Monotheism

DarkCloud · November 25, 2000, 19:23

By KILLAH of Sidgames-

quote:

I think monotheisim should destroy all temples, because when you had a temple, you would have other temples, all of them for one god each, but with monotheism, you would create 2 or 3 unhappy people upon discovery, after 5 or so years, one unhappy person would be content, and this would happen three times.

The churches would be the same as temples. But, for example, this wouldn't allow you to research some other tech, or would block off part of the tech tree, specifically, a branch that would end, for example, you take monotheism out of the main tech tree, and add some tech that allows you to build preachers (0/1/3, works like a spy, but can only convert, and that is a 4x bonus, unless if the other civ doesn't have monotheism) and maybe some other things. This would allow for tech trees that would be different. Of course, trading techs that you can't get wouldn't be allowed.
I know this would be hard on the computer, but think about it, didn't some civilizations stay mostly peaceful, but others went total war

Maccabee2 · November 27, 2000, 19:44

Darkcloud, cool idea. I like your analysis that each city having its own temple was typical of polytheism, but monotheism would almost certainly require only one temple (like the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem).

DarkCloud · November 27, 2000, 20:39

Well, I really don't support Monotheism at all, but this idea was a good one for Monotheism if it is in the game, so I thought that I would post this post here.

To truly have a monotheistic country you would have one temple in the capital or largest city, turn into a large cathedralic mosque/chruch/etc.

Christantine The Great · November 27, 2000, 21:19

Why would temples be obesolete with the "discovery" of monotheism? Jews worship in temples.
The tech for Monotheism in Civ II is really just the name that the designers gave to Christanity to give Civ a Universal outlook (Monotheism came MUCH earlier in history than the game). Afterall, did the Jews use cross-wearing knights to push back the Greeks?

airdrik · November 28, 2000, 12:50

I don't think that monotheists have to have only one temple, after all my religion has them scattered arround the world. We've just hit the 100 temples mark and are aiming for 200 by 2010, or somewhere around then. So don't go saying that monotheists can only have one temple, because in purpose, all 100 of our temples are identical.

The reason why we have so many temples when the jew only had one is because we have people scattered around the world, and some people still have to travel 100's of miles just to reach the nearest one. The jews, on the other hand, were all in one centeral location and only needed one to satisfy the needs of the people.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 28, 2000).]

Crustacian · November 28, 2000, 16:43

airdrik: hello to the first Idaho poster I've seen on here besides me

Tical_2000 · November 29, 2000, 17:31

Wow! Some of you guys are really dense! I think Firaxis used the word 'temple' as a name for any place of worship! If they used the word 'church' would you have anything to say then? Take it easy on the realism peeps...or I'll have to kill ya!

hHydro · November 29, 2000, 20:32

I think the fundamental idea here is that a change in religion would require some sort of a change in the cities where the conversions happened. Whether you call a place of worship a temple/church/mosque/mall doesn't matter.

The point would be that if your village of pagans 'discovered' monotheism (or any other focus of religion), you aren't typically going to clean the sacrifical goat off the altar and start thumping bibles... Differing religions typically defiled or at least drew attention away from the old religions artifacts and temples.

Jerusalem is one example of this, but you can also look to the basic idea of creating missions in order to draw in potential converts into your way of worship. And not to spark a religious debate, but some people would argue that Christmas exists only because the early Christians sought to draw attention away from the pagan solstice celebrations.

In essence, the idea is that in game terms, a change in religion might effect a state of turmoil similar to (and possibly in addition to) the changes in changing government types in Civ II.

eh?

airdrik · November 30, 2000, 01:47

Hi, I've been here for a couple of months now, and I've seen you, so where have you been looking that you havn't seen me? Anyway, back on topic.

airdrik · November 30, 2000, 12:19

You could have religion be one of those things like gov. and econ. You would have the 'state religion' be either paganistic, monotheist, polytheist, atheist, or non-supporting. Each one has pros and cons. I can't think of any right now, so I'll just let that be discussed.

hHydro · December 1, 2000, 01:39

Yeah I was thinking that myself. Basically what you're describing is something similar to the Social Engineering model from SMAC. Where Government could be one set of choices, Religion another set of choices, and maybe social choices and 'popular culture' or something being the 'future tech'. Each choice contributing bonuses and penalties to the facti...er... civilization. =)

Kind of off topic though. We don't even know if they're keeping a system similar to SMAC's SE or not. But it would be neat if there were more repercussions in switching religions (and gov'ts). In smac you just had to pay some energy, but if there are clearcut religion choices, it could be that you have to scrap and recycle previous temples and build new ones, or it could be that your units suffer a penalty for X amount of turns while they 'find their faith'. =)

beyowulf · December 6, 2000, 20:30

quote:

Originally posted by hHydro on 11-30-2000 12:39 PM
Kind of off topic though. We don't even know if they're keeping a system similar to SMAC's SE or not. But it would be neat if there were more repercussions in switching religions (and gov'ts). In smac you just had to pay some energy, but if there are clearcut religion choices, it could be that you have to scrap and recycle previous temples and build new ones, or it could be that your units suffer a penalty for X amount of turns while they 'find their faith'. =)

Hmm..your talking about if a civ has a state religion, right? What might be is if the state religion, unhappiness would result depending on how many citizens in your country belong to that religion.

hHydro · December 8, 2000, 15:54

I can't really put what I said into detailed examples without knowing how (or if) a S.E. system will be implimented.

Suffice to say though that if choices like government and religion are implemented on an S.E. table, then changing your entire country from Paganistic Polytheism to a nation under Monotheism should cost more than just 24 gold like it did in SMAC. =)

Other S.E. choices (for example economy-type, or social aesthetic) need not be so drastic, but government and Religion should definately cause some period of revolt or cost a pretty penny.