Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I'm going to wait for other big contributers to this forum to see what they say, see if they can identify any serious problems...

But I think "implicit" religious labels avoids all the complications with all the different denominations of a particular religion, and the traits of a specific religion. You pick more Christianizing types of wonders and next thing you know, you start to resemble Christianity (even if your religion is explicitly "monotheism").

Plus you could even have cross-religion wonders. Something like "First Testament" could be built by people who have taken a Jewish or Christian focus... or "Coalition Against Pork" can be built by people who have taken on Jewish OR Muslim improvements. (Okay, maybe that last one was a bad example.)

 

[menwia]

lol - that was a funny example - I cracked up when I read it .

I've got a come back to your post dh - but i'll wait

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi guys,

I have read your posts, but fear that I don't have the time to answer them right this second. I will reply properly soon, though, and I think I have decent answers to all your questions !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

I liek the idea of implicit religion deciding which monotheist wonders, but say you wantt o hold out for a late-breaking religion. Islam for example. For a log time you have to build NO religious improvements, or esle you'll forever lock yourself out. At least by explicitly making Islam a distinct religion, you can be Christian, then later convert.

 

[menwia]

rhialto - I think you've hit the nail on its head.

If we have Generic Monothism and you build Christian Wonders in a implict struture - you can never become a Monothism Islamic style religion later on. You can change to Polythistic or Dharmic, but then you face the same problem there - in actual fact instead of Generic Relgions with Implist Religions giving you more choice as they are presumed to be - they have the opposit effect and restrict ones Choice.

The only alternative is if you can build Islamic, Christain and Jewish Wonders all mixed into your Monothism Relgion - I really don't know what you'd end up with. You'd have the possiblity of some really absurd combinations of wonders then.

 

[dh_epic]

Well you could either pick a christian wonder and then make it obsolete by building a muslim wonder (you could get a warning upon commencing the building) ...

Or, if the wonders were designed appropriately, you could build the religion ambiguous wonders early, and then more specific wonders later. What's an ambiguous wonder?

A wonder that celebrates Jesus, for example, would be appropriate for Islam too since they consider him a prophet. Especialy when you consider that Christianity was founded sooner than Islam, but didn't hit its stride until after Islam (in some senses), the real wonders of Christianity come *after* Islam. Middle-age Christianity Wonders (Sistene Chapel) would be incompatible with Middle-age Muslim Wonders.

And Jewish Wonders... well, they technically laid the foundation for all of the above!

Take a look at the tech tree. There's Construction and The Republic -- the time of Rome -- and then the Middle Ages -- Monotheism and Feudalism. (If jumping 500 years of history with a single tech isn't eurocentric, I don't know what is. But that's the way it is.)

In other words, monotheism could open up ambiguous wonders at the start, and branch out into more specifics later, and it would still make sense in Civ's tech timeline. And you wouldn't get any weird wonder clashes, nor would you have to worry about "holding out" to be Muslim.

 

[menwia]

dh - why would I go through all this agro and dealing and wheeling when I can just say that there are three religons within Mnothism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism and these are the wonders you can build in each one, and if you want to change you can - the wonders you've built become obsolete but retain the tourist attraction bonus, and I can become them when I discover them in a logical and historically correct process?

Why make it difficult? We trying to be PC when we don't need to. There's nothing wrong with having a Explist Structure where one can define the flavor of the religon they choose. And it is so clear and so easy, when you want to change you can and if you don't you won't.

What would happen to all the Relgous buildlings you build, all the religous units you had - ect ect - you're still Monothism but the next thing you know, you've build a Islamic Wonder and everything else you've had don't work anymore. Hell - I might just change my religon to Islam and be done with it. What's all this cloark and dagger stuff?

Sects and stuff we can talk about later. But just dealing with Civ Groups, Civs, Relgion Classes and Religions - we can just be explist about it - its alot easier and there's no real problems with it.

The Generic Implist structure is the exact same as the Explist one but with all the added problems that you don't need to have. Being clear and Explist - You get all the benifits of the Implilst structure with none of its disadvantages.

 

[dh_epic]

Again, you have me confused with other people. My concern isn't political correctness, but having a model that is flexible enough to be plausible in the real world AND in the game.

