Replace Pacifism?

[KrakenRouge]

I agree totally with Enkidu!

More than anything else, I just dont want some kind of soviet style enforced Atheism to be the top end of the religion civic, it just moves too far away from realism.

I think you are both misunderstanding the point however.

The Secularism civic would take the place of Pacifism and would be the classical religious civic, without showing Atheism, to take the place of Free Religion however, which Im assuming could be the only spot for this, since Free Religion and Secualrism would be quasi-redundant.

The State Cult would allow indoctrination into ideology of the state, this does not necessarilly make it Soviet style, and the Soviet Union was not the only police state in the world, or the only state in the world with state indoctrination. This civic would not allow religion to spread and would enforce other benefits for a warmongering or militaristic leadership.

I personally very much like both ideas, since I really dont like having to deal with religion in my games, and since it creates a huge diplo modifier being negative.

 

[werttrew]

Ditto to Enkidu's post. "Religious Pluralism" would be much better than any kind of "Atheism."

 

[KrakenRouge]

Ditto to Enkidu's post. "Religious Pluralism" would be much better than any kind of "Atheism."

Are you guys reading the whole thread before you respond?

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Doesn't anything except Theocracy account for Religious Pluralism ; a religion is still dominant (i.e. in government and otherwise) but other religions are tolerated and can still give some benefits.

 

[Wilhelm II]

Doesn't anything except Theocracy account for Religious Pluralism ; a religion is still dominant (i.e. in government and otherwise) but other religions are tolerated and can still give some benefits.

Kind of, yes. But I don't want my citizens to be forced to believe in ANY religion by ANYONE. So I'm all for free religion right after philosophy, so that I do not have to stick to paganism until liberalism.

And I think Atheism/State Ideology is the best choice for a late civic. It adds more variety to the game.

But of course we could introduce some "political correctness" civic which produces tons of happiness but a decreased culture and science output because no-one ever has to overthink the slightest of his/her/its prejudices in the all perfect PC world.

And of course it comes with mass media...

 

[Surtur]

I'm just afraid that it will mess up gameplay if Free Religion is available with Philosophy.

Of course the current civic system is not realistic but at least the results are kinda realistic (after Middle Ages most civs change to Free Religion).

 

[Spearthrower]

I'm just afraid that it will mess up gameplay if Free Religion is available with Philosophy.

Of course the current civic system is not realistic but at least the results are kinda realistic (after Middle Ages most civs change to Free Religion).

It's strange when you read something like this and it just doesn't equate to any of your own experiences.

Most games I play, the AI stays with their state religion throughout the game... sometimes I'll see them changing religions in the modern period, but very rarely before.

Besides, all civs have their own preferences, so it's not like they will all adopt a single civic.

 

[Blasphemous]

By Civ terms, most civs today still have a state religion... The way the late-game looks as far as SRs and RCs really is usually rather realistic.

 

[fearuin]

By Civ terms, most civs today still have a state religion... The way the late-game looks as far as SRs and RCs really is usually rather realistic.

Yes, you're right, Blasphemous. I just come from reading in the newspaper: "About the 77% of the Spanish say that they are Catholic, but most of them (a 60%) don't go to religious services". The Spanish Constitution protects all faiths, but "will encourage relation with the Catholic Church because of its importance in the Spanish society" (and I am traducing the better I can the literal text of it). Catholic church receives about the 99% of the budget assigned from the State to all confessions for their educational and cultural services. This is what the "Organized Religion" reflects. Secularism is no other thing than Modern-era Organized Religion in democracies. It is the effect of combining Universal Suffrage+Organized Religion. You can't have a truly Universal Suffrage if you restrain rights to some people by its religion, becuase religious parties are enabled to exist, and religious or not, religion is a policy every party has (and defending atheism is too a religion policy). But you can still "encourage" a specific religion. Most European Constitutions have this "covert" Organized Religion. The very exception to this is The Vatican City - because it is a Theocracy!

I don't agree to remove Pacifism, to replace it with Atheism or any other thing. But I understand those who are agree. However, I am STRONGLY against of removing Free Religion. And Free Religion before Industrial Era is reflect by Paganism. Do you think that there was a concept of "atheist" before Enlightment? There wasn't. If you didn't believe in the SR, you were a pagan. If you didn't believe in any religion at all, you were still a pagan! If the ruler doesn't bother with religion, he was seen as a Pagan by the people, or, to use a more specific term, an "Apostate". Julian the Apostate, as mentioned above, is an example. Think he changed the religion civic of Rome from Organized Religion to Paganism, and the SR from Christianity to none. The prosecutions, unhappiness, riots, etc. was the period of Anarchy you have when changing civics.

