Evolve beyond Good and Evil

A scatter plot for values

Races are not inherently "Good" or "Evil".

That is somewhat naive. Granted, having a Darth Vader/Maul type in his floating "Death Star" seems pretty evil, so I am not suggesting scrapping the entire idea of Good versus Evil. Only 'evolving' it.

This would be a fairly simple system. You probably already track alignment on what I call the "X Axis". A straight up and down line that says something like +100 is good, 0 is neutral and -100 is evil (something like that.

Just add a few other values that you track, and perhaps consider them on another axis (like Y) for instance. Then you'd have a grid of four sectors and you could scatter plot the person.

In game play terms, it also means that a person has to be more careful about answering those wonderful moral dillemnas, because now its not as simple as 'good on top, middle of road in middle and evil on bottom'. The choice could shift two values instead of one.

Below, is a really cheesy illustration of what I mean

Good | | Evil Just add Peace ------ War Have it intersect at 0 on the Good versus Evil Line, for determining certain technology availability, but essentially all it is, is a second value that is tracked allowing you to see the tendency towards warlike behavior. Peaceful doesn't neccesarily mean artsy-fartsy helplessness, though as I intend to illustrate;
If you think about the line between Good and Evil, it would stay the same. By introducing this other line straight through it though, you still only store one number, someones relative value from Peaceful to War.

Good people can and have had tremendous military organizations. Just because they don't build doom stars, doesn't mean they would not neccesarily have access to war like technologys.

In practical terms, what it could mean is that someone with an alignment in the upper right grid (Good Military) might gain access to technology that lets you build something akin to "Starfleet". Ships manned by the best and brightest officers, full of inclusion and diversity, that are like good at exploration, all purpose craft, that actually supply some research.

Naturally, the grid underneath, (right lower) would be traditional evil.

The left upper grid, is good peaceful. This is the traditional good tech tree.

The lower left grid is an evolution in thinking as well. We don't think of 'evil' people being 'peaceful', and maybe they aren't, unless you think of it like this;

Exploitation of resources, building DEFENSIVE craft, Pirates and Privateers, Mercantile efforts.

Technologies that allow them to build special Greedy Capitilistic structures, gathering of resources, they can build "Privateer" fleets that operate like a merchant (in that you have so many routes, but they don't attack your merchants. They travel between two points, periodically capturing and then selling their cargos, without diplomatic penalty to your empire. It could be your best allies! they cant even be traced to your empire, so as far as the players getting hijacked are concerned, they are only sure its not their pirates that are doing it.

World Transformation that isn't so 'green'. So where a planet can be made into a Gaia, maybe Evil Peaceful don't do that. Instead, they show up in their vogon constructor fleet type ships and harvest resources..permanently destroying it. Finding a use for those size 3 planets after all.


31,366 views 29 replies
Reply #1 Top
sounds a good idea if the devs can develop it properly.

a person could have 3 posible axis

Charity vs Greed (trad good vs evil)
Lawful vs chaos
peace Vs War

so a chirch based govt on a crusade would be charitable lawfyll warlike
but you could have a small nation like this greedy chaotic and peacefull (By chaotic the leader has only 1 law my word is law and changes his mind often)
Reply #2 Top
An interesting idea... I'm not sure about the third axis proposed by drachir, though...

Also, based on what I've seen, I disagree with Drachir's classification of that religion... I believe the correct classification would be greedy lawful warlike. Charity and warlike seem to be directly opposed, as they would seem to represent a spirit of conciliation versus a spirit of righteous fury.
Reply #3 Top
indeed, vinco.

you could also have a number of other lines (eg. science explorers vs. not researching) and then add them all up into a basic number and statement.
Reply #4 Top
First an Analogy:

The United States, might consider itself "charitable", because when it entered WWII, it was to aid the European powers of France, England, and Russia against Germany and Japan. (Granted Pearl Harbor had a hand in it), but the old addage talk softly and carry a big stick, has to do with not being a bully or conquerer, yet being ready to fight if need be.

In Iraq, the United States official view is that we are occupying these people for their own good. Bringing them democracy, deposing a tyrant, with plans to turn over the government back to a new regime.

Are we 'Evil'?

By somes standards, but by Gal Civ, I'd say we are a "Good Society" with Warlike tendencies. So I do not see why Good and Warlike are mutually exclusive.

Think of it perhaps like the Paladin and the Lawful Good Preist of a Peaceful Goddess, for those of you who need an AD&D analogy. Two very different approaches to good.


Don't make it too complicated. All I propose, is if there is one number on the good vs evil scale, add a second number to add a layer of depth to the decision tree. My personal preference is one side you have the desire for wealth and the other for conquest/war.

Why those are mutually exclusive, is because of the old addage "Guns Versus Butter" . The age old choice of plows or swords? If given a choice between building a factory to produce tanks, or building a casino, what would you choose?

Why can't you do both? sometimes you can, but if your preference is one or the other you shift either up or down on this new number scale.

If that then equates to opening up new technology, thats great. Its really simple;

Something like
IF Alignment Score < 0
And Guns or Butter Score < 100
Then allow 'Trade Council Tech' to be researched.

