RELIGION (ver1.1) hosted by Stefu

[Stefu]

Yin, close the old thread.

OK, here's my attempt of summary. Holler if something important is left out. I've left out posts simply agreeing/disagreeing: This results to that that not all contributors get full credit.

Stefu: Religions pop out at random and grow at themself. Goverments may hamper/encourage the growth by setting their attitude towards religion.

Willko: Likes the idea. Propoposes that panthenoic religions gain small bonuses in production, growth, and luxuries, but have greater maintenance costs and inefficiency. Gives monotheistic religions bonuses depending on which type the god is.

Mo: Church should propose a crusade when city where religion started is conquered by pagans.

MBD: Also wants ethnicity/culture.

Crusher: wonders about which religions are going to be in, and proposes that cults start popping around around millenium.

Vadertwo: Proposes that holy shrine is created to where religion starts.

evil conquerer: wants that goverment you use determines what tolerance level you can set to different religions. For instance, democracies cannot persecute religions while communists cannot fundamentally worship them. Also proposes 7 to be size of city where religion can appear.

Ecce Homo: proposes that all civs start with Animism, and can build Megaliths to increase chance of advanced religions to develop.

Trachmyr: wants customizable religions, like social engineering in SMAC. You should be able to select the primary structure, important aspects like status of priests, and tenets. To inact changes, you would need DOGMA, created by priests or religious wonders. Outside influence can convert people as well, or it can change DOGMA. Proposes 50 religions/game. Wants religion master screen to show percents of religions in your nation, and you can set STATE APPENTANCE there as well. Also wants FERVOR, which affects to how big bonuses does the religion get.

Eggman: warns that religion is testy subject, and isn't sure should it be included. Proposes fictional religions with random properties instead of real ones. Wants each religion to have tolerance percentive to show how religion deals with other religions. Wants there to be some 'bad' religions just to hurt the player.

Doc Dee: likes the idea of random religions popping up, and suggests that supporting a religion should give you happines bonuses and ability to build clerics. Thinks that Persecution is important tool to stop enemy gaining religious influence. Thinks that having religious support should make it easier to cause revolution in city. Thinks that religious population should be annoyed if their civ goes to war with their religious masters.

Diodorus Sicilus: Agrees that real reigions shouldn't be used, but that religions should be defined by how they are: is it tolerant or not, is it pacifist or militant, does it support the goverment or not. Also thinks that religion should be defined by general terms:Monotheistic,Polytheistic,etc. Thinks that changes in religious structure should be defined by game events. Thinks that nation where religion is started should build some kind of wonder in capital to stop rival centers from appearing. Thinks that crusades could be started by religion or goverment.

Eggman: Thinks that persecuting religion should be big atrocity, but that persecuting should give short-term and long-term advantages to the persecutor. Wants spontaneous persecutions to happen when to religions really hate each other. Wishes that religions have rate of devotion, which decides how resistant they are to conversion, and that rate of devotion increases in time. Thinks that civs shouldn't be able to create religions. Wants bonus for religious freedom. Wants schisms as random events. Thinks that unhappy people should be more willing to convert than happy.

NotLikeTea: Thinks that goverment form shouldn't restrict the religions, but rather to effect their growth.

Michael Jeszenka: wants there to be option to disable the religions in scenarios.

NotLikeTea: Doesn't want the religions to have outright bonuses, but to have influence on people to possibly effect them ant to give bonuses that way.

CormacMacArt: Wants actual religions with basic values. Thinks that goverment should be allowed to create goverment on Emperor or higher.

Trachmyr: Wants us to be able to design religions. Thinks that it is wrong to think that leaders have no control over how religion develops. Wants there to be riots and such for people who play god too frequently.

Bell: Thinks that religion itself shouldn't be modeled, just its effects, and that game sohuldn't care about what is your religion, but how do you handle it.

Aharon Ben Rav: Thinks that religion should be controlled from Social Engineering, and proposes major categories which give bonuses. Thinks it would be good idea for civs to start wars more frequently with those with differing religion models, and proposes that more advanced rleigions should sen more spies to revolt you cities.

MBrazier: Agrees somewhat with Aharon, but thinks that only four types should be enough. Also proposes new type for really evil religions.

Giant Squid: Proposes growth rates to set up which religions will succeed.Thinks that followers of religion should be less likely to convert if the religion has been going for long time. Proposes that religion has impact on how temples and cathedrals work. Wants real religions.

NotLikeTea: Disagrees with giving bonuses or growth rates to particular religions. Thinks that application of religion could however cause some bonuses. Doesn't want evil nor real religions.

CormacMacArt: Thinks that maybe religions aren't such a good idea.

delcuze2: Wants philosphy, set by Social Engineering, instead of religion.

