Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Secularization would be more relevant than the religion in question. I vote that replaces "REligious Values".
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm with sir schwick. There's no reasonable model that reflects the benefits / drawbacks of different belief systems (like being monotheistic makes you more happy than being polytheistic? or being animist gives you a bigger trade bonus than druidist?).
But you can reflect the benefits / drawbacks of increased secularization. How far do you go to seperate the church and state?
But you can reflect the benefits / drawbacks of increased secularization. How far do you go to seperate the church and state?
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Monotheistic societies might give you a greater centralpower than Polytheistic but at the same time be more prone to religious revolutions -> civilwars.
Seems good?! There are differences between the religions that are implementable...
Seems good?! There are differences between the religions that are implementable...
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
In Civ 3, governments were seperated by braod categories of how leaders are chosen. Similairily, whatever religion model should base the difference on one major generalization. Same for economic, family values.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
But is that really the case? Did any nation really fall apart because it was polytheistic, and did monotheism help certain nations keep their empire in tact? I think you'll find numerous counter-examples. Not to complain about realism, but I'm complaining because it's almost completely unintuitive.
I don't vthink teh similarities between the various monotheistic religions are sufficient to create a meaningful in-game effect. Ditto for polytheisms. I think it is possible to generalise for secularism, and again for the earliest forms of animism.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Exactly, what can be generalized enough considering historical effect and cultural perceptions and generalizations. Certainly the democracy is a very broad and open idea that has many different forms, but the Civ form is what is most compatible with our cultural background.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'd still have a hard time discussing the basic difference between a polytheism and a monotheism -- not in terms of what they are but the effect they'd have.
The fact that communism has population forced labor, whereas democracy has paid forced labor -- this makes sense. It's intuitive.
I think picking from 5 generic religions kind of a waste. Too removed from reality. It's like you're adding this abstract choice for the sake of adding it. And, on the other hand, there could be other choices that you could add to the game that would have just as important effects, but be more meaningful because they just make more sense.
Secularization is probably the most acceptable religious question I can think of.
Theocracy: Whether you're a Pharoah who says you're a God, or you're a Holy Emperor who says you're God's representative on Earth, you're talking about a really simple system of rule. What is evil? Whatever I hate. What is good? Whatever I like.
Devout: You might not actually be divinity, but you definitely do everything you can to follow your favorite holy scripture. You don't expect everyone to worship the same God, but you do expect people to live basically the way you live, with your core values. This would be kings in the middle ages, or even certain presidents now who have a religious agenda, so to speak.
Secular: You might have religious beliefs, but you keep them to yourself. They have no place in how you rule your country, especially when you consider not everyone will agree with them. The common denominators are the most important, but any particulars are up to individuals to choose and shouldn't be imposed on one another.
Atheist: All religion is essentially banned. Maybe your government has privacy, maybe it doesn't, but in public, there is no room for religion. You go to a school, you go to the workplace, you're not allowed to worship where other people might be bothered by it.
I think those have more intuitive effects than the difference between monotheism and polytheism.
The fact that communism has population forced labor, whereas democracy has paid forced labor -- this makes sense. It's intuitive.
I think picking from 5 generic religions kind of a waste. Too removed from reality. It's like you're adding this abstract choice for the sake of adding it. And, on the other hand, there could be other choices that you could add to the game that would have just as important effects, but be more meaningful because they just make more sense.
Secularization is probably the most acceptable religious question I can think of.
Theocracy: Whether you're a Pharoah who says you're a God, or you're a Holy Emperor who says you're God's representative on Earth, you're talking about a really simple system of rule. What is evil? Whatever I hate. What is good? Whatever I like.
Devout: You might not actually be divinity, but you definitely do everything you can to follow your favorite holy scripture. You don't expect everyone to worship the same God, but you do expect people to live basically the way you live, with your core values. This would be kings in the middle ages, or even certain presidents now who have a religious agenda, so to speak.
Secular: You might have religious beliefs, but you keep them to yourself. They have no place in how you rule your country, especially when you consider not everyone will agree with them. The common denominators are the most important, but any particulars are up to individuals to choose and shouldn't be imposed on one another.
