Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[Trade-peror]

I am sorry if you took any offense, but I would like to point out that it would be implicit ranking if certain spiritual techs had to be researched before others. For example, it appears (please correct me as necessary) that you have polytheism and philosophy as the first spiritual techs. That implies that they are not only the earliest, but also the most primitive since you must research them before you can develop others later on.

I would support having to research spiritual techs only if all of them were available in the beginning, or every "line" of them was. By that, I mean you could research a particular ritual first, and then research elaborations of that same ritual later. However, there should not be a progression of researching "natural spirit" and polytheistic advances before developing monotheistic practices. That would imply that monotheism is "more advanced" than polytheistic and other religions, being farther along in the tech tree. If they were all researchable to begin with, then it would only be a matter of the player selecting according to preference or strategy.

 

[dh_epic]

The problem with the seperation between church and state, of course, is that the church isn't always just like "hey... ummm... maybe, it would be cool if you could.... uhhh..."

History is full of instances of a religious "advisor" demanding ALL nations around the world to do something -- condemn a war, condemn an atrocity, condemn a nation and fight it, condemn a practice, acknowledge someone's glory. And if non-theocratic governments are forced into this, you take control away from the player. If non-theocratic governments AREN'T forced into this, then what's the point?

 

[Yuri2356]

You wouldn't be fourced to follow thw will of the church in non-theocracy, but it would be in your best intrest to do so. Henry VIII didn't do what the Pope told him to do, and it caused a lot of ill will towards Britain. Disobeying a reliieous leader would cause members of that religieon to like you slightly less. If they incorperate the Idea of moods for the people beyond 'happy' 'content' 'unhappy', as I belive I've mentioned in a propaganda thread (suggesting your people could be influenced into hating a rival nation to reduce war werriness) Your people would also have religieous moods.

"The high priests of _________ suggest/request/demand that temples be built in (city)"
Based on the wording of the message, the level of response from them will vary. If it's just a suggestion, they wouldn't mind much either way, where as if they demand they will be greatly pleased if you obey, and quite upset if you don't. At the church could demand anything from domestic things like temples, to diplomatic affairs:
"The clergy demands to know why you would trade with the infidel (other civ)!"
>"My mistake, we will end this deal at once."
>"I see no problem with this deal."
>"You priests have no rite to make demands, be gone!"

Something like that. If nessecary, they church could stage riots and revolutions to 'Overtrow the heretics,' or cause culture flipping to civs that share your beliefs.

 

[dh_epic]

That's pretty interesting.

But then who gets to be the religious leader and throw out various orders to affiliated nations?

 

[Harald]

One thing, if there are different religions will there be different places of worship each religion(Islam - mosque, Christianity - church)?
If so, I think it would get rather complicated.

 

[Yuri2356]

One thing, if there are different religions will there be different places of worship each religion(Islam - mosque, Christianity - church)?
If so, I think it would get rather complicated.

I'd have to say it would be that either the religieous buildings are generic and apply to everyone (symbolizing several places of worship instead of just one), Or each type of temple/church would only influence the faith it represents.
IE: A temple would would work for polytheism, shines for eastern religieons, cathedrals for montheism. Each haveing an equal happieness effect, but appyling to citizens that would use it.

Some concepts would be dificult to work out at this time, and most of what I'm suggesting probably won't be used untill Civ5.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

But then who gets to be the religious leader and throw out various orders to affiliated nations?

The civ with the highest religious rating in the same religion would have the highest chance of making such demand?!

Trade-peror and you others that support a totally abstracted religions - don't you see any problem with those? I believe that if you take away the real-world connection from religion many gamers, and espescially the more casual gamers, would be detered by the play with stats religion would degenerate to. A bit of controversy is much better than lack of immersion which I think would become the case.
No worries about this?

 

[Khan Quest]

A lot of great ideas in here. Here’s my take.

If religions are named (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Islam, etc.), they must at least start out as absolutely equal to prevent offence. Only play-style should affect benefits or hindrances of religion to a civ (e.g., A generous civ who gives away luxuries for free to neighbors, for example, the religion alters such that all civs see that nation in a more favorable light, but more corruption is experienced, or whatever). These differences could apply to all religions regardless of its name, and vary from game to game depending upon play style.

Or, religion names are generic – Religion A, Religion B (you could name them yourself, if you want), but each has it’s own good and bad attributes. You would select a religion when the appropriate techs are discovered. Or maybe you randomly get assigned a generic religion.

Maybe you could try to change religions like you change governments. Of course this should be a very delicate undertaking.

Religion could spread like culture. The player could only try to direct it, as one might try to change the course of a stream. Different factions would be present in border cities. Like foreign citizens in a city, this could affect a city’s happiness when at war.

 

[brianshapiro]

I think some of the suggestions are not realistic for the game. And I think reducing religion to a set of sliders in an adviser screen doesn't really add it in a meaningful way. My idea was that religion would have something to do with influencing in some way things like culture flips, incorporation of foreign cities, etc based on religious cohesion or tensions (maybe also effecting morale). I wrote my ideas out in a post if anyone is interested ill dig it up, I also suggested something like a general element where cultural events would replace 'we love the king days', so you would have 'hinduism flourishes in calcutta', 'golden age of philosophy begins in athens', 'artistic renaissance occurs in florence', each giving particular strengths to the cities. OR something like this that would actually make religion a part of the gameplay, rather than just a set of sliders, without goofy things like priest units. Also as suggested I would be interested in incorporating more types of cultural influences in the game this way, like philosophy and art, not just religion.