In other words, the model that you propose is very plausible in the real world, but would fall apart once it's brought into a game where religions can convert and split in ways that did not actually happen in real history.

By remaining abstract, you make it plausible that anyone can be converted to anything. And by remaining abstract, you can create a sense that even when conversion isn't done, you're practicing a *new* religion that never existed in real history -- a monotheist religion that's already halfway to buddhism.

By going explicit, you force all kinds of problems that just don't seem possible. Is it possible to have a Buddhist Blood Cult? Is it possible for a city to go from Christianity to Hindu in one easy step? Many people would roll their eyes and say "of course not!" But if you remain abstract, you keep it in the realm of possibility -- of COURSE someone could move from Monotheist to Polytheist. Of COURSE you can have a Dharmic Blood Cult. Of COURSE there's such a thing as an Orhodox Animist.

You avoid certain historical impossibilities by being abstract. You avoid unrealistic outcomes by being abstract.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, as I have stated before, I just think it is easier to keep the broad religions and sects generic, and let people alter them as they will. If they want to give them their real world names, then more power to them, but I want the felxibility to come up with completely ahistorical religious situations if I want!! After all, there are plenty of different Republics, Democracies, Communisms and Monarchies out there, but Civ3 has always stuck to just broad categorizations of government types. Though I had a mild problem with this it didn't hinder my enjoyment of the game and, if they allow me to adjust my 'civics' settings within a government in Civ4, then my last qualms on this matter will be solved-I have the same feeling about religion in the game!
As for the other matters which have been discussed, I believe that when a civ forms a brand new religion, then the culture group IS hardwired for this purpose. However, a civ from one culture group can adopt the religion of a totally different culture group-so long as the former is AWARE of the latter! Of course, if the culture group of the new religion is disliked by your people, then you could end up with a WORLD of trouble !
Also, though, you can build any improvement/wonder of any cultural flavour, that is relevent to that religion type-BUT once you have built your first one, then you are locked into that culture flavour as long as you are in that religion. So, for example, you might have a civ with a Mediterranean Monotheist religion, which decides to build a mosque-locking it into the Middle Eastern culture flavour. All other religious improvements, wonders and units it builds must be of that culture flavour too-until such time as you change religions! This way you could have a Middle Eastern Civ whose religion looks almost Catholic, wheras you might have a Mediterranean civ with a distinctly Islamic looking religion! I am also thinking that, when you change religions, your previous religious improvements don't cease immediately-but perhaps loose effectiveness over time (perhaps 2-5 turns). By the same token, perhaps you need a certain number of converts in your new faith before you can start building any Wonders for that religion type (improvements are OK, though). This could help to better represent that difficult transition time when a state is changing to a whole new faith. Sects would have a similar problem, but to a much lesser degree (as your base faith is still the same, you are just having an 'attitude readjustment !) Anyway, hope that clears things up a little bit more !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[menwia]

dh - yes, it is possible for a city to go from one relgion straight to the Next. Perfect example - When Muhammed took Mecca - practically the whole city changed over to Islam.

I think we shoud get first the broad conepts sorted out first - being Civ Group, Civ, Relkgous Class and Relgion - before we go down the path of Denominations and Sects.

I'm not ruling them out, but one should take it step by step.



Aussie -

Does the Civ Group u are have any effect on the Relgion you are?

If so what r they?

If a Middle Eastern Monothosim is gonna be islamic in nature - then why not just say you are Islamic? In practice you are actually doing this anyway - but for some reason you don't want to just state it.

Lets say I am Middle Eastern Monothisim and i want to build a Christian or a Mediterian Monothism Wonder. How would I go about it and what would happen?

Each Civ will have its own flavour of Christianty due to their Choices if they choose that relgion or any other relgion. You are doing the exact same thing as in your model. Only difference is - you're just making it clear and simple.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, the main effect of the culture group of the religion is primarily a matter of 'flavours'. If you have played Conquests, then you might know exactly what I am referring to. These flavours slightly effect the speed at which you build 'culturally relevent' wonders, units and improvements. It also effects AI priorities to a small degree. To use the example you put forward, the Middle Eastern monotheistic civ will probably be able to build mosques and Islamic wonders/units a bit faster than a European and Mediterranean civ, but almost equal speed to a north African civ. This civ would not be able to build a mediterranean wonder as quickly as a mediterranean civ, but that doesn't preclude them from doing so! As always, though, flavours can be adjusted or turned off completely in the editor if you want!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[menwia]

I'm against the notion that what Civ Group are determines what relgion you might be and what flavour of religons you are.

