Islam is represented in Civ, sort of...

[tomcat ha]

An Muslim Fanataism was good to the world those days why?
Cuz they believed that science and stufff are very important
also then they woud treat peapole well of other religons
today`s muslim fanatics are no true muslims
How i know that i`m muslim my self
Osama is no true muslim he says so but he ain`t

[Kramerman]

Fanatics and Fanatisicm cause nothing but grief. I mean, you have the obvious Islamic Fanatics and the terrorism that comes to mind, but there is also Christian fanatics who are at the base of such organizations as the KKK. And then soccer fanatics and the insuing riots over victory or defeat, in the US there are Basketball fanatics, who have rioted after LA Lakers won the championship in the past and the same happened in Houston after the Rockets won. Then there are fanatics like Timothy McVay(sp?) who was paranoid and convinced the gov was taking over everybodies life. And those Columbine high school kids, Im not sure what they were fanatical about, but Im sure there was something. Dont get me started on all those religious cults, like that one in California, I believe, that comitted mass suicide so their souls could be carried away to heaven on the Hail-Bop comet.

The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind.

[SlowwHand]

Yes, Persia=Iran.

As far as Atheism as an advance, that would be fine.
Negating all Temples and other religious improvements.
Would have to be an Optional advance. I surely wouldn't want it on my agenda.

[Kramerman]

Atheism should negate all religeous buildings effects (except culture), but all scientific buildings should make people happy instead (but not quite as many as religious buildings did) and also give a bonus to scientific research. I agree it should be optional, but with the advantages described abve, I would definately research it.

Kman

[yellfromhell]

[Krammerman said]:
"The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind".

Anti-fanatic fanatism is fanatism.

[yellfromhell]

Hi,
Every religion has fanatics and that doesnt make any of them a 'fanatics religion'. Some of us are Civ fanatics, or we can be Katchup fanatics, etc. Fanatism is generally bad (because it privates people of seeing other things and so comunicating) but its also natural (there has always been fanatism). Therefore, I wouldnt tie fanatism to religion or nationalities. I think Fanatism should be a 'maximizer' discovery in Civ. After you research Fanatism you should be asked where to deposit your 'fanatic potential' (f.e. in science, in military, in religion, in trade, ...). Even if you believe Fanatism and religion are strongly related, you could try to concibe every exageratedly powered preference as a religion. Atheism does not really exists. Atheos put the properties of a god to another thing. For example: 19th century scientist Laplace believed so strongly in science potential that you could say his god was 'science': for him science was inmortal, absolutly powerfull, eternal, the essence of nature, etc... all of them 'god-like' properties. Atheos have a god but dont call him a god. Or maybe the same 'Atheism' is their god, as well as for Agnostism for the Agnostics.

[Fresno]

From dictionary.com:

fanaticism:

1. Excessive, irrational zeal.

2. Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion; religious frenzy.

3. Excessive intolerance of opposing views.

All the descriptions of the word start with "excessive." IMO, it is hard to define when to call any radical opinion excessive and when not. A perfect example is my own country. Half a year ago, it was politically incorrect to say that "the Netherlands are too crowded." Anyone who said it was accused of being extreme right. Now, it's nearly politically incorrect to say that the Netherlands are NOT to crowded. Many people think being "left" means being a terrorist. Our prime minister Wim Kok (a very, very moderated social-democrat) was accused of being responsible for the murder on Pim Fortuyn, the leader of a new hard right party. You could say it's politically incorrect to be leftist at the moment.
In my opinion, Pim Fortuyn HAD extremist ideas. A few years ago everyone agreed with me. Now Pim Fortuyn seems to be nearly canonized....

What I mean is this: what used to be considered "fanatic" is "normal" now, and vice versa.