NotLikeTea: Thinks that maybe simplest way of modelling religion is that captured cities tend to be towards their former owner.

[This message has been edited by Stefu (edited May 27, 1999).]

[NotLikeTea]

Summary? Good luck! There are more ideas in that thread than all the others combined

[CormacMacArt]

I thought of this driving home last night. Assuming that all of us liked the ability to edit the game of things that we didn't like and add those things that were "obviously" needed, I propose the following:
[Using the conditions of Civ II as a template]
We had 27 different possibilities of AI players. You could choose to edit several from civs to religions (eliminating the religious advances) giving them qualities of TOLERANCE (-1,0,1)
MILITANCE (PACIFIST to MILITANT), EVANGELISTIC (ranging from Islam and Christianity[-1] to Judaism [0] to the Shakers [1]).
You could name these religions whatever you wanted and they would appear at random through time. So as not to offend, this would be an option that the player would have to initiate and would name whatever he/she wanted.
How's this sound, Ecce Homo?

[MBrazier]

A suggested system to represent religion's effect on politics:

1) A religion is rated in three traits: strength of belief in its devotees (Conviction), ability to convert infidels (Evangelism), and opinion of other religions (Tolerance). The first two traits are simple integers going up from 0. Tolerance is a triple-state flag: -1 for "never tolerate", 1 for "always tolerate", 0 for neutral.

2) Each populated tile on the map has a dominant religion. At the end of a game turn, each tile tries to convert its populated neighbors. Attempted conversions are resolved by the standard Civ combat method, using Evangelism for the "attack" rating and Conviction for "defense".

All of this is handled in the background by the game engine -- the players can see the result of it, within their territories and in sight of their units, but have no direct control over it.

3) A player may choose (after gaining some very early advance, Ceremonial Burial or an equivalent) an existing religion as the State Religion. Players are limited to religions that have believers inside their current borders, naturally. In addition, any religion with a +1 Tolerance cannot be chosen as a state religion.

4) Once a civilization has a state religion, it can build the Missionary unit. This unit cannot attack any other unit, and has a weak defense rating; but it automatically tries to convert every tile through which it moves to its owner's state religion. If a civilization changes its state religion, all of its current Missionaries instantly disband.

5) For every N tiles adhering to the state religion, one citizen is upgraded from "unhappy" to "content". (N is a game parameter set in the config files.) Building temples, cathedrals, etc. lowers N locally -- within the city limits, or the regional boundary, or however "locally" is determined.

6) On the other hand, for every N tiles _not_ adhering to the state religion, one citizen becomes "unhappy". Yes, it's the same game parameter as in 5); so, building a temple for the official cult in a region where that cult is scarce is an incitement to riot.

7) If a civilization doesn't have a state religion, religions with a -1 Tolerance create unhappiness as under 6), and all other religions have no effect on happiness. In addition, the religious buildings cease to affect N. They do still require maintenance, however -- an incentive to dismantle them.

8) A civilization can choose to outlaw a religion (other than the state religion, of course.) Outlawed religions create twice the unhappiness that they would if not outlawed, but their Evangelism rating is halved inside the civilization's borders.

9) Finally, your state religion affects your diplomatic reputation. Two civilizations with the same state religion rise one step towards friendly relations. On the other hand, if one civilization has outlawed the state religion of a second civilization, the second civilization becomes one step more hostile towards the first. A civilization will also be irritated for a little while if one of its Missionaries is killed.

As you all can see, I've stolen ideas from many of the posters in this thread, and I thank them all for the inspiration.

[NotLikeTea]

I like some things, and dislike others...

I like the idea of religions growing, and spreading, and coming into conflict with eachother. Even the stats seem resonable, though I would like them to be more something that the player can influence than inherent abilities.

However, having this done on a square by square basis may be a bit of an overkill. Unless the game does go for a region rather than city based format, simply analyzing these issues on a city by city basis would probably be enough.

Also, while other religions should have an influence on the happiness, I don't like the idea of building temples for various religions individually. Would be too much work, and might need frequent tweaking for very little improvement in gameplay.

I would also like to see the idea of "religion" expanded into more global views, somehow. Instead of Religion A disliking Religion B, some cities in your empire might be more friendly to the idea of Communism,of Fundamentalism than others, and would be easier to bribe by a similar empire.

Perhaps this could knock out religion all together....

[Eggman]

*** THIS IS NOT MY POST. IT WAS FROM THE RELIGION 1.0 FORUM AND WAS POSTED AFTER THE SUBJECT WAS MOVED OVER TO VER 1.1

I DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO MISS IT. I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT ON IT, SO I SENT IT POSTED IT OVER HERE. ***

From paraclet:

There should be an option in Civ to allow a civilisation to grow without religion.An atheist but non communist choice where people can enjoy philosophy without the peoples opium of religion. In these civ theaters should replace temples, then sex shops, then birth control which really separate pleasure from reproduction.

