Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Religious Simplifications into a Broader Context.

In the Victor Hugo Open Development Access the player is treated to the first sampling of the planned religious system. The system is similar to influence but relies more directly on population and buildings. Giving it a distinctness but familiarity. The game allows you to choose between two religions when you have 10 or more population (laborers or units). At this state in development there are only two types of religion available, polytheism and shamanism. At this state in the game’s development both religions are almost substitutes to each other. 

Before I get too far into analysis let me stipulate two points: The first is that because this is an open development there are simplistic tooltips available but it could of course be possible that I am simply fundamentally misunderstanding a mechanic by which faith works. I hope that does not cause a reader to skip over the rest of this write up. The second is that a fundamental concern for me is that religion as it is implemented has a political impact in the game which can drive the AI and the player into a state of hostility between cultures. 

While there could be a potential for dynamic counter play for players who are well studied in the mechanical nuances of the religious system, because it can be a political justification for war - by use of the in game grievance mechanic in diplomatic interactions - this presently further emphasizes the hollowness of the system. Trying to add more religions as the game is currently being presented seems to be a recipe for almost constant war. This problem has overshadowed much of the discourse I’ve read and thought about.

Humankind has a fundamental uniqueness in the 4X setting. Even this simplistic presentation shows a potential for dynamic gameplay with large shifts in gameplay and strategy being possible when transitioning from one era to the next. The scope of the game is suitably vaste but also specific. In playing this game you navigate a novel cultural journey from the Neolithic to the Contemporary (current) epochs of human development. These are loosely categorized under recognizable historical eras. While there are religions today who’s origin spans several of these eras it may be hard to justify that any one religion was so monolithic that it spanned all of human history, enduring through the eras. I am impressed that they tried to do this at all.

Also problematic is the notion that any one religion followed the same clear delineations over time. Religious organizations and beliefs have changed over time. While some of the cultures between era’s had a similar religion while other cultures (such as the early colonial Americas) formed in part around changing religious beliefs. I think it’s interesting because Religion is almost presented as a novel third layer to the game focused on the values and beliefs held by your culture’s population. But I think Amplitude chose to make this process too abstract. Which I appreciate. Olmecs founding Christianity when they create their culture in the era of Ancient cultures seems easily understood as lacking in cultural and historical sensitivity.

As players navigate their way forward through the early game they choose between belief in gods or belief in mediums. The choice is entirely abstract; there is no value-judgment made. There are different advantages to either choice but no disadvantages. Part of the hollowness I describe above is demonstrated at this point of decision. While I approve of the non-judgemental effort to accept that religious experiences are largely positive and contribute to the unity and formation of culture the amount of abstraction that happens around this decision is distracting and almost dishearteningly cynical. From this decision stems not a distillation of possible religious variety into a preferential core set of values that you as the player might hold nor does it distill or grow into a preferential core set of values reflecting the culture’s social values as they exist in the game.

It’s important that any religion introduced does more than present the player with moral statements attached to bonuses they receive. The player can choose tenets, or, moral codes but these always have positive benefits for the player. They do present an interesting decision tree for the player and many players figured out ways to maximize the benefit their culture had from a dominant religion. Usually by focusing bonuses into the same building which generates your ‘faith’, a holy site, which could be built multiple times. This was entirely uninteresting to me as a mechanic. 

If it sounds like you choose bonuses that your population generates from having faith, that is close to the executed effect. Except faith is not generated by the population (units) it is generated by buildings (Wonders, Holy Sites, and some Emblematic Districts). You divert resources to these sites to create a second form of influence - for bonuses you will receive if those buildings have a suitably ‘high number’ of followers. There is some impact changed by proximity and distance and random events but the resulting gameplay is not particularly original and while it mimics the spread of a religion from cities to neighboring cities it seems altogether too similar to the spread of influence. Of course it’s possible this is merely the test bed of future mechanics - tourism, faith spread along trade routes, maybe eventually faith almost always spreads through other buildings of faith (perhaps in the extreme triggering defacement or destruction of property of faiths now viewed in an antagonist light), no, saviors or saints here.

