Religious Sects

[Xineoph]

They really should add them all....plus the sects...let the people decide, might as well.

But rather go crazy, just add the big ones. =D

1. Christianity
* Catholic
* Orthodox
* Protestant

2. Islam
* Sunni
* Shiite
* Sufi

3. Hinduism
* Śaivism
* Shaktism
* Vaishnavism
* Smartism

4. Asiatic Religion's
* Daoism
* Confuciuism
* Shinto

5. Buddhism
* Theravāda
* Mahāyāna
* Vajrayāna

6. Indigenous
* Shamanism
* Animism
* Spiritism
* Paganism

7. Judaism
* Sephardic
* Ashkenazi

8. Monotheistic Aryan Religions
* Zoroastrianism
* Mithraism
* Jainism
* Sikhism



What do you think of the list nonetheless....what to add...what to remove....what to change...

And do you agree that there should be sects?

 

[MrMahk]

woah, i think that would be a little too overwhelming for civ4 considering they are just adding these religions now...but might be a good idea for an expansion

 

[opus95]

They really should add them all....plus the sects...let the people decide, might as well.

But rather go crazy, just add the big ones. =D

1. Christianity
* Catholic
* Orthodox
* Protestant
2. Islam
* Sunni
* Shiite
* Sikh
3. Hinduism
* Śaivism
* Shaktism
* Vaishnavism
* Smartism
4. East Asia Traditional Religion
* Daoism
* Confuciuism
* Shinto
5. Buddhism
* Theravāda
* Mahāyāna
* Vajrayāna
6. Indigenous
* Shamanism
* Animism
* Spiritism
* Paganism
7. Judaism
* Sephardic
* Ashkenazi
8. Other (Can't think of anythingfor a name...)
* Mazdayasni (Zoroastrianism)
* Mithraism
* Atenism



What do you think of the list nonetheless....what to add...what to remove....what to change...

And do you agree that there should be sects?

I'd love all of this kind of thing to be included, but ... how does one quantify how each of these religions / sects affect each other? Will Catholic / Protestant rivalry often lead to devastatingly deadly "30-Years-Wars"? etc., etc., ...you'd need to find experts in "Mithraism / Shinto conflict" to determine what would happen.

 

[Dogzilla]

No Norse Pantheon??
May Loki smite you.

 

[OrpheusPrime]

No Norse Pantheon??
May Loki smite you.

lol

People want this small aspect of the game to have sooo much to it.. I'd rather religion be somthing simple in the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would say YES, tentatively, whilst also saying that I feel sects should appear within the broader religion is a result of a difference in underlying 'traits' between the mainstream religion and one of its adherent nations.
So, for instance, if Christianity has acquired a Conservative trait as a result of the Legal/Government settings of its founding nation, but then another adherent adopts a more liberal group of civic settings, then that nation should become a logical place for a Protestant sect to evolve. It is then up to each individual Christian nation to decide whether it stays true to its Mainstream roots, or adopts this new sect as its own religion (with the first being considered that religions FOUNDER).
Anyway, thats MY take on things!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Stilgar08]

I voted "no"...
It would simply be too much and how do you diversify?? Another point is, there could be more religions in the game with many more pronounced different characteristics than sects of the religions we already have!! (Understandable?) I'd rather have Zeus, Apollo or Ra and Anubis in the game than catholic and protestant... (more difference is fine, but it SHOULD be more pronounced one, if you want it...
more polytheistic religions, historic or somewhat generic religions with special traits would be the better for that IMHO...)

 

[sgrig]

By the way, Sikhism isn't really part of Islam. It's closer to Hinduism. But anyway I wouldn't want that many religious sects. Certainly there shouldn't be more religions then civs. Although, I hope that it is easy to mod in religions, so if people want to they can add all the religions they want to.

 

[Ranbir]

*twitches*
Sikhism isn't part of anything, it's a religion itself. Fifth largest!

I still think civics in religion is better than set religions.

 

[Commander Bello]

Voted "no" as I don't see the point in having so many differentiations.
Additionally, based on the little information we have, it doesn't seem to fit into the concept of having state vs. town religion AND impacting diplomacy. I may be wrong here, though.

