Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions, and thus there is more graft and corruption. This might make subverting the city easier as well.

Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife

Any thoughs on this?

Well I suppose it could be an toggleable option.

>>
Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
>>

Well I think it could start in a city, but perhaps also with the chance to spread nationally, or even globally, independent of national borders.

>>
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife
>>

Well the possiblity to have more than one religion in a city should be distinct possibility.

Also one thing I forgot to add earlier. Also one thing to add, if a nation tries to tamper with a religion(i.e.change it attributes, like change a religion that encourages militarism, into one that favors pacifism(sp?) than if successful changed, the religions evangelism and conviction stats are lowered, thus making it less likely to spread, and make it adherents easier to be converted.

Along with this, new unit - "missionary". A priest that visits other cities and converts a certain percent of the pop. to the religion you choose. (Constrain: doesn't work on a civ under a fundy gov.) Any thoughts on this?

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 04-29-2000 01:21 PM Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions

This puzzles me.Just because someone is an atheist they dont care about how what they do affects the future???
They all live from day to day and dont care about how their actions affect their family or friends or others???
I'm sure if you think about that statement,it's not what you really meant...right?

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 02:19 PM I think that Religion should influence how much a Civ likes your reign. Example: If a city is 90% Islamic and it's under a dominatingly Christian society it may feel very strongly about joining a Civ that is majority Islamic.

Maybe if your civ is democratic or something similar,the city might also make a peaceful petition to you as the leader stating that they wish to become independent or join another civ,and if you refuse,maybe tensions might rise and their would be the threat of a revolt.
As far as the missionary unit goes,it could be interesting.But I think certain types of governments would consider it a threat to their national security if someone was to send a missionary onto their territory to try and "convert" their citizens.(Imagine christian missionaries going into communist China during the reign of Mao).

Was on one of the lists, forget which.

>>
And why would atheists not think about the long-term consequences of their actions?? You're on the edge of personally offending me.
>>

Okay, let me rephase. I think there would be less incentive to, say, -not- take a bribe, or be corrupt. If your not caught at it, the damage will be to society, not you, and in another few decades you'll be dead, and it won't be your problem anymore, anyway. A religious person would probably think more about how his religion views his actions, and the long-term consequence, how it would affect society.

Better?

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better?

- MKL

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 11:11 PM DanM ~ They have been since before 1800s. :-)

I realize that maybe I should re-phrase.
Christian missionaries going to a place like China can be a very dicy proposition,given the fact that 99.99999% of the population isn't christian or maybe even never heard of the christian faith.The people and maybe even the government may not take kindly to foreigners coming to their country and telling them that what they have believed for the last who knows how many thousand years is wrong.(my grandmother happens to know christian missionaries who went there).
I personally think they have no business going there,but that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM
Better?

No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there.

Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder.

By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-07-2000 06:21 PM quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better? No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there. Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder. By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

You mean like this Beyowulf? It's called "reply with quote" (upper right side of the original post). I don't think that athiests have no morals and I feel that is what he is getting at. Athiests aren't always the hellraising devil worshipers that religious propoganda makes them out to be. They are more likely than not people who simply wish not to associate with one particular religion. It may be against their personal beliefs and such...

Yes, you've pretty much guessed why I think your statement is a bit dodgy. Saying that aethiests are more succeptable to corruption is a huge over-generalisation based on little more than an assumption.

It's probably as bad as if I suggested that religious citizens in Civ should be more likely to be invloved in suicide cults like the one in Africa that recently locked 300 odd people in a building and set it ablaze without half of their consent.

Both statements would be very dodgy. You wouldn't like me assuming that you might join a suicide cult because you are (I assume) religious (not that I'm assuming you're about to join a cult), just the same as I don't like you assuming that I might be more open to corruption than you because I'm not religious.

If we get right down to it, perhaps there would be a very minor swing towards religious people in the first example, and a very minor swing towards aethiests in the second, but it is (if anything) minor, and not worth representing in Civ. Far too easy to offend people.

Months of discussion and debate proved, to us anyway, that the point of religion in Civ 3 is not to model different religions, but to model religion in general as a socio/economic/political force. THis is a very important distinction. Because if you're talking about what qualities make one brand of religion affect people vs. another brand, then you're talking not about a Civilization game but a "Religion" game.

One of the strengths of the Religion Model -- and there are many -- is its doctrine that religion in Civ 3 is to population what trade in Civ 2 is to resources. And btw, it should be about the same size as the trade element was in the older version -- making different religions have different qualities necessarily creates a greater need to focus on religions. This, we all agreed in the end, would throw off the balance of the game we're hoping for.