And even in civ using religion, it should become obsolete after the discovery of birth control for the same reason.Churches are more and more empty at the door of the third millenium and more we explore space and make more scinetific discoveries more religion is becoming obsolete...

[Cartagia the Great]

Where to being. Ok, I agree with the idea of religions, and I also like the idea of them starting, independantly, in a city and spreading from there. this could create multi-religiouse societies, and the like. I do see the problem that many people might take offence at certian forms if we use current day titles, like Christianity, but I don't feel that people will have much of a problem if the religiosn are given less descriptive names. For instance: There migth be a Pagan religion, but there wudl nto be the Wiccan Religion. Also there would be the Monotheist, not the Chrstian/Jewish/Islamic. Also religions would need to be shown as equal, they would jave bennifits, and disadvantages that would help in differant types of games, but no one would be shown as being mroe advanced, or superior, than the others. After all, who are we to say that Monothiestic is more advanced than Pagan, or Athiestic is mroe advanced than all? Like wise, there shoudl be an option ot scrable religion bennifits, so that ,if the palyer wanted, all diffreant bennifits would be scrabbled among the differant types, much liek the old personality scramble thing for Civ1.

Also, perhapse, to throw in another factor, there could be differant forms of the same type of religion. For instance, Paganism which would start in, say, an Arab city would be seperate from that of Russian Paganism, these would be considered differant, and such, despite the same bennifits. However, Russian Paganism could spread to the Babylonian Empire through trade routs and the like, and ,if they accept it, it would gain a stronger holding in there as well, with them drawing closer to Russia. If Arab Paganism spread to the Americans, and they picked it up, they would draw clsoer to the Arabs, and may look upon Babylon as the enemies. This actually makes a good deal of sence, and would show the diffreances between, say, Orthodox and Catholis, or Sunni and Shiite. If one of these Empires would thne switch to another religion, prehapse their one time allies would declare a crusade to rid their friends of the heathen. Also if a city would be the foudning place of this religion, it would get increased trade with other civilizatiosn who follow the same faith.

As for the person who says that religion si becoming obsolite...I don't think so, much the opposite in some places. just because science proves mroe and more things in the universe, many people will always want to bleive in a higher power, and may find reasons to do so. Religion, as we near the 3rd millenium AD, is not ending, it is merely changing. Is this good or bad? I'm not sure, we'll just have to see, ai?

[Eggman]

I want to make some comments here:

1) You should NOT be able to change your civ's religion like it is some sort of social choice. Governmental control of religion has been very iffy historically, resulting in mostly ugly failures with most of the successes involving citizens with weak faith (who could care less about which religion they worship), long-term persecution and/or massive violence. To the point, changing religion isn't easy (without popular support, almost always impossible) and usually a total or partial failure. It is A LOT more difficult than changing government.

If you want religion, let it have a life of its own. Government can interact with it, not control it completely.

2) Missionaries. You don't need state religion for missionaries. Even small minority religions have missionaries. Just thought I would point that out.

3) Atheists. First off, you shouldn't be able to *choose* an atheistic government. See point 1.

Second, if someone could give me an example of an atheistic civ, I would appreciate it. I can't think of one. Without a historical basis, I don't think that the option really belongs in Civ. Atheist minorities perhaps, but no full-fledged atheist civs...

Finally, I think you will have to stick with the religious names of the buildings. It is too complicated to have different names for each building depending on a variety of factors (government, civ name, religion, etc.). If you want to change them, I am sure that the text files will allow you to alter them to your heart's delight.

[Eggman]

I was brainstorming and I came up with a topic related to this subject.

Ethnicity is really a no-brainer for Civ3. Each civilization, when it founds a city, should have its own citizens there. If the city is captured, the ethnic group should remain but with the conquering population being added to the mix. Immigration and ethnic stife (both political and internal) are possible.

Perhaps in addition to ethnicity, there should be a second trait that acts like ethnicity except that it is not linked to the civilization. It is possible and even common for a single civ to have several different secondary characteristics or for a secondary characteristic to cross several borders. And perhaps even spread. This results in all those political and internal factors that we are looking for without the problem of religion.

Just a thought.

[MBrazier]

NotLikeTea says "Also, while other religions should have an influence on the happiness, I don't like the idea of building temples for various religions individually."

I didn't say you'd have to. You'd build only one temple in each city, dedicated to your current state religion. Switching state religions means only that, where your temples used to be dedicated to Marduk, now they're dedicated to Zeus -- the buildings themselves stay put.

