that sphere (including the idea that all thenland would have to be on the same side of the planet, surrounded by s global ocean, or that life was impossible south of the Mediterranean latitutdes, but any medieval scholar who took the time to study the question knew it was a sphere.

The debate between Heliocentrism and Geocentrism was not "science vs religion". Most astronomers initally opposed Heliocentrism because while the theory was (mostly) correct, the evidence for it in the early seventeenth century was at best very weak (Gallileo's damning evidence for Heliocentrism involved a theory that claimed there would be only one High Tide per day. There are - observably, even at the time - two), and it didn't appear more correct than Geocentrism. To us the distinction is obvious, but we have the benefit of four centuries of additional scientific theories and observations that they didn't.

And it wasn't very weak because the Church repressed it: it was very weak because the instruments, tools and theories needed to build strong evidence for Heliocentrism didn't yet exist or were brand news. The first telescopes were patented in 1608 ; they were basically prototypes, and it took decades of trial and error and experimentation to improve on them. The first observations that would eventually lead to the theory of gravity were brand new, the actual theory of gravity itself and the evidence for it decades in the future. Having to do with weaker, more primitive instruments, also led to *mistaken* observations that seemed to support Geocentrism. It took a long time of perfecting instruments and working out the scientific underpinning of Heliocentrism (like the theory of gravity) before the evidence for heliocentrism became strong. Gallileo's observations and theories on gravity and astronomy (obseving the moons of Jupiter and all) would be instrumental in that process, but it would take several more generation building up on the evidence to get there.

Gallileo, meanwhile, mostly got in hot water for writing what was supposed to be a dialogue presenting both sides fairly (which he had Papal permission to do) and doing a really, really, really, really, really, *really* terrible job of it. We're talking, getting Geocentric arguments wrong left and right, misrepresenting them, and naming the character who presented Geocentrism in his book "Simplicio", which, while he says he was refering to the ancient philosopher Simplicius, sounded a lot like he was calling the geocentric side "Simpletons". The Pope, who again had given Gallileo permission to write the book, was...understandably not happy about THAT one.

 

[Zaarin]

Wow! So much BS. Really outmoded and not relevant.
Ever heard of a guy named Galileo Galilei?
I'm pretty sure he's not the first (or only) scientist in conflict with religious institutions.

Galileo was in conflict with political institutions. The man was a jerk, and he went out of his way to make enemies. Ever hear of a guy named Copernicus? He said the same thing Galileo said, and no one ever bothered him.

Yes, ignorance seems to be your thing.

That's called projection. You come across as a very bitter evangelical atheist.

Gallileo, meanwhile, mostly got in hot water for writing what was supposed to be a dialogue presenting both sides fairly (which he had Papal permission to do) and doing a really, really, really, really, really, *really* terrible job of it. We're talking, getting Geocentric arguments wrong left and right, misrepresenting them, and naming the character who presented Geocentrism in his book "Simplicio", which, while he says he was refering to the ancient philosopher Simplicius, sounded a lot like he was calling the geocentric side "Simpletons". The Pope, who again had given Gallileo permission to write the book, was...understandably not happy about THAT one.

Urban VII was initially quite sympathetic towards Galileo and intrigued by his theories, but this goes back to what I said: Galileo went out of his way to make political enemies.

 

[Evie]

In fairness, Copernicus was a little dead by the time his works were actually published, so bothering him would have been...difficult.

But his *books* were left unbothered until a certain Italian managed to repeatedly tar and feather not only himself but heliocentrism in general through bad science and worse PR...

Gallileo was brilliant on many topics, but his naive enthusiasm for Heliocentrism and bad faith approach to geocentrism led to some spectacularly horrible mistakes in his attempts to defend it. If not for his observations on Jupiter and gravity (which were actually important work), he'd probably have done heliocentrism more harm than good.

 

[Zaarin]

In fairness, Copernicus was a little dead by the time his works were actually published, so bothering him would have been...difficult.

But his *books* were left unbothered until a certain Italian managed to repeatedly tar and feather not only himself but heliocentrism in general through bad science and worse PR...

Gallileo was brilliant on many topics, but his naive enthusiasm for Heliocentrism and bad faith approach to geocentrism led to some spectacularly horrible mistakes in his attempts to defend it. If not for his observations on Jupiter and gravity (which were actually important work), he'd probably have done heliocentrism more harm than good.

That's a fair point. In general, though, using Galileo to argue that religion is anti-science is naïve at best. It's an oversimplification, it ignores Galileo's own role in his downfall, it ignores that the Catholic Church was not unanimously opposed to heliocentrism, and it also ignores that Protestants enthusiastically embraced both heliocentrism and the entire new wave of scientific discoveries that followed it. (It also, to be honest, mischaracterizes science as a search for correct answers rather than correct questions. Galileo is an excellent case of stumbling upon correct answers through bad methodology, but one might also point to the man who was probably the most brilliant scientist of his age, Tycho Brahe, who made a brilliant last defense of geocentrism and whose data was the gold standard in astronomy until the invention of large telescopes in the 19th century. I am an ardent admirer of Tycho's commitment to truth and accuracy and correct methodology.)

 

[Evie]

And that goes back to what I said about the need to develop better equipment.

Working with the tools available in their time, and the data and scientific theories available, in many ways Geocentrism was the stronger theory at the time. The evidence to prove it wrong was weak, and Heliocentrism involved mechanisms no one understood or could explain yet.