Last point -- we also agreed that if you wanted to call a religion Christian, Atheist, Turywensist, Yahoo, or simply "Blue," you could just edit the files yourself. But there are no "base differences" between religion brands in The Religion Model sent to Firaxis. Each is equal to the next in its inherent abilities, which we called "evangelism" and "conviction." To the degree that a religion becomes more powerful in either of those two categories is up to the strategy of the player.

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-07-2000 08:33 PM You mean like this Beyowulf? It's called "reply with quote" (upper right side of the original post). I don't think that athiests have no morals and I feel that is what he is getting at. Athiests aren't always the hellraising devil worshipers that religious propoganda makes them out to be. They are more likely than not people who simply wish not to associate with one particular religion. It may be against their personal beliefs and such...

Ah, so that how the quote is done. Thanks. And no, I never said atheists were hellraising devil worshippers, nor did I imply that, or anything like that. Nor did I say that atheists, were by nature, evil, or morally loose. If you read that into my post, well than I am sorry, but such was not my intent.

But, would you agree that a person wearing a seat belt would have a better chance of surviving an auto wreck? The seat belt is a protection, just like religion is protection(admittedly, some religions are a better protection than others, and some aren't at all) That is what I am saying, and that is all I am saying.

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-08-2000 02:54 AM Last point -- we also agreed that if you wanted to call a religion Christian, Atheist, Turywensist, Yahoo, or simply "Blue," you could just edit the files yourself. But there are no "base differences" between religion brands in The Religion Model sent to Firaxis. Each is equal to the next in its inherent abilities, which we called "evangelism" and "conviction." To the degree that a religion becomes more powerful in either of those two categories is up to the strategy of the player. I hope that helps the discussion, and I highly recommend a look at the Religion Model, which can be found easily enough in The List forum. Just check out the thread with the links...

Well, I did look at the list, which was what I was originally commenting on. Don't know if anyone else here has. Now, am I reading you correctly in asuming that every religion that pops up is going to be the same in 'conviction' and 'evangelism' and depending on the players choices, these two stats could increase or decrease. Now as I suggested in an earlier post, it seems to me that if a government tried to tamper with a religion.(i.e.make a religion that advocated peace, more militaristic), and if the government succeeded, than the 'conviction' an 'evangelism' stat of that religion should decrease, because the religion has been compromised. Also, I think, that religions should start with random stats, and 'conviction' and 'evangelism' should change on their own semi-randomly, based on trends. Evangelism might shoot up, while conviction might decrease, or vica versa, or they might both steadily increase or decrease. Also I think the stats of religions appearing in a players nation shouldn't be automatically know, but the player should have to take some action to find them out. Perhaps send some of spy to investigate it. Also I think the religions should be fictional with the chance for the player to change the name perhaps by altering certain files.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-08-2000 02:54 PM And no, I never said atheists were hellraising devil worshippers, nor did I imply that, or anything like that. Nor did I say that atheists, were by nature, evil, or morally loose.

Where did I imply that you said anything like that? All I said was that you were equating athiests to higher corruption, and although I'm not athiest, I can still find offense in that. It basically means that your preconcevied impression of me (knowing that I'm not religious) is that I'm more open to corruption than you. I don't think I'm being unreasonable if that gets my nose out of joint.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-08-2000 02:54 PM But, would you agree that a person wearing a seat belt would have a better chance of surviving an auto wreck? The seat belt is a protection, just like religion is protection(admittedly, some religions are a better protection than others, and some aren't at all)

I dispute that you are any more protected against corruption than I am, just because you are religious. That's what it comes down to in my mind. If there is a slight trend in the direction that you're pointing, then I would say it's only slight, and definitely not worth representing in Civ3.

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 05-08-2000 08:34 PM I dispute that you are any more protected against corruption than I am, just because you are religious. That's what it comes down to in my mind. If there is a slight trend in the direction that you're pointing, then I would say it's only slight, and definitely not worth representing in Civ3.

Okay, but still, I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why atheist would not be protected against corruption. If they do, I'll shut up.

It's like saying: "You've got a town, and you've got the people who believe in stoplights, and the people who don't, and the people who don't are more likely to get run over." When only an idiot would walk out in the street with traffic coming.

You're are negating the deeper social contract. Thus, if Civ 3 puts up atheism as a corruption enhancer, it would be a falacy based on those who subscribe (incorrectly) to religion as the ONLY moral arbiter.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-09-2000 01:07 PM Okay, but still, I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why atheist would not be protected against corruption. If they do, I'll shut up.