[yellfromhell]

Fresno,
That`s another problem. It has (as I see) little relation with fanatism. You cant call someone 'fanatic' for defending his own views, even if they are radical. I bet you would never call 'fanatic' to a man that defends the mainstream views. The case you are presenting seems clear to me (maybe because I see it from far outside). In Europe its happening the same thing it happened before WWII in Germany: there are a lot of extremelly cheap foreigner workers in the highly developed countries. They come from South America (my home), Eastern Europe, Ex-Yugoslavia, Middle East and North Africa. Even if you are not racist, if you had a good job and you were fired in your own country because a foreigner does your work for less money, you`ll have many bad feeling against foreigners (or at least for some of them). That can lead you to a fanatic point of view, but not necesary. You wont be a fanatic for establishing the facts: there`s too many people in here.
You will be if you are unable to see the other side´s view. That`s what I said in the last message.

[Kramerman]

I agree that fanatacism is largely a relative term, much like good and evil. However, I think that anyone who is willing to harm another or their property for whatever reason, no matter how "good" or "noble", than they are fanatical to some degree. In other words, a man who beats his wife befcause he saw her talking to another man is fanatical about his wife, The US who battled the North-Vietnamese to halt communist expansion were fanatical about stopping the spread of communism, the soccer fans who riot whether their team wins or loses is fanatical about soccer. As you can see you can try and justify these and a million other examples as being right or wrong, but I think the fact that they are fanatical to some degree is undeniable.

Kman

P.S.

"The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind".
Anti-fanatic fanatism is fanatism.

I am not an anti-fanatic fanatic, especially by my above improptu definition. I am however a fanatic about many things, all which I am willing to display violence over which I think is immature of myself. But.... what are you going to do? Almost everybody is fanatical about something .

[Iron Chancellor]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Not bad.
Maybe that could tie in with that Religion concept that should have been in Civ 3.

Then, with Atheism, libraries, like temples, would start creating happy faces....!

Then, we could create techs like "Social Darwinism" which reduces the chance of cultural assimilation to .01%. What's stopping us? Fascism could make X many unhappy people content OR cause them to dissapear. With "The Enlightenment" all religious buildings stop working and only libraries make unhappy people content, except for those who feel dispair over having no apparent purpose in life. They would commit suicide. With communism, the unhappy and the happy (rich capitalists) would be sent to prison colonies in the your deserts and tundra, and religious building wouldn't work. On the plus side, population control through liver diseases caused by alcoholism.

I'm sorry. Am I being just a little too sarcastic?

[Hagbart]

The Babylonians were not Muslim. That civ disapeared long before Islam rised.

The Persians or Egyptians should not be considered Islamic, most of the time in history they have not been Islamic. They were first conquered by the Arabs in ~700AD, and after that became Islamic.

[QBrick]

The thing is that the Islamic world wasn't flourishing at all, when European kings and emperors took the cross as has been assumed a few post earlier, while Europe drowned in religious fanaticism, what is exaggerated, too.
The Arab world was divided politically, even fighting Dschihad against their Islamic neighbours. No cultural progression being made, just holding the books of the early "liberal" Muslims in their hands, who were fighting against the "Fique" orthodoxy, which took over the Islamic world in the end.
Those books, containing Arabian translations of the old Greek, sparked European renaissance and lead to European superiority in science, society and military.
Ironically the transfer of ideas started with the crusades against a at that time slightly more developed but already stagnating Islamic culture.

# First post.
# Sorry, just wanted to check out my Avatar.
# Edit feature works great.

[ranskaldan]

Well, by the time the crusades came around, the first peak of Islamic culture was already over.

However, why doesn't anyone ever ask if Christianity is overrepresented? If Christianity is not overrepresented, then Islam is very very underrepresented. Very.

[gsmoove23]

Whoa, that is not true Qbrick. The first Crusades were in the 11th century, and arabic culture was not stagnating and to say all arabs did was to preserve and translate older masterpieces is ridiculous. Advances in mathematics, medicine and so much more were being made and many europeans made use of writings of Islamic authors for centuries to come. Of course there was plenty of in-fighting and religious controversy much like in christianity but the culture continued to thrive and outdistance Europe for a long time though its golden age might have passed.

