Why be good?

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.

Yeah but there's no good in good(ain't that a bitch) when when your civilzation is falling around you because you have no economy, military, ect. All you get is other civilizations like you, wow, and only good civs would like you the evil ones just want to enslave you ( and with low quality planets, no money, and your civ hates you for being a pussy, it's relativly easy for them to do that).  

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.

why change? i like it as it is. and even if i dont win something whit the good choises i dont care. but some chioses maybe would be rewarding the good people?
but as amensotep wrote, it is meaned to do sacrifices when you are good.

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 like the defensive bonuses. Until the nme gets psyonic beams, that is...
12 point weapon that early is a real bear. When the ai suprises you by grabbing xeno ethics early; it can really throw a monkey wrench into the works when they show up toting those things and the best you got is dynamic shielding at 6 points of D and some ungodly huge size compared to other defenses.

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.

For me I play good if I want to play a game without much war and especially if I don't want the military conquest but rather a political or possibly influence victory. Being good if there are other good races, as long as you don't let your military get down to below 50 or so you can easily keep the peace and build your economy / diplomacy / influence pretty easily. With the enhanced diplomacy it's easy to be ahead of the research (you research non combat things and basically mine your opponents for their military tech). Evil is pretty much military conquest and neutral seems to be geared towards techno and influence but more openended. With being good, there only seems to be a challenge for maintaining peace is an evil race dominating the map, in which case you can ally with everyone else and hopefully conquer them.

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)

Also, with being good. I guess this strat does affect those who want to be "good" at every situation for the fantasy element but: when I'm going for good, along the way I just choose good if choosing evil wouldn't help me a whole lot like getting a few hundred bc's or a little extra starship hp. if you do this a few times, it will let you choose evil for good things like research / production once or twice and your ethical allignment will still lean towards good so you wont have to pay for it when you research it. In other words, even if you're going for good you can still make a few select evil or neutral choices along the way and it won't really hurt you.

"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.

Edit: Erm, I don't see a "Delete Post" button. Meh, oh well.

Also, while I'm thinking about it: Good also gets sucktastic "bonuses." There's no reason for that either.

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).

The primary bonus of being good is getting advanced diplomatic power with other races - it makes it very easy to befriend and ally other good or neutral races, and team up against super-powered evil races. Good civilizations work for everybody's interests; they care about each individual and won't tolerate even small degrees of risk for short-term gain.

Neutral means, in effect, that you only look out for your own people, and help or hinder other races only after your own civilization has been taken care of. Neutral races are self-sufficient and self-reliant, but tend to be somewhat isolated.

Evil races, while not necessarily as bad as the Drengin, look out only for the empire as a whole's short-term interest. Some may argue that this is the smartest path for an empire; regardless, they make a lot of enemies and won't be well set up for a political or cultural victory.

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. Neutral goes at it alone, and gains various bonuses that help it in the long and short run. It gets its strength from building a civilization and empire alone, not by interactign with other races. Evil looks only for the bottom line, and derives its power from planet-by-planet, military, and imperial bonuses that set it up for conquering other nations. This can lead to an obvious demise if the evil civilization takes on too many civilizations at once, but one on one, the evil civilization is usually stronger.

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.

Yeah but there's no good in good(ain't that a bitch) when when your civilzation is falling around you because you have no economy, military, ect. All you get is other civilizations like you, wow, and only good civs would like you the evil ones just want to enslave you ( and with low quality planets, no money, and your civ hates you for being a pussy, it's relativly easy for them to do that).

All you get is other CIVs to like you? Thats alot to get, its one way of winning. The more allies you have, the easier it is to win. Think about all of the trade routes, not to mention protection you get from your allies. The evil races will think twice about attacking you if you have strong allies to back you up.

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?

I like the system as it is, and very rarely play evil (just a personal preference) - i cant, even in games, take advantage of others misfortunes. I see the evil option as advcancing yourself, no matter what the cost to others, and the good options are much more moralistic way to go - and as in rl good morales aren't always easy choices.

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

"What kind of morals hinge on purely utilitarian concerns!"


The Bush presidency?

*rimshot*


Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

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.

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?

The AI always knows your alignment, and you can find their alignment in the foreign stats window under the stats tap. Check the report tab of the foreign stats window to find out why they like or dislike you. If you're good, all good and neutral civs will give you "+Our ethical alignment". This makes it easier to be friends with most of the civs in the game. Civs that like you won't attack you, and if they really like you, you can ally with them, which is a good survival strategy, and a good way to win the game.

Making evil choices gives and immediate material gain, but being aligned with good helps your diplomacy.

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.

Simple fact of it is this: All of the options I have seen for making good be more profitable to the players also makes it overbalanced. As it stands, the system balances out. Neutral doesn't gain the overwhelming immediate bonuses of evil, but also doesn't gain everyone wanting to beat it up. Neutral doesn't gain the alliance capacity of good, but does actually gain something in the short run. Evil gains a lot of immediate bonuses, but at the cost of everyone being against it (even other evil races). Good may pay through the nose, but good is the only one that can ally with everyone, and good has an overwhelming tactical advantage in at least two paths to victory as a result.

So, if you guys want Good to actually gain something with each choice, are you willing to give up the option of having everyone as allies? If so, then play neutral. If not, then you're overpowering good and destroying game balance.

Here's the simple fact: Being good is not the easy road, not the nice road. It is the road where you take beatings for others, the road where to save the world in the long run you have to suffer in the short run. Life's a series of tradeoffs. If you don't like the price you have to pay, then you're trying to buy the wrong product.

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.