Let me put it this way...
Religious people can be just as corrupt as anyone who isn't religious.The only difference is;
1.Some religions allow you to sin all week and then be forgiven on Sunday.
2.Other religions let you drive a truckload of explosives into a crowd of innocent people(who don't believe what they do)and their religious leaders tell them this act will guarantee them a place beside the almighty himself in heaven.
3.And still others will spew their drivel on t.v.,promising to spend your hard-earned money on worthy causes;only to secretly spend that money on expanding their mansion,swimming pool,and building a dog house with a central heating system.
I'm sure many Americans know who Jim and Tammy Baker are,As well as Oral Roberts etc.
4.How about those nutcase murderers who claim god told them to kill.I guess we should consider them religious as well,no matter what their warped mind has concocted from what they have read.

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM That's mean I'm atheist and I'm certainly not corrupt. Also here in the states many atheists have to keep morals high because one arguement against us is without the Bible(not to imply anything about Christians but they're the majority here) we are going to be sinful and morally corrupt. But to say because we don't believe in an omnipotent god and follow religious dogmas that preach a moral life and 'good' living doesn't mean we are going to be the opposite. As for being easily swayed to corruption I know many religious people who are easily swayed and sin a lot wheter it's lying or kissing/cheating on girl/boy friends(its high school) and I wouldn't doubt they would become corrupt if given the chance. There are 2 other atheists in my school, everyone else is religious and we are some of the most honest, moral, intelligent students in our school and that's not my ego talking

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM"Here in the states"

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-09-2000 03:15 PM It's wrong that atheists would have more corruption for want of religion, because this assumes that atheists must necessarily BELIEVE in religion as a moral guide which they have done without.

They don't have to believe in a religion, they could just as simply have a code of honor. But those who actually practice their religion, or a code of honor, develop what I suppose could be called a moral muscle, they get used to saying 'No' to certain things and finding alternatives. Would an atheist necessary have this moral muscle? Maybe, maybe not.

quote: It's like saying: "You've got a town, and you've got the people who believe in stoplights, and the people who don't, and the people who don't are more likely to get run over." When only an idiot would walk out in the street with traffic coming.

Well then, the people who don't believe in stoplights, will shortly believe in stoplights, or they won't last long. No? Or they may think they're smart enough, or quick enough, to dodge traffic. If they retain their view, then there will certainly be more traffic accidents among those who don't believe in stop lights.

quote: You're are negating the deeper social contract. Thus, if Civ 3 puts up atheism as a corruption enhancer, it would be a falacy based on those who subscribe (incorrectly) to religion as the ONLY moral arbiter.

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM That's mean I'm atheist and I'm certainly not corrupt. Also here in the states many atheists have to keep morals high because one arguement against us is without the Bible(not to imply anything about Christians but they're the majority here) we are going to be sinful and morally corrupt. But to say because we don't believe in an omnipotent god and follow religious dogmas that preach a moral life and 'good' living doesn't mean we are going to be the opposite. As for being easily swayed to corruption I know many religious people who are easily swayed and sin a lot wheter it's lying or kissing/cheating on girl/boy friends(its high school) and I wouldn't doubt they would become corrupt if given the chance. There are 2 other atheists in my school, everyone else is religious and we are some of the most honest, moral, intelligent students in our school and that's not my ego talking

I salute you and your high moral standards then. But what if everyone was an atheist? Would the motivation remain? And these religious people who lie and cheat and whatnot are they really religious, or is it just in name only? If you are part of religion, but do everything it condemns, are you really religious? It'd be like a Marxist advocating capitalism. Or a Nazi advocating communism. And you can tell those 'religious' people in your school I said so.

1. The Frech Revolution was in large part a reaction to the astonishing corrupt excesses of the French clergy who rode roughshod over the peasants on their extensive holdings, draining them for every sou they could get and then telling them it was God's will. There are more than a few priests who took tumbrel rides to guillotines.
2. A catalogue of Middle Ages Popes reads like a Post Office wall. We have drunkards, adulterers, thieves, murderers, pedophiles, regicides, the list goes on and on. For much of the Middle Ages the Church was seen less as a moral force and more as a way to get ahead in this world under a cloak of moral inevitability.
3. Closer to home, let's list a few names: Jimmy Swaggart. Oral Roberts. Bob Jones. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. Our happy friends in the Aryan Identity Movement. Need I go on?
4. The Ayatollah Khomenei. 'Nuf said.

