RELIGION (ver1.1) hosted by Stefu

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.

[NotLikeTea]

Hey, hey, HEY!

Don't knock Turywenzism!

[paraclet]

Mbrazier you say that "no natural science can even adress a religious question " and that "a scientist who speaks abpout religion speaks out of his field of expertise"...Totally wrong ! Neurobiologists and neuropsychologists start to understand clearly where inside the brain is located the religious or superstitious area (it is the ame area...)and how education (programmation ) can program the brain to developp these areas and make them work more...Other scientists are discovering right now where inside the brain is located the conscience...And the dicovery of human cloning proves that there is no soul and will make possible to have eternal life on earth...
Scientists also discovered that long sexual abstinence can be responsible of "religious delirium creating visions and making people ear voices"...The explanation of many "visions of saints and prophets...That's why scientists should be the ultimate missionaries...Those of the era of end of superstitions (or religions which is the same)
By the way it should be interesting to have human cloning as a discovery in Civ 3 making science much more powerfull as old sceintists through different bodies can have an exponential accumulation of knowledge...

[Eggman]

paraclet, while you are free to have any beliefs that you want, please remember that this forum is for discussing the addition of religion to Civ3, not your soapbox for your personal propaganda on religion. If you wish to do that, find a newsgroup or an off-topic forum.

However, I must admit that your claim that long sexual abstinence causes visions and voices to be quite amusing. The voices in my head told me so. ;-)

"Neurobiologists and neuropsychologists start to understand clearly where inside the brain is located the religious or superstitious area (it is the ame area..."

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.

As the latest numbers shows? My numbers are from the exit polls of the 1998 elections. And altough the USA makes up only about 5% of the population, it makes for a much greater proportion of the gaming population, due to it's strong economy and the fact the Firaxis is itself in the USA. The 1 billion Christian figure is fairly old, and I'm sure it's taken a much large percentage since then. Secondly, the countries where their are the most atheists would be communistic and ex-communistic countries, both of which where not many have the money to buy Civ 3. And since the company is based in the USA, I don't see what the problem is with putting America first...

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".




<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Black Dragon (edited June 05, 1999).]</font>

[paraclet]

and don't forget Satanism...It should also be a possible choice of religion...With many weird symbols making other tribes affraid and giving a military bonus...

Satanism is covered under "Weird Cult".

[Kris Huysmans]

You forget some religions, Namely the religions that don't believe in the individual and think it is just a part of everthing the real individual(Zen, Buddhism,...).
They have:
1 unhappy citizens for every military unit(who kills an other kills a part of the real individual)
No corruption in any city(we steals something from an other steals it from himself)



<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Kris Huysmans (edited June 10, 1999).]</font>

Hmm, how about we call Zen/Buddhism type religons say, Fuuchuism to avoid using real names.

And that Citizen unhappy for each military unit would be way too crippling for any player which got this religon, so I'd recommend no penalty for units away from cities, and balance that out by giving that religon a corruptioon reduction, but not eliminating corruption.

[Cartagia the Great]

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.

What I do believe is right would be having broader based religions with the inclusion of which country it came out of. There for the religions would be : Ancestor Worship, Paganism, Monotheism, Philosophical, Athiest and maybe one more. With the nations it sprang from, however, you could end up with Greeks following Arab paganism, or the Celts die ahrd followrs of Chinese Monotheism.

Also, in real life, just because a government is anti-religion, does not mean the people have to be. The Soviet Union was anti-religion, and yet a majority of Russians are still Orthodox Christians, to my knoledge. The same holds true in China, just because the Chinese government may be agaisnt religion, does not mean that people do not follow any religion. Also, a few years back, i believe the Chinese Govenrment stopped it's percecutions against Confusionists, but I could be wrong on that.

Cartagia: I disagree. I think your "chinese monotheism" sounds even more bland than Turywenzism. Secondly, have make believe, but specific religons would allow them to have specific attributes. Zaoesim would give you better troops, and Moochianity would help you control your followers. Your Civ Name and government form would still be real. Chinese Monotheism in addition to being extremely bland, it would be hard to put attributes on each form of religon. (I.e.From Jamaician Philosphy to Zulu Monotheism)

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.

[Eggman]

Just as a comment, I don't think that using broader categories like Animism, Monotheism, Polytheism, etc. will be any less offensive than using Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Smart people know which religions fall where. Giving offensive attributes to Monotheism will just annoy a group of religions instead of just one.

The only safe ways to go is with made up names or abstracting religion (you don't know what religion the civ is, but you know that they are fanatical, devout, wishy-washy, etc.)

[paraclet]

Why "offend"...?
God believers just have the choice to choose a tribe with a deist forever option...And atheits like me can choose an atheist forever tribe...Other peoples should be able to choose a "religious but replaced by science option"...Like that everybody will be happy...
I can't wait to defeat religious tribes !
And stop your americentrism...Civ is not build exclusively for america (and even in America there is not 95 % of peoples believing in god like the last numbers proves..) and America is only 5 % of the world population...And if you want civ 3 to please the majority of the world's population then with china's 1.2 billion peoples and some other atheists asian countries there is only 1 billion real christians believers in the world which is less than 17 % of the world population...

