The moral code system form GalCiv 2.

from GalCiv3 Forums

Hi all,

 

I signed up to Stardock yonks ago, but I've never really bothered to post until now, so consider me a newbie. My question is fairly simple. Will this system be coming back in GalCiv 3?

 

I'd prefer that it didn't. It was one of my least favourite features of GalCiv 2. I know this is just a game and fictional universe and all, but I personally find that a rigid moral code system like this isn't very.... realistic for lack of a better word. I feel that no person or group of people can be described as good or evil in absolutist terms. It's too subjective. Adolf Hitler is widely seen as an evil man, but along with wanting to commit genocide on the Jews and having a relaxing afternoon drive into Poland, France, and the USSR, he also liked kids (as long as they weren't Jewish or Slavic) and dogs - things you'd normally associate with a 'good' person. I'm not saying Hitler wasn't a bad guy overall, but one man's tyrant is another man's hero. Let's look at the Drengin Empire. They obviously aren't good from the POV of most of the other races, but to them, they see Humanity as the bad guys and themselves as the galaxy's saviours. Remember that the Terran Alliance wiped out a Drengin client race. Justifiably so perhaps, but many people would consider that pretty uncool to say the least. It horrified the Drengin enough to identify Humanity as it's number one target. It's all very subjective and relative. 

 

Maybe it's too late in the dev cycle to make any serious changes (assuming the devs want come on board with me), but I'd prefer this mechanic was done away with. It was entertaining at times I admit. I sometimes picked the evil option just for the lols. But it took away from the experience for me too. I'd like it to be replaced by something else which can be used to identify like minded or philosophically opposing civilisations. What about government type? Or overall value sets? I haven't fully thought through what could replace it, but does anyone else think going to the trouble might make the game more interesting? What could the devs do in this department? 

 

 

9,158 views 19 replies
Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

They obviously aren't good from the POV of most of the other races, but to them, they see Humanity as the bad guys and themselves as the galaxy's saviours.

No, the Drengin see themselves as the rightful ruler of the galaxy (maybe even the universe), and all other races as potential slaves.

Remember that the Terran Alliance wiped out a Drengin client race. Justifiably so perhaps, but many people would consider that pretty uncool to say the least. It horrified the Drengin enough to identify Humanity as it's number one target.

The Drengin weren't horrified by the act itself, however, but that the Terrans were doing it. In the eyes of the Drengin, the Terrans were nothing but diplomats and traders. Weaklings, in other words. Now, they turned out be cunning and ruthless warriors, just like the Drengin. That was completely unexpected, and the Drengin consider the Terrans now two-faced liars, using a diplomatic facade to hide their true warrior-nature.

In any case, we already have a thread about this topic, and an official answer regarding it.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Point of view doesn't matter.  Evil is evil.  A race enslaving others is evil, even if it isn't evil from the POV of the enslavers.  Hitler can love his dogs all he wants, he still murdered six million people.  

+1 Loading…
Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You contradict yourself on the same line;
"Point of view doesn't matter." + "A race enslaving others is evil".

"A race enslaving others is evil" is a point of view. For example; what if a race is too stupid to survive on their own? Is enslavement (and the resulting continued existence) still evil?

 

 

Also, your knowledge about World War 2 is lacking. Check out the following two links;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

 

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting NitroX, reply 4

"A race enslaving others is evil" is a point of view. For example; what if a race is too stupid to survive on their own? Is enslavement (and the resulting continued existence) still evil?

I also think this is a point of view. If the enslavers really believe that the enslaved will become extinct if not enslaved and the enslaved believe that they would prosper if not enslaved, how to you judge which is true? It is better not to judge than to judge incorrectly and have to endure the unintended consequences.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well, to be honest I didn't like the system that much either, I was guessing this was a sad attempt to implement a feature/reward for you going through all the crappy choices they want you to make like blood on the black market or starvation. Neutral bonus was rather OP and I would always go for good and bad choices just to get that bonus research coming in from the neutral bonuses.

Overall I don't think this feature mattered much to me, I wouldn't care if it got removed or not, just as long as it is perfectly balanced and has larger impact on your civilization (slave camps anybody?)

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 2


They obviously aren't good from the POV of most of the other races, but to them, they see Humanity as the bad guys and themselves as the galaxy's saviours.

No, the Drengin see themselves as the rightful ruler of the galaxy (maybe even the universe), and all other races as potential slaves.


Remember that the Terran Alliance wiped out a Drengin client race. Justifiably so perhaps, but many people would consider that pretty uncool to say the least. It horrified the Drengin enough to identify Humanity as it's number one target.

