Religions Overdue, but still a cop-out

[LucyDuke]

Not necessarily. Believers of each of the "one true faith"(s) will always think that their religion should get all the bonuses.

At least we can avoid directly insulting them, though, don't you think?

 

[Sisiutil]

At least we can avoid directly insulting them, though, don't you think?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being ironic. Frankly, I've been waiting for someone to declare a jihad on Firaxis because the Muslim missionary is perceived as a depiction of Mohammed.

 

[Valadon]

Let me get a more concrete example of what could be done with religion. Look at how government was handled in the various civs for 16 years or so; a choice of 5 or 6 different types with certain effects, that's it. Look at how it is handled now. Why would it be difficult to do this with religion? Break religion down into 4 or 5 or however many parts, tolerance is a good example of one. Now you allow different levels or kinds of tolerance for a specific religion, different from other religions, and, to reply to the objection of the person who pointed out that Christianity has become more tolerant, tie it to time perior. For example, Chirst. could be shifted to tolerant by the player, but only in the Modern Age, before that it would have to be intolerant, as indeed it was historically. Islam would always be intolerant, as it still is (you cannot build a Christian church in Saudia Arabia, for example, though America allows Moslems to build as many mosques as they want; in many Islamic nations the penalty for converting to another religion is death).

Now, breaking govt. down into parts has not over complicated the game or made it less enjoyable. Indeed, I think, can't prove but think, for most players it has enhanced play. And, again, I don't believe there is any real 'balance' in the game anyway; like history herself the game of civ rides very much on chance. Skill and intelligence help greatly and history is not entirely deterministic. But we are not in control as much as we think, of the game of Civ and certainly not of History. I remember that wonderful line from Emerson: "Events were in the saddle, riding men."

 

[Scaramanga]

For example, Chirst. could be shifted to tolerant by the player, but only in the Modern Age, before that it would have to be intolerant, as indeed it was historically. Islam would always be intolerant, as it still is (you cannot build a Christian church in Saudia Arabia, for example, though America allows Moslems to build as many mosques as they want; in many Islamic nations the penalty for converting to another religion is death).

Some of this stuff has got to do with economic/political factors as well, not just "our religion is really hardcore."

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Islam would always be intolerant, as it still is (you cannot build a Christian church in Saudia Arabia, for example, though America allows Moslems to build as many mosques as they want; in many Islamic nations the penalty for converting to another religion is death).

Before looking at things with a slanted modern view, review your history. The old Islamic empires were highly tolerant compared to the Christian kingdoms of Europe as Jews and Christians were allowed to continue practicing their faith in relative peace. They were taxed yes, but the tax exempted them from being pressed into the army in times of war and the cost itself amounted to little more than a single afternoon meal. Saladin himself did have a personal physician who was Jewish. The Muslim sultanates of Southeast Asia prior to European incursions were not so much interested in imposing their faith until Christian Europeans became a threat to their power. Trends in religions change along social/political/cultural/economic shifts. Intolerance arose when there was significant competition and when people feel that they are being threatened.

That being said, I would like to see more differentiation in religions as well as the inclusion of other world religions since Firaxis has already implemented this instead of simply having generic religions. However, how religions will operate should depend heavily on the personalities of AI leaders and how the player chooses to implement them. Religions could have different buildigns or civics. For example, for Christian civs, whether or not you decide to impose an Inqiusition should be up to you (and Isabella).

 

[ojchase]

I completely understand why Fireaxis balanced the religions the way they did. Fireaxis is a company that has to look out for itself. They certainly don't want to offend someone and be sued.

That being said, I'd really like better religions. I think they're a bit boring as is. For example, I think that there should be some sort of decay factor (I think I saw a mod for this somewhere...). How many times throughout history has a certain religion been driven into hiding or exterminated by a nation? Couldn't you have an option to kill, say, half a city you conquer and remove that religion from the city (without using the worldbuilder)? I'm waiting for someone...maybe eventually me....to make a mod that gives the religions personality and some more options. It does seem like, at the very least, Fireaxis could have created some more options and personality which are automatically disabled but allowed in custom games.....

And Israel did have an empire at one time. And it was rather large. So they should count as both a civilization and a former nation-state.

 

[feldmarshall]

firaxis don't want to teach people which religions are "good" and "bad". imagine if they do have religion traits there will be "christianity sucks" etc thread around, and some people may get offended. however there are some mods on it, if the OP really wants to play that way.

 

[ParkCungHee]

At least we can avoid directly insulting them, though, don't you think?

Depends. A positive stereotype can be just as offensive as a negative stereotype.

 

[darkiguana]

The problem with differentiating the religions is that firaxis would risk alienating a significant portion of their consumer base. If I am a practicing Christian(or Muslim, or Jew, etc) and I see that they are portraying my religion in a negative light, I am not going to be having much fun. Even if the portrayal is accurate. I think that Firaxis did the smart thing by making the religions more or less equal. Is it 100% accuarate? Not really, but remember that Civ has always been patially about alternate history. It's not accuarate to have the Romans or the Greeks build a spaceship to AC or build the UN. Just as it is not accurate to have all the religions the same or peaceful, or intolerant, or however one decides to play the game.

Now I like Sisiutil's idea of making some religions die out over time. I dont know how you would balance it but it would make for an cool game dynamic.

