I was again struck by the morality choices and I understand you position good to be more of a late game help.
But I was struck by the Pod people planetary colony event and the choices -
I can get for Good - Nothing
For Neutral - A small research bonus
For Evil - A big research bonus
I can understand good seems to finish last, I get that, but why not give some small divergent bonus for good, maybe not as immediately powerful, but still useful, like a small planetary quality bonus as the people are happy they are not forced to meld with pain plants. or maybe a small money bonus to represent extreme tourism as people from elsewhere come to see the crazy pod plants.
The rewards do not need to be huge, but some benefit other than the joy of your opponent in multiplayer saying 'your a tool for choosing good' would be great.
I Agree with the new Moraleallignment system all events should benefit equaly but different - so its not so much of a pain to be "non evil" most of the time (as it was in GC2) - Most events i have seen so far are imports from GC2 so mostlikely havent been adjusted yet anyway
I sawa one event which was
Good 25% increased research
Neutral - Free Precursor Ship, -25% pop cap
Bad - Free Precursor ship, much of planet is flooded
So being 'good' isn't that bad
These two events are the only two I have seen in the game so far and I assume that is because it is designed to speed you through the game
Yeah the discreet 3 steps morality thing feels a bit date or something to me, it should be expanded a bit more, or maybe directly relate to diplomacy numbers wise (more votes for saving lifeforms found rather than indirectly through 'happiness'
Sometimes the good and evil options in GalCiv2 were just terrible. Coexist with weird sea monsters for noticeable morale loss, or slaughter them for huge morale bonus; well, maybe it was for the greater good to kill them. Save the planet from a volcanic eruption and lose a bunch of money, or lose a billion people because they were dumb to build cities near volcanoes; yeah, my horrible genocidal empire decided to loosen up a bit here on the mercilessness.
Normally I looked at the good vs evil options as one of two possibilities:
1.) Role-play, that if you play good then you suffer from not gaining extorted benefits (though I still save the volcano victims if I role-play evil).2.) Though evil options are usually better, the good ethical alignment was a lot better (so was neutral) than evil was.
I'm trying to figure out which XML file holds the parameters for these events. The one I 'think' it should be doesnt seem to have the parameters I think it should.
I got that one the first turn when colonizing Mars. Lol.
good has alot of stuff, more than last time and it almost fits in with the others. I think there ideology works well with a "benevolent" strategy.
I don't remember hearing this anywhere but... why can't I modd the game?
DARCA
I concur. The boni should be not so polarising.
Maybe also not "malevolent" and "benevolent". It's much more interesting to not just have good and evil reskinned. It might be neater to have individualism and collectivism. So instead of "evil" you have a ruthlessly individualistic, which you would still find that focus on strength, but also on the a cult of exceptional individuals and in collectivism, you see pop growth and caring society that has the effect of ironing out the benefits of individuality. It works well with the third choice being pragmatic, because while not being "good" or "evil" (however you want to call them) they do represent two polar opposites of idealism.
And these themes fit with the science fiction genre and leave a lack of "right" decision. Sure, individualism as presented might create a bleak, dystopian capitalistic nightmare, ala Blade Runner or even Bioshock, it still has bright side of heroic adventures and promises of meritocracy. It's the model of Kant's vision of the Engligthenment. An empire where one's success is solely tied to talent and effort. On the other hand, one's success is solely tied to talent and effort.
Collectivism would be a place where the state governs for the good of all. This sort of utopia would be frequently documented in tv shows like Star Trek. Except, if you notice one thing about Star Trek they keep sending their best and brightest off to explore the frontier and their best and brightest keep going crazy and founding societies that are not at all in line with federation values. Seriously. Sure, you've still got people like Kirk, but something about Federation society that drives talented people to their breaking point.