It was disappointing to see that while diplomatic interactions had a history of behavior they were tracking there was no public opinion or record of behavior for a player’s or an AI’s religious impact on the political landscape. But this also seems by design, because there are no value judgements - there is no impact on your culture’s civics or infrastructure based on the chosen tenets. There isn’t a record or history of prejudicial warmongering that might prevent you from choosing a civic. 

This lack of recorded behavior makes the descriptions and titles for the tenants even more irrelevant. When they are being analysed by the players on Discord or even the G2G forums the primary topic is not the relevance or significance of the tenets as they impact your Culture’s forming ideologies no, the concerns are largely focused on the imbalanced bonuses. 

This is understandable in the context of an early access open development period the players are asked to give feedback on game balance - and let me just agree with the player base here, the system is also problematic because it is imbalance in its current state - I will give you an example where both the Tenants seem randomly described and their impact is game centric.

Tenets have several tiers, higher being presumably ‘better’ or more ‘unique’, but it is agreed that the best Tenet is titled “Donate Generously” which allows you to build several additional holy sites. At the same tier another player could choose “Beware False Prophets” which increases the time it takes to convert their territory by another religion. Neither of these bonuses require any additional actions or have any cost to the culture. In effect religion and the game’s religious followers are a de facto state organized macro-economic bonus to be fought over. The game almost completely abstracts the historical complexities of religion. You can even choose a civic to try and ignore the religious mechanics introduced in the game. This civic does have an associated cost as you may be playing at a disadvantage.

In the context of trying to find a set of human practices or beliefs which are both suitably historical and which have ties through the different eras I have stumbled upon what you might generously describe as an … idea, something which approximates religion and incorporates the idea of a population coming to have core beliefs over time. This will be my second attempt at describing the idea both in the above context and in the specifics of implementation of gameplay mechanics. I’m sure part of what inspired the idea is that it’s an opportunity to introduce something which is both conceptually satisfying to me but is also more familiar to me than religion. I do appreciate that Philosophy has been a staple of 4X games for some time but I find it’s implementation to largely focus on or over state Greek thinkers as miraculous innovators. 

The Religious System as an Admittedly Still Problematic Abstraction of Philosophical Principles.

There is a conceit in a lot of the events and decisions that you are presented with in the game that seems to accept you, the player - whatever nebulous presence you have in the game - are already aware of some of the outcomes. While it’s true that ancient cultures were, I think, cleverer and more aware of the way the world works than they might be given credit for when reading about them in the third person as ‘discovering’ something we already know. Solving the problems they were faced with relied on similar abilities to problem solve and communicate that we have today. 

Due to the over abundance of Philosophy in historical 4X games being presented as a largely Greek innovation there is an opportunity missed by designers over and over to pay homage to the vast wealth of human ingenuity and critical thinking which has always existed in humankind. In the time approximated as the Ancient Era, urbanization and social organization reached a point sometimes described as the Axial Age. Religion and philosophy became fundamental to the ideological identity of peoples either as an Empire or as one apart from another Empire. I don’t know that it is appropriate but the idea of an Axial Age appeals to me as providing a few useful constraints in reimagining an abstract Religious mechanic.

It may be a bit disingenuous but I feel there are three, perhaps, religious umbrellas and the roots of what might be generously described as practical agnostic philosophy which developed around this time. I admit to being uncomfortable with this distinction because it might leave out Shamanism which is certainly an appropriate approximation of some of the values held by Ancient cultures (not just on the American landmass). I will do my best to keep it in mind but I tried to proceed forward with the following five abstractions; Naturalistic, Theistic, Shamanistic, Dharma, and Yiwenzhi. 

This is largely to accommodate the structure presented by the game in its current form because I only have the two distinct religious archetypes. These philosophical umbrellas are not meant to sum up all of human experience. I wouldn’t defend this position except as an approximation hoping to bring together a lot of distinct beliefs and inspirational insight into the human condition. Each of these umbrellas are distinct enough to offer up an origin for a potential religion recognized by our own history. I am specifically looking to embrace the potential an abstracted system of religion could allow but I also want to reconnect the system to the social values for each Era.