 

[Justy]

I voted yes on this. I would tie this in with Civil Wars which should be re-implemented. The larger your empire the greater chance of rifts and sectarian conflicts. You can't keep everyone happy all of the time. Likewise the larger your religion the greater chance there should be of your religion fragmenting. Civilization has always been too much like the game Risk. More land, more money, more troops game over. World conquest victory should be the hardest and least practical way to achieve a win. World Domination should be the way to go. Back to religion, once your religion reaches a critical mass of population the chance of a rift should near 100%. Is there a major religion that spread beyond the borders of its origin that hasn't broken into sects? The envelope should have an eventual breaking point.

I would also give player a series of warning signs that a religious split or civil war could be imminent.

 

[Justy]

They really should add them all....plus the sects...let the people decide, might as well.

But rather go crazy, just add the big ones. =D

1. Christianity
* Catholic
* Orthodox
* Protestant
2. Islam
* Sunni
* Shiite
* Sikh
3. Hinduism
* Śaivism
* Shaktism
* Vaishnavism
* Smartism
4. East Asia Traditional Religion
* Daoism
* Confuciuism
* Shinto
5. Buddhism
* Theravāda
* Mahāyāna
* Vajrayāna
6. Indigenous
* Shamanism
* Animism
* Spiritism
* Paganism
7. Judaism
* Sephardic
* Ashkenazi
8. Other (Can't think of anythingfor a name...)
* Mazdayasni (Zoroastrianism)
* Mithraism
* Atenism



What do you think of the list nonetheless....what to add...what to remove....what to change...

And do you agree that there should be sects?

Under Islam I would remove Sikhism and replace it with Sufism.

That whole East Asia Traditional really doesn't work. Confucianism and Shinto really aren't related Shinto is Japanese and Confucian teachings is Chinese.

I would probably link Daoism with Buddhism.

 

[mudblood]

I voted no, mostly for gameplay reasons. The number of religions in the game has to be limited, for a reason. Religion in the game will change the way you play diplomacy, taking the place of the old "culture groups" from Civ III. How other civs regard you will depend upon whether you share their religion. Converting another civ to your religion is now an important part of the game. Seven is a good number for this, it means that, on a regular board, there is about one civ per religion. On a huge board, it means there are around two or three civs per religion. This allows religion to affect diplomacy, while guaranteeing that there will be a good number of different religious alliances on the map.

While I like the idea of more diversity being represented in the game, and I like the idea of historical accuracy, sects would add too many religions to the game, and would divide the civs up too much to make religious diplomacy useful gameplay.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Mudblood, there COULD be a way to have LOTS of religions without it overly diluting the importance of the religion concept as a whole.

Firstly, you say that the first Civ within a CULTURE GROUP (be it West European, East European, Asian etc) to obtain a religious tech gets to found a religion chosen from those available for that tech. So, for example, lets say the Greeks discover Polytheism first-out of the Mediterranean civs. They get a choice of Hellenistic Pantheon, Norse Pantheon, Ossirian Pantheon or Hinduism. Once they make their choice, no other Mediterranean civs can found a Polytheistic faith-and must either adopt Greece's one, or another culture group's Polytheistic faith (which could cause major tensions within that civ) or try and get Monotheism-for example-instead, so that they get to found one of THOSE religions (Judaism, Mithraism or Zoroastrianism, for example).
Secondly, you say that Sects are a special case. That you don't discover them via a tech-though having certain techs might increase the chance of one appearing. They appear according to the Civs play style, civics settings and Leader Traits, amongst other things. If one of your cities gets a sect appearing, then said nation can choose to adopt the sect as its Religion (in a sense Founding it). This choice can be frought with danger, however, as it can cause diplomatic friction with the founder of the mainstream religion to which the nation once belonged, and can cause massive unhappiness in that nation's own cities until the new sect has taken hold. Alternatively, the nation can choose to supress the religion as Heresy, which will earn the nation diplomatic Brownie Points with the mainstream religion's founder-as a 'defender of the faith'.
At least, thats how I would like it to work!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Grohan]

Yes but not too much per religion. Two or maybe three is a good amount.

