Religions

[Graceheart the Leopard]

In Civilization V, I would like to see a more interesting religion set. In CIV, pretty much all religions do is make people happy. In Civ 5, I would like to have different units and wonders be available for each religion. For example, if your state religion is Christianity, you can build Templar Knights, Saint Basil's Cathedral, and the Sistine Chapel (which construction, as previously, is restricted to Christian Nations). Muslim nations could build Mamluks, the Black Stone, and so on with different religions. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Churchill's Hat]

While I agree with your idea, I find it unlikely because of what Firaxis said about Civ IV (we're not trying to say any religion is better or more deserving than another) which merely had 7 religions picked.

 

[alhimik]

I prefer the current way much better.

Templar knights and other examples are something that emerged from special circumstances. Its not part of the christian religion to swing a sword and kill muslims. Crusaders only existed in christian nations because christian nations were waging a crusade. What if in your game you never have such a religious war? Would you still get crusaders if there never was a crusade?
Much better to have a number of completely neutral religions. How important a religion will be will be determined by the game.
I don't want my game to repeat history, I want to create an alternate history.

I realise this is debatable, but this is my current view

 

[bhavv]

Religion itself is not a cause for wars or special units and buildings. These effects are created by the people who follow the religion. There is no reason why the muslims couldnt have built the sistine chapel if they wanted to, or why christians shouldnt be able to ride on camel back, just like there isnt a limitation based on race in the game, e.g. Only egyptians can build the pyramids.

This is a very sensitive topic - all that religion basically is is a set of beliefs. Those beliefs may influence different cultures and ways of life, but they do not say 'muslims cannot build chapels, or christians cannot ride on camels'. Civ is not about living history as it happened, it is about re writing history - you can play as the Greeks and build the Pyramids, found Islam, and build the Sistine chapel if you like.

Implementing differences between religions in Civ would be a very bad move, but the developers already have a thorough understanding of this and were right to make all the religions equal. The religion system is very nicely implemented - making people happy and making if you have the holy city plus the shrine (tourism revenue from pilgrimage) is fine as it is.

 

[Tholish]

The civilopedia explains the Firaxis reasoning for making all religions identical. You can mod religions to have wildly varying characteristics. The main thing religions do is NOT make people happy it is make people Rich. Shrines are a powerhouse. I think that is what should change, though its a good game mechanic corporations can take over from it. Having the shrine doesn't really make your secular government rich directly, it earns you prestige, so that other civilizations with the same religion have a better attitude toward you, depending on how prevalent it is.

Also the selection of religions. Not to debate what is and is not a religion, but religions which have been important historically should be included, especially if there are civs and or leaderheads for it. To have Cyrus of Persia and no Zoroastrianism? The fact that it died out should be irrelevant, this is about history. Pagan type religions while explained away, really have been important internationally and functioned like civ religions. The Mesoamerican, Hellenistic, and Egyptian religions in particular. They had centers of power, shrines, temples, cathedrals, and were widespread over more than one nation. Shinto, important as it was for Japan, never spread internationally. Taoism pretty much was a Chinese belief system, and though Confucianism was international, it lacks many characteristics of a religion, not only in its doctrines but in the way it doesn't really have a structure like a religion.

Perhaps there could be something like Lesser Religions. These require a tech only one nation can have that cannot be traded, so that nation founds them on the game starting. However, they have no shrine.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I like the idea of national religions versus world religions.

The current set of 7 can be the world religions.

Additional national religions should be discoverable only by the nation itself, and can be SECTS OF the world religions. For example, Lutheranism in the German civs; Druidry in the Celtic civs; Huguenots in France; Church of England; and so on...

Restrictions: national religions cannot spread outside of one's own cultural borders. The holy city is automatically "shrined" but it gets 1 culture for each religion spread, rather than 1 gold.

Benefits: Religion civics are opened up to national religions as with world religions. The happy bonus and religion buildings open up just like world religions.

 

[Camikaze]

Additional national religions should be discoverable only by the nation itself, and can be SECTS OF the world religions. For example, Lutheranism in the German civs; Druidry in the Celtic civs; Huguenots in France; Church of England; and so on...