[Beren]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well, by the time the crusades came around, the first peak of Islamic culture was already over.

However, why doesn't anyone ever ask if Christianity is overrepresented? If Christianity is not overrepresented, then Islam is very very underrepresented. Very.

I agree: that's why I say choose Turkey over Armenia, Mali over Ethiopia and Arabia over Israel.

[Dugrik]

Islam is a religion -- not a race, state, or civilization. It is represented by the Monotheism advance.

Someone suggested that an Atheism or Humanism advance should negate religious city improvements, but cause scientific improvements to increase happiness. This person must have been the biggest nerd in high school. Lisa Simpson would be proud.

As the influence of religious institutions have decreased, the responsibility for putting joy in our miserable little lives has been picked up by the entertainment industry. Entertainment is marginally represented by Entertainer specialist as well as Shakespeare's Theatre and J.S. Bach's Cathedral (primarily representing the influence of music).

If one insisted on implementing a Humanism advance, perhaps a local theatre or a television station could be added as a city improvement.

[gsmoove23]

I'm an atheist and I can't understand the idea of an atheism "advance". How many technological advances were made by people who were deeply religious or even just believed in God. Quite a lot. In fact I don't think the world has come to this advance yet since I believe more then 90% of the world pop believes in a God of some sort. Perhaps secularism would be more apropriate. The separation of religion from political and scientific pursuits. This certainly is a step forward for both science and religion.

[Beren]

Everything you build is government supported. I think you have to look at it this way. If you don't build a church, it doesn't mean it is not there, but it is not state supported, which could mean people are charged to go to church in some way (or pay volunteerly). Of course you don't recieve the benefits from the private church. The hapiness provided by the church should only refer to their attitude towards the leadership of the country, not to their actual daily feelings in life.

My point: secularism would not eradicate or diminish the church benefits, because people stop believing (let's say there are always people (some nut cases) who continue believing), but because people think the government shouldn't be doing those kind of things.

[gsmoove23]

Secularism doesn't necessarily mean you don't have state supported churches, for instance the Anglican church in England is still the official state religion, it simply means the changing of the roles of the church. Loosening the ties between political leadership and religious leadership and scientific thought and religious thought. In other words, nobody gets burned at the stake, hopefully.

This could mean a loss in the effectiveness of religious improvements, because church leaders might not always support your actions, they no longer have to, but a big gain in science because it is no longer constrained by theology, for the most part(opposition to gene therapy research being excepted).

[Beren]

Okay, I agree with most what you say gsmoove23.
The religious practice is no longer state supported, but the religious buildings are.

Why do people become happy from churches? Because they see that their emperor/king/consul/president/comrade does such wonderfull things for them. Would they still be happy if the government only supports the building? I don't know, maybe.

But you have an interesting point, gsmoove23. Loosening ties indeed means that religious leaders don't always agree with you and could even start a revolt. One church stabalizes the country, secularism doesn't.
So secularism destabalizes the country, reduces happiness.
No secularism will (eventually) mean less science. (Don't get me wrong: religion and science could go hand in hand for a long time, but from the evolution theory on it has become a more difficult story.)

[Heresson]

You must be kidding....
I learn both languages...
But yes, there are many common words.

[gsmoove23]

Secularism I think would come about when there is another stabilizing force to compensate for the loss of churches, like prosperity. The rise of a strong middle class. In my civs there usually is a point where I have enough luxuries and wealth that I don't have to worry about churches and I only end up building them for the culture. Of course, I usually only play at Monarch.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Dugrik
As the influence of religious institutions have decreased, the responsibility for putting joy in our miserable little lives has been picked up by the entertainment industry. Entertainment is marginally represented by Entertainer specialist as well as Shakespeare's Theatre and J.S. Bach's Cathedral (primarily representing the influence of music).

