Should Religions have traits?

[Teabeard]

As it is now, all religions are the same. All religions in Civ IV have the same religious structures, effects, holy cities, missionaries, etc. which we know is not the actual case in reality.

So what I propose is that religions have certain strengths and weaknesses. I know this may offend some people, so hear me out first... it should be carefully balanced so that no one will be offended. Think of how it was in Civ3 where every nation had two traits which were positive. Very few people complained then, and anyone was free to change things with modding. So why not do something similar with religions in Civ 4?

Some religions might offer morale bonuses, while others offer faster tech research, and others maybe increase revenue. What if we could even say some religions had their own UUs?

 

[peanut35]

I have been reading all of the reviews and previews, and i completely agree with you. New elements are always being added, and can always be changed, but as you point out, maybe not so directly, but different religions have different opinions on different things, and so having some bonuses would be very nice, and would add a non-common new element to the game. If they are all the same, and you can have multiple religions, ie you were the first to 'research' atleast two, i think there should actually be repercussions until freedom of religion is opted for.

 

[Red Threat]

It's a matter of political correctness.

 

[peanut35]

Since when do games hold to political correctness? and since this is a 'history' based game, i think they should hold to more of that aspect.

 

[Xen]

Traits- yes
UU's- not specificlly needed, but could make things more fun

 

[warpstorm]

Since when do games hold to political correctness? and since this is a 'history' based game, i think they should hold to more of that aspect.

Since they want it to not be pulled from Wal-Mart shelves if someone complains. Believe it or not, but some people are very strong in their feelings about their religion. If it protrayed their religion in a manner that they found disrectful, there may be major consequences.

What is the trait for Christianity? Warlike and intolerant (based on the Crusades)? Would this view go over big in the Bible Belt?

 

[Xen]

Judaism- Scholarlly Bunus
Christianity- Industrious onus
Islam- Cultural Bonus

you dont always have to seek out the negative to portray a religion save militaritisc bonuses for a religion like Mithriasm, the Roman religion of soldiers

 

[Sickman]

Sure, my thoughts:

Judaism- Economic bonus
Christianity- Philosophical bonus
Islam- Entertainment bonus
Buddhism- Military bonus
Hinduism- Science bonus
Taoism- Exploration bonus
Confucism- Revolution bonus

 

[warpstorm]

I can see how peopel could feel that many of the boni listed by Sickman are offensive stereotypes.

 

[Xen]

definatelly; the ENTIRE list is eaither arbitary, or based on sterotypes.

 

[microbe]

it should be carefully balanced so that no one will be offended.

Put 1 million in an escrow account and pay people who are offended then.

Seriously, you ever saw people complaing about why certain civ X shouldn't be labeled trait Y? Why would you think it would be different for religions?

 

[I am the Future]

But it is the basic Principles that matter. They can NOT put out a game that feeds steriotypes or stores wont want to sell it at risk of loosing customers. It all comes down to Economics which will always win.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

There's also the problem of when/where/which portrait of a religion/church you choose to typify a religion. An accurate portrayl of the Catholic Church would in no way be an accurate portrayl of the Catholic Church today. An accurate portrait of Islam in Iran would in no way be an accurate portrait of the Islam held by many Muslims in America.

However, I think the underlying idea of giving traits to religion is a good one that will help gameplay. I think the offensiveness could be avoided if:

1) generic religions (monotheism, polytheism, naturism) were used (a la my suggestions)
2) the traits were based on the players gameplay, and weren't predefined (a la Aussie Lurker's suggestions). A player who discovers Christianity and plays a warmonger would have different religious traits than one who discovered Christianity and played a builder.
3) Both 1 and 2.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I would like a greater differentiation between the religions, even if it means some 'hardwiring' of the history. The Catholic church would have a pope, Islam Jihads and so on, but I understand that it would be pretty hard to get a good balance. The problem is that civ is a game where all alternatives at all times should be equally competetive and you always should be able to change your strategy. The concepts of civ are always very open but they lose some of their flavour along the way.

 

[Markus6]

Where would these boni fit in? Who would you give them too? Rulers with the religion as there state religion (even though most of there people aren't that religion). Or would it work on some sort of city or population percentage level?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't want religious traits. My reasons?

Sure, my thoughts:

Judaism- Economic bonus

Sort of steriotypical. Also, why not military bonus? The ancient Isralies, inspired by their faith, fought and destroyed those living in the region that was their holy land. Their faith inspired them to rebel against the Roman Empire (all rebellions happened around Passover, when they were reminded of previous opression). And modern day Israel has mandatory conscription in what they view is defending their faith and race.