A real-world example of this is England's switch under Henry VIII from Catholicism to Protestantism as the state religion. Catholic churches in England were not destroyed; instead the hierarchy of priests and bishops was replaced, so that a different set of people were using the buildings.

On Eggman's comments:

1) Under my system the player does _not_ control the religious beliefs of his civilization. What _is_ controllable is the civilization's policy towards the religions. Actual beliefs require generations to alter, but official policy can change in an instant -- again, Henry VIII is a good example.

2) Certainly all religions will have missionaries, even the smallest. But the Missionary unit I propose is a missionary _with state backing_. Missionaries without state backing are part of the automatic tile conversions, outside player control.

3) The Soviet Union certainly qualifies as an "atheistic civilization", in the sense that its official policy denied the existence of God. OTOH it _did_ have a "state religion" in the sense I give the term; Communism had state support, missionaries were sent to other countries, and so forth.

[NotLikeTea]

I agree with all but the last comment.

I'm not sure if this is your intention, but it looks like you are describing the official state religion of the USSR as Communism. By this logic, other nations have religions of Democracy, Capitalism, Monarchism, etc... No longer religion at all.

Which may be a good thing.. perhaps instead of the specific Missionary religious unit, why not a generic "Propagandist" unit, for any set of beliefs, with religion as one option....

BTW, I use propagandist not as an insulting term.. by this I mean any attempt to spread your beliefs.. Pro-deomcracy advocates would be propagandists as well as the less popular folks...

[NotLikeTea]

I agree with all but the last comment.

I'm not sure if this is your intention, but it looks like you are describing the official state religion of the USSR as Communism. By this logic, other nations have religions of Democracy, Capitalism, Monarchism, etc... No longer religion at all.

Which may be a good thing.. perhaps instead of the specific Missionary religious unit, why not a generic "Propagandist" unit, for any set of beliefs, with religion as one option....

BTW, I use propagandist not as an insulting term.. by this I mean any attempt to spread your beliefs.. Pro-deomcracy advocates would be propagandists as well as the less popular folks...

[Chowlett]

I like MBrazier's idea of religions "fighting" for control of the populace and affecting happiness etc. I really think this could work, including the idea of non-state religions causing UNhappiness where state temples exist. This sounds like a good plan - just one point. Maybe religious "combat" should be given a far lower chance of success for the attacker than normal - no matter if the conviction is low, it would still take a lot of effort to convert followers. Maybe as an alternative, a percentage chance that a square would try to convert it's neighbours in any particular turn.

I'd also like to clarify - presumably, if the old system of combat stays (if attacker fails, defende destroys attacker) - which honestly I think it shouldn't, but that's for another thread - this would NOT apply to this form of combat. I can't believe that just because we failed to convert them, they manage to convert us.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited June 01, 1999).]</font>

[paraclet]

ATHEIST CIVILISATIONS That,s what should be possible.Buit even here "Notliketea "is censoring my thread about atheism I wanted to create (2 times) and asking me to place my suggestions here on the religion thread...
And I tried and it was censored...
So that's censorship...
Is this forum a religiously correct forum ? What I ask is that in civ3 we can have an option for atheist civilisation and that even for religious civilisation that religion become obsolete afetr the discovery of birth control like right now in real life churches are more and more empty and will desappear except in undevelopped countries...
And that non communist countries should have the possibility to be atheist, replacing temples by theaters, then by sex shops and with a wonder like birth control having the same power as JS Bach Cathedral for a civilisation believing in science instead if a supernatural god.
Civ 3 should be fun to play also for godless athgeist players...

[the Octopus]

I want to post something here so I can be sure that it gets in the summary without any equivocation...

Religions in Civ III are a really bad idea. There is no way to do it which will not insult someone, and it does not add anything to the gameplay. Let's look at some examples:

Specific Real-World Religions: What advantages and disadvantages does Christianity have over Islam? How about Protestantism over Catholicism? How can you set those plusses and minuses without offending (at least a lot of, if not all) Christians, Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics?

Generic Religions (e.g. Monothesim, Polytheism, etc.): The problems still don't go away. What advantages and disadvantages does any flavor of religion have over Atheism? If you say Atheism gets a science bonus, there will be plenty of religious people who will be upset (there are plenty who feel slighted by "the Lord's Believers" from SMAC). If they don't many atheists will be upset since some feel that religion has held back the minds of humanity for a long time...