I could go on at some length, but what's the point? beyowulf is, I fear, beyond convincing. He asks for proof that atheists are less prone to corruption than are religious people. I ask him from proof that religious people are less prone to corruption. And cite some examples, pal, not vague feelings about what ought to be true in your worldview or odd analogies that won't stand up to logic.

And if this is the sort of thing that having religion in a game brings out, I say put the whole idea in a cardboard box, douse it with gasoline, drop a match and stand well away while the thing burns to ashes, 'cos, man, we don't need it.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-10-2000 11:11 AM I salute you and your high moral standards then. But what if everyone was an atheist? Would the motivation remain?

Good point you have me over a bone to a certain extent. I guess if we kept keeping our morals high for oh say 100 years then society would see it taboo to cheat steal lie adulterate. As for the religious people sinning heres what they(most of them have something about asking for forgiveness and jesus died for your sins) say direct quote from Catholic 'Bob'
"People sin because god doesn't want them to be perfect so Jesus died for our sins and we ask for forgiveness from god when we sin and god forgives us and we go to heaven to be with him when we die"
I guess lying is somewhat unavoidable but can you ask for forgiveness for cheating or stealing(something worth wild I don't know about a pencil or something like that) those are very conscious decisions IMHO.

Beowolf said he looked at the model, and yet his original post about "one true religion" and subsequent posts suggest he has yet to retain any of it. Similarly, OrangeSfwr, your missionary unit is the same unit suggested in the model already. Called a Cleric, in that case.

Not that you aren't free to expound with each other all you want, but the name of this thread IS, after all, "New Religion Ideas..."

However drawing parallels between an historical religion, and one included in Civ is asking for trouble. Many different religions (or lack thereof) should exist in the game, but their names shouldn't be important; All we want is a representation that different people have different beliefs, and model the consequences of that.

raingoon - if you're wanting people to look at your proposed model, I'd suggest you link to it, otherwise most people aren't going to bother. Personally, I've read it, but it was a long time ago.

Some of examples of involving religion with diplomacy might be:
Declaring war on a civ because of their religion.
Becoming friends with a civ by embracing their religion.

quote: raingoon - if you're wanting people to look at your proposed model...

Actually I'm not feeling too insistant about that. Firaxis has had the model for nearly seven months, I believe. And recently received it again as part of the EC3, which was voted on by Apolyton. I mention this only in the context of the thread to which we are currently posting because it seems kinda relevant to do so.

quote: Btw, the model was written by numerous contributors over the last year and a half. So it really isn't "my" proposal per se.

I did realise that. For the sake of simplicity I said it that way though. Almost changed it - in hindsight I probably should have.

quote: I recommend it again to yourself and others (you may have forgotten it does address the issue of naming religions).

I didn't remember that, but I feel it needed to be said anyway.

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-10-2000 07:59 PM That Catholic 'Bob' quote is exactly what a kid in my school said and it didn't clear up my question to him about how come people can ask for forgiveness for sins that were thought out and clearly intentional. Just to clear a little up about the nature of that quote. If this answer may seem a little 'typical', he seems to be the most well versed person I know about Christianity (nothing against Christians again they're just the majority of the people I talk to, ya can't find many Buddhists around here) that is a kid(I've talked to adults but I hardly ever get a good clear answer like this).

I've seen similar, but seems to me, that for people who think like, that they sin again and again, and ask for forgiveness for the same sins, again and again, that for these people, God isn't real for them, or is 1 dimensional, or only exists for 2 hours on Sunday. Before they sin, they never think, what would God think about what I am doing, and since God is not real for them, they're just a shade a way from not believing God.

Its like kicking someone, saying 'sorry', and repeating ad nauseum. Now its true we all sin, but, I would think that God would want us to make the effort to -not- sin.

In game terms, if a beginning religion might start at a conviction of say..25, than these guys might have a conviction of 2 or 3. So how about this, the higher ones conviction, the less corrupt they are.

quote: Originally posted by Ubergeek on 05-10-2000 01:19 PM I could go on at some length, but what's the point? beyowulf is, I fear, beyond convincing. He asks for proof that atheists are less prone to corruption than are religious people. I ask him from proof that religious people are less prone to corruption.

First and second century Christians. Known for their honesty, and integrity. Refused to hold public office or go to war. What changed?

Chrisitianity was made Rome's state religion, bunch of doctrinal changes were made, including concepts taken from other religions, conversions were made by the sword, rather than persuasion, and oh yeah, early christianity had no clergy/laity distinction.