I'll give you example why. Before the Middle East became Islamic - it was Jewish and other relgions - then Christians became the prominate force there spreading through Syria and such with the persians and such still their own relgions - Christianty not quite entering into the Saudia Arabia areas but there were Jewish and Christian influences there - although not huge. Then - like 600 years later after Jesus arrived you have Islam coming about.

So what you are doing in actuall fact - is your taking a couple thousand years of Monothism and you are Shrinking them into a one massive moment. That is first. Also you must realize that the Middle East as a whole before it was ever Islamic in nature it had a Jewish and Christian tinge to it. The majority of Syria and present day Iraq being Christians until the Islamic Force spread out through the Middle East - into Persia and reaching europe itself where it was stopped.

So to conclude that a Monothist Middle East Civ would necessarily be Islamic is incorrect. For thousands of years it had more of a Jewish Influence and for six hundred years there was a Christain Influence there - without an Islamic influence ever existing until the Prophet Muhammed. That's historical fact.

Then we have to go through each other Civ Group - and believe me - there's no way to make a reasonable assumption about what RElgion Flavor a Civ would have due to its Civ Group.

P.S. - I respect your intentions -especailly the point about being able to turn it off. But just becuase you can turn off a certain setting - but it still don't change the fact that its not really possible to draw just conclustions or assumptions which are in effect wtih Civ Groups.

If you said a Middle Eastern Monothism Islamic Civ - then yes, you can give it a Islamic flavor and the Player can choice to implement his own falvor of Islam depending upon the wonder S/He builds.

But just becauase it is a Middle Eastern Monothism it does not necessarily mean it is Islamic. It could Christian, Jewish or Islamic - you can not rightly just make an assumption because it is Mid-Eastern it has to be Islamic.

 

[menwia]

Aussie: i hear what you're saying. you are saying you can build a certain Islamic flavor faster in a mid estearn civ as oppossed to a mediterian civ.

Why? Just because present day Middle-East is Islamic - does not necessarily mean that can build a certain wonder faster and another one slower.

If the Middle East had remaine Christian what to have stopped them building the Sisten Chapel? And why wouldn't they be talented enough to build it as fast as the Europeans?

In this modle - although not actually forcing a Mid-east to be Islamic rather then Christian or Jewish - you are Encouraging it alot, which I don't think is appropiate. YOu've put a bais in the game which we have tried to so hard to take out of religions themselves.

P.S. Its a nice option I guess - if you want to have it that way, then why not - so i guess the on and off button on Civ Group Flav is a good thing. HOwever, the default should be OFF.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, as you could see from my post, it WOULD be an option in the editor, and his more for the purposes of 'pseudo-historical' accuracy than anything else.
Also, the Middle East is a VERY big place, and Christianity and Judaism were restricted primarily to the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East (which is why I kind of fudged it and said that Israel was a 'North African' Minor nation !) Arabia, OTOH, went pretty much from polytheism to Islam in only the space of a single persons lifetime! Now, I am not advocating change on that scale, which is why I suggested that when a state changes religions, there is a SLOW drop off in the effectiveness of old religious improvements. As I said, this will help to better represent the 'Transition' between major faiths! (Hell, when the Jews came back out of Egypt, apparently many of them living further out from Jerusalem were still Polytheists-for almost a century afterwards!)
Anyway, I really only threw in the whole culture flavour thing to see whether it would 'float'. It is good as an option, but I agree that it should be up to the individual civs to decide the 'flavour' of their religion. Culture groups, then, would mostly define relations between different types of religions-as I stated in my post from last night!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[menwia]

Where one could say a Civ can build a Relgious Wonder faster - Could be if a Civ has a Relgious Trait. Therefore, lets say I am a Civ with a Relgious trait - it does not matter what Religion I am, I just have a natural ability to build Relgious Wonders and buldings faster and maybe a bit cheaper then the rest.