Totally Generic Religions: You have Religion A, Religion B, and Religion C, not any specific ideologies. How is Atheism treated under this system? I'd wager that paraclet and a number of others would be rather upset at the notion that atheism is just another religion, lumping it in with superstitious belief, shamanism, or what have you. Paraclet seems to believe (as do many others) that societies would be better off without religion, and that implying that atheism was just a denomination would probably be insulting to them. By implementing this A-B-C system you have removed that option and forced them to play a game that enforces an idea that they vehemently disagree with. You also imply that religions are totally superficial, not grounded in reality. What does this system say about whether or not Jesus Christ was divine? Some people may be offended by not being able to pick their favored religion.

Now, as to gameplay: It seems like a lot of the suggestions here talk about religions happening "behind the scenes" and "beyond the player's control". That, to me, is a recipe for a really frustrating and annoying game. Realism is no substitute for fun. Why is what is being proposed fun?

I haven't seen any suggestions here that would make Civ III a more fun game. I've seen many that would increase micromanagement, I've seen plenty that would have major impacts on a civilization based on totally random and uncontrollable events. I currently can't imagine a system which would not offend a lot of people. I think including religion in Civ III is a bad idea.

I don't intend to offend anyone with this post, so I hope nobody takes it personally.

[NotLikeTea]

I agree entirely.

"Religions" are a bad idea for Civ, since they imply that different types will have different effects.

However, I still think that it can be represented, in a sense of "Identity"

Just giving all cities a sense of identity. I'm not sure how, exactly, but cities would identify more closely with longtime owners than with foreign civs. Nationalism and xenophobia, controllable by the state. In the early days, this would model religious wars well, as people would want to return to their old civs. In this era most pollitical systems are more or less alike, and religion would be the explaining factor. later in the game, idealogies would be more important, once cold wars start popping up.

I don't think that this would insult anyone.

BTW, I never tried to censor paraclet. I have sent him a nice e-mail explaining the purpose of this thread, not as an advocacy forum for belief systems but as a thread to discuss ideas related to the game.

[paraclet]

THE OCTOPUSS your analysis is great but I think it is possible to include religion and atheism in civ 3 as long as they are equal or give equal advantage to the players. In a "religion and philosophy" option pannel the player should be able to choose a historically related trend like: Animism,Polythgeism,Induism,Judaism,Zoroastrism,Bu ddhism,Christianism,Moslem,Mormonism,
Atheism, and finally :custom deism where any religious minority can create it's own name without discrimination.
But what is very important and non discriminatory is that the result of choosing any of these options should give exactly the same advantages.I mean a temple, a church, a synagog a mosq and a theater should make exactly the same number of citizens happy.
About the wonders, in each choice a wonder should give the same advantage to all.
If the JS Bach cathedral make 2 or 3 citizen happy in each city, so should do the Big Mosq of Mecca, the great temple Jerusalem or the Mixed Public Bath for the atheist choice.
Even as a 100 % atheist I would accept to be treated equally at the beginning with other deist choices...
But the game should be historically correct.
I mean right now in civ 2 if you play well you can discover monotheism and build Cathedrals in 500 BC ...Wait a minute : Jesus was not born at this time !
So a Religious trend should be historically accurate.
That would be even more fun to play because it can be a little bit (not too much !)educationnal toward more respect between peoples of different religions.
For instance if you choose "christianity" you should be in a polytheistic civilisation until at least 33 ac...(100 ac should be better because before christianity didn't spread so much...
If you choose Moslem you should be also in a polytheistic civilisation until at least 500 ac , if you choose Buddhist until 500 bc etc...because a religion cannot appear before it's founder is born...
If you choose animist you are good forever and also if you choose Judaism or Induism which started well before 4000 bc...
A window should open during the game saying if you choose Christianity " Jesus is born...you can now choose Christianity".
Because religions are not scientific discoveries!!!
They are revealed by prophets or religion founders..It is stupid to have a team of scientists researching monotheism...It is a revelation occuring at a certain time by an individual being.
Like that the game is as fair as real life, a little bit educationnal,and respectfull for everybody...
And I forgot : if you choose atheist you can have an atheist building or wonder giving the same advantage as religious options, like, from the beginning of the game, theaters or mixed public baths instead oftemples, Stadiums instead of Cathedrals, The great Turk baths instead of JS Bach Cathedral
and sex shops or Play Boy television in the modern time.
But for sure the discovery of birth control , separating reproduction from pleasure should render all religions obsolete,all churches or equivalent sold like antidated barracks (like in Montreal where a lot of emptied churches are turned to supermarket...)
Then they should be replaced by Sex shops, and wonders like birth control centers and Play Boy Television.
And to avoid giving some advantages for those choosing "atheism" from the beginning when religion becomes obsolete (after the discovery of biology or electronic for instance...)theaters should become antidated as the churches and stadiums also, both replaced in modern age by cable TV and superstadiums.

[NotLikeTea]

I don't like the idea of the real religions, but you make a good point.

