polyphemus
join the long blue line
Religion should have affect on governments. Islam can institute Terrorists. Catholics will have a greater War wearines and so forth.
Religious GOvernments
- Thread starter polyphemus
- Start date
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
Yeah, see that's the exact thing Firaxis is trying to avoid. Using actual religions and giving them differences is bound to offend people.
polyphemus
join the long blue line
I understand that but what religion we are determines what our actions will be. That should be implemented into game just as governments are used. They will benefit and hurt the civilization in ways similar to governments.
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
Well, religion IS being worked into Civ IV, so it'll be included. And I do agree with you that religion is a big part of our lives and affects our actions. This certainly is the case for my personal life. That's why I'm so leery of how religion might or might not be integrated into Civ.
Personally, I'm a proponent of "generic" religions (e.g. European Monotheism, American Sciencism, Mediterranean Polytheism, etc. [see more on this idea in the other Religion threads]). Part of this idea is that these religions can be given differences that affect gameplay without offending anyone. Part of it is I don't want Firaxis interpreting what is the "typical" Christian, Muslim, etc. life because it's bound to offend someone. Do we classifying the Christian UU as a crusader or a missionary monk? Both lead to VERY different interpretations of Christianity and how Christianity would play.
Firaxis, so far has avoided anyting like this, and with good reason. I have a number of Muslim friends who would be majorly pissed off to find their religion personified by a terrorist.
Personally, I'm a proponent of "generic" religions (e.g. European Monotheism, American Sciencism, Mediterranean Polytheism, etc. [see more on this idea in the other Religion threads]). Part of this idea is that these religions can be given differences that affect gameplay without offending anyone. Part of it is I don't want Firaxis interpreting what is the "typical" Christian, Muslim, etc. life because it's bound to offend someone. Do we classifying the Christian UU as a crusader or a missionary monk? Both lead to VERY different interpretations of Christianity and how Christianity would play.
Firaxis, so far has avoided anyting like this, and with good reason. I have a number of Muslim friends who would be majorly pissed off to find their religion personified by a terrorist.
polyphemus
join the long blue line
That is true
Anyhow there still should be religions like you were talking about in the game. You made a good point, people will get affended.
The type of religions you mentioned should be implemented in the game just as governments are
Anyhow there still should be religions like you were talking about in the game. You made a good point, people will get affended.
The type of religions you mentioned should be implemented in the game just as governments are
polyphemus
join the long blue line
I realise the what i have said and withdraw that statement. ANyhow i like Crazy Eskimos idea about religiions.
----Personally, I'm a proponent of "generic" religions (e.g. European Monotheism, American Sciencism, Mediterranean Polytheism, etc. [see more on this idea in the other Religion threads]). Part of this idea is that these religions can be given differences that affect gameplay without offending anyone. Part of it is I don't want Firaxis interpreting what is the "typical" Christian, Muslim, etc. life because it's bound to offend someone. Do we classifying the Christian UU as a crusader or a missionary monk? Both lead to VERY different interpretations of Christianity and how Christianity would play.
Religion should still be apart of CIv 4 since it is a major part in our lives and takes a major role in our actions.
----Personally, I'm a proponent of "generic" religions (e.g. European Monotheism, American Sciencism, Mediterranean Polytheism, etc. [see more on this idea in the other Religion threads]). Part of this idea is that these religions can be given differences that affect gameplay without offending anyone. Part of it is I don't want Firaxis interpreting what is the "typical" Christian, Muslim, etc. life because it's bound to offend someone. Do we classifying the Christian UU as a crusader or a missionary monk? Both lead to VERY different interpretations of Christianity and how Christianity would play.
Religion should still be apart of CIv 4 since it is a major part in our lives and takes a major role in our actions.
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
I think the choices of the religion should be controlled by the city itself, not by the civ controlling it. If you have the holy city, and you want to attack another country, the church may be against you for any reason.
polyphemus
join the long blue line
Darwin420 said:
That is a good idea along with Masterguy's overall i think we agree that religion should have a part in CIV 4 correct?
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
I definitely agree that religions, if properly instituted, coudl add a lot of depth to the game.
I like Master T's idea of religious events happening outside the players control. For instance, let's say over half your cities are X religion, and you attack the Romans, who have the X holy city. The X leader could issue a condemnation of your actions and all your X citizens become more likely to be unhappy. Conversely, if you build a number of X temples in your cities, X leader could issue a proclaimation that you're a friend of the faith and all your X citizens become more likely to be happy and your relations with the Romans become better.
I like Master T's idea of religious events happening outside the players control. For instance, let's say over half your cities are X religion, and you attack the Romans, who have the X holy city. The X leader could issue a condemnation of your actions and all your X citizens become more likely to be unhappy. Conversely, if you build a number of X temples in your cities, X leader could issue a proclaimation that you're a friend of the faith and all your X citizens become more likely to be happy and your relations with the Romans become better.