 

[brianshapiro]

Religion could spread like culture. The player could only try to direct it, as one might try to change the course of a stream. Different factions would be present in border cities. Like foreign citizens in a city, this could affect a city’s happiness when at war.

Yes but civilization is a strange game this way., In the real world no single person directs technological progress, or government type, or many other things that you direct in the game. I came up some ideas to change the game to be more real I'm sure others have also, maybe it would be a neat idea to try to develop something differnt from civlization this way

 

[RageThere]

to jump in without reading the thread of the arguments--

religion should be a demographic variable, and not entirely controllable. early on, all the same religion with rabid intolerance, while later a variety of religions. part of the revised government structure should accomodate this (state religion, separation of church and state, rabid theocracy?). if a neighboring culture has a strong religion this could have an effect on your population attitude toward the leader. religious civs have a greater chance of controlling this wild card variable, less upheaval, less chance of population converting to a popular and disruptive religion. part of the revised tech tree should be birthing new religions, and culture prestige derived from this, as well chance for crusades (artifacts, locations under civs unsympathetic toward this religion? holy war!). A national/city view would show what percentage of the population is under the sway of what religion, guiding how your population responds to your actions (revolt, disrupt, cheer)

 

[MeatWad]

One of the best additions to the Civ system was Culture, and the idea of Culture Flipping. Religion could and should have a tremendous impact on this. It's a better idea than just having certain structures add up points in an almost mechanical fashion. I think some form of religion is a great idea, and lends itself to more involved and intricate gameplay. This would have the effect of making you more familiar to some, and completely alien to other cultures. You as a human player could choose religious traits to pursue, and therefore define your spirituality and your culture further, resulting in a variable dynamic. It could create bonds or animosity, enhancing Diplomacy (which at present is a bit generic and lacking depth, IMHO). The sticking point is whether to use known religions paired with national identity or not for the AI. I had another thread under "What do you miss most about Civ2", and discussed Caravans. The importing and exporting of goods should also affect culture. The more you import, the stronger the importing cultures' influence on your Civ. Reverse for export. The Middle East may hate the US, but EVERYBODY loves Coca-Cola, right? How about a nice new pair of Levi's, or some Marlboro cigarettes? This brings up another question - Should 'Pop-Culture' be implemented? I stand humbly by and await the world's opinion.....

 

[EddyG17]

Some one mentioned that different religions would have different places of worship

You could be given the chose of wich place of worship you want to build. If you want to become a christinan civ(ex. Rome) then you would start to build and only build churches. But building only one time of place of worship would cause citizens which are not of the religion you embrace to unhappiness, after some turns they would either conver or start packing and leave. Now if you are in between of two major powers of different religions (ex. Greece) Then it may be a goog idea to build both churches and mosques or build neither and choose another religion.
If you opt to attract people to your cities then you may want to consider to build every typle of place of worship

 

[dh_epic]

I guess I reserve judgement for when they finally announce more details, but somehow I think religion isn't even that great an idea for Civ 4

Sure, it's a force that affected the course of history... but having it player controlled is about as sensible as letting language be a construct that the player shapes and changes. Might as well encompass it in "culture" -- God knows you can get crusades and genocide (or whatever religion advocates are talking about) out of culture with only a few tweaks. Not to mention the fact that NO ONE can agree on what effect religion has in the modern day, compared to 2000 or even 1000 years ago.

 

[Trade-peror]

While it is definitely true that I support including only abstract religions in Civ, notice that this feature, if implemented as I have suggested, would avoid controversy and allow for real world connections at the same time.

By using a system of traits/practices that players select from, any connotations on any religion as a whole will be avoided, because each religion is only a combination of individual traits. Since these traits are the "building blocks" of every religion, then no religion can be "ranked" in any way.

In addition, the fact that each player determines the religion from selecting traits allows each player to determine the meaning and effect of religion according to personal preference or belief, ensuring that no one is offended by having to accept someone else's perception of a particular religion. For example, one Christian's version of "Christianity" might differ from another Christian's, and they can each simply design their own "Christianity" to suit their preferences. Therefore, there is potentially a significant connection to reality through the feature of religion--but the existence and extent of this connection is determined by each player according to his preference, and not by the game designer (who would inevitably end up offending someone). If such is the case, no player would be forced to deal with the designers' cultural biases, and religion would play a role only as big as the player would like.

 

[mitsho]

@trade-peror So, I would chose christianity as my religion and then deifne it by saying, my christianity is aggressive, absolutistic or tolerant? (Why not?)

@EddyG17, this is not a good idea, because most (to all) the churches and cathedrales and Domes, etc in the world are built on top of older places of worships. When Rome converted to Christianity, many many religions were spread throughout its empire. One of the biggest was the Mitrhaism. It had many many 'temples' in for example europe. Nowadays, they are ALL (practically) churches. Therefore I dislike your idea, it's not very realistic...

mfG mitsho

 

[Bartleby]

I don't see why it's a good idea, or even necessary, to extract religion from the idea of culture as it was introduced into Civ3. Are we going to have to have national costume and cuisine too?
I didn't vote in the poll because none of the responses reflect my sentiment; I do care about this, being non-religious myself I don't want to have to bother with it in my game.

 

[warpstorm]

Bartleby, you may be non-religious yourself, but historically religion was a major factor in the flow of events.

 

[Bartleby]

But why extract "religion" out of "culture"?

 

[Jake5555555]

Depending on your government religion should be more or less in your control. If you have a secular government you have no control, and if your are fundamentalist you will have total control.