Or, perhaps, there could be an option to form a breakaway denomination of a religion, with the benefit of increased gold, and the disadvantage of much worsened relations with the civilizations that still have the original. This idea isn't perfect, but I think it's a starting point for something.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I would like a more dynamic religious system.

Each civilization starts with their own pagan religion. This religion allows the construction of temples(but not monasteries). Religious buildings produce a religious influence that, when a civilization's influence reaches a certain point, their paganism evolves into a standard religion. This way, spiritual civilizations found religions, but technological ones.

Based on what culture the civilization that founded it has, the religion's effects also differ. If, say, Montezuma founded Christianity, then Christianity would offer significant bonuses to military, mainly in the form of suppressing revolts in cities and reducing war weariness. If Mansa Musa founded Christianity, then it would offer bonuses to the research rate instead. This way religions would differ, with some potentially being better then others, but because it changes each game and is all computer randomly, there can be no religious squabbles.

Going with the above, spiritual civilizations that already have a religion, btu have a culture that differs from the religion's culture, can form a breakaway sect.

 

[exhile]

Meditation brings wisdom; lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before Me.

For I am the state.

 

[ljofa]

What about a choice of 7 religions per game. Like the "Gods of Old" Mod, the player can pick 7 world religions that aren't necessarily any of the big 7. A game could begin with the Roman God Pantheon, the Greek God Pantheon, the Norse God Pantheon, the Egyptian God Pantheon, the Babylonian God Pantheon, the Celtic God Pantheon, the Wiccan God Pantheon.

This could be sub-divided further - Individual God Worship of the various Pantheons and have a God watch over a city. If Zeus watches over City A then all its military units are 5% stronger. If Thor watches over City B then it collects 5% more tax. If Ishkur watches over City C then any animal resources within the city radius yield double food.

 

[Camikaze]

What about a choice of 7 religions per game. Like the "Gods of Old" Mod, the player can pick 7 world religions that aren't necessarily any of the big 7. A game could begin with the Roman God Pantheon, the Greek God Pantheon, the Norse God Pantheon, the Egyptian God Pantheon, the Babylonian God Pantheon, the Celtic God Pantheon, the Wiccan God Pantheon.

This could be sub-divided further - Individual God Worship of the various Pantheons and have a God watch over a city. If Zeus watches over City A then all its military units are 5% stronger. If Thor watches over City B then it collects 5% more tax. If Ishkur watches over City C then any animal resources within the city radius yield double food.

This idea seems to, firstly, be straying way too far into the realms of fantasy, and secondly, give different advantages to different religions.

For the first, you may believe that religions are all fantasy anyway. But in the game, they are not used in any fantastical way. They do not give any divine powers, but economic and cultural benefits. It would also be seemingly absurd to have monotheistic religions in a game where all religions give supernatural benefits.

Secondly, the fact that no religions are given divine powers or are differentiated in any way from one another is that doing otherwise would discriminate. The makers of the game do not want to make any sort of religious comment, or offend anyone in any way by the use of religion in the game. That is why all religions have the exact same benefits, with different names. So, your suggestion of giving different advantages depending on the religion that you are using would never be one considered, due to the discrimination, however innocent, of it.

 

[Xellos-_^]

I prefer the current way much better.

Templar knights and other examples are something that emerged from special circumstances. Its not part of the christian religion to swing a sword and kill muslims. Crusaders only existed in christian nations because christian nations were waging a crusade. What if in your game you never have such a religious war? Would you still get crusaders if there never was a crusade?
Much better to have a number of completely neutral religions. How important a religion will be will be determined by the game.
I don't want my game to repeat history, I want to create an alternate history.

I realise this is debatable, but this is my current view

the idea isn't to make any religion better then the other but make vary so that more thoughts would go into founding which religion. Instead picking any old religion as they are all the same. Players would have to put thoughts into it like if founding the christine religion gives you the Templar Knight, founding the Buddist religion will get you the Shaolin Monk. You would have to figure out which would fit your current game better.

 

[Naokaukodem]

What about giving a religion to civs from the start? Changing religion could give some benefits, like a war advantage. Roman are polytheists, then you switch religion to christianity, and have a free warlord.