Avayaman said:islam can institute terrorists?? i'm so sorry my friend, but terrorism wasn't invented by the muslims. such a statement is not fair nor true.
no offense meant, my friend.
Though I agree with this line about that statement being bad, but Islam started terrorism, in 11th century followers of a secret order who adheared to strict interpertation of 7th century islamic law carried out brutal acts and were promised virgins and happpiness in the the after life. Also the name of the secert group is still around today, Assassin
Anyways yea the founding Civ should have some sort of control over cities under that faith. Civs under one reilgon should be more content with letting you(the founding civ) have your way in trades, treaties, and so on.
How about stereotyping Catholicism as a terrorist religion too? After all, England (and many Commonwealth countriers) still have a festival to celebrate the defeat of a terrorist from hundreds of years ago.
What I'd like to see is real world religions, and mutually exclusive wonders. Each wonder would push your religion in a particular direction. So if you built the "Knights Templar" wonder, that will allow you to build crusaders, and probably spawn one every 10 turns or so too. But if you don't build that, then you don't end up pushing your religion down that road. Similarly, Islam would have a wonder that might give a boost towards terror actions, but it would not have to ever build it. I also think every wonder should have disadvantages built in, to prevent players from simply spamming all of them.
What I'd like to see is real world religions, and mutually exclusive wonders. Each wonder would push your religion in a particular direction. So if you built the "Knights Templar" wonder, that will allow you to build crusaders, and probably spawn one every 10 turns or so too. But if you don't build that, then you don't end up pushing your religion down that road. Similarly, Islam would have a wonder that might give a boost towards terror actions, but it would not have to ever build it. I also think every wonder should have disadvantages built in, to prevent players from simply spamming all of them.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I think Rhialto has come closest to elucidating how religion should work.
Essentially, though I have always supported Generic religions-which you can name-I feel that Real World religions CAN work too. Either way, though, I think it would be good if religions could have 'Traits' which differentiate them. This CAN be done in a way that need not offend ANYONE, even with RW religions.
Essentially, the Founder of a religion acquires traits for said religion-either based on in-game choices, or directly chosen by the player in question (whichever would work best). Each religion might be limited to no more than 2-3 DEFINING traits, and these traits could Grow or Change-again dependant on gameplay factors.
Some example of traits might be: Pacifist/Militant; Fundamentalist/Ecumenical; Scholastic/Dogmatic; Ascetic/Hedonistic; Orthodox/Reformist (Liberal); Evangelical/Reclusive. Other traits might include Sacrificial-for instance-but I don't know how that would be acquired.
The main point is that each trait will have bonuses and penalties. For instance, a Pacifist religion might allow its adherent to build cultural improvements and wonders quicker and give a bonus to peaceful diplomacy. OTOH, said religion would make unit building take longer, and lead to an increase in war weariness. Obviously, a Militant religion would have almost the exact opposite (bonus to unit construction times and decreased war weariness, but increased time for cultural improvement/wonder construction and penalties to diplomacy).
The primary point is that any civ which joins a religion gets the bonuses granted by any traits the religion has. HOWEVER, if a civ behaves in a manner contrary to its religion's traits, then there is a chance of a sect appearing within that nation.
Consider this in-game example. The Romans start to build a nation. In their exploration, they determine that they are alone on a large island. They choose to build a number of research, commerce and cultural improvements, whilst also pumping funds into research. In time, they discover a religious tech, which allows them to found Islam. The Romans continue to build up their economy and research and-after around 10 turns-their Religion acquires both a Pacifist and Scholastic trait (giving them bonuses to building cultural and research improvements, and a bonus to tech rates, whilst reducing the happiness produced by religious improvements). In time, they develop sufficient technology to seek out other lands, and discover the Egyptians. Over time, The peaceful Romans manage to convince the Egyptians to adopt the Islamic faith-acquiring the benefits of its Scholastic and Pacifistic traits.
Eventually, though, Egypt consistently ends up engaged in frequent wars with its many neighbours (in spite of the penalties to such activities caused by religious pacifism). Eventually, this causes a new, Militant sect of Islam to appear in the city of Memphis. Now, the choice is on the ruler of Egypt as to whether she (a) tolerates this new sect (b) crushes it (earning the ire of its adherents, but winning favour with the Romans) or (c) Embraces it as the State religion (granting the normal happiness benefits, but putting the Romans well and truly offside).
Hope this all makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Essentially, though I have always supported Generic religions-which you can name-I feel that Real World religions CAN work too. Either way, though, I think it would be good if religions could have 'Traits' which differentiate them. This CAN be done in a way that need not offend ANYONE, even with RW religions.