Which raises an interesting subidea:
What if each ship/planet had their own ideological leanings. Planets maybe would be affected by the ideological buildings you build on it, which would make them more resistant to the culture of other empires with different ideologies. But ship captains might defect to empire with more appealing ideologies, which might provide interesting conflicts. What if a prototype warship defected to your neighbour and they refused to give it back? What if while invading a peaceful civilisation, one of your captains goes "native", tired of the endless bloodshed and wars and takes his taskforce with him? Or maybe a governor of a boarder colony, seeing the approach of a much more appealing overlord surrenders his colony without a struggle?
The ideology system could also be used to deal with a criminally underplayed element of previous Galciv games: splinter empire. They existed, but you pretty much had to intentionally make your empire unhappy to see them. If a faraway cluster of colonies have a much different ideological makeup than the rest of your empire, they might wait for you to become weaker and declare independence. Civil wars have always been such a huge part of science fiction as we know it, so makes sense to use the revamped ideology system to achieve that.
Finally, there shouldn't be a right way to form the ideology. Even if you make one that is perfectly 33%, 33%, 33%, it shouldn't make it "the best". It should make it a solid defence, but also not overly strong in any given area. Instead of the lure of joining any empire being 100% strength, it should be 66% strong, but also means any of defections or whatnot unlikely to happen for you at all, because even a 50,50,0 split should be so much more appealing for defectors.
Verenti, some great ideas here, loving the individualism vs. collectivism concept rather than good vs. evil. The splinter ideology stuff sounds great too, not sure if it might detract from the game if it was mainstreamed but perhaps as a random event or maybe in a future DLC version - that way people could revert to the previous version if they didn't like the concept/feature. It certainly would bring some freshness/originality to the game but then again we haven't seen everything yet lol
You can already edit the xml files if you want to get into the nitty gritty stuff of the game.
I dont see were the files are located? help.
Most of the data xmls are in
C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\Galactic Civilizations III\data\Game
THANK YOU!!! I found it already though. I clinked on steam twice and then game file. Ill know for next time. Karma for you!!!
By the way, who wants to play multiplayer!!!!
On a side note, The benevolent Perk gives you a +10% growth rate right off the bat + additional 5% with the special buildings. I don't know about you guys but this sounds better then what you get with the malevolent perk. Especially since you would really benefit from the pop growth in early game and since your whole economy revolves around population.
That seriously made me think twice about whether going evil or good.
Good should provide small intangible benefits (Like morale, or loyalty and the like) and a large bonus to "long-term" things like planet quality or something. Evil should provide many short-term benefits and a handful of long-term bonuses, while pragmatic should be a more balanced approach.
imo
That sounds about right. Evil should be about strip-mining, pragmatic about controlled-mining, and good about environmental protectionism. The evil faction gets all their benefits in the short and medium term, pragmatic beats them in the long-term, and good has a completely-different bonus that is less initially-impressive but more subtle than either.
I agree with this general point.
Good = Long Term Planned Benefits
Evil = Short Term Benefits
The ideology does provide this in a sense. I think that there should be bigger bonuses to the ideology for good actions and smaller bonuses for the evil actions. In other words good actions allow you to move up the ideology faster than evil choices.
I don't think we have to stop at 3 choices for each of these events. You could have on with 4 choices (2 of them would be the same alignment but different benefits) or additional choices that are only available if you have a certain trait.
Good is about the group. Evil about the individual. Benevolent is about the group. Malevolent is about the individual. Collectivism is about the group. Individualism is about the individual. In essence, they are exactly the same. You can spice them with different details. Mixing leads to complexity in the system, Are the Borg malevolent or benevolent? But all that is just, of course, imho.
I'd say that's a simplistic view of good and evil you hold. I don't mean that as an insult, but good isn't a defined concept. In fact, pursuit of the question of "what is the good?" has plagued mankind for millennia. It's why the subset of moral philosophy exists. Some ethical systems DO define good as about the good of the collective, namely Abrahamic religions, so I'm not surprised that you would come to that conclusion-- whether you're personally religious or not. The main problem with your assessment is that nobody thinks of themselves as evil, unless they are trapped within a larger moral construct that labels them as such. (Unless you're talking about an absolute good and evil, but those are not really viable setting without actual proof of the divine. e.g. angels, demons, deities.)