Not to mention the Coliseums.

If one insisted on implementing a Humanism advance, perhaps a local theatre or a television station could be added as a city improvement.

If you view the objects being built as flexible abstractions, those would be precisely what a Temple and Colisseum would be in Modern times.

[Bos]

Originally posted by dervish
Ancient Egyptians were polytheists to be politically correct and pagans to be unpolitically non-correct.

I just read a few of the first posts, so down here at the bottom of this page this might seem a little off-topic.

I just wanted to point out that Egypt also had a period where monotheism was attempted, making it the first culture to implement monotheism on a scale larger than a small tribe. This occurred with the father of the well-known King Tutankamen, the Pharoah Akhenaten (or Ikhnaton). He relocated the capital of Egypt and changed the official religion, but it was not heavily embraced by the populace. As a result, during Tutankamen's rule, Egypt returned to the polytheistic faith.

Just felt like pointing that out!

[bobbo008]

"Arabs to be in Civ is up there with the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians."

I don't see how India fits in with those three... (the three "nations" that have done the most for the culture and development of the human race)

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"Arabs to be in Civ is up there with the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians."

I don't see how India fits in with those three... (the three "nations" that have done the most for the culture and development of the human race)

Why not? India gave us the zero, and the Taj Mahal, and Buddhism.

And one major point:

Monotheism is not a scientific advancement. Not many of the advances are scientific. If anything, "mysticism", "music theory", and "nationalism" are cultural phenomena.

The science tree should be pruned and repruned until it contains just what it says: science. Everything else belongs elsewhere. We can have a separate religious model:

1) Around the middle of the Ancient Age, random prophets begin to appear in your cities, sowing the first seeds of organised religion. You'll find budding cults in all of your major and minor cities; and your citizens will begin to get converted. A small symbol will appear below each citizen to indicate his/her religion. Unconverted citizens are marked as "animist".

2) At this point, you may go to one of your advisors and set your stance on any of the religions, ranging from "State Support" to "Oppressive Prosecution". Your stance will affect the spreading rate of the religion in your state. Incidentally, it will also affect the hostility/friendliness of the religion to YOU, reflected in adjustments in happiness levels.

3) The catch is, if your state supports a certain religion, then any country that oppresses this religion will automatically have a worse relationship with you. On the other hand, you receive a diplomatic bonus with any state that supports the same religion as you; but incur diplomatic penalties if you betray them.

4) Religions will continue to emerge through the industrial age. They will find it increasingly difficult to survive as each state helps to spread its own favoured beliefs. Atheism emerges slowly as a religion like all others, through the middle of the Industrial Age.

5) A Despotism cannot support/oppose religions. A Monarchy can support only one religion at a time with all others set to Neutral or worse. A Theocracy receives combat bonuses against "heathen" nations (not sharing the same religion) but must set all religions except one to "Oppression". An Empire can tolerate multiple religions at a level that is one notch below state support. A Communism must support "Atheism" and set other religions to "Neutral" or worse. Republics have freedom in their stances. Democracies must set all religions to Neutral or better, and show more support for the majority religion of the people.

6) Finally, your temples/cathedrals etc will ONLY make the citizens of the appropriate religion content/happy. You can, for a small building cost, convert places of worship (a la Hagia Sophia). Initial animists (before the appearance of prophets) are appeased by generic "temples". Atheists can only be appeased by scientific and militaristic achievements.

Phew.... there you go. A religion model. Comments?

[Bos]

Great idea for a religion model, and I remember thinking the same thing about the "science" tree back when the first Civ came out; but for sake of simplicty I just ignored the blending of culture and science.

For the most part, I think your idea regarding working religion into the game is a great idea. While I cannot recall the exact details and have not checked the developers boards for quite some time, I remember thinking that the setups for the upcoming Master of Orion III had an interesting way of working various aspects of culture into the game. I believe your ideas are along the same lines as in MOO3, but again I forget what exactly their setup was.