Essentially, the Founder of a religion acquires traits for said religion-either based on in-game choices, or directly chosen by the player in question (whichever would work best). Each religion might be limited to no more than 2-3 DEFINING traits, and these traits could Grow or Change-again dependant on gameplay factors.
Some example of traits might be: Pacifist/Militant; Fundamentalist/Ecumenical; Scholastic/Dogmatic; Ascetic/Hedonistic; Orthodox/Reformist (Liberal); Evangelical/Reclusive. Other traits might include Sacrificial-for instance-but I don't know how that would be acquired.
The main point is that each trait will have bonuses and penalties. For instance, a Pacifist religion might allow its adherent to build cultural improvements and wonders quicker and give a bonus to peaceful diplomacy. OTOH, said religion would make unit building take longer, and lead to an increase in war weariness. Obviously, a Militant religion would have almost the exact opposite (bonus to unit construction times and decreased war weariness, but increased time for cultural improvement/wonder construction and penalties to diplomacy).
The primary point is that any civ which joins a religion gets the bonuses granted by any traits the religion has. HOWEVER, if a civ behaves in a manner contrary to its religion's traits, then there is a chance of a sect appearing within that nation.
Consider this in-game example. The Romans start to build a nation. In their exploration, they determine that they are alone on a large island. They choose to build a number of research, commerce and cultural improvements, whilst also pumping funds into research. In time, they discover a religious tech, which allows them to found Islam. The Romans continue to build up their economy and research and-after around 10 turns-their Religion acquires both a Pacifist and Scholastic trait (giving them bonuses to building cultural and research improvements, and a bonus to tech rates, whilst reducing the happiness produced by religious improvements). In time, they develop sufficient technology to seek out other lands, and discover the Egyptians. Over time, The peaceful Romans manage to convince the Egyptians to adopt the Islamic faith-acquiring the benefits of its Scholastic and Pacifistic traits.
Eventually, though, Egypt consistently ends up engaged in frequent wars with its many neighbours (in spite of the penalties to such activities caused by religious pacifism). Eventually, this causes a new, Militant sect of Islam to appear in the city of Memphis. Now, the choice is on the ruler of Egypt as to whether she (a) tolerates this new sect (b) crushes it (earning the ire of its adherents, but winning favour with the Romans) or (c) Embraces it as the State religion (granting the normal happiness benefits, but putting the Romans well and truly offside).
Hope this all makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
As Venom put it during the eighties, S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E.. Sacrifice! 
Anyway, sacrificial trait = killing slaves and captured units? Also, evil religions would probably more efficient at the cost of angering "good" religions. (Whip'em slaves!)
Anyway, sacrificial trait = killing slaves and captured units? Also, evil religions would probably more efficient at the cost of angering "good" religions. (Whip'em slaves!)
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
Hmmm... your ideas could work, Aussie. I like the idea of the religion traits being based on your gameplay, because that eliminates alot of the offensiveness of Firaxis choosing arbitrary traits to represent each religion (For instance, at various times in it's history, the Christian church has been alternately pacificistic and militaristic. While Iranian Islam is rather dogmatic, the early Islam empires were learning centers that encouraged scientific study. How could you choose which would be the initial representative). It also presents a good system, I think, for schisms in religion.
My only question is what, then, ties the religion to the name of the RW religion? Is it just the advance that spawned it? (Not that that is any different that what Firaxis is currently doing) Couldn't this idea be combined with the idea of "generic" religions to create an even deeper system?
I still like the idea of generic religions better... but I think this set of ideas could make either generic or real world religions better.
My only question is what, then, ties the religion to the name of the RW religion? Is it just the advance that spawned it? (Not that that is any different that what Firaxis is currently doing) Couldn't this idea be combined with the idea of "generic" religions to create an even deeper system?
I still like the idea of generic religions better... but I think this set of ideas could make either generic or real world religions better.
Well, for me, the thing that would tie these religions to the real world is that teh choice of wonders and so on would be desinged to match all hostorical aspects that each religion ever presented. So for Chrsitianity, the militant side would be represented by things such as the Witch Hunts and the Crusades, while the kinder side by such things as the Knights Hospitaller (medicene), Jesuit schools (education, but probably add unhappiness or something too to reflect their methods), and various charitable organisations. All options would initially be available (subject to technology), but build some of these, and others will become unavailable. The key difference between religions is that each religion would have its own menu of wonders and improvements to choose from.
WilliamOfOrange
Emperor
I like the sound of that....and also Aussie's comments. Perhaps this is something to look for in CiV (I am trademarking that one 
) but I doubt something this complex would appear in Civ4
) but I doubt something this complex would appear in Civ4Similar threads
