Why I think religion is broken in CIV

[PekkaM]

I always feel irritated by everything religion related in CIV, because it's the only relation affecting thing that has no real effect implemented.

- Close borders spark tensions. They also affect me. I hate to see resources swallowed by expansing neighbour culture. I also consider a strong culture neighbour city a first target for my wars.
- You've traded with our worst enemies. This one too affects me (even though I usually don't even know). If it was oil or iron or other important resource that would really affect me.
- Wars with my friends harm me too (even though I'm secretly happy, if copmetition is tight ). I may lose resources I trade for and hostile faction may get too much power.
- Not helping me bugs me to no end, especially since those AI nations are always begging for something and not giving in return.

etc...

Now religion. That's just a symbol next to the name on the score sheet to me. I get all the same money from my shrine no matter what state religion someone has. I also see the cities with my founded state religion. Hell, they don't even spread my state religion even if I got them to convert it so what's the point? And yet this one gives always the biggest gains or losses in relations.

Were the developers too wussy to implement any actual effect for having different religion? We have wars, slavery, facism, razing cities, nukes... why not some random terror(/ism) or civil unrest on areas close to other religion? Face it, that's what happening and at least to my knowledge, every Euro/Middle East religion has done some brutal things at time or another.

That way free religion shouldn't liberate you from pains of other religions but instead make your state stop troubling others. Trying to make others adapt free religion would become the rewarding thing as it is in the real world also. The current "I've adopted free religion so now I'm immune to harmfull effect of different beliefs"-idea is quite naive.

Could this be modded?

 

[oldStatesman]

Could this be modded?

Yes. Check the customization forums...I believe there are folks working on it.

 

[Samson]

I always feel irritated by everything religion related in CIV, because it's the only relation affecting thing that has no real effect implemented.

Now religion. That's just a symbol next to the name on the score sheet to me. I get all the same money from my shrine no matter what state religion someone has. I also see the cities with my founded state religion. Hell, they don't even spread my state religion even if I got them to convert it so what's the point? And yet this one gives always the biggest gains or losses in relations.

Were the developers too wussy to implement any actual effect for having different religion? We have wars, slavery, facism, razing cities, nukes... why not some random terror(/ism) or civil unrest on areas close to other religion? Face it, that's what happening and at least to my knowledge, every Euro/Middle East religion has done some brutal things at time or another.

That way free religion shouldn't liberate you from pains of other religions but instead make your state stop troubling others. Trying to make others adapt free religion would become the rewarding thing as it is in the real world also. The current "I've adopted free religion so now I'm immune to harmfull effect of different beliefs"-idea is quite naive.

Could this be modded?

I am not sure what you mean by "actual effect for having different religion". It has a really big effect. You really want to have most of your cities with the state religion, so they get the benifit of the religios civics, and the culture. If the religion is not spreading fast enough you are not building enough missionaries.

To deal with the negative effects of having different religions to your neibours you have to put a lot of efffort (hammers) into spreading other religions. This off course has the added beifit of all thoughs cheap monastorys to boost your science.

[EDIT] If forgotten fans got the gist of your post right, I totally missed it and I am sorry. I guess it is a corage thing, you can only irritate people so much by dissing their country, but people will go to supprising lengths for their religeon.

 

[forgotten fans]

I agree that religions should have discernable qualities. Why is it not offensive to judge an entire civilization with words like "industrial" or "aggressive" but too offensive to give religions different gameplay qualities?

 

[Gargoyle]

I agree that religions should have discernable qualities. Why is it not offensive to judge an entire civilization with words like "industrial" or "aggressive" but too offensive to give religions different gameplay qualities?

I understand why. At first you may think its to be "politically correct". This I'm sure had some effect.

But I believe it is handled correctly. Belief in God, and religion, are 2 different things. Religion is a TOOL used by Civilizations to control, appease, and inspire. As such, they all ARE the same.

 

[Ray Patterson]

I think the major effect religion has is precisely what it does in civ- unite or divide people. The cultural effect is much more debatable. Ideally religion should not have any effects except the state religion bonuses and the effects on international relations. All this theory about confucionistic family attitude, protestant work ethic, islamic freedom-hating... total bogus IMHO. Religion is just a 'team', people of the same religion think they have something in common, but most of the time they don't.

 

[Control Group]

I think you're looking at it backwards. The diplomatic effects of religion aren't because religion itself is important, religion is important because of its diplomatic effects. So it's not that religion has no effect implemented, it's that the implemented effect is diplomatic relations. IMHO, that was the whole point of including religion, to introduce a factor that primarily influences diplomacy, and secondarily influences other aspects of the game.

Just like some resources primarily influence production, and secondarily influence diplomacy.

That being said, I do agree that the religions could be improved by adding distinguishing effects. I'm sketching out the plan for a religion mod right now, in fact, part of which includes inherent advantages/disadvantages to each religion.

