Why I think religion is broken in CIV

[jdurg]

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.

"Offending" someone's country doesn't result in death threats and/or physical attacks to you or the people who sell/support your software. Offending someone's religion can result in death threats, violent attacks on you and your family, and various other 'not so nice' events. So Firaxis had no choice but to be 'wimpy' with the religions.

 

[PekkaM]

To clear my starting point: I don't want religions to add different effects (that would be quite "politically incorrect" maybe). I want that when you and your neighbour have different religion, there are problems that also affect human player. Something to make religion pick of your neighbour affect multiplayer too.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

"Offending" someone's country doesn't result in death threats and/or physical attacks to you or the people who sell/support your software. Offending someone's religion can result in death threats, violent attacks on you and your family, and various other 'not so nice' events. So Firaxis had no choice but to be 'wimpy' with the religions.

I politely disagree. If I offend another Civ, then I offend them. I don't see Islams converting to Christianity, or be willing to promote Christianity, simply because they founded Theocracy. That is really my point. I still think the game should allow you to choose your religion, perhaps as one of the settings at the start of the game.

 

[BeefontheBone]

I don't like acquiring religions that personally I dislike

*cough*

Just because much of the so-called "first world" today is so thoroughly secular

Since when did that happen? Maybe in Western Europe, but not in the US or Eastern Europe (No American can get elected without demonstrating his or her Christianity, look at the religious concerns among her neighbours regarding Turkey joining the EU, even the recent riots in France had a strong racial and religious element). Tony Blair is also quite religious (he prayed with Bush at Camp David IIRC) but he tends to keep it quiet over here since the rate of regular church attendance is a few percent, as opposed to being over 50% like it is in the US.

I've wandered off the point there somewhat.

 

[jdurg]

I politely disagree. If I offend another Civ, then I offend them. I don't see Islams converting to Christianity, or be willing to promote Christianity, simply because they founded Theocracy. That is really my point. I still think the game should allow you to choose your religion, perhaps as one of the settings at the start of the game.

I was actually talking about real life here. The reasoning for Firaxis making all religions exactly the same except for their names was to avoid the troubles that could be caused if they made the religions different. How it's handled in game is a completely different thing.

 

[Control Group]

Since when did that happen? Maybe in Western Europe, but not in the US or Eastern Europe (No American can get elected without demonstrating his or her Christianity, look at the religious concerns among her neighbours regarding Turkey joining the EU, even the recent riots in France had a strong racial and religious element).

Sorry, I meant officially secular. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that religion is very much a determinant of culture, even in the modern world and in western countries.

When I wrote that first-world countries are thoroughly secular, I was referring to the mass media and "progressive" viewpoints that attempt to keep religion out of life as much as possible. I used it as an explanation for why someone in one of those cultures could view religion as not culturally significant, which was the point I was trying to rebut.

Basically, I should have been clearer in what I said. You're completely right; religion is very much a cultural determinant in today's world.

 

[Ray Patterson]

I don't see Islams converting to Christianity, or be willing to promote Christianity, simply because they founded Theocracy. That is really my point. I still think the game should allow you to choose your religion, perhaps as one of the settings at the start of the game.

I guess you mean muslims and theology respecively. Well, I like it that you don't have full control over religion as a political leader. What happens if you found a religion while you're a theocracy though? It shouldn't be founded then, maybe even leaving the opportunity to found it to the next civ... but otherwise the model of spreading and founding religions seems pretty realistic to me (apart from not gaining the religion if you discover the needed tech later, but that does have nice gameplay effects)

 

[TyranusBonehead]

Yes, I agree with what you're saying, but I'm saying that I would like to pick a religion, and maybe even exclude others. You could keep the benefits and aspects of each religion as similar as you want, that's fine. But I think it would be interesting to make the player choose.

And no...I don't like acquiring religions I personally dislike..even in a game...I do have preferences and I don't think that makes me intolerant, I just think it means I hold to my convictions.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

Well, I like it that you don't have full control over religion as a political leader.

No, that's not it, you wouldn't be the sole posessor/promoter of a religion if you chose one over the others, you would simply choose it, and promote it. Just think how that would affect relations with other civs. Yes, it could cause conflict, but hasn't that happened through history? Just think if you could promote your religion throughout their civ? What if another civ tries promoting their religion in your civ? What defenses would you have to have against that? I think it would be alot more interesting this way.

 

[Ray Patterson]

The difference being that you could never switch state religion? Could make for an interesting mod I guess (if it's moddable, have no idea). Anyways, the situation you describe sounds a lot like it is at the moment.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

A real good for instance would be if someone came up with a Crusades mod. Think about how that would be played out.

 

[Control Group]

And no...I don't like acquiring religions I personally dislike..even in a game...I do have preferences and I don't think that makes me intolerant, I just think it means I hold to my convictions.

But the "unapproved" spread of religion has been the case throughout all of human history. If it had been up to the leaders, the Catholic Church would have been dead aborning. Much of the spread of Islam occurred against the will of the rulers of land it spread into, and efforts to stamp out "unapproved" religions have been generally unsuccessful (or outright evil: think the Spanish Inquisition). If anything, the Theocracy Civic is unrealistic in allowing you to prevent acquiring new religions.

