Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[Loppan Torkel]

The basic question is: Would you like to see Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc implemented maybe as branches from Monotheism and so on or would you rather like to see the religions totally abstracted?

Secondary question: Would you like to see traits in different religions?


Do the questions make sense?

 

[Trade-peror]

Completely abstracted religions would be critical in avoiding the business calamity of offending potential customers.

To differentiate between the religions, however, generic "traits" of each religion should be used (which answers your secondary question). Players would be able to "create" their own religion, perhaps, by checking or not checking various ideological and ritual traits/practices. In this way, some religions can be similar in some ways but still be distinct. In addition, gameplay effects should most likely be assigned to each different trait/practice, lending more gameplay significance to religion.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not sure I catch the distinction. What'a a generic only religion, and what's a world religion?

 

[Trade-peror]

Now that I think about it, I am not sure either, dh_epic. I assumed that "world religions" are the real-world religions, while the "generic-only" religions were abstracted religions. Please correct me if I am wrong, Loppan Torkel!

 

[EddyG17]

I would like world religions although it will bring a lot of headaches.

 

[Trade-peror]

As much as I see Civ as being only a game, Firaxis sees Civ as a business franchise that would have to avoid offending any potential customers.

Therefore, Firaxis would not tolerate such headaches...

 

[Yuri2356]

Religious traits would have to be limited by what spiritual tech you've discovered.
Early religieon would be mostly Nature-worship, then moving to structured polytheism, then monotheism, perhaps in the later ages you could become completley athiest, allowing technology to discredit your religieon completley.

Random events in the forms of vissions/miracles/prophets/signs could be interpreted different ways and effect how your people develop spiritually.

Example:
"A farmer from (city name) claims to have heard the word of (Name of deity) what should we do?"
1.Accept him as a prophet. (may change several traditions, causes happyness)
2.leave him alone. (may change few traditions, less happyness)
3.Discredit him. (may change 1 tradition no happyness)
4.Execute him for Heresey! (no changes, random effect on happyness)

 

[croxis]

I can see religion done using sliders in the same way as described in civics forum. In fact both things having sliders would probably make things... better interconnected in terms of game play and immersion.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Now that I think about it, I am not sure either, dh_epic. I assumed that "world religions" are the real-world religions, while the "generic-only" religions were abstracted religions. Please correct me if I am wrong, Loppan Torkel!

You're totally right, generic-only- maybe should've been abstracted-only-religions.
What I meant with the -only- part was that Worldreligions might include some abstractness as Monotheism or Polytheism for example.

...not very clear, but I hope it makes somekind of sense....

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Yuri 2356 good idea!!!
but they could mix generic and world religions as well. e.g. your society tends toward a certain world religion, but you shape it on your own ideas.
but religions are difficult to manage. religious rules had very close contacts with environmental and cultural facts.
I don not think that such a cosmopolitan and (originally) peaceful religion as Christianity could have spread elsewhere than in the multicultural world of Pax Romana.
Or, for instance, ancient german tribes would have nver ever accepted Islam, because of their dynamic, warlike and individualistic culture.
Anyway, generic religions are better!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

As much as I see Civ as being only a game, Firaxis sees Civ as a business franchise that would have to avoid offending any potential customers.

Therefore, Firaxis would not tolerate such headaches...

Still, I think Fireaxis would gain more than they would loose in including the realworld-religions.
By implementing realworld-religions they would probably offend a small number of people, and even less gamers, just as they probably offended some people by giving the civs the "wrong" traits or making them too aggressive. The traits that would be given the different religions would be given on the basis of history just like the other traits. Not on the beliefsystems in the religions just as the civtraits and aggressionlevel not are based on racebiology.

The main reason why they should include the worldreligions is that it would increase the immersiveness of the game. I think the majority of the people playing civ would like to see a close connection to the realworld.
For me personally it adds a lot to see the resemblens to Germany with the traits and UU when I play as Germany. This could not be done if you make the game too abstract.

I think that the abstractness of Alpha Centauri was the main reason it never had the popularity the other civgames have had. Of course the spacetheme probably contributed to alienate the gamers . The casual gamers couldn't connect to it.

 

[Taé Shala]

What about a
RELIGION VICTORY

Let each Civ start with a unique Religion and make it possible to spread the word across the land. Starting with your first cities where everyone has this religion. When you meet your neighbor there will be a chance that your or your neighbors citizens become followers of the other religion. (depending on *religion points* / culture points). You win the game when 2/3 or 1/2 of the worlds citizens believe in your religion. You can got out and conquer by word or sword.... using misionaries or crusaders.....

I have posted this before but got no answers

 

[Harald]

I must say that I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I like that the game is related to the real world and on the other hand I like the idea that you can create your own religions.
Maybe there could be some sort of mix between the two concepts. Since real world religions have differences within themselfs(or rather that different people interpret the religious texts differently). With this you would use the worldreligions as templates and then you could alter some traits wich would act as different interpretation of the religion.

As for Taé Shalas idea with religius victory I think it should be something that is enabled if you have some sort of theocracy as your form of government.

 

[dh_epic]

Atheism as the ultimate religious achievement is a pretty narrow way of looking at things, no? About as narrow as saying that a fundamentalist government is the ultimate religious achievement.

Be that as it may, I'm kind of a fan of some genericism / abstractness in religion, if only to avoid that whole teleological thing going on. That's a definite problem in Civ.