Atheist: All religion is essentially banned. Maybe your government has privacy, maybe it doesn't, but in public, there is no room for religion. You go to a school, you go to the workplace, you're not allowed to worship where other people might be bothered by it.
I think those have more intuitive effects than the difference between monotheism and polytheism.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
First of all - I want worldreligions. It will be a lot easier to find advantages and drawbacks when you have a history to look back on. It doesn't even need to be intuitive (a clear logic behind, in my meaning) then, just have some base in history that people recognise. Like the crusades, they weren't nescessary by logic, they happened because christianity developed in such way in relation to the rest of the world. This would mean that they might not "fit" in every civ-world but it's the same problem as the Scandinavian civ always has the militaristic and seafaring trait and berzerker UU. It's a dilemma between free gameplay versus historical immersiveness where people can draw parallells to the real world.
Second - The example of difference between Monotheism and Polytheism I came up with might still be wrong in the end but you, dh epic, must have misread what I wrote -
If a new fundamental view of God comes in a Monotheistic society, it's likely to be regarded as heresy and will either die out in some way or become a new teaching/religious movement/religion which has the chance to split the society. Whereas a Polytheistic society already have differencies inherent.
Second - The example of difference between Monotheism and Polytheism I came up with might still be wrong in the end but you, dh epic, must have misread what I wrote -
I meant that Monotheistic religions have greater central power and more prone to religious revolutions.
If a new fundamental view of God comes in a Monotheistic society, it's likely to be regarded as heresy and will either die out in some way or become a new teaching/religious movement/religion which has the chance to split the society. Whereas a Polytheistic society already have differencies inherent.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think we've established why world religions are problematic. (I know a lot of people will say the word "offensive" but that's not my problem.) It's hard to come up with a set of traits that really represent what that religion is about at the core -- is Christianity a militaristic religion? Is it a peaceful religion? Is it both? Neither?
Certainly a monotheism would be less receptive to religious change than polytheism. But when you're picking your religion from a drop down list, who cares?
Certainly a monotheism would be less receptive to religious change than polytheism. But when you're picking your religion from a drop down list, who cares?
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I think you're sniffing up the wrong tree dh, so to speak. 
Religion is in. The only issue now is how you think it should be best implimented.
Religion is in. The only issue now is how you think it should be best implimented.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Like I said, a drop down menu where you pick how religious your state is seems to be the best thing. Better than any specific religion or even group of religion with traits.
And if that's not compelling, I'd just extend the number of buildings like temples and cathedrals there are and putting "pursue religion in your civilization!" on the box.
And if that's not compelling, I'd just extend the number of buildings like temples and cathedrals there are and putting "pursue religion in your civilization!" on the box.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I agree, secularization is something everyone can agree the effects of. Additionally, it is more relevant then the specific religion when you are not tracking the game at a sociologically deep level. Plus, you cannot control your religion since you are the state, only how much it is involved.
First of all - just becuase something is in - doesn't make it right. Nazi in germany were in - didn't mean they were right. There's alot of rules and laws which are in but it don't make them right.
Good Example, general legal drinking age is 21 - reason, they don't want thousands of teenage drinkers killing themselves - they belive that those who are 18 to 21 are not responsible enough to have a drink of beer or two. But, you can join the army at 18, you can of and kill for your country, handle RPG's, tanks, assault rifles, greandes - you are responsible enough to kill people but not responsible enough to drink. You can lay your life down for your country but your not capable of drinking and not driving. YOu can GEt Married at 18, You can have kids at 18, You can drive at 18, You can buy a house at 18, you can own a shotgun at 18. You can do all these things at 18, but you can't drink. Come on - how pathetic is that.
If young adults arn't responsible enough to drink at 18 then they should'nt be allowed to join the army, get married, have kids or own firearms.
So don't tell me just because its in - it makes it right. Slavery was in, don't make it right. Seperate but equal was in within the US until M. L> King and JFK/Lindon Johnson came along - alot of things were in, but it don't make it right.
Dosn't mean Im against a world religion model being included - it's just got to be done right. Dont use the 'it's in arguement' cause you just might as well tell Aussie 'its unciv like.'