Its just a thought . . .and we'd just be going off the present (Civ) model as it is already . . . what u think?

 

[dh_epic]

The questions I asked are very specific. Obviously cities have converted to a religion, that's a no brainer. But could a Buddhist convert a Christian city? And if so, what would that version of Buddhism look like? The answer is not like anything we've ever seen, and to say otherwise would give very little credit to the complex social dynamics of culture. The danger is being one of those people who sees history as a race through a pre-defined path, and Civilization actually reinforces that view of history.

For example, when Islam finally hit Persia, it was "infected" with the other pre-existing ideologies. Zoroastrianism for one. Elements of Hinduism, for two. The end result was that Islam actually changed slightly with the religions it took on -- its symbols, its values, it customs.

This goes beyond religion. When Christianity spread through the Roman Empire and the Emperor embraced it, Christianity was infected with Roman values, customs and symbols. But this discussion is something for another model completely. For the sake of simplicity, let's speak of religion in terms of religion.

What happens when Buddhism converts Christians? Do those Christians release all their beliefs and values? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The complexity comes from the fact that not only does Buddhism change them, but they change Buddhism. And for such incompatible religions, what values would prevail? Would there be a God or not? Would they still talk about Jesus, despite being Buddhists? What would be considered a sin? What would be considered a virtue? What institutions of religion would prevail? We simply do not know.

All these difficult questions are sidestepped when you ask the question "what happens when a polytheist orthodox converts a monotheist bloodcult?" Because it remains abstract, you can't criticize and say "but Christians don't embrace multiple Gods! The religions would have to meet halfway!". You have the benefit of the doubt by remaining abstract -- "well, I could imagine a version of monotheism where the God they talk about is actually very compatible with embracing multiple Gods".

Maybe that wasn't the best example. But the point I'm trying to make is that keeping religion abstract allows you to model the numerous possibilities, and make those possibilities plausible and believable. By being specific, you might make the paths and history we know (with Jews and Muslims) seem more real, but anything that deviates from that (e.g.: Muslims and Norse Mythology) would seem really bizarre and even ridiculous.

 

[menwia]

hi dh.

I see the point your making. The simplist way i think I can explain it is - lets say you are roman Christian.

Lets leave out Denominations and Sectos for now - we can get to them later.

But lets say you are Roman Christian. And you have made your own brand of Christianty by the wonders you have built and so forth. If for example a Buddist City was converted by your Clerics or someother influence, Depending on the exact mechanics a whole variety of things could happen.

One could be they instantly swap over to your Empire, and automatcially follow your brand of Christain. This goes vice versa wth all other erlgions and civs. Or if you use another mechanic, you could have them remain wtihin the oppossing empire as Christians who will become a thorn in the other players side unless he resolves the situation one way or another.

the brand of Christainty they would be - seeing as this other civ has built no Christian Wonders - would be just your straight, foward default christian. Meaning the same Christian type as when you first discovered your own relgion which only changed when you buildt your wonders. Meaning no pros and cons - just that the old relgious buldings and bonuses wouldn't work for the newly converted city - so you might have civil unrest at the least that is if they still remain within the control of the other Civ. If however, they jump to your Civ and become your city, then they will be the brand of Christianty you have and will get all the falvour's and bonuses of your wonders. Of course, you would have to build them churches and stuff to get them even more happy.

That might not have been such a simple explaniation. I'll see if I might have to try an rephrase that somehow if it don't work. u must excuse me, sometimes its difficult to find the exact words.

P.S. vice versa with all the other religons and civs

 

[menwia]

Relgious Model

Generic/Trait Verses Core World Religons.



There are the groups or factors which we will use so far in our equation.

Civ Group
Civ
Religous Class
Religon
Denomination
Sect

For arguments sake let us leave out the last two groupings - Denominations and Sects. Not rule them out, but just put them aside for now.

Generic/Trait Model

I can be a Mediterian Roman Monothism - i can build three basic groups of wonders all at the same time of discovering Monothism. Christian, Islamic and Jewish. The wonder I build first will determine what Implist Monothism group i am as well as all the Relgious buildings and units I can also build. The choice of wonders will give my own flavour of the Implist three relgion groups.

If I want to change I can either change straight to another Relgious Class or just build another one of the other relgions wonders within my own Class.