If anything, to have Christianity in a game would be as complex as having America in the game. You spread through one nation quite easily because the infrastructure supports you, while condemning other religions. Your religion becomes more contraversial as it reaches the apex of power, but is finally embraced by the leader of said nation. Said nation crumbles into essentially two empires, and as such a rival religion (orthodox) emerges. Your religion still manages to spread throughout a continent, between multiple nations that have replaced the territory of your original popular place. A new religion is inspired by you, but embraces other thoughts from other religions further east. As that religion grows in power, you feel threatened and encourage nations embracing your religion to embark on a crusade. You try to spread to other continents, condemning heathens, all while the nations you are the most popular in decide to keep your ideas but reject your rule. You become a figurehead in the 20th century, ignored by world leaders when it is convenient, and embraced by them when it is not, but ultimately your religion is all over the world in some form or another.

Sounds to me like a whole other game independant of civilizations. You can't be the leader of a nation and the leader of a religion at the same time. One or the other might be neat, but it obviously adds a whole new layer of complexity.

 

[Yuri2356]

Atheism as the ultimate religious achievement is a pretty narrow way of looking at things, no? About as narrow as saying that a fundamentalist government is the ultimate religious achievement.

I didn't say it was some kind of ultimate achivement, just that it would be an option in the late industrial/modern age. If you civ abandonned religeion they would no longer recive any bonuses, but they would also be un-convertable because they feel they have dissproven the existance of any form of god. The only thing that could pull you out of this system would be a series of "miracle" events as I described in my last post that could rekindle the faith of your people.

And as for leading your religeion and nation at the same time, sometimes. You woiuld be your people's spiritual leader in some earlier
and sipler religieons, but once you become organized and structured with more elaborate religions you would gain a sort of 'spiritual advisor' that would lead the people. Rather than evolvong through the ages like the other advisors, his/her appearance would be based on your religious beliefs.

Wouldn't you love to have an advisor in a pope-hat?

 

[croxis]

I think that the religions should be abstract. Here is why: One of the biggest arguments for when Civ III was at this stage and now Civ IV is what civilizations should be in the game. Pages and pages were written about why the Spanish were more fitting than the Americans... and so on and so on. Some people took it very personally. Now if real world religions were included could you imagine how many people would fight? Do you know how many religions there are in the world and the overwhelming number of denominations? Just take one look at Christiantiy and the only thing that every denomination has in common is their belief in Christ. I personally would rather have the means of being able to shape the religion of my nation than only having a small handful of cookie cutter options.

 

[dh_epic]

Interesting that you think God can be "disproven" and after that it's impossible to subscribe to any religion. As if it's the ending point, from which there is no return. This is not the case in reality, or in many peoples' lives, let alone in the culture of a people.

The problem with a spiritual advisor is eventually you get to a stage where there are either multiple religions in one nation, or multiple nations with the same religion. Who controls what then? Like I said, it's a whole other independant layer. That's the very reason there can be a seperation between church and state, or a church that unifies and governs all states.

 

[mitsho]

Let's first list, what we (or I ) DON'T want:

-Insulting of people because of the religion: So, no ranking of the religions in the tech tree (christianity comes after hellenistic polytheism or monotheism after Shamanism). --> There needs to be a new way how new religions are started, etc...
(Perhaps we shouldn't have boni and mali (bonusses and malusses) for different religions...)

-Religion should only be a small addition to gameplay: I don't want the game to be changed, --> So the new game addition has to be small, understandeable, playable and balanced!

mfG mitsho

 

[Trade-peror]

I wholely agree that there must not be any ranking of religions, either through tech trees or relatively advantageous traits, for that would be disrespectful and insulting in the extreme. Even if history has "shown" that certain religions came after others, the underlying premise of Civ is a historical "what-if" game, not a simulation of the history of the real world.

The problem with the having real world religions and assigning traits to them is that it perpetuates stereotypes (based, especially, upon American views of the world) and Civ currently has a market in a large number of countries beyond the U.S. Even if that essential fact was not true, it would subtly embody the worst elements of American mass culture--arrogance and insensitivity, especially in a pluralistic society. By this, I am not denouncing American culture (being an American myself!) but am merely advising against perpetuating elements that we should be trying to mitigate and eliminate.

Therefore, slightly off-topic, I also do not like the idea of pre-set civ traits. I do not think players should create their own civs every game, however, and would prefer some kind of "organic evolution" of traits.

Anyway, with my customizing traits/practices and custom naming (possibly saving certain trait combinations as templates to be re-used), players can still experience the historical immersiveness that connecting to reality would allow, except that players would create the connections themselves and therefore be more comfortable with it. And for those who would rather not connect with reality, they could as well make the Religion of Worshiping the Green Dot...

 

[Yuri2356]

I wholely agree that there must not be any ranking of religions, either through tech trees or relatively advantageous traits, for that would be disrespectful and insulting in the extreme. Even if history has "shown" that certain religions came after others, the underlying premise of Civ is a historical "what-if" game, not a simulation of the history of the real world.

I didn't say the early religieons would be worse! My idea for a religieon model is that each religieon (not real ones either) would be defines by a number of traditions and practicies. WHen you first reserch a spiritual tech (probably polytheism or philosiphy) you would be allowed to form your new religieon, and select from a number of traditions you could endorse. You would be limited in how many traditions you could have, and would be unably to to choose those that contradict each other. As other techs are reserched you would gain acces to other base religieons which could still be cutomized. And as I said before, events could unfold that would effect your religieon: Miracles/prophets/ect.

As for the whole church/state thing that's a whole other field. The links between the two would depend on you, and the gouvernment you use. If you were to form a fundamentalist/theocratic gov, you would BE church and state at the same time. With other govs, there would be a seprate leader for the church who may consult you from time to time. As citizens of a nation convert to different religions, it would be like having forign nationals in your cities, to a lesser extent.