Religion - General discussion/unstructured info

Could anybody answer these questions :-
Q) Could there be any reason u follow the religion of somebody instead of founding ur own ? Since there are 11 religions so it is quite possible that each civ will get one.
Well
1. founding a religion will require getting and using a Great Prophet, who presumably can be used for something else
2. the other person may have gotten a religion first, and chosen a key Follower Belief that you want
3. Same religion may keep you on good terms with them.

Q) Would that be a choice to remain athiest or open minded in religion's choice & be competitive in game ? Religion could have a setback of making more foes (and friends ofcourse) so a conqueror might prefer to stay out of these religious conflicts. (Eg: Genghis Khan)
I would imagine so.. apparently faith can be used for other purposes (Great people), so a 'secular' civilization might have the ability to use it for those Other purposes.

Q) In real world there are still civs which prefer to stick to religion. So will that be sensible to invest further in religion later in the game rather than going for the late SPs. Obviously that would be roleplaying purpose, but I just want to be sure that nothing will be forced upon & the player will have other viable options. ;)
Most of these questions are about roleplaying but some of these cover the gameplay aspects & as well freedom of choice for the player.
Well I imagine the late SPs would have the same "group" benefits that early religion would. But religion would still be there, and should still have an effect, particularly if you Dont take any of the 3 late SPs... although a "Piety civ" may conflict with the Rationalism Civs...
 
Yes, just like picking a Civ/leader to play.

Still trying to digest Krikkitone's post.

Well to simplify... it is like when you pick a Civ, if you first picked the name
I want to be French.
and then you picked your UA from a list, (but once you picked it no other civ could have it)
then later you get to pick your UB/UU with the same restrictions. (and those are then a characteristic of all "French" cities whether or not you control them.)

sorry for 2x post.
 
Well to simplify... it is like when you pick a Civ, if you first picked the name
I want to be French.
and then you picked your UA from a list, (but once you picked it no other civ could have it)
then later you get to pick your UB/UU with the same restrictions. (and those are then a characteristic of all "French" cities whether or not you control them.)

sorry for 2x post.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Was about to make a similar analogy.
 
I'm not saying I disagree with Krikkitone, but that doesn't really invalidate Buccaneer's previous post: the fact that you can personalize your civ via SPs doesn't mean that each civ doesn't get a specific bonus per se, which may or may not be offensive; so the fact that each religion gets founder (and co.) beliefs so that you can personalize it doesn't exclude that each religion could have a specific bonus assigned to it, which may or may not be offensive too (although I believe US law may be more bickering on this subject).

That is: when you are choosing a civ, the spefic civ you choose affects gameplay. That won't likely be the case with religions: when you choose your first religion, there's no effect on gameplay depending on which specific religion you choose.
 
To be fair, Krikkitone's analogy did solidify the game concept of religion as proposed for G&K. Whether that concept is a good one or simply more bonuses piled on in the name of 'flavor', that remains to be seen. I still desire to have negative consequences to any positive choices and religion seems to be a good place for such. We don't need more bonuses, just more consequences of choices.

Ideally, I would love to see the choosing of religion E preventing you from getting a certain set of beliefs.
 
To be fair, Krikkitone's analogy did solidify the game concept of religion as proposed for G&K. Whether that concept is a good one or simply more bonuses piled on in the name of 'flavor', that remains to be seen. I still desire to have negative consequences to any positive choices and religion seems to be a good place for such. We don't need more bonuses, just more consequences of choices.

Ideally, I would love to see the choosing of religion E preventing you from getting a certain set of beliefs.

In the proposed system (as far as we can tell) choosing a certain belief will prevent you from choosing any of the other beliefs. (i.e. you get only one choice for a founder belief, and only two choices for follower beliefs). The consequence of getting one bonus is not getting the other possible bonuses.

And then there is still the grander choice of starting your own world religion (which requires an investment in faith) and getting the benefits of a founder belief, or just hopping on the bandwagon of another religion, saving you the investment, still get the benefits of the followers beliefs of that religion, and scoring brownie points with the founder of that religion.
 
To be fair, Krikkitone's analogy did solidify the game concept of religion as proposed for G&K. Whether that concept is a good one or simply more bonuses piled on in the name of 'flavor', that remains to be seen. I still desire to have negative consequences to any positive choices and religion seems to be a good place for such. We don't need more bonuses, just more consequences of choices.

Ideally, I would love to see the choosing of religion E preventing you from getting a certain set of beliefs.

That would be something like choosing China preventing you from using the Freedom Social Policies... very highly charged,and not adding much to the game.

As for negatives with choices, there is always the opportunity cost. and while it would be interesting to see religion X worse than All other religions (including the pantheon ones) in feature Y, I can see favoring "Opportunity Cost" as opposed to specific negatives.

The fact that each religion (once 'manufactured') will apparently become an inseperable combo of beliefs is interesting. (you may want both Belief X and Belief Y, but they are in different religions... so you have to decide, or Belief A is good for your position but Belief B is a total waste... but beliefs C+D are both sort of good and have a interesting synergy with your strategy.)

Now some things may need to be adjusted... maybe cities will cost 4 :( instead of 3 or units will cost 20% more hammers. Or social policy costs may need to increase.

