New Religion Ideas - Well if its still possible to make suggestions.

well I still want to see religion as part of teh game, because it is highly influential. But this whole athiesm = corruption thing we've started is getting ridiculous. I think we're pretty much in agreement that athiesm does not = corruption. So lets move on from that. Is there anything else about religion that needs discussing? (Does anyone want to comment about my missionary unit idea?)

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

[Par4]

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.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Par4]

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 use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[raingoon]

Scanning this thread is like looking at posts written by people who aren't reading what others have said in response. The atheism discussion has turned into sophistry. It's old. It's played, long ago dispensed with. Which you would understand if anybody were willing or able to refer to the Religion Model.

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..."

Well --? Where are they?

[MidKnight Lament]

I don't have anything against a religious model. I think the game will be lacking without a proper one.

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.

- MKL

This thread demonstrates why religion shouldn't be a major part of the game...

[Grier]

I think religion should be tied in closely with diplomacy and to be more historicaly accurate should be spread by the sword rather than religious units as there are far to many units to micrmanage as there is.

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.

It could also be tied deeply to your peoples views on another civ. So declaring war on a civ with the same religion as you might make your people unhappy, where as war against a civ that has no religious foothold in your civ may make your people happy.

[raingoon]

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.

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

[MidKnight Lament]

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.

- MKL

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 11, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

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.

[beyowulf]

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.

[korn469]

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

[Par4]

This thread is turning into an off topic type thread. Oh well all for the better I totally agree that the Roman Catholic church 'revised' what Christianity was originally about. Korn I agree that atheists probably aren't going to start on a crusade like Muslims or Christians but buddhists are even more hmm what's the right word mellow I guess than atheists IMHO. For the new ideas I'm thinking maybe we should have just the names then depending on where the religions pop up ideology comes from native lands size, wheter it's warlike other stuff. I don't know this is a very touchy subject, anyone think civ3 might be branded anti christian like smac if we put religion in there(well in the US at least I have no idea about Europe)??

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[beyowulf]

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.)

[Stuff2]

I think that ideologies should be incorporated here somehow. Don't know how thought.

Islam is a peaceful religion, like any other. But the radicals read into the Koran (Islamic bible) and it tells them to perform a Jihad against other religions. While it is true that Islam encourages the forecful spread of religion (through tounge, sword, heart, and another one which I can not remember) some Muslims take this to the extreme. The sword part applies to the middle ages, not really today (the way I see it anyway) But those Muslims who are marters and die for their religion are basically told that they will recieve the best after life. That is why they do it.

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.

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

[Par4]

I don't know if that person really believed in god and believe god sees all but most people don't take that too much too heart(or they wouldn't do sinful stuff). It would be nice if everyone had convinctions but most don't and human nature takes over.

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.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

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.

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

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

[beyowulf]

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.


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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 02:43 PM 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)

Wasn't quite thinking that. More like, if a nation has a large population of a particular religion, but lets say the religion encourage war, for instance, but the government favors peace. If government were to successfully change this, so that its more in line with the governments policies, the religion's conviction level would decrease.

Would the opposite also be true (religion influences government? A democracy with a majority of very activly religious people who wish to spread the religion in a war like fashion can change the government to Fundamentalism?) So far: I like it

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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-15-2000 11:26 PM Would the opposite also be true (religion influences government? A democracy with a majority of very activly religious people who wish to spread the religion in a war like fashion can change the government to Fundamentalism?) So far: I like it

It might, but the government might think its owed a favor by the religion. Probably make it easier for the government to influence the religion, though. Hmm..if the government acceeds to lots of demands by the religion, then there would probably less resistance to changes the government would try to make. Maybe some sort of cumulative bonus.

[abuzayd]

Ok, first-time post for me...

I just finished reading the rather extensive proposal for religion in Civ3, and I think there are a lot of great possibilities there. As both a civ-fan and a student training to be a historian of religion, this is a feature I've been wanting a long time.

I fear that the religion model as it was presented is perhaps already too complicated to be implemented (even though I would love to have a fully baroque model with all sorts of possibilities...) Nonetheless, I'll throw in a couple of ideas that I had:

(1) what about "myth," "scripture," etc. A lot of religions are remembered for their foundational narratives. I wonder if it would be possible for a civilization to "build" a myth (perhaps as a WONDER?) Maybe "building" a myth in a particular city would allow a civ to establish more than one "sacred city" (since the city figures prominently in the myth, it would become a pilgrimage site).

(2) The "schism" model in the outline is really cool -- but should it maybe be tied circumstances within particular religions rather than, or at least in addition to, the decisions of civ rulers? Some schisms surely are the result of political decisions (i.e. the establishment of the Anglican church), while others seem to revolve around issues more pertinent to the religion itself (transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation... etc.)

(3) I hope that I am not offending any true believers here, but in from a historical point of view, no religion just comes out of nowhere... If a religion model included "types" of religions (rather than just names, ie Yahooism) when prophets "arise" in a given city (incidentally, this "Weberian model" is only one way religions comes into existence), maybe the type of religion they preach should be determined by being the *opposite* of the religion that is already dominant in the city: if a city is mostly Chinese Monotheism, the prophet would preach Chinese Polytheism, or what have you.