Individualism isn't evil: neither is valuing strength or freedom. It's a trait that was admired as the very best of humanity from Ancient Greece to 18th century to Europe to today. There seems to be a certain truth that a man who is able to rule his own life, rules himself best. This is why libertarians exists, it's why Nigel Farage (not that I admire Farage) can say things like "Britons rule Britain better than any European" and it's why Kant wrote that "the Enlightenment is man's exiting from the tutelage of others". It's long been believed that an individual who cultivates their inner strength is the basis for a strong (and good) society. Just because one is focused on individuals ahead of any mythical grouping (indeed, many of the ways we choose to group ourselves outside of family -- race and nationality, for instance-- have no rational basis in construction, but were constructed to suit political purposes) doesn't mean one is disinterested in society. It means, at its heart, that a person is interested in the good of persons and not the good of people.
Yes, that's vague. It would have to be if three categories could encompass umpteen dozen different empires, who all evolved independently from one another and yet can all be shoehorned into the same three categories. All three views would have to be simultaneously utopian in aspects and dystopian (a fact reflected in the prototype feedback documents in the vault). After all, one man's utopia is another's dystopia. I honestly think, by representing both sides of the coin you get a more realistic, believable and interesting social structure, which is really only glossed over by the concept of "good and evil". Dare I say it, games also serve as educators of younger impressionable minds. I know playing Alpha Centauri has a big influence on me as someone who was interested in society and philosophy. So if more meat can be put on the political system, if only in terms of the ideas presented underlying the ideology, then I think we, either for the good of the collective or the individuals within, ought to do it. I use the collective "we", I have nothing to do with Stardock, obviously.
I'm not going to conclude this with an attack on collectivism. There are plenty of examples of "evil" societies which clearly put the collective above the individual. By your own definitions that the Borg, lacking all individuality are the purest example of "good". Communism, or the version of the Enlightenment criticised by Horkheimer and Adorno could also be said to be examples of good societies. Collectivism, in its dystopian form, is dehumanising. It's reducing people down into units-- pieces of the great machine that can be replaced interchangeably without consequence. It's drones within a hive; it's cogs within a clock. I don't think anyone who would look at those examples of living would term them as a good way of life.
The virtues of collectivism are widely known, so I'm not trying to deny their existence. Simply remind people that there are two sides to every coin. It's a complex issue that hasn't been solved in the last 3,000 years and therefore is unlikely to be solved in the next five minutes. You can't just boil the distinction down to "good" and "evil", we move move beyond "good and evil" if there is to be a sophisticated understanding of morality behind the system presented as a pyramids of unlockable perks.
Right now as far as I can tell there are actually 4 events possible
The other two
Ruthelss Vision
Good- +30 Benevolet +10% research
Neutral - +20 pragmatic +10% targetting
Evil - +30 merciless +25% targetting -5% approval
Norovirus
Good +20benevolent +10% research
Neutral +10 pragmatic +50% research -20% growth
Evil +20 merciless +10% research -10% growth -5% approval
I've never run into theses events for some erason though.
There is beauty in simplicity.
From a survival of the species point of view, working against the survival of your species (through individual or colective action) would be "evil". That includes stripping your planet of resources while not caring about the consequences for the future generations. Allowing people with diseases that can be inherited to have children would be "evil" as you allow the gene pool to weaken (I have no kids but by my own definition, I shouldn't be allowed to have them except by adoption). We define what is good and not. We define what is accepted and what is rejected. More usually than not, we just do it in a smaller scale than the best interest for the survival of our species.
Studied in catholic school. Studied some islam, buddhism, hinduism,.. When I die, I'll just banish as a person and my matter will recicle in another stuff. If there happens to be a God and such stuff, I'll worry about that bridge when I have to cross it. Meanwhile I'm happy just helping people around me.
