Part of being good is making sacrifices. Part if being evil is doing whatever you can to get a gain, no matter who you have to sacrifice. Neutral goes the middle route, often not sacrificing as much as good and not gaining as much as evil.

Now, what are the real rewards of good and evil? With Evil, you risk everyone attacking you. With good, you gain a lot of potential allies. With neutral, you don't gain anything or lose anything in that area. Good makes it easier to eventually control the galaxy, evil makes it easier to fight everyone, and neutral is still stuck with trying to make its own path. All in all, I'd say they work out exactly as they should.

no, I agree there should be small gains for trying to do the right thing. It should never be close to the benefits of evil but to not reward good ever might be wrong.

ya there should be a couple of small rewards for being good in this game just alot smaller than the ones u get for being evil

I think the sacrifices for maintain a goog alignment were rewarded in GC1, where the good alignment strictly dominated the other choices (better bonuses - the online-rankings clearly proft, that no player with evil or neutral alignment was listed at the top). The Deal was: I gain some Prod and PQ-Bonuses in the short run but suffer in the long for not having access to the good bonuses and bad relations with my neighbors.
They have left the event-pattern in GC2, thought the good-alignement is now quiet weaker (maybe the weakest alignment of all). Thus they should balance it in the events or make the good-alignment more attractive. Personally I have balanced it with a mod - good now can research a galactical achievement (Mithrial-temple) with provides the race an ability bonus (+50% Economy).

BTW: In GC1 you had not to commit to an alignment. My favourit strategy (especially when the Dread Lords or Draginol showed up) was to go for strict evil alignment, research all evil Technologies (while gainig all the Prod and PQ-Bonuses) and then colonize an uninhabitable Planet with PQ 3 (other colonize-system in GC1, so the settlers would get a HUGE eco and moral-malus beyond PQ 8) an choose the good-events for this useless planet. Next I disbanded the colony and colonized it the next turn, until my alignment had been gone to saint. So I was able to get all bonuses from all alignments and kicked my enemys ass - wich was quiet nice, when I and my enemys alike had reached nearly the end of the tech-tree.

I do agree with the poster that good should get very small bonuses sometimes. At the very least, the coices should be more complicated. Here are some examples I have come up with:

High-Tech Hijack:
Our explorers have discovered an extremely high-tech ship orbiting the planet. It's populated with a small crew, who have told us quite rudely that they do not want to talk. However, to thoroughly dismantle and research the vessel's construction would prove useful in our ship manufacturing skills. What is your decision on the matter?

Good: We are not in the business of stealing starships. Leave the crew in peace.
Neutral: Scan the vessel and obtain as much of this information as possible. Hopefully the crew won’t notice. (+20% Starship bonus)
Evil: They told me to put my what where?? I will not stand for such insults! Send soldiers to retrieve the ship and interrogate the crew, and tear that ship apart for everything it’s worth! (+60% Starship bonus)


Ancient Ruins:
After landing on the planet [PLANETNAME], a team of explorers has discovered the ancient ruins of a once great civilization. While faded and worn, signs of life are still scattered amongst the otherwise desolate ruins. While it does prevent total planetary expansion, to destroy the remains would dishonor those who once called the planet home. What are your orders?

Good: Leave the city and make sure the ruins are preserved. (-30% Population Growth, +20% Influence)
Neutral: Only clear away enough of the city to allow comfortable living space for my people.
Evil: Demolish the trash. I don't care about dishonoring a bunch of dead people! (+30% Population Growth, -10% Influence)


Falling Moon:
Reports have come in that a distant race is on the brink of destruction. Drilling too deep for minerals, the residents of this moon colony have caused a chain reaction at their world's core. Fissures have begun to rip the moon apart, and scientists say in a few days the moon will implode, killing every last being on its unstable surface. They need our help, Emperor [PLAYERNAME]! What should we do?

Good: It is our duty as a galactic power to assist those in need! Get rescue vessels out to save every last creature, no matter what the cost! (-1,000 BC, + 50 Million People)
Neutral: While we will do our best to save who we can, there is little hope for a positive outcome in a situation this dire. (-100 BC, + 10 Million People)
Evil: I'm not heartless - save as many individuals as possible. Allow them to stay in our military factories. Oh, and give them something to do to keep them from getting bored. (+10% Military Production)


The Manticore Forest:
In the wastelands of planets throughout our galaxy, ancient, semi-intelligent Manticore trees have been found growing on the same parched and unforgiving landscapes we use to train our soldiers. The trees have proven to be excellent shelters for our troops engaged in survival training, though the trees often do not fare as well as the soldiers. What are your orders?