Changing Pacifism to another civic that comes later (Atheism) has two effects:
1.- Most civs will have Organized Religion or Theocracy. This means that civs will become either more dangerous (theocracy, as you have more developed armies), or more developed (organized religion, as it will make them too build faster).
2.- In the Modern era, you will have less wars, because you will have two civics that will have no SR.

So, it's not a good idea. What can replace Pacifism, then? Well, I don't know. What I know is that it must come in Classical era, or you'll mess up the whole thing. And there's another reason to not remove Free Religion: a lot of countries in the world have it today! There are less than you think, but they're a lot, anyway. I just can't imagine the modern era without Free Religion civic, unless you want to make a fantastic mod.

 

[Ravellion]

So, it's not a good idea. What can replace Pacifism, then? Well, I don't know. What I know is that it must come in Classical era, or you'll mess up the whole thing. And there's another reason to not remove Free Religion: a lot of countries in the world have it today! There are less than you think, but they're a lot, anyway. I just can't imagine the modern era without Free Religion civic, unless you want to make a fantastic mod.

I concur.

Rav

 

[Wilhelm II]

Afterall you can force everyone to adopt free religion via UN. I often enough did it that way, though I haven't really played a game that far recently.

And there are more than enough incentives for the AI/player to adopt a state religion/appropriate religious civic: happiness, experience, faster construction, culture, foreign relations and (forthcomming) stability.

Free religion after philosophy opens up a new way to play the game - perfect for large multi-ethnic empires like the Mongols or idiots like me.
And state ideology in the modern era enables nice battles between democracies and dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.

 

[KrakenRouge]

Free religion after philosophy opens up a new way to play the game - perfect for large multi-ethnic empires like the Mongols or idiots like me.
And state ideology in the modern era enables nice battles between democracies and dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.

I really want the State Ideology for the sake of balance towards a nonreligious state but with totalitarian indoctrination. Sure we have the nice wussy civics, but we need something a warmonger can wrap their teeth around, besides police state and state property.

 

[Spearthrower]

I really want the State Ideology for the sake of balance towards a nonreligious state but with totalitarian indoctrination. Sure we have the nice wussy civics, but we need something a warmonger can wrap their teeth around, besides police state and state property.

You have theocracy for that!!

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Theocracy requires state religion amongst other things and has different effects to those suggested for State Cult.

 

[KrakenRouge]

Theocracy requires state religion amongst other things and has different effects to those suggested for State Cult.

Thank you for mentioning that, Zetetic.

Spearthrower, maybe you didnt read this, perhaps you should before you compare it to Theocracy and Pacifism.

Liberalism (or Liberal Secularism, or Secularism, or whatever) representing states where the government doesn't force any given religion or doctrine on the people. This represents America as well as it represents classical empires where there was a state religion but others were tolerated well.
Effects: State Religion allowed. Each non-state religion gives its city +1 +1. +1 in any city without the SR. All religions spread fast in your cities. You cannot build Monasteries. +10% in all cities. Upkeep low.
The Result: You can keep your State Religion but its only real benefit becomes diplomacy. Your cities will be happier if you don't have any SR, and they won't need the SR to be happy and thrive.

State Cult (or Personality Cult, or Forced Ideology) representing the ideological systems forced upon people under Hitler, Stalin, Turkmenbashi, etc. This has always been sorely lacking in the Civics system.
Effects: No State Religion. +10% culture in all cities. 6 biggest cities get +3. Can't build any religious buildings, religions don't spread in your cities. -10% war unhappiness. Upkeep very high. (Explanation: The extra culture makes sense because the totalitarian governments that have a state cult always invest huge amounts of effort into building culture around the state cult. They do this even more in the big cities. This is also why the big cities will be happier. War unhappiness is reduced because the state cult has been used to justify things that people normally don't like.)
The Result: Expensive to maintain but extremely effective for warmongers (the extra culture is also important in wars because it expands your borders.) Fills in an important gap in realism.