I understand that your convictions are against accepting religions you don't like into your civ, but the game fairly accurately models the spread of religion; asking it to not do that defeats the purpose of including it.

If it bothers you enough, I think stripping all religion from the game would be a fairly straightforward mod to design. There's also an "Inquisitor" mod out there that introduces a unit designed to eliminate a religion from a city, you could look into that.

Of course, since the thing you're objecting to in game shares absolutely no traits with its real-world namesake beyond the arrangement of letters that makes up its name, perhaps the easiest fix overall is to edit the XML such that the names are Abacusism, Broccolism, Cheeseism, Dangleism, Extrusionism, Flubberism, and Gertrudism.

If you're also completely anti-Gertrudism, though, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

 

[MattJek]

I too agree that the idea of religion in civ4 is a little weak and wimpy. Where are the religioius wars, inquisitions, genocides and other attrocities that have been commited throughout history. Im sure not all people in the civ community are politically correct sheep and we'll see some mods dealing with these issues. I can see why they havent been included in the original game.

 

[sfuller]

Hold on...tell me again when the interests of state and church didn't line up?

I think that Civ4 does a great job of implementing religon: because the religion itself is not the stakeholder *or* power broker, and never had an isolated war, genocide, or really anything. Any poly sci freshman could tell you that!

Although a fanatic type that's specific to the chosen religon should remain.

And I want to purge my cities of infidels. I'll take the pop hit and unhappiness for a "pure" city.

 

[forgotten fans]

Hold on...tell me again when the interests of state and church didn't line up?

I think that Civ4 does a great job of implementing religon: because the religion itself is not the stakeholder *or* power broker, and never had an isolated war, genocide, or really anything. Any poly sci freshman could tell you that!

Although a fanatic type that's specific to the chosen religon should remain.

And I want to purge my cities of infidels. I'll take the pop hit and unhappiness for a "pure" city.

Life isn't so black and white. Politicians manipulate religions to their own ends but many politicians, often the same ones, are actually doing what they do because of their religion. Religion is both a tool and a cause.

 

[sfuller]

I was waiting for that. The confusion of nation vs. state strikes again.

Name me one thing, just one, that religion "did" without the support of a state and I'll shut up. That's my point.

Religion might cause sympathy across borders - or maybe some sort of shared experiance...but is it an independant operator?

The nationalism tech with a strong state religion will create a "religious power" in the game, in your own mind, I guess.

 

[scottrycroft]

I was waiting for that. The confusion of nation vs. state strikes again.

Name me one thing, just one, that religion "did" without the support of a state and I'll shut up. That's my point.

Religion might cause sympathy across borders - or maybe some sort of shared experiance...but is it an independant operator?

That's kind of a false dichotomy there, 'religion' can't be seperated from people and people can't be seperated from whatever state they are a part of.

But let's say they were different, and you wanted an example. How about the apostle Paul's fundraising for famine relief in Jerusalem in the first century? Rome certainly didn't help him with that.

 

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Some actual gameplay distinctions would add to the realness, which is extremely important to a strategy game. Otherwise, it's all just number systems.

Actually, I don't think so.

The supposed differences between religions are much more a product of political, historical and social factors than what it says on page 12 of X holy book. And those factors are not consistant within the time period Civ deals with, and of course, they would be totally different in the new history you create with Civ.

As such I don't really think that adding this or that modifier to religions would be very realistic.

 

[Control Group]

Name me one thing, just one, that religion "did" without the support of a state and I'll shut up. That's my point.

Ridiculous standard of evidence.

Name me one thing, just one, that communism/fascism/republicanism/democracy "did" without the support of a state and I'll shut up.

This does not mean that communism, fascism, republicanism, and democracy are simply interchangeable labels with no real effects or differences under the surface. A religion, like a political system, is fundamentally an ideology and belief system. As such, it doesn't do anything. People do things because of it and in its name, just like political systems.

More importantly, I can see the semantic trap you're laying, and I strongly suspect it rests on a logical fallacy, but I'll wait to see how it develops. I could, after all, be wrong.

 

[Control Group]

The supposed differences between religions are much more a product of political, historical and social factors than what it says on page 12 of X holy book.

In inception, yes. There's not much to argue whether the founding principles of Judaism, for example, are rooted in very pragmatic necessities regarding keeping a society running. In that sense, you're right.

However, you're completely ignoring the other half of the coin. Once established, religions become self-sustaining and serve as a motivating force as well as a defining characteristic.

The most obvious example that springs to mind, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, is Hinduism. I find it hard to believe any reasonable person would assert that the caste system, perpetuated via religious belief, hasn't had an impact on culture or politics. Absent the religious component, perhaps it would have fallen apart much earlier. And it's the religious component that keeps it active and affecting daily life even though it has officially been done away with.

Religion causes culture, and culture causes religion. It's a two-variable feedback system, and claiming one of the variables is entirely dependent is a gross oversimplification of human history.