Good Example, general legal drinking age is 21 - reason, they don't want thousands of teenage drinkers killing themselves - they belive that those who are 18 to 21 are not responsible enough to have a drink of beer or two. But, you can join the army at 18, you can of and kill for your country, handle RPG's, tanks, assault rifles, greandes - you are responsible enough to kill people but not responsible enough to drink. You can lay your life down for your country but your not capable of drinking and not driving. YOu can GEt Married at 18, You can have kids at 18, You can drive at 18, You can buy a house at 18, you can own a shotgun at 18. You can do all these things at 18, but you can't drink. Come on - how pathetic is that.
If young adults arn't responsible enough to drink at 18 then they should'nt be allowed to join the army, get married, have kids or own firearms.
So don't tell me just because its in - it makes it right. Slavery was in, don't make it right. Seperate but equal was in within the US until M. L> King and JFK/Lindon Johnson came along - alot of things were in, but it don't make it right.
Dosn't mean Im against a world religion model being included - it's just got to be done right. Dont use the 'it's in arguement' cause you just might as well tell Aussie 'its unciv like.'
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I'm assuming you're responding to me, but it's hard to tell.
I don't really understand what you're saying.
What I said is that Firaxis has announced religion will be in CIV. The best thing for everyone here to do is accept that and try to come up with suggestions that might provide Firaxis and co. with ideas on how to impliment religion, as debating whether or not religion should be included ad nauseum accomplishes nothing. It's going to be included, deal with it. What people say here isn't going to change their mind.
I don't really understand what you're saying.
What I said is that Firaxis has announced religion will be in CIV. The best thing for everyone here to do is accept that and try to come up with suggestions that might provide Firaxis and co. with ideas on how to impliment religion, as debating whether or not religion should be included ad nauseum accomplishes nothing. It's going to be included, deal with it. What people say here isn't going to change their mind.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I still think there's hope Firaxis can be talked out of it Call it wishful thinking, but my impression is that they were suggesting it as a potential "killer feature". Even if they're allegedly playing a 'prototype version' of Civ multiplayer, I doubt they've had a chance to really implement religion.
And if they have implemented it, then chances are there's nothing we can say or do -- we could come up with the best system in the world, but it's already in the way it is.
World religions + traits: too much variety and change in the world to model it properly
Generic religions + traits: no convincing trait that differentiates monotheism and polytheism
Religion + no traits: What's the point? So you can have similar religions stick together?
I suggest secularization, again. Not only does it go beyond boring "team-religion" models, and not only does it allow convincing traits (you *can* make more generalizations about "all Theocratic societies" as opposed to "all Muslims") ... it also is more realistic in terms of control. You can't flip a religion switch, but you can control how much you let religion affect your society. Is religion outlawed? Is your religion the only choice? Are you God's right hand man?
Call it wishful thinking, but my impression is that they were suggesting it as a potential "killer feature". Even if they're allegedly playing a 'prototype version' of Civ multiplayer, I doubt they've had a chance to really implement religion.And if they have implemented it, then chances are there's nothing we can say or do -- we could come up with the best system in the world, but it's already in the way it is.
World religions + traits: too much variety and change in the world to model it properly
Generic religions + traits: no convincing trait that differentiates monotheism and polytheism
Religion + no traits: What's the point? So you can have similar religions stick together?
I suggest secularization, again. Not only does it go beyond boring "team-religion" models, and not only does it allow convincing traits (you *can* make more generalizations about "all Theocratic societies" as opposed to "all Muslims") ... it also is more realistic in terms of control. You can't flip a religion switch, but you can control how much you let religion affect your society. Is religion outlawed? Is your religion the only choice? Are you God's right hand man?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Actually in Germany the drinkin age is 16 while the driving age is 18. This is because they think most people will learn how to responsibly drink before they start driving vehicles. I believe DUIs are lower in Germany, at least among natives.
In my religion chooses your wonders model, I think we have an answer to how religions have evolved through time.