Not sure if nobody, but certainly some don't. Some may enjoy being the "wrong" side, others may think that they are not the "bad guys",... Slavery was legal and natural on ancient Greece, which was considered quite advanced. I don't think that slavery is particulary popular these days in "advanced" countries. If you support abortion, are you evil? And death penalty? Is it evil to eat animals? (but ok to eat plants) I don't think that the guys blowing the twin towers considered themselves evil. Not at all.
I don't believe that indiviual actions are evil per se. Neither collective ones. Nor they are good. From the game point of view, which must(/seems to) be based on extremes, individualism is more "evil" that colectivism. Someone imposing it's point of view over the rest. Not caring about anyone else except his personal goals. But it's obvious that societies themselves can be not caring (hey, let's take the lands from those natives and put them in camps). As I tend to understand the game's ideology system (which may be totally wrong), is that malevolent societies are composed by power hugry individuals that don't really care about their comrades. They may form a very solid and strict society but they simply don't value other lifes. Benevolent ones do care. It's exaggerated and some kind of mix in the ideology trees would be nice (so you can have "caring" and "uncaring" options in all the trees).
Maybe I misunderstand this (sorry if I do) but I don't say that the Borg are good. The Borg are. Period. Good? Evil? That depends on the point of view. They don't consider themselves "wrong" (otherwise, they would alter their behaviour?), it's outside forces who label them as such. From a current GalCivIII point of view, they don't fit the ideology trees that I can see. Hell, at this point and from my ignorant point of view, not sure how the Yor fit. Even if they don't care for meatbags, they do care abuot their own kind, right?
But the current system does allow you to cherry pick options from all the trees (if you do it right and don't mind not being able to complete them), creating a more realistic model than just "pick one tree and stick to it.
If all we are considering is the survival of the species as "good", then it behooves us to act as ruthless and merciless as possible. Any thought of altruism or benevolence would seem to be a distant thought, as the systems involved in supporting everyone would be a drain on those required to ensure that humanity lives to see another day. If we would need to amputate the arm in order to save the body-- well, its for the good of all that we sacrifice those billions.
But behaving in that manner would be to sacrifice our humanity for our survival. It gives up what makes us human for continued existence as something else. Arguably, so would allowing ourselves to stagnate as a society to ensure that everyone has no needs. Mankind needs challenges. Mankind needs hardship and pain. You can't take away these things to protect people from living. People need the freedom to strive to fail or succeed on their own terms, because otherwise the tree of mankind withers and dies because that spirit needs to be kept alive in each person, each individual.
That's why you can't define collectivism as the good and individualism as the evil. We have just the same capacity to be selfish or hateful when there are 30,000,000 of us as when there are 3. And what we might do to thousands of faceless strangers, we would never do if we came face to face with one of those persons. That's why collectivism and individualism presents a much more interesting choices than just good and evil reskined. Because either side of the choice you come down on, there is right and there is wrong. Because at the end of the day there is "good" and "evil" in all of us-- that's just part of being a human being.
The point was that independently of whether you are religious of not, the Abrahamic values have been ingrained in the few thousand years in our society as have had a profound effect on the shape of the discourse surrounding morality.
You seem to get my point. The notion of good and evil in a science fiction setting without supernatural beings to define the poles is quaint. Especially considering Stardock has voluntarily moved away from that system in favour of a more open system.
Is it any more right for a majority to impose their will on the minority? Is it any more right to tell people that they have to all be the same and conform to what the group decided that people must be? Is it more right to tell certain people that they must worship this god because that is the one the collective has chosen. That they must wear these clothing because that is the clothes the collective has chosen. That they must not interact with people of a certain skin colour, because those people are not in the image of the collective? To say we can all get a long in perfect harmony, so long as you harmonise with us? There is no room in a collective for difference or tolerance. They gave up difference when they decided they were all the same. They'd have to be to same because they are part of the larger whole. That's the evil of collectivism. That it crushes the souls of every person involved to make it's members a souless grey paste to spread across its surface evenly. That's why you can't equate the two. Good cannot equal collective good alone. It also has to take into account the good of the people who make up the collective as people. To reiterate, that's why a choice between the two is more interesting that a choice between "good" and "evil". There is not right choice between these two, and trying to find a mix between the two that works is not as ridiculous as trying to justify finding a cohesive mix between a benevolent society that uses slave labour camps, because we can understand as people that one can try to find a mix between collectivism and individualism. Because we live that day to day.
