[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Religions in freeciv?

[Dennis Jensen <djensen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well this seems to be firming up quite nicely.  I could see this adding a
whole new dimension to the game that would then cause the player to try and
"influence" rather than control an aspect of the game.  It is always assumed
that as long as you inact something it is... but what happens if that isn't
always the case (real life).

The thought about the prophets could be an interesting side note...  if your
population is moving (inevitably) then prophets could show up as a warning
to the government (player) letting them know what will soon happen.  Then
the Missionary could be another form of diplomat that could be used to sway
religious beliefs, of course, they could become martyrs under the right (or
wrong) circumstances.  Although I am Christian, I don't have a problem with
the "Name" being used to reflect a game mechanic because I understand it
does not necessarily reflect real life it just borrows (or mirrors) real
life so that we can have something easier to identify with.

And as for the "enlightenment" period where religion starts to separate from
government -- this could be a "seeming".  For the people are, instead
following an obvioiusly spiritual religion, now following the religion
(tongue in cheek) of "science" (or something like that).

Now breaking from the normal timeline of things to make a bid for game
mechanics (sort of) -- what if the belief in something by enough people
could cause significant changes to take place (the gods are working) of
course this could be both beneficial and baneful depending on the
religion/belief system.  I mean think of polytheism all those gods fighting
with each other could cause problems within your country and then again
there would be more gods to deal with the problems as well.  Then once
aetheism and sciencism  ;-)  begins to spread within a country the power of
the "gods" begins to wane and people begin to believe less and less in
them.  Of course, the montheistic religions would hold because aspects of
"sciencism" could be absorbed into or accepted by the religion.  Just some
FYI thoughts and meanderings.

David KORONCZAY wrote:

> Ok, some re-thinking then. (the disclaimer still stands ;-))
>
> First, there would be no church, just 'religion', or 'beliefs', whatever
> you call them. (Animism, in the beginning)
> In each city, you could see bars showing what percent of the population
> belongs to each belief. Alternatively, (if someone feels percentages
> don't fit nicely into freeciv), a belief or religion could be associated
> with each worker.
>
> Then, religions can >evolve< from other religions, under certain
> circumstances, bla-bla. Like they can have some tech dependency.
> Roman, greek, likely other ancient polytheist religions,
> (probably hinduism as well? someone could help me out here)
> arose this way, i think.
> I don't know if one or an other polytheist religion could have an
> advantage over the other (where i'm talking about advantages that
> can be seen in freeciv, of course, like economical, or whatever).
> Probably not.
> As i know little about these religions, i don't see clearly
> their advantage over animism either. Though, i want to believe that
> there is.
> Oh, and Judaism, i don't know if there are scientific reasons
> for presuming that it arose through an "evolution", or
> by a founder (Moses?), like other monoteistic religions,
> such as what Amenhotep IV (=Akhenaten) created in 1348 BC.
> ((Don't feel offended, freeciv already contains this, or what
> else does it mean 'you've discovered(hah?) monotheism'.))
>
> The other way of new religions emerging would be that,
> there would always be a possibility of >prophets< arising in cities,
> (which would be higher under certain circumstances, like
> disorder, or maybe techs, other religions, etc).
> They could either just predict that new religion is
> coming, (making the abovementioned probability higher),
> or themself founding religions (like Muhammad or Baha'u'llah).
> Or their teaching could be considered after their death,
> and the new religion could spread from a small group of
> believers. (like christianity, or buddhism, though i'm not sure
> about this one).
>
> Oh, and entering a >hut<, you could also gain a religion.
> Or a prophet, at least :-).
>
> (and maybe 4th way - like what Akhenaten did: Do it yourself! ;-))
>
> While these religions are forming and spreading between people,
> you could decide that you want a theocratic (-like) government,
> which way you would gain more control over your people.
> Also, as this would mean you're sort of "head of the church",
> you could even have some level of control over the population
> on other players countries, if there are many of your religions.
> The true chance of creating the Vaticanian nation :-),
> receiving huge taxes from Italy, France, Germany, etc...
> You could govern >missionaries<, (or diplomats could do these as well),
> and you could force conversion of people in your cities with other
> religions, though this could be bad for your >reputation<.
>
> War would be easier to wage against people with other religions.
> THat is, maybe more discontent people should be generated when
> being at war with a player with same religion.
>
> I don't know whether monotheistic (or atheistic, like buddhism,
> taoism can be called atheistic, if i'm right) beliefs have advanteges
> over each other. But it would be certainly more interesting if they
> would. (there were many mails about rulesets on that)
> And remember - we are not talking about that xxxx-ism has this
> or that advantage, rather about a xxxx-ist government.
> (Still, i understand those arguments against making these differences
> between religions)
>
> Now, is this all more or less reasonable until the middle ages?
> Then, after a certain level of knowledge (Tech: Enlightenment ?),
> theocracy is certainly harder, i think. Maybe it's not necessary that
> religion becomes less important, less practised, and non-religiousness
> spreads, but at least power based on it should decrease,
> and there should be a need for a secularized government.
> If you are the church as well, you can do that just like
> when changing government. If the church is independent,
> they may or may not like the idea. You may need to force it.
>
> Oh, and one more thing, what should happen, when an other
> player claims to be the head of the religion your people
> also believe in? Schism? Should it affect religion?
> (that is, 1 religion - 2 church, or 2 religion - 2 church)?
> In the former, there could be a chance to unite them again,
> like when the enemy's cities are in the mood for revolt,
> you just have to declare him a heretic, and unite the churches :-).
> On the other hand, it still wouldn't be that bad, if he
> "won" over you, and he would be the spiritual leader of your
> people - just be careful, he may "suggest" things to them
> you wouldn't want to. And also some of the tax just pours
> into his pocket...
>
> Well, just some general thoughts, i know it still hasn't become clearer,
> and that i was a bit long sorry.
> Also sorry for using real religions names, but i would like to
> _be able_ , at least, to simulate those, and it's also easier to
> talk about them this way. They can be called anything later, when
> implementing it.
>
> david