[NotLikeTea]

After reading all the recent posts, I renew my stance that any representation of religions (as Christanity, Islam or Monotheism, Animism) is a bad idea, as is giving any religion or religion type any kind of bonuses. Boo! Hiss!

I think it should be in the game, but only abstractly, as a generally fear of outsiders that can be used. This would remain after a city is captured, making the people more firendly to their original civilization than the conquerors. Any religion (or belief) could be used for any purpose, with effort.

[paraclet]

I don't agree.Using real religion names is much better...Like that you have the fun to identify yourself with your civilisation...
And you want not to offend any religion then make them ,one more time, totally equal...having equal wonders, and equal advantages on every field...Everything else is religious discrimination...even against atheists...
But I still think that the discovery of birth control should make religion obsolete...Because it does...And a real scientist is allways atheist...because he believes only what could be proven and repeated inside a laboratory...

NLT: We already have a disloyalty factor for recently conqured civs in SMAC.

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.

[NotLikeTea]

True, we have a "disloyality", but it would be interesting to expand on it a bit. Cities could have favour ratings for all other civs.

Carthago may like the Romans and Greeks, be indifferent to China, and dislike the Indians, for historic reasons. Another city in the same empire might have different opinions.

[CormacMacArt]

MBrazier - Sorry not to get back untill now - had a NASTY bug. The neighbors of a city are other cities. What I am saying is that all squares used by that city would have the same religion. I suggest this instead of ALL tiles for two reasons:

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.


paraclet - what world are you from? I am a Scientist and a Christian. I have worked with some of the top names in the fields of Pyrochemistry, Electrochemistry, Polymerchemistry, Solid-State Physics and Nuclear Physics. NOT ONCE has any of them even SUGGESTED that I was any less a scientist because of my religious beliefs. I have earned great respect as a scientist from Atheists that I have worked with. In short, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. As I suggested in my letter to you, restrict yourself to constructive suggestions to this topic before you completely ruin this for us all.

[Ecce Homo]

An idea from me and CormacMacArt that didn't make it to the summary:

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).

Maybe even a human could play as a religious leader?

[paraclet]

Black Dragon, why a christian should lead an army of athesit ? He can have the option to stay christian forever as you are not force to shift from Monarchy to Republic
And in the world the number of atheists has never been so high and is continuously growing up.In a near future they will be a majority...Science is everyday changing deists in atheists...And it's just the beginning...Like the % of marriage ending in divorces was less tha 5 % at the beginning of this century and is now more than 50 % in some countries...That's a great progress !Because mariage was inforce at the beginning by god's believers...

[NotLikeTea]

Keep in mind that this is a forum for the discussion of religion in Civ.

For a discussion of merits of religion (My god is better than your god ), try the Off Topic forum, at the bottom of the list.

[EnochF]

Actually, the fight brewing in this forum at the moment is "My no god is better than your god."

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...

Ah, screw it! The whole subject is too goddamned touchy, let's just avoid the whole thing.

[Stefu]

Okay folks, I think I'm not going to make version 1.2. Two reasons:

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.

Also, Ecce Homo, could you explain how this differs from my idea?

[NotLikeTea]

I think there are some good ideas from this thread that can be ammended, though it has been less productive than the last version...

[Galen]

Okay, here are my suggestions based on what I've seen:
<list>
Let people name the religion, avoid the touchy part.
Make the religions random, give them evangelists that all seem the same.
Have religions sprout up random with silly names. You can change it later.
Make Athiesm a special case
</list>
By Athiesm as a special case I mean that it really is a lack of religion, and therefore gets no bonuses or minuses.
However, religions could have knowledge bonuses, not nessecarily negatives. An example is Islam during the middle ages: Islam was the most science oreinted religion at the time.
And Religions could change. The Reformation led to more science, but now we have protestants leading the charge against science. When Christianity started it was pacifist, look at it during the middle ages for a contrast.
Make religions about as important as economics, it is.

[Galen]

Okay, here are my suggestions based on what I've seen:
<list>
Let people name the religion, avoid the touchy part.
Make the religions random, give them evangelists that all seem the same.
Have religions sprout up random with silly names. You can change it later.
Make Athiesm a special case
</list>
By Athiesm as a special case I mean that it really is a lack of religion, and therefore gets no bonuses or minuses.
However, religions could have knowledge bonuses, not nessecarily negatives. An example is Islam during the middle ages: Islam was the most science oreinted religion at the time.
And Religions could change. The Reformation led to more science, but now we have protestants leading the charge against science. When Christianity started it was pacifist, look at it during the middle ages for a contrast.
Make religions about as important as economics, it is.

[Cartagia the Great]

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.

There are my basic ideas, I hope that it cleared up my thoughts. I beleive I was being misunderstood before, and this should clearify the situation. I do hope that religion, and real religions, are used in this new game. It would be a bit gutsy, but would increase my respect fopr Sid Mier, and the company ten fold for doing so. On a final note, I believe there should be an option which would scramble the affects of a religion, much like there was the civ1 option to scramble leadership attributes.

Paraclet: Stats show religon is going the other way, up. And the divorce rate is merely a sign of bad choosing. Atheists will most likely never be a majority, at least while we are still alive.

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)

[Ecce Homo]

Stefu asked how the AI Religion-idea differs from his idea.

Well, I made the usual mistake not to read the previous summary. I believe we can work out this idea together.