I was saying that by statement that collectivism=benevolence=good, the Borg, who are an epitome of collective society would have to be the epitome of good. Clearly, a rational person could see this as not a desirable state and therefore would have to reject the coupling of "the good" and "the interest of the collective". You can take the idea of the collective to an extreme. You cannot take the idea of "good" to an extreme. You can't be too good, because good, by it's nature is defined as desirable and right. Therefore it presents an uninteresting choice to whomever it is presented. Outside of pure gameplay mechanical considerations, the choice between three options shouldn't be so obvious as to make the moral choice involves choosing option A.
If you haven't yet, go and check out the Founder's Vault and look at the latest PDF about the Ideology Tree - some very interesting game options there depending which philosophical route you take. Would be interested in your thoughts Verenti how your collective-individualism concept might fit into the game mechanics indicated in the PDF.
Interesting thoughts.
Would you consider malevolent to allow a person with HIV to have kids? Would you consider malevolent to allow a person with hemophilia to have kids? While both of those are different, I don't think that from the usual moral point of view (in some places), any of them could be considered good. Species or not. Someone please point me at someone who wanted to be born with hemophilia (and is not joking about it).
Our current societies behave much like you describe (ruthless, merciless) When the USA invades other countries, surely they do it for petrodollars (or similar economic control tools) and supporting an elite group, not because they are altruists. I'd certainly not want to get ill in the USA... unless I'm rich. I heard that some there defend a twisted version of "survival of the fittest".
Altruism is a survival tool, by the way. And we live in society not because we love people (we may love some of it) but because we need it. There is no society by itself as there is no individual by itself (unless you are a pure hermit). Both exists at the same time and influence each other constantly. It's not a society structure's fault (being non alive) to be dominated by a selfish elite that is willing to crush the lower ranks of their society. It'd be the low rank invidiuals' fault to live in a society that they don't like and do nothing about it. Individuals create a society. They define its rules. A society doesn't create itself or change itself. Its individuals do. You cannot blame society itself for its "evilness", you can only blame the people who defined and institutionalized it. And those who still support it.
The survival of the species doesn't involve hive minds. It doesn't involve everybody living in some kind of communist camp. Survival of the species means that people don't go screwing the future of the species. It doesn't mean that you don't care of your people, even if they are disabled. Or that there are no challenges or rivaly. It means that you tolerate others that you may disagree with as long as neither of you is doing stuff that endangers everybody (nuclear or viral weapons, as a easy example). It doesn't mean that you cannot support slavery (or that you have to support it). Yes, if it could mean that at one point you would have to sacrifice lifes to do so, what with that? So if my right arm where to gangrene and my life would depend on amputating it: should I die because killing the cells of that arm is wrong? Even if they threaten with killing the rest of the cells of my body? I do not say that one should go killing people or be like Spartans with their babies. But if there is a (crystal clear with no hidden agenda) situation where you have to chose between killing (or letting die) some people in order to make the rest survive, it'd go against nature to chose suicide for the group. Being emotional beings, easier said than done (especially with people we know) but I'd not feel well for killing all my species (me included) for saving my family (that died like evereybody else anyway).
Not counting stuff like people being actually selfish or that not every situation is a matter of black and white. When you throw the unknown and selfish people into the equation, then you need lots of exceptions. And while we do need challenge as a species, the extra handicap of people who only serve their own interests is an unnecesary one. As long as there are humans that don't care about other humans (including those ones he doesn't know), not much hope no matter the system.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