Christianity- Philosophical bonus

This is actually fairly true, since a lot of Christianity was about figured out philosophical questions, such as the divinity of Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc. But what exactly is a Philosophical bonus? Also, the Crusades could make an argument for military bonuses, while other events could make an argument that they get penalties in economy and science

Islam- Entertainment bonus

Why not scientific bonus, since the Arab world was the leader in scientific advancement for many centuries.

See a pattern yet? Its almost impossible to pick traits that perfectly fit a religion or that everyone agrees on. And there are many overlaps as well, making Christianity and Islam (for example) not very different on real-world practical matters (regardless of theological differences).

 

[Sickman]

See a pattern yet? Its almost impossible to pick traits that perfectly fit a religion or that everyone agrees on.

Never saw a pattern in my "suggestions"?

I was just playing around.
Point I tried to make is the same as you it's almost impossible to pick traits that aren't just stereotypical ones or aren't offending anybody.

If I would pick predetermined traits for each religion I would consider these factors (at least):
How the religion is spread? How quickly it spreads?
How the religion does "resist" other religions?
What kind of "mundane" bonuses the religion could have?
Could more than one religion have very similar trait(s)?
Etc.

Example what comes to Judaism...
I think they hardly would spread at all, they would be very hard to be converted to other religions as well (until atheism comes along) and it could give educational bonus and possible have greater chance of having great scientist (or lawyer or bankteller just kidding.) among them. Judaism would also give militaristic bonus to defending the civ if civ would be small enough. So smaller the civ, bigger the bonus.

Then again example Christianity...
Would spread like plague through missionaries, would have chance to declare "holy crusade" with other civ under the christianity towards specific third civ with another religion. I would also propose that after certain time Christianity could reform which could lead into Industrialism bonus.

Those are just ideas to throw around and nothing else. I would suggest traits that have numerous strengths and weaknesses or better yet I would support the system that CrazyEskimo suggests.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, but have I been spending the last month talking to myself then? In several threads, I have put up a very easy way to differentiate Religions without causing the public any offense. Acquired and Changeable-not preassigned-Traits.
That is, as the Founder of a Faith, your in-game play style will impact the kinds of traits your religion acquires. If you are heavily into trade and commerce, for enough turns, then your religion will acquire a mercantile trait. If you acquire large numbers of luxuries and place emphasis on happiness and entertainment, then you acquire a Hedonistic trait. If you play in a very militaristic and expansionist fashion, then you acquire a Militant trait. The traits your religion acquire have nothing at all to do with what religion you are, or have to conform to any stereotype of a particular religion-it all depends on how you-the founder of the faith-choose to play the game.
Anyone who joins your religion gains the traits of that religion too. However, if they play against the current traits, then it leads to the formation of a new Religious Sect, one with more appropriate traits. The civ who 'promoted' the sects appearance then needs to decide whether to tolerate, suppress or embrace it. If the founder plays against his religion's own traits, then the traits will eventually change, but with 1-3 turns of anarchy in between.
Mechanically its very simple, its also fairly realistic, it adds a great deal to gameplay and strategy and will only cause offense to the kinds of people already offended by the mere presence of religion.
What I will say, though, is that the only traits religions should have 'predetermined' is its 'Stability' and 'Influence', and these will transcend religious boundries-touching more on the kind of religion it is.
e.g. Monotheistic Faiths are more Influential than Polytheistic or Philosophical Faiths (Bhuddism, Daoism and Confuscianism). However, they are also less Stable than these Faiths as well. So, though they spread much easier through non-unit means, they are more prone to such things as sectarianism and religious Schisms.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[vbraun]

The Religon names are just labels. That's one of the reasons I'm going to rename most of them when I get the game. (Made up stuff like vbraunism)

I like what Aussie_Lurker posted, but it seems that it doesn't quite feel right having that kind of system attached to religons. It would be better if it were attached to the civ (or leader). I'll use Civ3 as an example:
Say you build lots of curraghs and send them out into risky water. You will then get the Seafaring trait. You irragate most of your terrain and you build granary's and stuff, you get the Agriculturle trait.

Better yet traits could change over time, so that If your civ is preparring for war and you have a large military and you have closed borders you will then get the Military Trait. After you win the war and you focus on other things you lose it and might get another trait.

After thinking about it I don't think traits that change is a very good idea. But earning traits is a really good one.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The reason the system should attach to religion, IMHO, is because then these traits can transcend Civ boundries. Suddenly, most of the Christian civs start to have identical traits, but then there are about three or four Christian Civs who went down the path of Orthodoxy (i.e. Acquired the Orthodox trait).
Which raises the other reason for religious traits-Some of them are simply appropriate for religion-such as Dogmatic, Orthodox, Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Ecumenical.
Lastly, though I would love to see a similar system apply to civs-we know that for the time being it won't, so all the more reason to have the system appear somewhere. It also opens up intriguing possibilities, such as will a civ with certain traits adopt a religion with complementary traits, or go for one who's traits go against the grain?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.