Simply adding this other cultural value makes the culture more detailed. Too many metrics and the game would lose its charm.

I do like the idea of traits, such as a culture having a hive mind/Unification, or being highly religous (and requiring special structures to be built as soon as they are available, or at certain population levels, but producing pilgrim ships that sew unrest by establishing churches on other cultures planets) but I didn't want to go there, until I saw if there was at least reception to breaking the "Lets make it like Galciv, only bigger" mantra.

I can see two camps, one being the latter and another to make the game some hybrid of Masters of Orion and other games. Certainly, its spiritual ancestor must be the original Moo.
Reply #5 Top
Interesting idea. I'd also like to see balanced choices. It's been my opinion playing GC1 and GC Altarian Prophecy that the 'Good' side gets raped for being good and the evil side profits. Seems like every good choice involves a penalty. What's up with that ? For every penalty choice the good guys get their should be 1 event that asks evil and neutral to take a penalty also. "Sure we can turn this desert world into a new firing range if we're willing to allocate the resources and brave the dangers of this world... -500 BC -2 mil pop. " (just an example)
Reply #6 Top
Evil actually sucks in GalCiv. The reason is that they don't get the long term benies that Good get. What's evil get? A +5% to starship construction? A measley +55 BC? What's good get? Higher relations with alien civs which means preferential trading (the only way to make money and afford your guns in GC1).

Evil only gets a couple of actual decent bennies from choosing evil. And even then, that's a random bonus and rarely amounts to much. What's a +3% PQ bonus on a PQ 14 world? Is it really worth it versus the Fundy event? Or loosing trade (again, the only way to afford your guns) routes and opportunities with the aliens?

Capitalistic societies (Greedy) are very pro-war. The reasons are simple: a) Prices go up. More profits. b) chance to acquire companies and resources that would otherwise be unavailable (ie, the Banana Republic Wars).

Capitalism and War go hand and hand. So the back side of Warlike should not be Capitalist. It should be Pacifist. In D&D terms, it would be more Lawful (Pacifists) versus Chaotic (Warlike) because the Pacifists are willing to sacrifice for the greater good of all, not just the greater good of their family/clan/society (Warlike can fall into that isle). It's not the only way to arrange things, but putting Greed on the opposite side of War means that you don't go to war over resources. That would mean you are moving away from Greed (which is "we want more") to War (self sacrifice?).

Just my thoughts. Your mileage may vary, yadda yadda blah.
Reply #7 Top
It would be nice to expand Good vs. Evil in to two dimensions.

Really, though, I'm more concerned about improving Neutral. It seemed to me there was little benefit toward taking the middle path in GC1; unlike evil, you don't get the diplomacy difficulties, but unilke both good and evil, there are no additional techs. Extremism, one way or the other, was the way to go; it would be nice to make Neutral in to an actual third option.
Reply #8 Top
I like good / evil since it represents a vision of things on so many aspects. Especially including long term view versus short term one where you scrap things to get something right now. But if another axis can be done correctly, who knows...

Interventionist / isolationist? This is something very present in the world. In US history especially, but it could also be said of British, Japan, China (China got its whole fleet destroy to stop commercial expansionists). I also was said that Scandinavian countries tend to be less "we want to act" on any international scene while Netherlands is quite opposite somehow.
Reply #9 Top
In Iraq, the United States official view is that we are occupying these people for their own good. Bringing them democracy, deposing a tyrant, with plans to turn over the government back to a new regime.


all the iraq war was for was oil...

If that then equates to opening up new technology, thats great. Its really simple;

Something like
IF Alignment Score < 0
And Guns or Butter Score < 100
Then allow 'Trade Council Tech' to be researched.


i agree.
Reply #10 Top
I think that there should only be two main factors deciding civ alignment, given that every civilization in the game would be best described as Lawfull and the Democratic/Autocratic thing would be best handled by current political system.

The titles assigned to civilizations.
Pure Good- Angelic
Pure Good and Warlike- Angelic Crusader
Pure Good and Pacifistic- Angelic Perfectionist.
Good- Saintly
Good and Warlike- Saintly Crusader
Good and Pacifistic- Saintly Perfectionist

Nuetral- Pragmatic
Neutral and Warlike- Pragmatic Expansionist.
Neutral and Pacifistic- Pragmatic Isolationist.

Evil- Hateful
Evil and Warlike- Vicious Dominator.
Evil and Pacifistic- Vicious Coward.

Pure Evil- Demonic
Pure Evil and Warlike- Demonic Dominator.
Pure Evil and Pacifistic- Demonic Coward.

The basic rules are that different civs do not mean the same by pacifistic. Even the most warlike Crusaders are unlikely to attack good civilizations, but will attack evil civilizations without mercy, unless their militery might is greater than them. Similerily Cowardly civilizations are just as warlike towards civilizations that are vastly weaker than them (though they judge weaker by different standards) as a Dominator civilization, though they will avoid conflict with any and all civilizations that posess the capacity to hurt them in any way and will attempt to make peace at the first opportunity should a civ appears to be catching up with them in a war. Their pacficism is based more on fear of getting hurt rather than any real commitment to peace in the galaxy. On the parallel Perfectionist civilizations, will typically leave all civilizations, weak or strong alone, but may join a war in support of good or nuetral civilization that is attacked by an evil civilization, if it feels that the prevalance of that civilization might put their utopian and "perfect" societal progress under threat. They will usually not attempt to grab territory and a content with merely repulsing the evil civilization.