(4) "Axial Age": there is a theory that ca. 600 BCE there occured a shift in worldview throughout the Eurasian culture sphere, one that is reflected in (within 2 century span or so) the rise of Plato, the Buddha, the classical Israelite prophets, Zoroaster. Whether the theory of the "axial age" is sound or not, it might be cool to have something like this as a random event (say, for two or three turns, the chance of prophets appearing in cities increases?)

Ok enough... any comments?

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by abuzayd on 05-17-2000 01:06 PM (4) "Axial Age": there is a theory that ca. 600 BCE there occured a shift in worldview throughout the Eurasian culture sphere, one that is reflected in (within 2 century span or so) the rise of Plato, the Buddha, the classical Israelite prophets, Zoroaster. Whether the theory of the "axial age" is sound or not, it might be cool to have something like this as a random event (say, for two or three turns, the chance of prophets appearing in cities increases?)

Okay, if I am reading you right, then there should be at time, perhaps randomly chosen, in which a lot of different religion spring into existence? Fine with me, might make for some religious competition in a particular city.

[raingoon]

abuzayd -- THank You! Speaking on behalf of the many who worked on that religion model, it's great to see such a well thought commentary. A lot of it was common sense and debate. Your knowledge on the subject is a welcome relief.

I think your suggestions are compelling. Though I'm sure it's accurate to history, I don't know if antithetical religions springing up in cities is necessary. It might complicate things.

You mentioned your suspicion the model as it stands is too complicated to be implemented. I'd like to see your thoughts on a version that would NOT be too complicated, as I too would very much like to see religion modeled in the game... Excellent comments.

raingoon
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 18, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

Some other stuff I've just been recently(read, 'this evening') thinking of...

Superstition & Magic
Superstition is an attack on an enemy religion. Works by introducing numerous pointless, but easy follow rules, and or rituals, these provide a sense of security for there adherents and feel less compelled to follow the main tenets of their religion, thus canceling out any benefits the religion provides and possibly excerbating any negatives.

Magic is a condition where the regular populace of a nation no longer understands the technology that sustains it, it is thus viewed as magic. Research ceases or is slowed.

Oh and another I just thought of, Red Tape, similar to Superstition(heh) in method rather than effect. Works either on production, or maybe economy, by slowing, or halting it.

Some ways of implementing it. Not sure, perhaps these can be options availible to some units. Sort of similar to SMAC probe team.

However, the effects should not be instantanious, perhaps taking place only over a number of years.

Whatya think?

I don't think it goes with Civs theme. Sounds a little like Populous. That's just my opinion. I look at Civ as a history game, not a fantasy game.

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

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-18-2000 09:58 PM I don't think it goes with Civs theme. Sounds a little like Populous. That's just my opinion. I look at Civ as a history game, not a fantasy game.

Yeah, but I am not talking about fantasy here. Go over the post a little more carefully next time.

[abuzayd]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-18-2000 03:01 AM You mentioned your suspicion the model as it stands is too complicated to be implemented. I'd like to see your thoughts on a version that would NOT be too complicated, as I too would very much like to see religion modeled in the game... [This message has been edited by raingoon (edited May 18, 2000).]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there's no real agreement (here I'm not talking of the religion in civ proposition, but in more general terms) about why religions exist, and how they affect societies. Some would hold that religion is really just something that people use to explain society -- particularly in its more unappealing qualities -- so as to keep people happy. (The old Marxist "opium of the masses" adage.) Others think the exact opposite, that the institutions, material culture, even technology of a civilization are really expressions of that society's values and world-views, etc.

A further problem is the question of whether "religion" and "civilizations" are equivalent. Here it gets really complicated: in the case of Christianity or Judaism, you have many different political units professing the same religion. But the first couple of centuries of Islam, for example, politics and religion where pretty much inseperable -- the Caliph was not only the political ruler of the Islamic empire, he was also the heir of the Prophet's mantle.

As a 4X game, Civ tends to equate civilization with culture with political dominance with geographic distribution. My "civilization" is a bunch of cities that are all the same color, pretty much. How one can include something like religion, which may (or may not) be equated with a particular political entity, and do it in a way that remains playable, is a question indeed.

I was thinking last night that maybe it would work to have an interface for religion that looked sort of like the city screen. That is, the player "establishes" a religion like he founds a city; the religion gets resources (perhaps determined by the number of adherants to the religion, the number of temples, etc.) sort of like cities, and the religion can use those resources to "build" various things: myths, religious personalities, doctrines, etc. The availability of those things would be determined by the tech tree (example: in order for a religion to "build" the improvement "Scriptures," the civ. would have to have discovered "writing.") These religion advances might have different effects, including increasing the religions ability to attract new followers ("evangelism"), allowing a religion to declare jihâd, etc.

The problem is how to make these religions accessible to other civilizations, which I think is pretty important. Maybe religions function "autonomously" (sort of like Governor mode in SMAC) until a civ develops the technology to control it ("Theology"?). But what if two powers are struggling to control the same religion?

Looking back over this I realize that, while I started by thinking about a way of simplifying the model, I ended up just making it more complicated!

Well, as long as it's better than the way it's treated in Civ II ("now I'm a Polytheist, I think I'll go build some Elephant units..." ) I'll be happy.