What does Religion do in CIV3?

Jason Beaudoin · October 7, 2001, 13:14

In practical terms, how does religion "matter" in CIV3? Does anyone know how it works?

Gramphos · October 7, 2001, 13:20

I think they skipped religion. Culture is the closest feature I know about.

Jason Beaudoin · October 7, 2001, 13:22

Really? So religion does nothing except add to culture?

Do you think Firaxis completely overlooked it?

JellyDonut · October 7, 2001, 13:29

Well, you can still research Polytheism and Monotheism and you can build Temples, Cathedrals, etc. but we don't think there will be anything more on religion than there was in Civ II.

Gramphos · October 7, 2001, 13:29

As far as I know you can't set any religion of your civ, and your citizens don't develop a religion, the only thing I know that is religion-related is the improvements (that boost culture and make people happy)

SteveJH · October 7, 2001, 13:33

Religion is also in the game as a civ-specific ability such as commercial and militaristic.

Jason Beaudoin · October 7, 2001, 13:39

I thought that CIVs would have a certain religion and that it could cause tensions if you were of a different religion. Did I read that somewhere, or am I just dreaming in Technicolor?

Gramphos · October 7, 2001, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I thought that CIVs would have a certain religion and that it could cause tensions if you were of a different religion. Did I read that somewhere, or am I just dreaming in Technicolor?

I believe that was a suggestion, but it couldn't be implemented with real religions as many of them deny other religions and would get angry on Firaxis and crashed an airplane in their office.
And no more Civ

And I guess it would take to long to develop a religion system that grew within your cities and just allow you to set what city's religion to use or if you would allow any religion.

Urban Ranger · October 7, 2001, 13:49

What's that you smoked?

Akron · October 7, 2001, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I thought that CIVs would have a certain religion and that it could cause tensions if you were of a different religion. Did I read that somewhere, or am I just dreaming in Technicolor?

Actually, this is the function of culture. If there are citizens of a different culture in one of your cities, then those citizens either have decreased or zero productivity. You can perform minor ethnic cleansing by building settlers and workers, though.

It was a good choice by firaxis to put religion under culture rather than as a separate thing.

Jason Beaudoin · October 7, 2001, 15:10

Quote:

It was a good choice by firaxis to put religion under culture rather than as a separate thing.

Maybe you're right, but it would be nice if wars would be ignited because of religion. Nothing could be more realistic.

Picture some religious CIV demanding that you switch over to their religion or face the rath of God and their army.

I'd love that kind of realism.

Ironwood · October 7, 2001, 15:15

If you want to see a development team that's experimenting with the idea of adding religeon to a 4x game (thus making it a 5x game, they say), go check out Master of Orion 3! The game looks very experemental, but if they manage to balance it (and they did a crappy job of that in MOO2... creativity anyone?), it should be good.

Crouchback · October 7, 2001, 15:22

Religious civilisations don't have periods of anarchy between goverments and Firaxis recommend them for diplomacy minded players. (source: CIV-SPECIFIC ABILITIES By Dan Magaha).

David

Jason Beaudoin · October 7, 2001, 15:53

Why would religion be good for diplomacy? Did you hear of any reason why?

Gramphos · October 7, 2001, 16:06

I believe that it is good for Diplomacy as it helps you build a strong culture which will help you get better deals.

Akron · October 7, 2001, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
I believe that it is good for Diplomacy as it helps you build a strong culture which will help you get better deals.

Yeah, if you have a stronger culture than another civ, that civ tends to look up to you.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 17:25

Two reasons religion isn't in the game.

1. They don't want to piss anyone off! <----MAIN REASON

2. Religion would be hard to implement
Very rarely is an entire Nation united in its religious faith. Look at the Americans, what religion would you make them? See my point?

Religion is what's wrong with the world! I equate religious people to cavemen worshipping campfires. All the violence in the world is about religion in one for or another. I believe that science is becoming the common source for people's answers of "why are we here". In the next hundred years, more and more people will begin to see how stupid religion is and they will abandon it and look towards science. Did you ever notice how more religious people tend to be less educated? And isn't it funny how most of the educated people of the world are less religious? Look at many of the top scientists in the world. In a thousand years, historians will look back at this era and recognize it as the time when humans evolved and stepped away from the primitive beliefs of early civilizations.

Akron · October 7, 2001, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Religion is what's wrong with the world! I equate religious people to cavemen worshipping campfires. All the violence in the world is about religion in one for or another. I believe that science is becoming the common source for people's answers of "why are we here". In the next hundred years, more and more people will begin to see how stupid religion is and they will abandon it and look towards science. Did you ever notice how more religious people tend to be less educated? And isn't it funny how most of the educated people of the world are less religious? Look at many of the top scientists in the world. In a thousand years, historians will look back at this era and recognize it as the time when humans evolved and stepped away from the primitive beliefs of early civilizations.

Hmmm... This kind of antagonism is really what is wrong with the world. I could easily imagine a religious fanatic giving a very similar attack on the rest of the world.