 

[Control Group]

I think the major effect religion has is precisely what it does in civ- unite or divide people. The cultural effect is much more debatable. Ideally religion should not have any effects except the state religion bonuses and the effects on international relations. All this theory about confucionistic family attitude, protestant work ethic, islamic freedom-hating... total bogus IMHO. Religion is just a 'team', people of the same religion think they have something in common, but most of the time they don't.

Your first sentence is entirely accurate. You go rapidly downhill after that, though. The claim that religions have no distinguishing cultural traits is simply wrong. We can argue cause and effect all day, but whether Catholicism caused the Crusades, or the desire to Crusade caused adoption of Catholicism doesn't really matter. The end result is that, for a few centuries, Crusading and Catholicism went hand-in-hand. I'm not an expert on Eastern philosophies, but I don't recall there being any Buddhist Crusades.

Another easy example is Islam - when was the last time anyone was attacked by a terrorist in the name of Taoism?

Do you honestly believe that the Hindu caste system has no cultural ramifications? Or that the "divine" status of Japanese emperors isn't why there has been an unbroken dynastic line since at least AD 500 (or so)? Or that the Catholic Church's efforts to quell independent thought didn't stunt scientific progress in the Middle Ages?

Just because much of the so-called "first world" today is so thoroughly secular doesn't mean that religions have no cultural differences. As an American, I can see having that point of view within this country today, since we culturally tend to place importance on the person for being a person, rather than for being a Hindu/Muslim/Jew/Rastafarian, but even here we can see the long-term effects of religion on culture. The sexual taboos and conservatism (that are, admittedly, on the wane) that have gripped this country for centuries are arguably a direct result of religious influence amongst the first European settlers.

It's true that culture, to some extent, defines religion (many food-related religious beliefs, for example, are based on simple health requirements observed in ancient times). But at the same time, religion, to some extent, defines culture (the use of chopsticks in Japan can be traced back to Shinto beliefs). Claiming that religion has had no effect on human history or culture aside from being a convenient label completely ignores the human capacity to be inspired, guided, stunted, or exalted by our own religious beliefs. Religion, even if it starts out as an excuse (we've gotta kill those guys 'cause they don't worship Mumbledy Grumble!), it is self-sustaining and self-reinforcing, taking on a life of its own. Once you've established the great Mumbledy Grumble as a deity, people run with it.

 

[Mighty Grum]

Another easy example is Islam - when was the last time anyone was attacked by a terrorist in the name of Taoism?

Off the top of my head, I can think of

• Christian-based terrorism (abortion clinic bombings)
• Muslim-based terrorism (9/11)
• Jewish-based terrorism (Mossad hits)
• Hindu-based terrorism (India)
• Buddist-(sect)-based terrorism (Japan gas attacks)

Terrorism in the name of religion isn't that uncommon, and is definitely not the burden of just Islam.

 

[Samson]

I do kind of agree that in the real world religeons do have have differences that could be mirrored in civ. The most obvious example is that there should be "war mongering" religieons (christianity, islam and Judeasim immidiatly spring to mind).

However the problems with this that I see are -

What do you give to the others? The obvious answer is comerce bonuses, but this seems very unrealistic, as I think the christian and muslim worlds have been more advanced for most of history.

The other big thing is commercial. The somewhat crippled religeon has not stoped any of us buying the game, but if one religous nut case proclamed it blasphemous, it could lose many sales.

I think the answer could have been to allow them to be modded differently. However this would have been extra work for the programers that they could not have advertised really.

BTW, I am sure there have been loads of threads like this, I have just managed to miss them all.

 

[Control Group]

Terrorism in the name of religion isn't that uncommon, and is definitely not the burden of just Islam.

You're entirely correct, and I admit I just picked terrorism as something very non-Taoist, and then used Islam as the contrast because it's the most recent/obvious example to me as an American.

Of course, as I think about it, this very conversation indicates why they decided to make the religions generic.

What do you give to the others? The obvious answer is comerce bonuses, but this seems very unrealistic, as I think the christian and muslim worlds have been more advanced for most of history.

This is a real problem, and it's one I'm trying to deal with while planning a religious mod. But, honestly, I suspect my problem is based on the fact that I know more about Western religions than Eastern religions. I think that by studying the religions I'm ignorant of, I'll be able to find a characteristic that translates (with at least reasonable believability) into game mechanics.

For a while, I was tossing around the idea of doing away with the existing religions entirely and substituting fictional ones to avoid this problem, and avoid treading upon any religious toes...but that seems just too non-Civ to me.

 

[forgotten fans]

I'm reminded of an essay by Richard Dawkins. It is entirely acceptable to debate and mock another persons opinion on any topic BUT religion. There is some idea that religion shouldn't be attacked, which I think may say something about religion itself. Good ideas have to stand up to public criticism if they expect to survive in any field other than religion. Sorry about the rant. I just think if religion were discussable like everything else then they would have been more inclined to make real differences between them in the game.