 

[Spearthrower]

That's twice now that you have implied that I am misunderstanding the point rather than simply disagreeing.

To reiterate my actual opinion: I do not think that this State Cult idea is good either in game terms or in realism terms - requoting things is not going to convince me - I assure you that I have read every word in this thread.

To me, it seems that you want to tailor it to your own play style. I didn't bother replying to Zetetic's comment before as it was a logical non sequiter, I never said or implied that Theocracy was comparable - I was replying to your comment showing that you already have a warmonger religious civic.

What we actually need is an end game, scientific/secular religious civic, not another war monger one which would just not equate to being the most advanced civic.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Right, apologies. What we already have though is a scientific/secular religious civic ; I assume you mean shifting Free Religion earlier (changing effects) and then adding Secularism as Enkidu said (and you agreed with).

Then I still believe that every other religious civic except theocracy represents a form of pluralism. His examples are interesting:
The Mongols, yes, maintained something of a policy of not picking a side so as to prevent dogpiling by religious groups. Fine, they can stick with Paganism ; the name doesn't reflect the reality but the effects do. They get a relatively minor diplo penalty (as makes sense) but reduce the chance of being attacked as a true heretic.
Persian Empire were far from pluralistic or even tolerant, at least not for long periods of time with Zoroastrianism being dominant and other religions (e.g. RC) persecuted for much of its 'mid'-history. I suppose you could claim it was pluralistic in that Zoroastrianism was heavily influenced by Persian culture and local religion but I don't think that's vaguely helpful. OrgRel?
Rome was pluralistic in that accepted other religions so long as their followers bent them enough to fit the Roman pantheon etc. Edict of Milan isn't a display of tolerance, it's a takeover by Christianity (well, what Const. etc. make of it). OrgRel?

I do think that it's right to move Free Religion slightly earlier ; esp. if you can make it so that it acts slightly differently depending on whether you have state religion (reflecting pluralism) or not (reflecting secularism). But I don't that there is enough justification for splitting it into to two civics, particularly since there aren't that many examples of truly pluralistic societies which aren't well modelled enough already. I also admit that State Cult (or whatever) would cause excessive peace problems unless a system of diplo penalties could be developed (as posited above).

 

[Rhye]

I don't foresee peace problems with a State Ideology civic.

However, this change isn't happening for now (as you can see from the new version). A bare 50% isn't enough to support the change. Pacifism still in

 

[Guest01]

States that enforced Atheism tried to fill the 'religion gap' among the working classes either with the cult of personality described above, or with utter devotion to some far-fetched ideal which usually ran contrary to what the state was actually doing.

First of all, there is never existed such thing as "enforced" atheism. You teach peoples that 2*2=4 or 2*2=5. Whether right you or your opponent. No more, no less. Both cases "enforced" in equal measure. Appeal to "neutrality" is just truce to violate real neutrality and continue speaking that 2*2=5.
Scientific truth cannot be "enforced", that's nonsense. Please, read at least Dawkins's publications on topic.

Scientific atheism has no common with "filling the 'religion gap'" (whatever that phrase mean). Obviously, any religion is just set of nonsense, blah-blah-blah. Highly complex society totally based on science and large-scale industrial economy (USSR) simply cannot deal with obvious nonsense (actually, fraud).

In early 20th century Russia was primitive rural country with hostile climate, very high population growth rate, weak productive forces, corrupted goverment and rising threat of complete destruction under pressure of powerfull enemies. Empire nearly came to an end. By prodigious effort and sacrifice state survived the crisis, but at great cost. It emerged as
a very different organization. It takes for russians only 20 to 30 years to prepare educated workforce, concentrate resourses and build up such a vast infrustructure that allowed their state to become superpower and launch man into space. But 250 millions of people in harsh environmental conditions wasn't able to sustain such enormous infrustructure with supporting institutions (science, education, social care and so on) for long...

 

[Wilhelm II]

There actually IS a difference inbetween "scientific atheism" (the concept of not using god as an explanation for scientific facts) and "enforced atheism" (totalitarian states wanting to get rid of existing religious authorities).

Atheism is NOT equal to believing in science.

By the way: even if I don't like religious thinking I have to admit that reductionism isn't really the thing people are longing for. Afterall in everyday life interpretations/opinions usually matter more than hard-proven mathematical or scientific facts.