 

[ChrTh]

The problem is you can't differentiate the religions because the religions themselves changed over the course of history. Ogedei the Mad is correct about the religious tolerance of Islam earlier in its history. Or look at Christianity: they went from science-intolerant during the early days of the church, to the leading impetus for scientific revival in the Middle Ages, to the attacking books that placed the sun in the center of the Universe (PS Both Catholics and Protestants did this), to embracing the Big Bang before many scientists were willing to (well, the Pope did). So is Christianity pro-science or anti-science? Depends on when you ask.

 

[XxtraLarGe]

Monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity and Islam, are notoriously intolerant and, historically, have been much more likely to persecute and kill people who have a different religion than have polytheistic religions. Judaism does not seek converts. Hinduism is a kind of a huge spung of a religion that absorbs other faiths.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. The fact of the matter is that most leaders who have used religion as an excuse for violence aren't really following their religion.

Along the same lines, why is Israel not included in the game as a civ? Because the makers are afraid of controversy? I am neither of Muslim nor Jewish background but it is incontrovertible that Jewish Civilization has had a tremendous influence on world history. Given that there are 2 (Arab & Ottoman) Muslim civs in the game there is no reason that Israel should not be there also.

How much do you know about Israel? Just off the top of my head, I know there was Saul, David then Solomon, and after that, there was a split in Israel into Israel and Judah. Neither one of those is much larger than the Island of Hawaii. After Solomon's reign, Israel was largely a rest stop for other armies around the region (Persian, Roman, Etc.) While Israel has made some culturally significant contributions to the world, nobody would ever consider them a world power at any given time.

 

[TobyWanKenobi]

While Israel has made some culturally significant contributions to the world, nobody would ever consider them a world power at any given time.

Just like the Zulus, or how about the Koreans? Seems to me that being a "world power" doesn't mean they get to be a civ in the game. The fact of the matter is that they are a uniquely different culture and civilization, not a world power.

In terms of religion, I think not having them unique is a good thing...at least for this game. And the number of religions that they did include is a good one, too many more and you'd be having crazy numbers of religions in citys, and the ability to spam religions in effect. But if there is a way to make it work, I'm all for it!

 

[DaviddesJ]

If people want to take offence, then they will no matter what the content. Where are the atheists in civ?

Empirical evidence seems to contradict your theory, since, in fact, atheists are not starting long flame wars about how offended they are by Civ4. So it seems to not be true that people will take offense regardless of how the game is designed.

 

[ChicagoCubs]

The problem is you can't differentiate the religions because the religions themselves changed over the course of history.

Amen...I mean, I second that statement.

 

[kristopherb]

keep the religions the same the only thing i want to change is to add a civlopeida on religions.

 

[DigitalBoy]

There already are civlopedia entries on each of the religions.

 

[Naismith]

Business-wise, Firaxis would have to be nuts to differentiate the religions. They would probably take a tremendous amount of heat if they did. It will never happen, IMHO. If they do take any steps in this direction, they will be very, very cautious about it, and the differences won't amount to much.

However, I agree that differentiating the religions would improve the game.

I see only one solution: Take the real-world religions out of the game, and substitute fantasy religions. Then Firaxis is free to assign all kinds of different characteristics to the various religions without offending anyone. Here's one: Naismithism. -30% production, +2 happiness, +1 health, plus various diplomatic bonuses. (Followers of the Naismith are lazy, but enjoy greater health and happiness due to increased playing of Civ. They don't care about much else, so they are easy to get along with.)

Take a look at the Fall From Heaven mod for wildly different religions.

 

[Sisiutil]

I see only one solution: Take the real-world religions out of the game, and substitute fantasy religions. Then Firaxis is free to assign all kinds of different characteristics to the various religions without offending anyone. Here's one: Naismithism. -30% production, +2 happiness, +1 health, plus various diplomatic bonuses. (Followers of the Naismith are lazy, but enjoy greater health and happiness due to increased playing of Civ. They don't care about much else, so they are easy to get along with.)

If Firaxis did that, they'd offend and alienate the game's fanbase, which contains a lot of history buffs. This isn't a fantasy game, though you can, as you pointed out, mod it to be one.

 

[Naismith]

If Firaxis did that, they'd offend and alienate the game's fanbase, which contains a lot of history buffs. This isn't a fantasy game, though you can, as you pointed out, mod it to be one.

Hmm, I think you're right. I find it amusing that a history buff would be offended at a fantasy religion, but not turn a hair when Gandhi pressures them to convert to Islam.

 

[Sisiutil]

Hmm, I think you're right. I find it amusing that a history buff would be offended at a fantasy religion, but not turn a hair when Gandhi pressures them to convert to Islam.

Here's another thought I had on this: it would be very interesting, in future versions of the game, to see religions develop schisms--splits such as those into Protestant and Catholic, Sunni and Shiite, and so on. Former steadfast allies could suddenly become bitterest enemies. Fun!

I'm not exactly sure how to work this in as a game element, but I have some ideas. I would think that one requirement would be that the civ owning the holy city would remain "orthodox", while other civs who share that faith would break away. It could be done the way it is now, with as specific tech enabling the split--but only if researched first by a civ with that SR but not the shrine. If the shrine-owning civ reaches the tech first, the faith is "reformed", and no schism occurs.

The breakaway civ's cities with the original faith would gain a new shrine and would automatically convert. However, the original shrine civ would still have line-of-sight into the breakaway civ's cities, emulating those citizens who remain faithful and act as spies.

Maybe that's too complicated, but it's a historical reality. It would be interesting to see the game introduce it somehow.

I'd also like to see the option to eradicate existing faiths from a city, another historical reality, but this post is long enough as it is!