Relgion is not the problem. It is the people who misuse or abuse religion. The evil stems from the imperfection of humans, not from the ideas themselves.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 17:32

Religion is a lot like communism, it looks good on paper.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 17:36

Guess what? Religion was created to explain questions like, "why are we here?". Then it evolved into a moral code for smarter people to control dumber people. All religious texts were written by humans, not any God. Why is there no mention of human beings being equal in any religious text? Does Allah/God/ *yourgodhere believe that men are superior to women/Jews to Buddhists, etc?

I have a better answer! Humans created religion. And they are all wrong!

to remain on topic:

I believe that controlling a religious civ would be beneficial for diplomacy because they will have culture bonuses.

Akron · October 7, 2001, 17:38

Nonbelievers is what's wrong with the world! I equate nonbelievers to cavemen worshipping campfires. All the problems in the world is caused by them. I believe that the true belief is becoming the common source for people's answers of "why are we here". In the next hundred years, more and more people will begin to see how stupid not believing is and they will abandon it and look towards the true belief. Did you ever notice how nonbelievers tend to be less righteous? And isn't it funny how most of the righteous people of the world are more civilized? Look at many of the top believers in the world. In a thousand years, historians will look back at this era and recognize it as the time when humans evolved and stepped away from the barbaric lack of belief of early civilizations.

This is not an attack, but notice how easily I changed just a few of the key words and made this very fanatical? This makes very powerful propaganda.

Crouchback · October 7, 2001, 17:48

Out here in the real world religion is both good and bad for diplomacy.

Good because it gives a nation a strong identity with clear moral principles that make it very easy to predict what they will do in most situations. That is if the leaders act on religious principle rather than national antagonisms or enlightened self interest.

Bad because it makes a society inflexible, unable to accommodate a developing world order or shifts in international power.

However, Britain will never get a break in Europe because the French like the Tate Modern. The US will not be excused for being aggressive on account of the fine films Hollywood produces. And the French... Well they're pink.

So I'd say religion may influence diplomacy directly, but culture doesn't.

David

Akron · October 7, 2001, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Religion is a lot like communism, it looks good on paper.

That's true, though only for the political aspect of religion. The beliefs aren't necessarily good or bad.

ruckus9 · October 7, 2001, 18:49

Quote:

Did you ever notice how more religious people tend to be less educated?

Quote:

Then it evolved into a moral code for smarter people to control dumber people.

Is it me or am I seeing a contradiction here? If the first quote is referring to modern times, then I might be inclined to agree with you although the basis for that claim still seems to be on rocky ground. IIRC churches were the first institutions to provide education, so religion isn't quite as bad as you proclaim it to be.

The second quote is a widely held view nowadays but I still consider it a little too cynical and simplified for my tastes; I mean, the "smarter" people were human too, and probably as many of them believed their own teachings as opposed to those who just used them to control people. But in the end, who really knows what the real motives of people are?

Well, I got off track but what I really wanted to say is that the science method answers "how does this work" questions really well, but its answers so far for "why does this happen" questions are supercificial or what we call "scientific". In other words it can tell us that animals eat to survive, but it can't give you a straight answer for why the animal wants to survive.

But on topic, I think it's good to keep religion out of Civ 3 for the reasons people have already laid out. I just don't think people really need a game perpetuating the serious religious tensions that are going on right now. Maybe in that future when time has lessened that tension or eliminated it then I think it would be a good idea. Anyway I intended to keep my response short and sweet but here we are.

Chowlett · October 7, 2001, 19:44

This is sooo OT that I wouldn't be surprised if we got at least a warning for this, but I have to rise to the bait - because you are insulting my beliefs here, and I can't stand that.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Did you ever notice how more religious people tend to be less educated?

Right. So that'll be why a) I, myself, am a devout Christian, despite having 7 grade 1's at Standard Grade (GCSE equivalent, A grade. A couple A* equivalent. 7 was all my school offered); 5 grade A's at Higher Grade (Slightly below A-Level, 5 was all my school offered); 4 grade A's at SYS level (slightly above A-Level), where 3 passes is considered unusual, and one of the subjects I did a year's work in half a year; am now currently in my second year of an undergraduate Mathematics course at Cambridge University - widely regarded as one of the hardest maths courses around - having got a 2:1-quality mark in my first year exams; and I take a reasonable interest in scientific developements, particularly in the fields of Mathematics and non-technical astrophysics. I'm not blowing my own trumpet, I'm making a point.

And b) why there is a huge, and I'm not overestimating, religious following in Cambridge University (of varying religions), and that most of my close friends (and believe me I don't get on well with people much less intelligent than myself - again, not arrogance, I guess impatience is more the problem, and thus my problem) are Christians at least as devout as myself.

Admittedly, this is just personal experience, but I feel that probably it goes someway to countering your statement.