The Drengin weren't horrified by the act itself, however, but that the Terrans were doing it. In the eyes of the Drengin, the Terrans were nothing but diplomats and traders. Weaklings, in other words. Now, they turned out be cunning and ruthless warriors, just like the Drengin. That was completely unexpected, and the Drengin consider the Terrans now two-faced liars, using a diplomatic facade to hide their true warrior-nature.

In any case, we already have a thread about this topic, and an official answer regarding it.

 

Ah that's good to know. I didn't see that thread when i was checking out what's been recently posted. Happy now.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Frogboy wasn't very clear what they were going to do with that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind something like the CIV IV government Civic idea.  You could pick say at species creation a set of moral principals. (IE, fine with slavery, don't like piracy, ETC...)  Each would have a bonus and/or techs and your over all score would affect how other races perceive you.  I don't think you should have to research this stuff.  In this way you could have a race that is totally against piracy and theft and generally keep their word but also be fine with slavery and indifferent about genocide.

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I enjoyed the moral code system for Civ II, but i always felt that it was rather limiting in that the only way you could raise or lower your 'karma' was through random events that after a few breakthroughs seemed generic and repetitive, and evil decisions always seemed to yield more direct benefits than good ones, the decision of letting my soldiers eat another species eggs for a soldering bonus never quite encouraged me to preserve life perhaps the way it should of, and those rare trees were never surviving when i had Drengin to repel......... 

Having said this the mechanic itself is sound and the possibilities are endless with it, perhaps a moral roundabout might be a better way to go? Certain event and policies could incline you one way or the other, (tax policies, stances on slavery, eco conservatism, WMD constrictions, mode of government are just a few ideas) so that you could be rewarded or punished for your actions. An example might be playing a race who you decide allows slavery might give you a good boost to your industry. but is the chance of a slave revolt damaging your infastructure worth the risk? Improved new WMD's may be powerful weapons to an evil alinged race but the chance of an accident during development may outweigh the potential advantages? A civilization that chooses to preserve the beauty of there worlds could get a bonus to trade and happiness at a cost of production? Hopefully you get where i'm going with this ;)

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting DaPowerTaylor, reply 9
I enjoyed the moral code system for Civ II, but

It really sounds like you are talking about GalCiv II, not Civ II. Right?

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Thypical for our time this debate. I have nothing against using the terms good and evil, and it suits this genre. Somehow it creates some extra suspense. Star Wars anyone?

Reply #13 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Rose colored glasses and all. Granted this is a game. But we are seeing the Dregin through OUR MORAL SYSTEM and calling them evil.



To them what they do is their natural instinct.  If the rest of the galactic races all decided that trading and diplomacy are the signs of insanity and evil is then the Terran Race evil???

 

Slippery slope is ethics

Reply #14 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well, according to the interview with Brad: https://www.galciv3.com/journals. They are changing it to ideologies. Looks like good vs bad thing is going to be going away. :)

Reply #15 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I liked the system in Galciv II the descritpions of you empire changed based off of the ethics your aligned with, it was fun reading the descritpion of the drengin as I changed them to a beacon of hope in the galaxy for other "evil" empires.

Reply #16 from GalCiv3 Forums Top


I feel that no person or group of people can be described as good or evil in absolutist terms. It's too subjective. Adolf Hitler is widely seen as an evil man, but along with wanting to commit genocide on the Jews and having a relaxing afternoon drive into Poland, France, and the USSR, he also liked kids (as long as they weren't Jewish or Slavic) and dogs - things you'd normally associate with a 'good' person. I'm not saying Hitler wasn't a bad guy overall, but one man's tyrant is another man's hero

This is literally (not figuratively) the worst argument I have ever seen for moral ambiguity. "Sure, Hitler instituted policies that caused the deaths of millions of people, but he liked children and dogs?" What does that even mean?

Reply #17 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 5

I also think this is a point of view. If the enslavers really believe that the enslaved will become extinct if not enslaved and the enslaved believe that they would prosper if not enslaved, how to you judge which is true? It is better not to judge than to judge incorrectly and have to endure the unintended consequences.

You can't really go wrong with a policy like "slavery and genocide are bad." Our own history bears this out.

Enslavers who believe they need to enslave another population or it'll go extinct are most likely telling themselves pretty lies to resolve their cognitive dissonance over the idea of owning sapient beings who may not be all that much unlike themselves. There are certainly better policies for helping a potentially extinct population than taking them from their homes, treating them like property, and exploiting them for unpaid labor.

If someone is telling you they enslaved a population for its own good you are likely talking to a sociopath trying to make unpalatable things go down more easily.

Reply #18 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Bad post. Sorry.

 

Reply #19 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

We enslave and eat animals that are processed in death camps dailly..Drengins did the same to the Torians.

The whole good and evil thing is a throwback from the simplistic starswars era and we now live in the game of thrones era.