All of the modern wonders, especially the religious wonders are very western based. There are no mosques, synagogues, etc in Civ, but there is JS Bach's Cathedral, Michalangelo's Chapel, etc.. More variety would be nice..

I'm posting a similar message in the Wonders thread

[Saganaga Canoer]

Hey paraclet, why don't you keep your personal biases against religion out of this thread? (e.g., "like right now in real life churches are more and more empty and will desappear except in undevelopped countries...
").

These kinds of statements belong in the Off-Topic forum.

[Cartagia the Great]

Well tea, I have to disagree with you. Although you are correct that this would seem to say that religions have diffreant affects this is, in fact, the truth. Religions are meant to appeal to the population, in the population's envirmoment, but have been shown to ahve differant affects on differant people. There is no question about this, in my opinion. The TRUE pit fall we have to look out for making one religion better than another, like sayign that Monothiesm is more advanced than Paganism. What needs to be done is to show that some religions work better in differant enviroments, which is true.

[MBrazier]

I'll open with a comment from NotLikeTea:

"I'm not sure if this is your intention, but it looks like you are describing the official state religion of the USSR as Communism. By this logic, other nations have religions of Democracy, Capitalism, Monarchism, etc... No longer religion at all."

Communism is, I grant you, an odd case, as it was both a political system and a philosophy. The Soviet Union did indeed make Communism (as philosophy) into a "state religion"; the Communist Party had all the privileges that in prior centuries were accorded to a nation's established church. Moreover, the Party in other countries required professions of faith from its members, in the exact manner of a Christian church. I think it makes perfect sense to describe Communism as a religion.

Next I'll reply to that part of Octopus' critique which applies to my suggestions:

"Totally Generic Religions: You have Religion A, Religion B, and Religion C, not any specific ideologies. How is Atheism treated under this system? I'd wager that paraclet and a number of others would be rather upset at the notion that atheism is just another religion, lumping it in with superstitious belief, shamanism, or what have you... You also imply that religions are totally superficial, not grounded in reality. What does this system say about whether or not Jesus Christ was divine? Some people may be offended by not being able to pick their favored religion."

As I said at the start, I wished to model _only_ the effect of religion on politics. The model I gave, admittedly, abstracts away all the details of creeds, social habits, ethics, and so forth; it regards religions as popular opinions, without regard for their truth or falsity. But I did that because, historically, governments _have_ usually taken just that attitude towards religions, and in Civ you take the role of a government.

Religions do have deep effects on societies, beyond the superficial level I chose to model. But 1) modeling those effects would require a simulation of monstrous complexity and 2) you'd have to assume beforehand whether, and to what extent, each known religion was in line with reality -- which puts you right in the middle of religious controversy. I think we _can_ get by with a superficial view of religion in the game, where a deep one would be fatal.

"Now, as to gameplay: It seems like a lot of the suggestions here talk about religions happening 'behind the scenes' and 'beyond the player's control'. That, to me, is a recipe for a really frustrating and annoying game. Realism is no substitute for fun. Why is what is being proposed fun?"

For my own system, the "fun" element is with the Missionary unit -- sending missionaries into a civilization with a different state religion creates civil disorder, if the missionaries are at all convincing. Moreover the disorder continues even if the other civilization deports or kills your missionaries. (And of course the computer can pull the same trick on you -- fair's fair.) Missionaries make it possible to perform a long-term subversion of the enemy, without overtly attacking him.

Since the Octopus mentions Paraclet, let's see what he has to say:

"And I forgot : if you choose atheist you can have an atheist building or wonder giving the same advantage as religious options, like, from the beginning of the game, theaters or mixed public baths instead oftemples, Stadiums instead of Cathedrals, The great Turk baths instead of JS Bach Cathedral and sex shops or Play Boy television in the modern time."

Um... to tell you the truth, religious cultures can (and did) employ "bread and circuses" to settle their citizens. I envision the theater/stadium/television as a series of improvements quite separate from the temple/church/mosque set -- where the temple multiplies the happiness (or anger) springing from religion, the stadium would simply make a fixed number of citizens content. Civilizations with state religions would build temples and Missionaries to spread contentment; civilizations without state religions would have to divert trade into luxuries and build stadiums in which to hold regular public spectacles. To balance the game, the stadium option would be more expensive (per turn) than the temple option -- temples, remember, would depend on the extent of your state religion, which you could influence but not control.

[Eggman]

Just a quick comment. The Soviet Union really wasn't an atheistic civilization. Officially, they were atheistic but in reality, many (probably most) people practiced some sort of religion in private (often a very dangerous practice). Just because the government shuts down the Churches and declares that they are religion free doesn't make it so.