I would like also to see more bonuses from religion, to make it a real state affair. Like a +2 happy people, or an automatic shrine in the founder city.

 

[Camikaze]

What about giving a religion to civs from the start? Changing religion could give some benefits, like a war advantage. Roman are polytheists, then you switch religion to christianity, and have a free warlord.

I would like also to see more bonuses from religion, to make it a real state affair. Like a +2 happy people, or an automatic shrine in the founder city.

Again, this could be perceived as making too many comments on religion, which would stop this idea dead in its tracks.

 

[ditchhook]

I'd like to see 'sects'. If the game spontaneously puts a religion into a city (without a human or an AI missionary), it becomes a seperate sect. These sects are sub-labeled by the city where they are founded, and act as distinct religions for purposes of building cathedrals. At the same time, you cannot have more than one sect of a religion in any city. For example: if Christianity is founded in Jesusalem, but it spontaneously spreads to Rome, the Roman religion is slightly different: Both Rome and Jesusalem can build Christian missionaries, but those missionaries will found religions in other town associated with their particular sect-- new sects are only generated by spontaneous propagation.

If a civilization adopts a religion, it also adopts a particular sect. Civs with different sects of the same religion would also have a (lesser) diplomatic penalty. Like in colonization, missionaries of different sects within a religion displace each other, not create a new religion alongside the older religion.

Only the founding civilizations in a sect can build cathedrals in that sect, no matter where the necessary temples are located.

My complaint about religion in Civ IV is that it is becoming a little predictable. With a system like this, each game would hopefully end up with a very different religious dynammic, while the system is carries no religious bias and would hopefully not provoke real life offense.

 

[Colonel]

Here would be an idea, (note not a fully thought out idea).

Perhaps have each religion have a peaceful sect and a war-like sect. If you choose the warpath half you get a specialist military unit and a production boost(pretty much assuming that if you choose the war path you are going to crusade). Now if you choose the peace side you get an economic and research bonus, perhaps some sort of trade unit( caravan like unit???).
.
With all this you would have to base your choice on warpath or peace on what your neighboring civs are choosing. Also in regard to the AI you would have to increase the chance of them attacking civs not of their religion if the ai takes the warpath.

Now onto buildings. I think there should be religion - specific buildings, now not to have one religion appear more important then the rest, give the exact same number of these buildings and give each religion the same effects. So each religion has a building that gives them 5 gold for example, etc etc.

Now each religion units would be simple, obviously each civ would get equality amongst the units. However say religion X is your neighbor and he has chosen the warpath and you have chosen the peace, then you get over run by stronger religious units of the era. The only problem with religious units I see what do you create for anything in the industrial or modern eras. I mean obviously in the ancient and medieval eras you have religious units for crusades\jihads but in the modern era what could you have or with the advent of some tech would it mean special religious units were no longer operable.

The last bit about religion is that you should have some sort of representation of how much of your population is X religion vs. X state religion. With that you should have an option to force these people out of your civ back to civs of their respective civs. This however should cause possible civil unrest and possible revolt depending on how much of the population said city is of that religion. Also people of non-state religion should cause a penalty until you adopt a civic such as free religion.

 

[Camikaze]

I really don't like the whole idea of integrating war and religion. Firstly, it would be controversial and bad for publicity and sales, and secondly, it is basically designating that half of religion has got to do with war, which is obviously incorrect. Besides, there is already theocracy to add that little crusade-like kick.

 

[Robo-Star]

I really don't like the whole idea of integrating war and religion. Firstly, it would be controversial and bad for publicity and sales, and secondly, it is basically designating that half of religion has got to do with war, which is obviously incorrect. Besides, there is already theocracy to add that little crusade-like kick.

Agreed. Also, there's already Religious tension between Civs that affects diplomacy.

 

[Colonel]

Religion not related to war??? Pretty much all religions have caused some sort of war and its just completely unrealistic to have religion without obvious references to war.

 

[exhile]

religion is not related to war in east asia. religion is a way of thought and belief. war is conquering and strategic to gain territory and resources. religion is a way to explain that which is not yet fully understood.