Lets say your civ is catholic. In teh early middle ages you get a wonder (maybe a small one) that allows produces a crusader unit every few turns. In short, you get wonders that boost your militarism aspects. This is set to expire sometime around the renaissance. Similarly, an inquisition wonder will exist with a short lifespan and so on down the line. We have a series of wonders which are reasonably cheap to build and have effects that reflect that world religion at various specific points in the history of that religion. Islam could have a wonder that boosts science in the middle ages, but expires around the renaissance.
Lets say your civ is catholic. In teh early middle ages you get a wonder (maybe a small one) that allows produces a crusader unit every few turns. In short, you get wonders that boost your militarism aspects. This is set to expire sometime around the renaissance. Similarly, an inquisition wonder will exist with a short lifespan and so on down the line. We have a series of wonders which are reasonably cheap to build and have effects that reflect that world religion at various specific points in the history of that religion. Islam could have a wonder that boosts science in the middle ages, but expires around the renaissance.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I think that, if there to be ONE SET of key differences between religion types, it would be the chance of religious conversion and the chance of a religious schism.
Basically, your non-deist faiths (i.e. ones based around philosophical principles) would be the MOST susceptible to religious conversions, as adopting another religion would not be seen as offensive to their current belief structure. By the same token, though, they are the MOST resistant to religious schisms, as they are less dogmatic and more accepting of difference and change.
Your Polytheistic and Animistic faiths are a little less prone to conversions, but are still fairly susceptible to it due to the wide range of choices they already have within their pantheon! Many Polytheistic cultures had various sects and cults rising and falling on a regular basis. In Rome, for example, the Mithraic Cult thrived as one of the first genuine monotheistic faiths in that region, but soon died out. Later, the 'Jesus Sect' of the Hebrew faith converted many Romans to its beliefs, before finally becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire-by which time they had changed their name to Christianity. For these reasons, polytheistic religions are also slightly more susceptible to religious schisms than non-deists.
Lastly, Monotheistic faiths are the LEAST susceptible to conversion, as the authorities tend to push a VERY hard line regarding that faith being the ONE TRUE FAITH! Due to their heavy reliance on Dogma, these faiths are also the MOST susceptible to religious schisms. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths have all broken into sectarianism (look at the Essenes vs the Hassidics; the Protestants vs the Catholics and the Evangelicals, and the Sunni vs the Shi'ite and Wahaabi-just to name a few historical examples!)
Obviously, what I have put up relates to situations where 'all other things are equal'! Other factors, such as corruption, unhappiness, relative culture levels and distance from the Religious Capital (if any), as well as your peoples degree of 'spiritualism' will all effect the actual chances.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Basically, your non-deist faiths (i.e. ones based around philosophical principles) would be the MOST susceptible to religious conversions, as adopting another religion would not be seen as offensive to their current belief structure. By the same token, though, they are the MOST resistant to religious schisms, as they are less dogmatic and more accepting of difference and change.
Your Polytheistic and Animistic faiths are a little less prone to conversions, but are still fairly susceptible to it due to the wide range of choices they already have within their pantheon! Many Polytheistic cultures had various sects and cults rising and falling on a regular basis. In Rome, for example, the Mithraic Cult thrived as one of the first genuine monotheistic faiths in that region, but soon died out. Later, the 'Jesus Sect' of the Hebrew faith converted many Romans to its beliefs, before finally becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire-by which time they had changed their name to Christianity. For these reasons, polytheistic religions are also slightly more susceptible to religious schisms than non-deists.
Lastly, Monotheistic faiths are the LEAST susceptible to conversion, as the authorities tend to push a VERY hard line regarding that faith being the ONE TRUE FAITH! Due to their heavy reliance on Dogma, these faiths are also the MOST susceptible to religious schisms. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths have all broken into sectarianism (look at the Essenes vs the Hassidics; the Protestants vs the Catholics and the Evangelicals, and the Sunni vs the Shi'ite and Wahaabi-just to name a few historical examples!)
Obviously, what I have put up relates to situations where 'all other things are equal'! Other factors, such as corruption, unhappiness, relative culture levels and distance from the Religious Capital (if any), as well as your peoples degree of 'spiritualism' will all effect the actual chances.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