 

[forgotten fans]

Of course, as I think about it, this very conversation indicates why they decided to make the religions generic.

Sorry about the double post.

But we could debate the qualities they chose for each culture until the world ends and still have people who don't agree. Religion would be no different. They could also, for fear of backlash or just in the name of fairness, give only positive boons to religions. Christians work hard, Buddhists get extra happy citizens in times of peace, etc.

 

[hotcoffeedude]

It looks like the Devs intended to give each religion a unit unique to it. I'm sure if an expansion doesn't add them back - there's already a mod that unlocks the units - so someone will probably do it. It seems like a great idea gamewise, maybe the Devs figured it wasn't PC?

 

[Zhahz]

But I believe it is handled correctly. Belief in God, and religion, are 2 different things. Religion is a TOOL used by Civilizations to control, appease, and inspire. As such, they all ARE the same.

Quoted for truth.

The game abstracts just about everything. To add finer points of different religions is not necessary, it'd just be tedious. You as the leader of your civ are in full control and religion is just one aspect of how your orchestrate your civ's existence.

Religions, as wacky as they sometimes are, don't make people do idiotic things like terrorism. People do those things by their own choice (and then often use religion as justification).

If you want to terrorize build spies. If you want to say you're current war is a holy war then so be it. Etc.

 

[Control Group]

It looks like the Devs intended to give each religion a unit unique to it.

I didn't know that - but since it's one of the things I was hoping to do, that's fantastic news. It increases the odds that doing it isn't beyond my abilities.

It is entirely acceptable to debate and mock another persons opinion on any topic BUT religion. There is some idea that religion shouldn't be attacked, which I think may say something about religion itself. Good ideas have to stand up to public criticism if they expect to survive in any field other than religion.

Therein lies the problem: religions aren't good ideas, they're belief systems. By their very nature, they aren't susceptible to argumentation, because you can't argue something that, by definition, you can't find evidence for.

This, IMHO, is both what makes them great and what makes them terrifying. Religion tends to bypass rational thought. Sometimes this results in works of art and heroic deeds. Sometimes this results in atrocities.

As far as whether it's acceptable to debate religion, I'm unconvinced that this is true in non-western cultures. Even within western cultures, however, religion is hardly the only unassailable topic. In today's America, for example, one has to tread very lightly on any topics that involve religion, race, differences between the sexes, sexual preference, abortion, and others that don't spring immediately to mind.

Note, I don't agree that we shouldn't be able to talk about these things freely, but I do recognize that it's the case.

But we could debate the qualities they chose for each culture until the world ends and still have people who don't agree. Religion would be no different. They could also, for fear of backlash or just in the name of fairness, give only positive boons to religions. Christians work hard, Buddhists get extra happy citizens in times of peace, etc.

I agree with this 100%. I think it should be entirely possible to add religious distinctions into the game in a fashion that's both game-balanced and not begging for religious backlash.

 

[Control Group]

The game abstracts just about everything. To add finer points of different religions is not necessary, it'd just be tedious. You as the leader of your civ are in full control and religion is just one aspect of how your orchestrate your civ's existence.

But that argument could be just as easily applied to leader traits. You, as the leader of your civ, are in full control and expansion/aggression/creativity/etc. is just one aspect of how you orchestrate your civ's existence.

Why should the effects of picking a state religion not differ between choices just like the effects of picking a civ leader differ between choices?

Why should the effects of picking a state religion not differ between choices just like the effects of picking a legal system differ between choices?

In fact, why should religion be the only thing you can pick that doesn't have a different effect depending on your choice?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually there ARE in game effects from different religions,
Specifically if you are attacking "B+S in the faith" you get additional unhappiness. Therefore, a group of Human only players should tend to form religious blocs, the same as the bonus makes the computer do, just because it is easiest to attack those of different religions.

 

[forgotten fans]

Actually there ARE in game effects from different religions,
Specifically if you are attacking "B+S in the faith" you get additional unhappiness. Therefore, a group of Human only players should tend to form religious blocs, the same as the bonus makes the computer do, just because it is easiest to attack those of different religions.

But this does nothing to make religions unique. This system would work perfectly with religions in the game being called Religion A, Religion B, etc. Some actual gameplay distinctions would add to the realness, which is extremely important to a strategy game. Otherwise, it's all just number systems.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

The biggest complaint I have about Civ4 would be the wimpy way Firaxis chose to handle religion. It adds interesting aspects to the game, granted, but is not nearly such a factor in the game as it should have been (see Age of Empires for example).

It appears to me that Firaxis was a bit too concerned about not offending anyone.

Also, I would like to be able to choose my state religion at the start, not by researching techs. I don't like acquiring religions that personally I dislike, simply because I achieved a certain tech....I would like to choose the religion my people will follow, even to the exclusion of all other religions, and the religion my civ will promote.