What I was looking for was a civilization that is VOLUNTARILY atheist as in the majority of people are atheists of their own free will. Tough one, eh?

[the Octopus]

paraclet: "I think it is possible to include religion and atheism in civ 3 as long as they are equal or give equal advantage to the players."

Let's see what somebody else has to say on the subject...

Fugi the Great (from <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000002.html?date=19:33>Social Engineering v1.0</a>): If a nation went truly atheist, the nation would self-destruct.

Which one of you gets the game you want, and which one is pissed off because Firaxis takes the other guy's side?

Saganaga Canoer: "Hey paraclet, why don't you keep your personal biases against religion out of this thread?"

This is exactly my point. You can't keep personal biases out of this. What you consider to be a "personal bias" (which I assume you mean with negative connotations), paraclet probably regards as established and self-evident fact.

"As I said at the start, I wished to model _only_ the effect of religion on politics."

But the implication to someone who doesn't see your little caveat but only sees the final game is that Firaxis regards religion as a completely sociological phenomenon, not a supernatural or philosophical one. I think plenty of deeply religous people would be mildly (or not so mildly) offended by that.

"Um... to tell you the truth, religious cultures can (and did) employ "bread and circuses" to settle their citizens." (responding to the notion that atheists can have just as much "contentment" as religious people)

Again, who is going to be happy with the resolution of this question?

Eggman: "Second, if someone could give me an example of an atheistic civ, I would appreciate it. I can't think of one. Without a historical basis, I don't think that the option really belongs in Civ. Atheist minorities perhaps, but no full-fledged atheist civs..."

Again, who is happy and who is screwed over?

There is very little, if any, benefit to including religion, and many, many problems. It's a bad idea.

[paraclet]

First Saganaga Canoer, it's my right as civ player to ask for the choice of an atheist choice in civ 3...As an atheist I went through the burden of building JS Bach cathedral for many years in order to win games...If you believe in god ,it's your freedom, but you cannot impose any more like in the inquisition time your choice to other peoples...I don't try to convert you...I am just giving exemple of real civilisations where churches are sold and become supermarkets and that the catholic pope is worried because every year there are fewer priests...That's to day's trend (and I cannot say that I am not very happy with it !)
MBrazier I totally agree with you that it's great to have the "weapon" of missionaries...Because it was indeed a weapon...The best colonisation weapon...And if the Incas and Aztecs have had an higher level of science they would'nt have been so easily conquered and destroyed...Like the Japanese had who were never conquered by western countries...
But it's great to use it as long as all religions (including atheist) can use missionaries.For atheist they should be renamed science teachers. Because more you are highly science educated and more it is difficult to make you believe in supernatural things like somebody walking on water or a piece of bread becoming human flesh...
So I like the concept of misionnaries as a tool to destabilise otrher states...But they should have equal power...Or if monotheists missionaries have a greater power than animist missionaries, so should have science teaching missionaries destroying suprestitious beliefs...In fact we can imagine like for militaries units, different power of attack for missionaries like 1 for animists, 2 for monotheists, and 4 for science teachers...
And Octopus, there is a huge exemple of an atheist civilisation : buddhist countries like India and many others.Because , like the Dalai Lama remebers to the world a few months ago on CNN : Buddhist is an atheist religion...There is no god in Buddhism...And it is indead a dominant religion based on self developpement and non violence.
Buddhist missionaries should be as powerfull as science teachers because their teaching never become obsolete...
And remember that the huge british colonisation army was thrown out of India by a non violent "missionary" :Gandhi...Who created massive non violent actions like general strikes...If we could incorporate that in civ 3 that would be great...May be some supermissionaries with the power to generate long national strikes...?

[NotLikeTea]

I agree that the JS Bach cathedral is a Human achievement. Since it is not a religious achievement, why is the wonder a cathedral? Could it be represented in another way?

I think that if there are Human achievements, they should be represented as such. If they are religious wonders, they should be divided up among religions.

BTW, I don't get the impression that anyone is angry here.. it's all a reasonable discussion of ideas.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited June 03, 1999).]</font>

[CormacMacArt]

To EnochF: If I find out which one, do I win?

To NotLikeTea: I have to say that paraclet has irritated me, and I am sure (strike that - KNOW) that I have irritated some people in this forum. I apologize for that.

[MBrazier]

Octopus says "But the implication to someone who doesn't see your little caveat but only sees the final game is that Firaxis regards religion as a completely sociological phenomenon, not a supernatural or philosophical one."

So put my caveat in the printed manual, as a footnote to the "how religions work" section. How hard is that?

Moreover: Civilization is a sociological _game_, not a philosophical one. A game that seriously tried to model the history of ideas wouldn't be Civilization or anything like it. What we want is a system that models the obvious effects realistically _and_ is simple enough to understand and manipulate.