So basically, Christianity was compromised, which results in further corruption later.

Now I never asked for proof that that atheists are less prone to corruption than religious people. I asked for a reason why this would be so. There is a subtle difference in what I am asking. Besides since religion has held sway for the last several thousand years at least, atheism hasn't really had a chance to 'strut it stuff', so to speak. Also unlike a religion, atheism requires little of its adherents, only that they not believe in God. Its doesn't require them to honest or have integrity, if they do, its in addition to being atheist, not because of it, or so it seems to me.

could you define corruption please?

and wouldn't atheist have more of a reason to obey the law in this life than a religious person?

i mean if the atheist is either sentanced to life in prison or sentanced to be executed they don't think they would have anything after that so wouldn't they live up the here and now more than a devout person who believes that they will have eternal life after physical death?

so maybe atheist should be less likely to riot or to revolt than religious people

i mean if the muja hadeen guerillas in afganistan had of atheist instead of muslims wouldn't they have been less likely to take up arms and fight?

then again maybe not

korn469

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 05-12-2000 12:20 AM beyowulf could you define corruption please? and wouldn't atheist have more of a reason to obey the law in this life than a religious person? i mean if the atheist is either sentanced to life in prison or sentanced to be executed they don't think they would have anything after that so wouldn't they live up the here and now more than a devout person who believes that they will have eternal life after physical death? so maybe atheist should be less likely to riot or to revolt than religious people i mean if the muja hadeen guerillas in afganistan had of atheist instead of muslims wouldn't they have been less likely to take up arms and fight? then again maybe not korn469 p.s. this post isn't very serious but i'd still like to hear your answers

Doesn't have to be serious, but they are valid. Corruption, well that sort of blanket statement, covering say, lying, bribery, adultery. Actions that may benefit oneself in the short term, but harm society in the long term.

Now an atheist might be inclined to obey the law, so that they won't have to face the consequences of breaking the law. But what if the chances of get caught are slim, or none, it becomes a whole lot more tempting. Or if they just seem that way, or if the punishment isn't really severe,(couple of weeks of prison). And there are those who feel, since they eventually will die, that they should try to get as much out of life, now.

Now, I agree, an atheist isn't quite likely to go on a crusade, or revolt against the government(probably have to get pretty bad for that to happen)

Though if the Muja Hadeen guerillas been following the tenets of their religion, they probably wouldn't have taken up arms in the first place(I heard somewhere that Islam was originally peaceful and benevolent. Not sure though.)

But back to the topic...you said that with less and less possibility to be caught, an athiest will be more likely to commit a corrupt act. THAT APPLYS TO ANYONE, religious or not! I don't know where you are going with this but I have yet to see anything that supports your point.

Atheist
Hmm no one around Ill take that 20

Theist
Hmm no one around Ill take that 20

Maybe the Pope wouldn't but many{all} average Christians or Jews would take the money.(like I said I don't know many Buddhists/ Muslims/ Hindus)

Is it me or is this thread getting really old??

Corruption needs to be the same for all people regardless of {no} religion. Only laws and strict police, maybe society taboos(maybe) could lower corruption.

So lets either bring up a new idea about Religions in Civ 3, or just close the thread...

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 10:57 AM i agree with Par and yes this thread is getting pointless. We need to keep corruption the same for all religions. You're just going to offend people any other way.

Okay.

quote: So lets either bring up a new idea about Religions in Civ 3, or just close the thread...

How about the other ideas I brought up. As in a government successfully trying to influence a religion, will lower the conviction of that religion. Also conversions made by the sword should start off with a very low conviction. Also a little mild government persecution should do wonders to raise a religion's conviction level. Too much persecution, and you'll have citizens dying off.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-14-2000 02:01 PM How about the other ideas I brought up. As in a government successfully trying to influence a religion, will lower the conviction of that religion. Also conversions made by the sword should start off with a very low conviction. Also a little mild government persecution should do wonders to raise a religion's conviction level. Too much persecution, and you'll have citizens dying off.

I think I see what you're saying but not sure...tell me if this is right...

Civ A and Civ B

Civ A is a religion (X) and Civ B is a religion (Y)

Civ A influences Civ B that religion X is better than religion Y. So Civ B has less conviction that religion Y is correct.

???

Was that right, if not please explain. And if it was, I like it. But needs a unit (I think). My missionary unit that I'm pretty sure I brought up in this thread, would be good there. Missionaries similar to western religious 'expansion' into Far east. What do you think?

But again, we'll come back to the fact that you can't just choose one religion for your civ, it just isn't accurate.