posted May 27, 1999 02:54            

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.

posted May 28, 1999 21:26            

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.

posted May 29, 1999 11:22            

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.

posted May 31, 1999 21:40            

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.

posted May 31, 1999 22:07            

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.

posted May 31, 1999 22:23            

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...

posted May 31, 1999 22:59            

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.

posted June 01, 1999 13:05            

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.

posted June 01, 1999 13:51            

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....

posted June 01, 1999 13:51            

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....

posted June 01, 1999 14:29            

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.

posted June 02, 1999 11:05            

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.

posted June 02, 1999 11:39            

"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.

posted June 02, 1999 17:14            

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..

posted June 02, 1999 21:22            

"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."

posted June 02, 1999 22:19            

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

Fugi the Great (from Social Engineering v1.0): 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?

posted June 03, 1999 12:42         

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

posted June 03, 1999 12:46            

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!

posted June 03, 1999 13:13            

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.

posted June 03, 1999 20:27            

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.

posted June 05, 1999 04:31         

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.

posted June 05, 1999 04:31         

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.

posted June 05, 1999 11:16         

What does this prove? First of all, is this just something some atheist neurobiologist, or accepted by all of them. Even still, if 1 part of a brain deals with the supernatural, it still proves nothing.

About Scientists discovering where the conscience is, again that still doesn't show anything.

Human Cloning Disproving a Soul? Those things are unrelated, and again shows nothing.

Scientists also discovered that long sexual abstinence can be responsible of "religious
delirium creating visions and making people ear voices"

Again this shows nothing, but this is extremely hard to believe, so would you mind giving a source?

Again, scientists as atheist missionaries would:

A: Offend persons of faith, which make up about 95% of USA.

B: REALLY, REALLY, offend any scientist who is not atheist.

posted June 05, 1999 14:19         

And secondly, each civ getting 1 religon in the beginning and sticking with it the whole game would be boring, and your ideas basically amount to religon/atheism being as similar as the different civs are.

I like the Idea that ALL civs start with animism, than later in the game, other religons could spring up and you deal with them. Atheism could also spring up later in the game as well.

The religon would be make beleive, but have different attributes, say:

Glorckatisim: Denounces Birth Control, encourages people to have big families. Gets a growth Bonus.

Moochianity: Says some people are born better than others, which gives the upper class an excuse to bully the poor. Gets a police bonus.

Zaoemism: This is the only true faith, and must be spread. Caries a morale bonus.

Turywenzism: God wants people to be more free. An economy bonus, and this religon will try to force you into becoming either a theocracy/republic/democracy.

Gewism: Says Idleness is of the devil. Gets an industry bonus.

Atheism: Has no promise of afterlife to pacify the poor, but secular science is encouraged. Gets a Hapiness PENALTY, but a science bonus.

Weird Cult: Peanlties to growth, economy, industry, and science.

These religons would "pop up" in cities, and would by itself build temples where they are tolerated(except for Atheism), send out missionaries. They would begin converting populaces, and you would see a screen showing how much of your people follow each religon.

Than, as others have mentioned, you would have different setting for what you do with each religon, such as:

Make State Religon: This is the official state religon(or atheism). This religon will grow much faster, but citizens of other faiths will become very unhappy. You can now build temples for your religon, unless you chose atheism. Missionaries can also now be built by you.

Encourage: Your government supports this faith, and you may now build missionaries of this faith. This religon will grow faster, but will also tend to make people of other faiths unhappy unless they encouraged too.

No interference: The religon operates by itself in it's missionaries and will build temples by itself. Will grow at a normal rate.

Discouraged: This religon's growth rate will be slowed, and the people of this religon will become more unhappy. In a communism, all religons can not be set higher than this. No temples of this religon will be built. Citizens of militant religons may demand you set another religon to this.