The only thing I can think up for your idea is how various religions (or lack thereof) have often been around for a long time; but in various regions of the world they have come to be prominent at certain times. Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism have all existed as long as Humans have. Ancient Humans all had the same capacity of thought as we do today, and thus their thinking was nearly the same. Some cultures believed many gods controlled the world, with one god controlling each aspect of the world around them. Other cultures believed there was one god ruling all; or perhaps one god with sub-gods also ruling. There were also cultures that believed the world came as is: things just happened and there was no divine role to exist.

Such beliefs have always existed, and Civilization is not a game to teach Earth's history; it is a game to recreate your own: perhaps Moses, Muhammed, Christ, or Buddha never travelled the planet -- meaning the majority of modern religions would not exist. As such, it should definitely be a part of the Editor where you would be able to rename religions as well as add/delete them.

In my opinion, all religions should be available at the beginning of the game. However, there should be multiple routes for "scientific research" to take. You could take the route of science: as you reach the modern era, physical laws explain the universe and thus turn people toward more Atheist and scientific creeds such as Scientology. Or you could instead focus on cultural developments that would expand upon the influence of religions (this does not include Atheism).

Again, however, when religions become available should also be changeable via the Editor. I just believe that by default all religions should be available at the beginning of the game. For example, religions that worships the nuclear bomb or computers would not be around until such technology as been developed.

Religions have guided Human history for our entire existence. It is the single most dominant force within Human culture, and as such it should have a powerful effect within the game (as it currently does not have many effects outsides of happiness).

With major religions, however, Civilization would have to be cautious with assigning traits so as to remain politically correct. More cult-ish religions, however, such as a nuke-worshipping cult, could be easily stereotyped and assigned traits that reflect the creed as well as give a computer AI that might use nukes often and produce them in mass-quantity, as well as attempt to control all uranium deposits in the world. Once again, these traits and AI should definitely be editable, so that you can edit major religions to your stereotypical desires

All in all, I like the whole culture/religion idea; and with some tweaking here in there I would definitely like to see it in the next edition of Civ! ...So long as they work out bugs with changing stuff in the Editor

[ranskaldan]

Well, the civilizations themselves are existing ones, and their traits are stereotypical. While I don't agree with the concept of predetermined traits for each civilization, I do think that using real names adds to the atmosphere. Just as you play THE Genghis Khan of the Mongols, your empires and your neighbours are visited by THE Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, sowing the seeds of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. It all builds to the narrative of Civilization.

Finally, as for traits, I think that civilization traits should be chosen by the player according to the real needs of that particular civilization on that particular map. This is a much more realistic model for how civilizations really work (close to the sea? Go maritime! Much fertile land? Go agricultural!) and also avoids stereotypes, since traits for each civilization varies from game to game.

As for traits for religions, all religions are ultimately used by leaders to inflame their people. I don't really believe that any religion can have specific "traits" - Islam, after all, has been, at various points, militaristic, expansionist, cosmopolitan, tolerant, worldly, wealthy, imperial, poor, fundamentalist, secular, extremist, and even, in some cases, a terrorist motivation. As a leader in Civilization 4, you should be able to similarly bend a religion to your needs. A rich empire makes its religion into a televangelizing, charity organization; a poor nation makes its religion into a terrorist cult. That's how I think traits should work for religions - depending entirely on the actions of the leaders who choose to use them as instruments in their own ambitions.

[Heresson]

Oh, just one note; the ones that translated ancient texts to Arabic were not Muslim. Also, in the times when Muslim states were flourishing, mosts of their inhabitants were still Christian. Just a note.

[ranskaldan]

Yes.

During that time, most of the states that were Christian, top-down, were also very underdeveloped, disorganized, and poor. Especially the ones closer to the west.

Just a note.
Now... go back to the topic.