Questions?
1: One must take a leap of faith so to speak - but isn't squeezing thousands of years of Monothism into one big bang a bit of stretch even for the most open minded?

2:What happens when I build a Islamic Wonder in a Christian type of Civ?

3: Why am I allowed to be Islamic/Christian or Jewish Relgion but not allowed to actually say it, or offically class myself as it? Why must I hide behind a Generic Monothism Label.

4: what benifts am I getting from being behind a Monothism Generic label that i can't get by just saying I am a Mediterian Roman Monothism Christian Civ?


Core Relgions

I can be a Mediterian Roman Monothism Christian/Muslim/Jew - I have to discover each relgion within the Class in chronlogical order according to historical facts. I can only become that relgion when I discover that tech and can only build Christain Wonders when a Christian. All three relgions I can give them my own flavor by the wonders I build.

If I want to change I can either change to a differnt relgion Class or change to a different Relgion within the same Class. Once the change has been made - I can start buildling the wonders/buildings and units of that particular relgion.

Questions or Bias observations (lol, however you wanna label it).

1: No leap of faith is involved here. i discover each relgion in chronoligocal order as is backed up by history.

2:I am allowed to be Christian/Islamic or Jewish and I am allowed to simply state the truth of the matter. I do not have to hide behind a Generic lable of Monothism.

3: There are no benifts from just a Generic model that I do not get from just a Core Relgions Model.

Please note: I know this is completly Bias, in the sense its very one sided - but at least we have a clear starting block where one can launch their attacks from. I'm doing this to an extent on purpose so one has a clear view of the target. lol - I just hope its not me

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, lets see if I can explain this again, shall we !

-Every civ starts the game with NO State religion and NO religious 'techs'. The possible exception to this rule might be a civ with the Religious trait, who might be allowed to select a religion defined as an 'early religious tech' (like Anamism or Shamanism).

-The speed and order in which you acquire religious techs will depend on your degree of 'social development', your civ/culture group and the religious beliefs of those neighbours (both major and minor) with whom you have regular contact (via diplomacy, trade or conquest).

-When you acquire the prerequisite understanding of a religious belief, you will have TWO possible options-form your own religion, which will be 'hardwired' to your culture group OR adopt the religion of one of your neighbours, which will be 'hardwired' to THEIR culture.

-When you form a brand new religion, you will lose the bulk of your accumulated religious culture (probably less for religious civs, not sure?) Also, any improvements/wonders/units from your prior religion will slowly lose their effectiveness over a space of 2-5 turns (perhaps as much as 200 years!)

-If you adopt a pre-existing religion, you will still lose the vast bulk of your accumulated religious culture, but you will probably recieve a % of the religious culture of the other civs who adhere to the religion.

-The important bit is that you will NOT be able to build the Wonders of a particular religion until you have met certain prerequisites. These might be a minimum number of specific religious improvements, a minimum number of converts etc.

-The 'culture group' of any religious improvements you build will semi 'lock' you in for the purposes of building any other religious improvements and wonders. For instance, if you build a mosque as your first religious improvement, then all 'Middle Eastern' religious improvements and wonders will become slightly cheaper to build. OTOH, non-Middle Eastern ones will become more expensive.

-If you change the culture group of your religion, by building the religious improvements of another culture group, then you will lose ALL the benefits of your existing wonders and improvements.

OK, I feel I have addressed most of the key issues in this one, without going into more detail about conversion, religious tolerance, religious corruption and 'cross-culturalisation' of religious beliefs (which CAN occur in my model). I will deal with many of the other issues later, but I hope and PRAY that this will finally make the intent of my model CLEAR!!!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[menwia]

lol . . . . . . . . . . . . .


What if you got rid of the hard wiring Culture influence and just left it solely for the Player to choose how his falvor of monothism would be like?

What If you kept the cost or speed of bulding what ever buldings or wonders completly the same - and only give a slight advantage to the Civ with a relgious Trait?

So - one way to handle the Monothism Squeeze so to speak - is to make sure you've built either enough Mosques, Churches or Synogoes before you're allowed to build any wonders?

But if you build a Mosque what happens if you want to build a Church - eg you want to change from a Islamic Mnothism to Christian Monothism - how would you do this?