Persecuted: The religon is banned and people of it's faith are enslaved/killed. The religon will start shrinking quickly. Citizens of this religon will try to flee and will start showing up in other civs.A percentage of your military equal to the percentage of this religon in your populace will switch to the control of this faith This is considered a major atrocity in the later game, and if your populace is liberal enough, will become unhappy. Citizens of militant faiths may demand you set other religons to this. If the persecuted religon is Atheism, however, the Atheists will switch to other faiths, and most of them will be unwilling to die for their "faith".

posted June 05, 1999 20:20            

I don't like the idea of using unreal names for religions any more than I do for civilizations or governments. After all, do you cosnider it fun to play with the Grandzik Empire, under the Foltism government who fanaticly follow the Retrical religion? I sure wouldn't.

posted June 05, 1999 21:42         

And while you can not shut down a religon, you can limit it by forbidding temples to be built, or by activley putting members of that religon to the sword. And during the Soviet Union, 40% of the ppl believed in God according to a street poll, almost definitley lower than it would be if not for their government.

posted June 06, 1999 22:45         

Parcalet: Your idea of religon is boring, as it would make them all the same. You may be able to indentify with say, Christianity or Islam, but I would not think too many Christians would enjoy leading an army of Atheists against a Christian nation, so it would be better leaving real names out. Also, birth control has been invented, and religon has not gone obsolete. Atheists are still a minority in the world's population, by far. And your part about all scientists beleiving only what is found in the lab is also false, as that would be an evidentialist, not a scientist.

---------------------------------------------
As far as bonuses/penalties, it would make the game unique, and give you reasons to persecute/encourage a religon. It would make it an important factor in the game, as well as making the civs different. It could build temples, send missionaries, and hence add another fun part to the game, as well as add some bit of realism to it, as for the more "advanced" religons, they were not controlled by rulers, like for a time in Europe, a king who lost the pope's support would be beheaded.

posted June 07, 1999 11:09         

1. With the larger board sizes being suggested, that's alot of computation for each move

2. The relationship between that religion and the state can be more easily reflected in the happiness of the city. It essentially becomes a quality of the city.

posted June 07, 1999 11:39            

RELIGION AS AN AI PLAYER

AI players that are not civs, but religions. They can negotiate with civs, build temples and other structures in their cities, collect tithes, use propaganda against enemies and even raise small armies!

Each civ would be able to make different "treaties" with religion civs (Promote to state religion, allow, tolerate or persecute).

posted June 07, 1999 16:31            

Which raises the question: If the game randomly chooses "Atheism" as the One True Religion at the beginning of the game... why bother playing it?

I'd be willing to see aspects of religion in Civ III, but only if we can adhere to two extremely difficult tenets:
I. Avoid Christian-bashing, no matter how tempting it might be, and
II. Promote a kind of religious relativism which adds flavor to the game without completely overhauling gameplay.

Chances are, this would probably work out best if religions were controlled by a fairly simple AI. Not by random chance, but based on a variety of factors, including the technological level, the military presence, the level of unhappiness, the proliferation of religious buildings, the religious affiliation of neighboring civilizations, etc. Once the people have chosen a religion, you as a leader may encourage them by building temples, "cathedrals" (mosques, shrines), and religious Wonders. Your people's war discontent will rise if you go to war with a nation of the same religious faith (so as to discourage such warfare, but not completely disallow it; that would not be historically accurate); consequently, discontent will not be as great if warring against the infidels.

True atheism would be a kind of late-game "religion" which your people may end up choosing, in which case temples and cathedrals will increase unhappiness, and libraries will provide a modest boost, but otherwise you as a leader will have to compensate with a booming economy and high luxuries to keep them happy.

Er. That still leaves the problem of whether to specifically name existing religions and give them benefits or not...

posted June 08, 1999 07:30            

1. There hasn't been so much of new ideas or like, mostly just religious argument.
2. Day we send our summaries is nearing, so it will be easier this way.

posted June 08, 1999 12:16         

ANYWAY, this is the last religous arguing I will do HERE, altough I would be glad to carry it on in Off Topic.

And as far as your idea of atheists becoming a majority in the end, well, that would offend theists, and we dont want to go offending people. The only safe way to avoid offending people is to use fake religons.

I agree with the whole AI idea, allow them to do pretty much what Ecce Homo said. Also, I think if a religon is a state religon, you should be able to build temples yourself as well as build missionaries, to use either on your own people or your neighboring religon.

Another thing I think they should be able to do is declare crusade against a certain nation it gets pissed off at. If this happens:

You are asked to declare war on a civilization. If you refuse, a certain percentage of your population would disappear and reappear under the control of the religon near the nation it is attacking. In addition, members of the nation the religon is attacking will have a chance of rising up against their nation should they be of that religon.

----------------------------------------
Also, here is a compromise for what religons would be used:

Have it start off having religons like Turywenzism. However, include a "religon editor" in the game, in which you could alter religon names, as well as bonuses/penalties. That way, if you WANTED Christianity to be in the game, you could put it in, as well as give it whatever bonuses/penalties you want.