 

[Xineoph]

I'd love all of this kind of thing to be included, but ... how does one quantify how each of these religions / sects affect each other? Will Catholic / Protestant rivalry often lead to devastatingly deadly "30-Years-Wars"? etc., etc., ...you'd need to find experts in "Mithraism / Shinto conflict" to determine what would happen.

Ahhh, i see your talking about natural rivalries, much like preferred and shunned governments and how they introduced some leaders prefer one form of civics over another.

I was just considering sects for additional flavor to the game... ;p

I can see it now though......

You Sufi Dog! I Command that you convert to Hindu Smartism!

XD

No Norse Pantheon??
May Loki smite you.

lol

People want this small aspect of the game to have sooo much to it.. I'd rather religion be somthing simple in the game.

I didn't think of putting that in, as every culture had their own personal religion...so instead i seperated it, into the different parts of Indigenous Beliefs.


Ranbir: Well i have to put Sikhism somewhere....unless you can think of a category i can give it. =\

BTW: First post is edited...i replaced Sikh with Sufi, and put Jain and Sikh under Other religions.

I also removed Atenism, as it was only Egypt's religion for 20 years....

 

[Sullla]

I voted yes on this. I would tie this in with Civil Wars which should be re-implemented. The larger your empire the greater chance of rifts and sectarian conflicts. You can't keep everyone happy all of the time. Likewise the larger your religion the greater chance there should be of your religion fragmenting. Civilization has always been too much like the game Risk. More land, more money, more troops game over. World conquest victory should be the hardest and least practical way to achieve a win. World Domination should be the way to go. Back to religion, once your religion reaches a critical mass of population the chance of a rift should near 100%. Is there a major religion that spread beyond the borders of its origin that hasn't broken into sects? The envelope should have an eventual breaking point.

I would also give player a series of warning signs that a religious split or civil war could be imminent.

I really hope we DON'T see this. Can you imagine anything more frustrating to players than successfully fighting a difficult campaign against an enemy civ, only to have your civilization crack apart from the inside out? Realistic perhaps, but the culture flip was one of the most hated aspects of Civ3 and this would be even worse. If religion causes your civ to split into sects, people simply won't found religions, and that would defeat the whole purpose. If "you can't keep everyone happy all of the time", then the casual fan is going to chuck their copy in the garbage after a game or two and move on to something else.

I'm all for game balance (believe me, I really am) but this is such an un-fun way to deal with it that the cure would be worse than the problem. Ditto for civil war; some of you might think it's all well and good here in the abstact, but it would NOT be fun when your civ started fighting a civil war against itself. I'm going to hope that Firaxis can come up with a better way to prevent runaway civs from developing than the model proposed above. In my opinion, that is not the direction the game should be going.

 

[Xineoph]

So maybe they should add those types of schisms as an option to have before playing the game.

Sorta like toggling what type of victory is needed to win the game, you should toggle, what schism's if any should be in the game.

Capturing Capital Schism...
Cultural Schism...
Religious Schism...

I love saying the word Schism. ^.^


Either way, schism's would be nice to have...but if an equal amount of people are for and against it...then i think it should be optional whether you want it in your game or not, before playing. =)

 

[mudblood]

Aussie,

If your ideas were implemented, I would love the game you made, but since they won't be ... I'm still a 'no'.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Let me explain my thoughts Mudblood. As the game CURRENTLY stands (18 civs and a VERY simple Religion system) I completely agree with you-which is why I gave this poll a TENTATIVE yes (i.e. I support the idea in principle, but not right at the moment!)
What I hope-and believe-though, is that with this simple model in place, future expansions will build on the simple model-whilst at the same time bringing in more official civs. Given this belief, I think it is imperative to make suggestions like this to the designers, to show them that they have got us THINKING, and to show them we have good ideas on how things like Traits and Sects can be implemented in the game-which is what I am trying to do !

@Sulla.
I think that if you are figthing a long and costly offensive war against another nation, then you should stand to suffer a schism and/or civil war-i.e, if your people have been left poor and unhappy (and perhaps culturally deprived) because of war, then there should be a chance for that war to lead to a splitting of your nation-even more so if your civ is also very large and culturally diverse. I just think this bigger=better model in civ needs a MASSIVE rethink, and I hope THIS is the game in which it happens.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.