Since Faith can apparently provide all type of great persons, then following a "Scientific religion" route and using all your faith to generate Great Scientists so you can use Stealth Bombers in 500 AD, or escape the Earth's doom in 1000 AD by going to Alpha Centauri, might be an interesting alternative.
 
That would be something like choosing China preventing you from using the Freedom Social Policies... very highly charged,and not adding much to the game.

As for negatives with choices, there is always the opportunity cost. and while it would be interesting to see religion X worse than All other religions (including the pantheon ones) in feature Y, I can see favoring "Opportunity Cost" as opposed to specific negatives.

The fact that each religion (once 'manufactured') will apparently become an inseperable combo of beliefs is interesting. (you may want both Belief X and Belief Y, but they are in different religions... so you have to decide, or Belief A is good for your position but Belief B is a total waste... but beliefs C+D are both sort of good and have a interesting synergy with your strategy.)

Now some things may need to be adjusted... maybe cities will cost 4 :( instead of 3 or units will cost 20% more hammers. Or social policy costs may need to increase.

Since Faith can apparently provide all type of great persons, then following a "Scientific religion" route and using all your faith to generate Great Scientists so you can use Stealth Bombers in 500 AD, or escape the Earth's doom in 1000 AD by going to Alpha Centauri, might be an interesting alternative.

Yeah, I think that's what I really getting at regarding religion/faith bonuses. I don't want them (or any other new feature) to be added on top of what we already have. There's going to be have a balancing cost somewhere. One idea would be to have a faith choice making X more expensive. Or as you said, an across the increase in cost to balance things out. One of the great things about Civ5 is that a single element (food, hammer, gold, resource, etc.) actually means something at least some of the time.
 
Yeah, I think that's what I really getting at regarding religion/faith bonuses. I don't want them (or any other new feature) to be added on top of what we already have. There's going to be have a balancing cost somewhere. One idea would be to have a faith choice making X more expensive. Or as you said, an across the increase in cost to balance things out. One of the great things about Civ5 is that a single element (food, hammer, gold, resource, etc.) actually means something at least some of the time.

Perhaps there could be a few beliefs that are only small bonusses, and some beliefs that will give a greater bonus but also come with a negative effect. That would really give you the choice between a religion that only has a medium effect, or a far going effect which also brings downsides with it.
 
Just wanted to highlight my interest that Grigori Rasputin could be one of the new Great Prophets. An interesting person if anything.

Some people called Rasputin the "Mad Monk", while others considered him a "strannik" (or religious pilgrim) and even a starets (ста́рец, "elder", a title usually reserved for monk-confessors), believing him to be a psychic and faith healer.

It has been argued that Rasputin helped to discredit the tsarist government, leading to the fall of the Romanov dynasty in 1917. Contemporary opinions saw Rasputin variously as a saintly mystic, visionary, healer and prophet or, on the contrary, as a debauched religious charlatan. There has been much uncertainty over Rasputin's life and influence as accounts of his life have often been based on dubious memoirs, hearsay and legend. In his homeland he is revered as a righteous man by many people and clerics, among them Elder Nikolay Guryanov.
 
Just wanted to highlight my interest that Grigori Rasputin could be one of the new Great Prophets. An interesting person if anything.

Rasputin would be a great addition.

I also wouldn't mind them adding to the list some figures who can be considered modern "great prophets" like Helena Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley, Allan Kardec, Marie Laveau, Emanuel Swedenborg, etc.
 
I also wouldn't mind them adding to the list some figures who can be considered modern "great prophets" like Helena Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley, Allan Kardec, Marie Laveau, Emanuel Swedenborg, etc.

Excellent suggestions! I would like to add Pekka Ervast, a Finnish writer and founder of Finnish "Rose-Cross Society" and a member of the original theosophical society (link in Finnish as the English version is missing a lot of essential information. Hopefully other languages are better).

Also Jean Sibelius a Finnish composer, would be great addition to the Great Artist list. His works include; Finlandia, the Karelia Suite, Valse triste, the Violin Concerto in D minor and The Swan of Tuonela (one of the four movements of the Lemminkäinen Suite). Other works include pieces inspired by the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala; over 100 songs for voice and piano; incidental music for 13 plays; the opera Jungfrun i tornet (The Maiden in the Tower); chamber music; piano music; Masonic ritual music; and 21 separate publications of choral music.
 
Prophets we need moses, buddha, jesus:jesus: and many more.
 
Zoroaster (Founder of Zoroastrianism), Baha'u'llah (Founder of Bahais), Nakayama Miki (Woman founder of Tenrikyo), L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology Founder), etc.

Plenty of potential great prophets.
 
To be fair, Krikkitone's analogy did solidify the game concept of religion as proposed for G&K. Whether that concept is a good one or simply more bonuses piled on in the name of 'flavor', that remains to be seen. I still desire to have negative consequences to any positive choices and religion seems to be a good place for such. We don't need more bonuses, just more consequences of choices.

Ideally, I would love to see the choosing of religion E preventing you from getting a certain set of beliefs.

It's been confirmed at PAX east that all religions choose from identical lists
 
Top Bottom