Good: These trees have been there for eons; we have no right to behave in a manner that causes them harm. Immediately discontinue our military operations there and move them to less sensitive areas. (-200 BC)
Neutral: Order our military trainers to change their training so as to minimize the impact on these trees, but don't seriously compromise the quality of our military training.
Evil: Tell our troops they can use these trees for toothpicks for all I care. (+10% Soldiering bonus)

A wave of crop-damaging droughts has ripped through several alien worlds, many of which have put their people on daily rationing. We can put some extra money towards aiding the other races, and researching possible solutions, or we can stand idle while their food supplies dwindle. What are your orders?

Good: Friend or foe, all the creatures in the universe need to stick together through hard times. Give all we can to this cause. (-300 BC, +10% Diplomatic Power)
Neutral: While the drought continues, we will re-direct any extra food we can spare to these planets. (-50 BC)
Evil: Their loss is our gain! Open trading channels and let all races know that the assistance of the [CIVNAME] Empire does not come cheaply. (+500 BC, -10% Diplomatic)

"Good" doesn't mean "stupid" in real life, but it does in GC2. As it sometimes takes things to the point of needlessly making things worse for people, I actually consider Neutral to be the "Good" alignment and Good to be the "Neutral" alignment. For example, take this event:


You find super-good resources in a cavern full of pools with instant-death lava. What do you do?

"Good:" Cause hardship on the planet by preventing resource gathering to keep people safe.
"Neutral:" Mine with robots.
Evil: Force people to mine in the caverns. People are a renewable resource.

good should get its own type of bonuses, like to trade or morale, whereas evil could get military or something. evil would still get more though, i like that theme in GalCiv.

I was also thinking of some other type of bonus- not to research or economy or trade or anything- but basically, 'good'. other good races would be inclined to like you, maybe even offer alliances(does that happen normally? never had it happen, but haven't been playing long) and neutral would like you as well. Of course, evil would see this as a threat, and dislike you. I know this happens with relations normally, but I mean to a greater level.

oh and DreadArchon- evil for that one is "get a shovel nd pickaxe! there's gold in them there hills and I want every available worker down there extracting it!"
call me a nerd, I've memorized several of these. (the evil ones of course).

One problem with the alignment system I notice is that if you chose an inherently good race you can take all evil choices and still go good once you get Xeno Ethics, or better yet, take all evil choices and go neutral for all its great bonuses.

I think the system works fine - good has an overwhelming potential advantage in that it can easily ally almost every other non-evil race. The short-term benefits advised above might make it somewhat more realistic, but it would throw off the balance of the game. Good is a coalition-builder and gets its strength from a network of allies, not through imperial might.

Then why don't the good choices reflect that? There are a lot of times where your choices benefit more than yourself and you get no bonus from it. On that note, how do the other races even know I'm good? Is there a universal alignment detector that lets them know the alignment of the other races? Or, do they know what actions I take for every event? If so, why do I see no benefit there?

Why be Good? Because it is *GOOD*. What kind of morals hinge on purely utilitarian concerns!

I play "good" for one reason alone, I like to stave off war as long as possible and it gives you a pretty big diplomatic advantage with half the races. Otherwise, good offers few real bonuses aside from the Hall of Empathy which doesn't seem to do a whole lot anyway. If you are a war monger, then evil is the path to take and offers bonuses for quick military advancement. If you are somwewhat of a war monger, then neutral is a good path and offers the best all-around bonuses. It seems reasonable to me. If good were to offer any more bonuses, it would be too powerful and there would be no reason to play anything else.

I find that whenever I play evil, the Altarians declare war on me and wipe me out. I guess the Altarians are the galactic equivalent of the Department of Vice and Virtue.

So now I play good.

Amensotep had put it quite succinctly by reciting the fact of life. However, the question remains; should art (if we agree to call a game as art) imitate life? Are we attempting to define the universal truth of good and evil?

I suggest that there also be the presence of action and re-action, or cause and effect. Evil may be dealt with in evil ways. Being always good defies what is real.