There is a bit of overlap between these. At the time when the Yiwenzhi was being created to organize the 100 Schools of Thought by accounting for all the notable writing of the time by scholars and other Fangshi, there were still people practicing Shintoism. In some places that Shintoism might have a spiritual experience akin to Shamanistic or Theistic. My purpose in starting from these five separate categories was to try and accommodate more religions and not less. However as I read about Fangshi and other cultures I decided to proceed with only four of the five general umbrellas described above.

While it may seem an appropriate generalization I’d rather not include Shamanism. I’ve been aware that it’s a term fraught with limitations but in the last month alone I’ve read about so many different human cultures and beliefs over the eons that I feel comfortable recognizing it as the sort of term you use when you aren’t sure how else to describe something. Shamanism as a practice, or a ritual, doesn’t exist except within stereotypical views of native or indigenous people. While it is probably not true of this game’s fan base I’m uncomfortable with the possibility that many diverse belief systems could be summarized as somehow coming to have the same overall structure. Perhaps I’ve been frustrated about this for months and more than anything it’s been churning over in my mind since I first saw it as something to reimagine.

Of course as I say this I am accepting four other generalizations. If I fail at this, I fail, having made an effort that may still reveal frameworks or provide a framework for a better system - perhaps not just for the game but a useful reminder to the players to recognize that a religious experience is a human experience. With all of that in mind let’s proceed to talk about reworking the system as it is now. Can I, with your help, discover a way to expand the gap between abstract freedom and advantageous decision trees in such a way that it is evocative of more.

I have not been doing a good job tracking my references.
This was referenced in some of the reading I've been doing. - 
KING, THOMAS. (2018). INCONVENIENT INDIAN : a Curious Account of Native People in North America.
UNIV OF MINNESOTA Press. ISBN 978-1-5179-0446-3. OCLC 1007305354.

Reserved, please. Thank you. 

I really should sleep.

PotatoesAreBland wrote:

Currently a player chooses between a religion when their population reaches 10. After which the player is tasked with building a Holy Site which generates faith. While I can appreciate that a game focused largely on urban sprawl as a measure of humankind’s progression through the ages would skew towards this sort of causality. But a large monument isn’t necessary for people to experience religion. However it might be a necessary mechanic.

I thought about how necessary Holy sites are to the religious system but while I was making my suggestion about reworking the religious start I also couldn't help but think if Holy sites were really a necessary measure to start religion. I opted for the idea that your people would naturally be faithful and the Holy site would just be a necessary evil to open up the religious gameplay experience, but now I'm not so sure.

At this point Holy sites are used as a metric to gain followers and followers are the only way tenets progress, which I find to be too shallow and don't properly represent faith. I think using the faith statistic itself is a much better start to gameplay, and simply having people generate faith in addition to holy sites, or monuments would be a lot more enjoyable to play and more "accurate" to describe religious movement.

I also like your idea of an expanded religious set of principles even if I don't agree with their associated bonuses. The section on Shamanism and how it wasn't a real set of beliefs but rather a projection of outside cultures is something new I didn't know. I don't think they should remove it altogether but rather make it a fifth possible religious thought in addition to the ones you have listed.

I'm also open to the idea of religion tying into civics and the politics of your empire, as well as not making just "bigger" religions with more followers stronger due to the current follower and tenet system.

I am literally stuck in my game due to religion. Once I reached Tier 2 in the Tenets, it seems all other Civs have already chosen all of the Tenets. I am unable to choose a tenet, so I am unable to proceed to the next turn. Is this a bug or a feature?

SivaMarti wrote:

I am literally stuck in my game due to religion. Once I reached Tier 2 in the Tenets, it seems all other Civs have already chosen all of the Tenets. I am unable to choose a tenet, so I am unable to proceed to the next turn. Is this a bug or a feature?

Seems like a bug to me.

That's unfortunate. Uhm. While I appreciate the attention to this thread it's from pre-launch and very much related to possibilities not the game as it is played. Although I'm happy to see it's still here. I very much enjoyed researching and over thinking about this.