I like the idea of atheism having some kind of science bonus, but a large hapiness penalty.

Again, to restate the "levels" of religon suggsted:

Militant
Normal
Pacifistic

Evangelstic
Normal
Non-Evangelstic(like Judiasm)

Centralized(like Roman Catholic)
Normal
Un-Centralized(like Lutheranism)

posted June 08, 1999 22:40            

Ok, I thought I would better clarify my ideas for religion, just to make sure everyone understands them

First of all, I agree that religions would start in one city of an Empire and spread, mroe or less agaisnt the control of the host civilization. A Civilization could choose to respond to this religion in many differant wayts ranging from opressing the religion, to makeing it the state church, and opressing all others. The religion would ahve differant affects on the civilization, and the cities it holds, depending on the governments treatment of it

Religion names should be historical, not any of this Foocomism, which I strongly disagree with. Although I see the point of this argument, little else in Civilziation is 'made up' and I feel it the wrong option to do the same with this.

Religions would be of diffreant catagories such as Spirit Worship, Paganism, Monotheism, Ancestor Worship, Philosophical, Atheism and Cult. Each of these would have differant factors which would affect the hsot civilization depending on it's attitude toward the religion. There would be no DOWN SIDE to a religion. For instance, Paganism would not have a -3 science. All bennifits would be posative, but DIFFERANT, as to not be desciminatory.

Each religion would be named after the civilization it sprung from. Monotheism which is created in Babylonia would be called Babylonian Monotheism. It's affects would be the SAME as Monotheism, but it would act as a Seperate religion than, say, Chinese Monotheism. These two religions could declare religiouse wars against one another, and it would show how religions, despite being of the same time, can be differant. After all Christians and Arabs are both Monothiests, but are still seperate, and don't always have the best relations.

A religion would spread in many ways. it could spread slowly through the use of raod systems, and trade routs. This would affect cities conencted to the first city by road systems, and move out from there. Eventually they would corss boarders, where other civilizations could choose to hsot them or not. Rember, religions could spread into your boardres as well. Later, as a government offically sponcers one religion, it would be possible to build missionaries who would go out and, udner government control, preach the religion to another city and civilziation. This might have the affect of having another civilization go to your religion, or it could have cities go to your religion, and rebell, share money with you, or many other options. of course, other civilizations might respond very badly to your preaching, watch out.

Let us say that there is a religion called Arabic Paganism, which exists in both Arabia and Russia. Arabia and Russia would have better relations, becuase they follow the same religion, and such. However. if there is a religion called Roman Paganism in Rome and England, Rome nad England would ahve the same diplomatic bennifits as Arabia and Russia, BUT would not ahve these bennifits _WTH_ Arabia and Russa, beucase they do not follow the same religion. All are pagan, all would have the pagan bennifits, but the religiosn would be seperate. Crusades, and other things, could be launched agaisnt one another.

A religion would also survive it's creators death. Lets go back to the Arabic paganism in Arabia and Russia. If Arabis were to fall to invaders, lets say Aztec Philosophical, the Arabic Paganism would not be destroed in Russia. In fact it could be possible for the head of the religion to MOVE to Russia, much as Russia, in RL, became the bastion of the Orthodox Churhc after the fall of Constantinople. Arabic Paganism might not die out in the Arabic cities either, it might actually go into the invading Chinese lands and convert them, so that the religion would outlast its founding civilization in the way the Christanity survived the fall of both Roman Empires, and Islam survived the colapse of the Arabic Empire.

It would be possible, expecially later in the game, to show no govenrment sponcership for any religion. There would be bennifits for doing this, but it would also lead to some problems. There could be riots, seperation movments, and attacks against religion groups who dislike one another, depending on the history of the people, and of the nation.

posted June 09, 1999 07:40            

Athiesm was described as a lack of religion. Athiesm is a religion/belief that does not include a god. A good nuymber of "religions" fall into this category (Buddihism, I believe, is one of them. Reincarnation, heavens and hells, but no real gods as such). There is no reason to treat it any differently.

