Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Glassmage, Mar 15, 2012.
I would feel disappointed if atheism was not involved in this game.
There is already a non-religious, humanistic 'religion' in the list of 11: Confucianism. Since we don't know all the beliefs yet (right?), it seems entirely plausible that one or more of these unknown beliefs will be something non-religious to represent Confucian teachings, like "Ordered Society" or "Political Ethics". Well, I would hope for something like that, anyway.
(Mind you, I am not saying that folk religion and ancestor worship was not accepted or advocated during periods where Confucianism was the state ideology; but in the context of civ, that would be the "Pantheon belief" that you get before you founded a religion)
I meant modern humanism, but then maybe what I'm actually looking for is enlightenment-esque philosophy, which doesn't exactly fit with ancient history.
Philosophy and ethics work at the very least though. And to confucianism? I agree. That was a perk to hitting CoL early in civ 4
Woops, apparently that's called Humanism too (there's also something specifically called Religious Humanism). That's probably more confusing than I'd like.
There should not be an active benefit to not utilizing religion (other than relocation of resources to other uses). The notion that religion and science are inherently opposite is wrong. In ancient times the two were more often the same than not.
Ancient priests/scientists looked up at the gods/stars knowing that they controlled the future. Using this knowledge they could ascertain such divine/mundane things as when to plant crops and when the Nile would flood. It was religious scribes who invented writing so information could be stored beyond memory and oral tradition. Many wonders from the ancient to modern eras are of a religious nature. Without religion's influence it is entirely likely that these wonders (as well as the scientific, engineering, and cultural advancements that came along them) would never have came into existence.
Furthermore I think it bad game design to punish a player for putting resources into anything even if it is not the best option, or rewarding a player for simply ignoring the choice. This is the same reason I think reimplementing building maintenance was a step backward.
Has there been any information released that says whether or not you have to choose a state religion, like in Civ 4?
Surely you will have to choose, otherwise you would get all the bonuses from each religion, even if they're in the same city, and everyone would just then try to get as many religions spread to their cities as possible.
If this is true, then you could avoid religion simply by not choosing a state religion, even if you have founded a religion yourself.
I don't think it will be possible zu have multiple religions in one city as in Civ4. The one symbol only indicates, that, if there is already one religion, no other can be spread to this city.
All this thread is about the whish to play without religion. What's about *the opposit*? Whats about modern theocraty?
Civilization is and was about alternative history. What, if I want to play as a repressive theocraty? Not, that this is so far from reality. Remember Iran? (Or even have a look on the (a bit frightening) tendencies in the USA, where Christian fundamentalism gets more and more influence. What will bring the future, here?)
As I assume, it will not be possible to play this sort of game, as we learned, that faith will be less powerful in modern eras. (Things to buy with faith will become way too expansive, IIRC).
While I am fine with the design decisions made by firaxis and I am sure I will love the game nevertheless, it would be fun to have this option, too.
My god, a balanced, sensible opinion in a religion thread. Me hat's off.
EDIT: The absence of religion in the early game wouldn't represent an atheist civilisation (nothing like which existed, or could have existed until the modern era) but a civ still worshipping various ancestral pantheons without an extensive, literate religious hierarchy or proselytism. Therefore a science / artistic bonus to such civs makes no sense.
And nevertheless, summing up you can still be benefited of not going for religion. If you look at Cost of Opportunity, thats it:
- Piety/faith is a resource, and it will take some effort to achieve (buildings, citzen placement maybe...). An effort you can devote to science, commerce... if you are not pursuing the religion features.
-It is likely the "piety" SP will be reworked to improve faith production and Religion Benefits. If you are "religious" and want to make the most of your choice, you probably need to invest culture in that branch - which is made obsolete (or prevents you) when choosing Rationalism.
Therefore if you want to play the Atheist-ideal "scientific" civilization that disregards religious explanation and pushes science instead you indeed can do it:
- You do not push to get the faith resource, and look for others instead (of course, some faith will be gathered anyhow, some of your citizens may believe in something. But as a non-believer leader, you do not have use for - it is a waste you assume since you do not consider believing in something will help, but it will be minimal, as you focus in other resources and reduce faith production to a minimum)
- You will be not choosing policies that benefit religion effects (that are likely located under piety tree - and maybe tradition), but instead focus in other policies. You do not lose much of not choosing piety policies, as their benefits are linked to something you are not pursuing. And as you are discarding piety policies, you have no drawback on pursuing rationalism when it is made available.
Yes, you may lose advantage at the early stages of the game, where religion can provide a boost, but you can build instead on other areas to be more prepared when religion fades away. Therefore, the "atheist" choice is present, at a cost (rejecting early-game benefits), but also with an opportunity (as you do not focus in pursuing these benefits, you can focus instead in other areas that can give you an edge once religion importance fades away).
So, ¿what is the problem then? Rejecting religion has some drawback... but you can find its benefits as well. You do have to work to get them, however.
We pretty much already do with CiV vanilla.
If adding religion is not going to fundamentally change the game. Why devs even bother adding it? IMO that makes no sense. Especially, because it has already been stated that religion will effect early to mid game diplomacy. I would imagine if religion is an issue with someone they can just turn it off for their game. Might as well not even use it. Or just keep playing CiV vanilla. That's even better.
This is what I have been saying all along.
The forums have been filled with posts along the lines of "atheists will go crazy now".
Civ is a historical game. Even the most hardcore atheists such as myself should see how important religion has been in history.
After all, it is a game.
Civ is meant to be fun, i'm athiest, and I'm gonna rock the belief system!
My point exactly.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
this pretty much sums up why every game would involve religion.
Has there ever been any civilization prior to modern history that has not utilized or formed some sort of religious beliefs? No, of course not. Not that everyone believed in it, but religion has played a huge part in all cultures. There really has not been an "Atheist" civilization that rejected all religion prior to the past century, and even then, it was the state cracking down on religion while many of the people continued to practice it secretly. You don't have to put your resources in faith, and that will probably happen often, but it will still affect your people because it would be impossible to completely shield your people from all religious beliefs.
There were many strange cults in several early cultures, such as Egypt. These cults were present throughout Hellenistic times and Roman times as well. However, I have never heard of an "Atheist" Civilization. Or even a cult who practiced Atheism. There was always some powerful higher deity of some sort, animal, or beast, within the scope of the belief system that is worshipped.
IMO religion should be a foundation within CiV, it makes perfect sense to me.
Not only Confucianism, but most Asian religions can be theist, agnostic or atheist - budhism and Jainism neither require a belief in God, and you can be a follower of either religion while also being an atheist. Toaism might be like that too but I don't know much about that and confusianism.
Asian religions are much more philosophical that the monotheistic religions, the only exception being Hinduism which is the only polytheistic religion still popular today.
By sending in the Spanish inquisitors! They'll never see them coming!
If Pantheism is considered as a form of atheism,then there are so many religions out there that might "represent" the "atheism religion" in ancient times .
I'm actually curious how exactly religion spreading works, because atm it doesn't seem like we can have multiple religions in cities (which I think is wrong). I'm also curious what happens to your Pantheon belief if another religion spreads to your city/nation, do you lose the pantheon belief?
Separate names with a comma.