Paraclet's latest suggestions are, um, peculiar to say the least (though I'm gratified to see he likes mine!) I see no reason to change the name of the Missionary unit for different faiths, and picking "science teachers" for the atheist missionaries suggests (offensively, and wrongly) that science has disproved the existence of God. In fact no natural science can even address a religious question; a scientist who speaks about religion speaks outside his field of expertise, and is no more an authority than you or I.

Paraclet's ideas about rating religious strengths are equally eccentric. I'll list a rough relative classification, based on my suggested rating system:

Evan. low, Conv. low -- the pagan religions of the ancient world. These often lacked the very concept of "conversion", and borrowed freely from each other when they met.
Evan. low, Conv. high -- Judaism is the only good example here; the Jews have historically stood by their faith under great pressures, but have never shown much interest in converting other people to it.
Evan. high, Conv. low -- religions that sweep rapidly through a population, but lack in staying power. Here I would put the odder Christian heresies, the Manicheans and Catharists for instance. Here also I would place the atheistic philosophies (be honest, now, Paraclet; has any version of atheism been held to for long, by many people?)
Evan. high, Conv. high -- Christianity and Islam, in all major variations. Here again the historical record is our basis; both Christianity and Islam spread out swiftly from their origin, and then persisted for many centuries thereafter.

Finally, to CormacMacArt: what do you mean by "city-based"? Each city, not each tile, holding a single religion? If so, how would you define the "neighbors" of a city?

[CormacMacArt]

Well, I like MBrazier's ideas (except I think that it should be city based).

atheism - 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (websters)

religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (websters)

I don't think that it is unreasonable to consider Atheism a religion. I do think that it is unreasonable to give different "benefits" to each religion or to make the rise or fall of each religion follow history. The former because it is insulting and unnessesary. The latter because it was not done for the civilizations, so why do it for religions? If you want to play out certain historical moments, you can make a scenareo. To place the past in the game puts unnessesary burdons on the programmers; to put the future development of religions in the game is to preach. I would think it the height of arrogance to insist that the return of the Messiah and the setting up of the Messianic Kingdom be programmed into the game.

As to the Wonders, J.S. Bach's Cathedral is not a wonder because of its religious significance, but because it is a HUMAN achievment. If for a moment, I assume that paraclet is right and the belief in a god will go the way of the dinosaur, all of the Wonders in Civ II will have value because they are human acheivments.

Let us return to the debate, wondering how to (or not) expand the role of religion in the game. Not whose religion and not how one is superior to the other, but how are they different and how best to make it so that they can interact with themselves and civs.

Joe Palmer

PS - I think that it is a good idea to program an "out" as it were, so that those who think we should leave Civ II alone on this issue can return the game to that condition.

[EnochF]

As long as everyone here is pissed off at each other, here's a suggestion:

The One True Religion could be randomly chosen at the beginning of the game, and it's up to you to discover which one it is.

Discuss!

<DUCK!>

Actually, religon is not at this moment "ending", but rather just the opposite. Currently, the numbers of religous are actually INCREASING. However, the number of priests is decreasing, and the Catholic Church will have to find a way to deal with it, but somehow I doubt the way they deal with it will be saying "OK, we are out of priests, you have to be atheists now."

But whatever you do, DO NOT MAKE A TECH THAT MAKES RELIGON OBSOLETE, that would *really* piss people off.
And parcalet, putting "Sex Shops" in the game for atheist temple will just piss off atheists who do not use/want those things. Also, using "Science Teachers" as Atheist missionaries would piss of Science Teachers who are non-atheist.

Also, I do not think you should be able to choose your societies' religon, that should be something determined by the people, and you would have the options of "fundamentally worship, Offical, Tolerate, Persecute"

Another factor in each religon should be it's "Centralization", and have three factors.

Very High: Like the Catholic Church, with one central body controlling the faith.

Moderate: Too much lay interpation discouraged, but has nothing like the Vatican. The Theocratic governemnts of the Middle East would be an example.

Low: Like Lutheranism, preaches priesthood of all believers.

Centralization would affect how much the religon will do, say for example:

Your civ, civ A is mostly religon A, which has high centralization. Civ B with religon B is persecuting religon A. Religon A would then ask Civ A to declare war on Civ B, and if Civ A refuses, some of your military units will "Defect" and appear in the control of religon A near Civ B to attack Civ B.

As far as atheism, have it instead of causing happiness like other religons, would actually create UNHAPPINESS, but increase science.

I think using real religon would just piss some people off, ("This Evil game says my religon is dumb and has low science, so I won't buy it"), so instead use things like Fuhdasism, Zaomerism, Turywenzism, and of course, Atheism.