Still, I don't want to see it treated at all. Did I mention I'm opposed to this? Well, I am.

posted June 09, 1999 16:53            

I know the "fake" religions take the game away from reality, but Civ isn't and can't be a perfect model of history--though it's very good to try to use human history as a guide for how to make the GAME "more like life." I mean, face it--we play on random maps, with no more than six opponents, and we can go to Alpha Centauri! There's NO SUCH thing as JS Bach's Cathedral! But we accept these things in gameplay terms, even though they don't PRECISELY model real life. What we're all interested in is a way to MODEL the effect that religion can have on empires, in such a way that it ENHANCES gameplay WITHOUT offending people.

posted June 09, 1999 17:13            

However, I think we can see from paraclet's last post how bad of an idea it is to assign values to real religions. It will just get ugly. Lots of people with passionate beliefs (and usually too little knowledge - myself included) arguing and complaining about how this is incorrect and whatnot.

posted June 09, 1999 19:01         

In addition, even using Monotheism has potential for getting people angry, even if no penalties are used, especially with the inevitability of things like "Roman Monotheism".

People would still take offence, for instince, If Arabic Monotheism has a morale bonus, and Chinese Philosophical had a science bonus, well you see the potential for people getting angry right their.

In addition, with all those various types of religons that would be under Cartagia's ideas, would take alot of memory if they would be represented by AIs, such as 7 types of Paganism, Monotheism, Philosophical, Cult, etc.

posted June 10, 1999 13:41            

I think we can all agree that religions have been pretty important to the empires/civilizations of the world. Missionary activity was a powerful justification for the development of the Spanish and other empires. Russia's official atheism (and it's a fairly respectable academic position to argue that Communism did amount to a religion) did go hand in hand with a focus on scientific research (not always successfully, but never mind that for the moment). Confucianism aided the development of the bureaucracy needed to run China's empire.

Given this, I think it would be desirable to try to enhance the game of Civilization by thinking about some of the effects religion has had on various societies, and introducing that element into the game. I think that we can also all agree that some religions are more tolerant of other beliefs than others, some seem to encourage a respect for knowledge and learning, some seem driven to expand the number of believers, and so on. How can we apply this to the game?

Again, I still think Black Dragon has done the best job so far of modeling how religion might play a role in Civ3. I favor having one religion for each empire--this way we avoid the complications of official religions versus tolerated religions versus sects to be sppressed. Not exactly like life, but considerably simpler to program and game with. I'm not sure how religion should be developed or chosen--I'd hate to have it assigned randomly, and it doesn't make sense to have it come out of science either. I have no answer on this one.

As for the effect of other minority religions on an empire, well, in a way this is already included under the riot factor.

This ties into another idea I should probably also post somewhere else, perhaps some of you could point me to the right place. It seems to me that successful/powerul empires could also benefit from immigration--cities would swell with people looking for a better life. However, since the immigrants wouldn't fit in right away and might be (natch) of different religions, and the locals might not welcome the newbies with open arms, each new pop point would be unhappy. Perhaps some type of Social Welfare improvement could ameliorate this type of unhappiness.

posted June 10, 1999 14:29         

Say a city is 60% Glorckism, 30% Atheist, 10% Gewism

Said city could get:
+6% growth
+3% science and 15% of city becomes unhappy, which an a city of 10 would mean 2 more unhappy people.
+1% Industry

Or perhaps, to make religon have more of an effect:

+12% growth
+6% science
+2% industry

posted June 10, 1999 14:29         

Say a city is 60% Glorckism, 30% Atheist, 10% Gewism

Said city could get:
+6% growth
+3% science and 15% of city becomes unhappy, which an a city of 10 would mean 2 more unhappy people.
+1% Industry

Or perhaps, to make religon have more of an effect:

+12% growth
+6% science
+2% industry

posted June 10, 1999 14:35            

Each religion missions, builds places of worships and collect tithes in cities belonging to different civs. They strive to get as many believers as possible.

posted June 10, 1999 18:17         

I think I like paraclet's ideas of "zones", such as if a city is majority Turywenzist, it simply gets +1 economy, or majority Moochianity, it gets the police bonus.

posted June 11, 1999 04:43            

• Temple or not a temple
  
• Is it a state religion or a forbidden religion
  
• Your governement type
  
• Has this religion used atrocities in the past(bombs, ...)?
  
• How much of the people in the home city are from this religion ?
  

posted June 14, 1999 20:47            

All cities would have opinions of the other civs, including your own. If a city is conquered, it would prefer the old civ to the new one, and would cause problems. This would be like religions co-existing in one civilization, with different views, etc.

You could use these views. You can try to create more nationalism, wich would turn your cities against opponents, and towards you, making wars easier to fight. Holy wars, in the religions context.. idealogical wars later on.