On topic - I reckon religion as culture works quite well, without offending anyone. It is a pitty though that one of the cool ideas for it didn't get in. IIRC, each tile had a "dominant" religion, each religion had a Conviction and an Evangelism rating. Each turn, a sort of passive "combat" would take place between neighbouring tiles of different religion, with Ev for attack and Conv for defense, and there was a chance that the defeated tile would "convert" to the victorious tile's religion. You could then, if desired, set a state religion, which would benefit you in some way, enhanced for the number of tiles in your empire of that religion, reduced by those that weren't, reduced dramatically if there were any "opposed" tiles. If you decided to change religions, I believe there was a considerable cost suggested for the changing over of your temples etc. It sounded quite cool, if a little tricky to implement.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 20:00

Killing is good!

Killing is bad!

Gee, I only changed one word in that sentence, Akron! But that's usually the goal of religious people. They pervert interpretations of faith to justify their own agendas. Which is what you did. You perverted my post to fit your belief in your religion.

Let me clarify my thoughts a little more.

The goal of religion is to provide truth. Mainly, truth to our existence. Who created us? Why are we here? Human beings have the ability to use the scientific method to discover truth. Mathematics and the laws of physics are such truths. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism are parts of religion that prevent and suppress the use of science to discover truths. If there is no religion, or if science is embraced as a religion, then humans will discover more truths faster. Religion is like a gun. In the hands of a good person, it will not cause harm or death. But in the hands of an evil person, it causes harm and death. By getting rid of guns, you will get rid of deaths by guns. By getting rid of religion, you will get rid of deaths by religion.

Religion does have a positive effect in some people's lives. Many people rely on their faith to get them through life. But I believe that religion is used in a negative way more than it is used in a positive way. There are also other alternatives to religion to help those people reliant on faith. Education and a strong good moral conviction (being good) are better substitutes for religion. Religion has laid the groundwork for such moral codes, but too many Osama bin Laden's and David Koresh's exist. These people pervert their religions to justify murder, persecution, and oppression.

I am not suggesting that religion should be illegal. My goal is for people to accept science and good moral values before accpepting, "the bible says this...". As I said in my earlier post, educated people tend to be less religious. Whatever faith an educated person might have, they accept real world truths before accepting religious ideals.

To stay on topic:

Another reason religion wasn't specified in civ games is because I don't think Sid and company want to get denounced as heretics and excommunicated. If the Romans discover Catholicism and use it to conquer the world, people would think that Catholicism is bad. And then the Pope would call Sid before an inquisition and have two horses stretch him apart.

Remember, it hasn't been that long since things like that happened in the now civilized world. 40 years ago, blacks people weren't allowed to eat at "white" establishments. How civilized is the civilized world?

Sava · October 7, 2001, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Chowlett
This is sooo OT that I wouldn't be surprised if we got at least a warning for this, but I have to rise to the bait - because you are insulting my beliefs here, and I can't stand that.

LOL, I'm insulting everyone's beliefs. jk... read the post above this, I don't mean to offend people, but the truth hurts. And I think I should remind you that just because someone gets good grades, doesn't mean they are intellegent. Billions of people have died in the name of religion throughout history, so I think its okay if I take a punch at religion. I didn't specify that "protestants or catholics are evil" so I did not attack anyone's specific faiths or beliefs. I also did not personally attack anyone. I have not broken any of Apolyton's rules (I hope not). I may have gotten a little off topic, but in a discussion about religion in games is a perfect stage for explaining why religion isn't in games and why I believe religion is bad.

If my saying "religion is bad" offends anyone, well let me say this, "I'm offended that *yourreligionhere* has killed XXX number of people". Christianity and Islam have killed more people than guns. That's not my opinion BTW.

JellyDonut · October 7, 2001, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
But that's usually the goal of religious people. They pervert interpretations of faith to justify their own agendas. Which is what you did. You perverted my post to fit your belief in your religion.

You were the one who didn't want to generalize people?

Don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist too, but I know all too many atheists who go Christian-bashing all over the place. They're not all bad. It's the religion that is propagated not for the purposes of brainwashing but because it's what the community and the family truly BELIEVE.

I have to say if I were religious I would be a Buddhist.

And about your comment on communism looking good on paper: This comment was started on the belief that USSR/China/North Korea/Vietnam/Cuba/(insert Eastern European country here) were actually communist. They were certainly not a worker's paradise, that's for sure. Marx and Engels advocated egalitarianism, i.e. all are equal. So what's with the "Republic" theme (republic being a form of government in which elected representatives have more power over everybody else)? USSR, PRK, BRD, PRC, etc. If you think Marx/Engels advocated vanguard parties or guerrilla attacks, you're delirious. Didn't they say "Workers of all countries, unite!" and not "Workers of each country, revolt independently!"? I could go on...

P.S. Mods: close this thread. It's way OT.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 20:17

I would like to see generic religion in Civ games. Names like "Napoleonism" created by the French, etc. This way the function of spreading religion to conquer people could be part of the game. This would also free up Firaxis from getting sued/excommunicated/burned at the stake.

Please, if you want to continue the off topic discussion, start a new thread in the miscellaneous section. This originally started as a good topic but I skewed it off tangent.

Sava · October 7, 2001, 20:21

All other posts about my off-topic discussion, go here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=28673