Nuetrals are largely defined on whether they are isolationist or expansionist. Expansionist civilizations aim at expanding their domains and gaining power of the galaxy plotting endlessly to expand their empire by a number of means, Isolationist civilizations typically aim to maintain the balance of power of the galaxy, seeing expansion as dangerous. You will often find Isolationist civilizations forming largely defensive alliances will other Isolationist civilizations for their own protection when they feel threatened by the expansion of another civ, whatever the alignment of that other civ may be.
Reply #11 Top
Another thing about morality: Its kinda annoying how once you make a few 'evil' choices, its dispropotionately hard to get back to 'neutral'. And just FORGET about being 'good'.
Reply #12 Top
the path to the dark side is paved with good intentions

surely in a lot of places you can see the slide into darkness in real life like germany in the 1930s started by just trying to recover fromj the semingly unjust terms of the great war but once 1 thing becomes ok its all to easy to creap into the darkness of the 42-45 era and the final solution.

conversely when you have decided that doing something is ok its hard to find resons it is no longer ok I support the path of darkness /enlightment system as it stands
Reply #13 Top
Yeah, but... I dunno, I just feel like I'm hobbling myself by taking the RP route, since there is little nuance- you are either good, evil, or neutral.

How about this: In addition to the overall bonuses for being Good or Evil, include some bonuses for being Neutral (preferably ones that reflect the theme of Neutrality, like trade bonuses or whatever), AND add in little bonuses for good and neutral event decisions- bonuses independant of overall rating.

For example, say you are the leader of an evil empire. You get a popup that says you have recieved a distress signal. Your analysts say it came from just outside your borders: A large merchant convoy is being attacked by space pirates.

At the moment, there is no reason for you to pick the good choice, and the neutral choice usually isn't worth it either. You are pretty much railroaded into the evil choice, even if it doesn't really benefit your civilization much.

Alternatively, things could be tweaked as follows:

The 'good' choice would be to scramble your forces, costing you some money and possibly some units.

The benefit would be a small bonus to trade (the exact number would be random, and you'd only find out AFTER selecting this course of action).

The reasoning being that the merchants would be grateful, not to mention impressed by your military prowess enough to ask for your protection in the future, plus alien civilizations would know that you are not mindlessly evil, but, to borrow a D&D term, LAWFUL evil.

The Neutral choice would be to send out ships to your border and inform the merchants to make a run for it. The ships would be ordered to attack any pirate ship that fires into or enters your territory. This carries a slight chance of ship loss, and a minor BC donation from the grateful merchants.

The Evil choice would be to send in your forces to kill off the pirates- then pillage the helpless merchant vessels. This would net you a large sum of BC, though it may or may not give a minor penalty to trade.
Reply #14 Top
Come to think of it, is there an event editor? Its been a while.
Reply #15 Top
The trouble is that every civilizations rulers belong to the Lawful side of whatever moral alignment they belong to beacause as rulers they are the Law. You cannot be a "Chaotic Evil" leader of a civilization, it's not possible, your role forces you to become Lawful.
Reply #16 Top
Unless Lawful is descibed as how likely you are to honor an agreement you have made with another civilization. But then that would be best described as trustworthiness.
Reply #17 Top
Why not good and evil and
democratic and totaliarian
It is possible to have a dictator who fights for the good of the universe
Reply #18 Top
So we'd have
Good vs Evil
Warlike vs peaceloving
Democratic vs totalitarian.

Trouble is that in a totalitarian good society would actually be rather democratic, mainly beacause a good ruler doesn't like to oppress people and generally behave like a tyrant. In a pure good society the distinctions of ruler and subject are indeed irrelevant, conflict between different classes would not exist beacause all act for the good of all. However it's probably likely that civilization alignment only represents the ruling elite's morality, the average man on the street is probably likely to be one grade below their rulers on the heirachy. No civilization can be perfectly of one alignment in it's several billion teeming throng.

So in an Altarian society, the average Altarian is likely to be merely of good alignment, in a Torian society the average Torian is nuetral, in a Yor society the average Yor is nuetral and in a Drengin society the average Drengin is merely evil.
Reply #19 Top
GoblinCookie, I don't think the government style would matter. The people can be in exact step with their government, or be very different.

In a pure good society, you could have a dictatorship, if arranged in a Holy and Good empire. Think of a good society in which those above have a duty to those below, and those below have a duty to those above (ala uncorrupted Fuedal loyality system). If the few do what is best for all, then you still have a good society.

A representative democratic system can easily get away from the electors beliefs. And that they usually do, quickly. Only direct democracies would stay in step with the people's belief, because it will always be the compromise/majority view of those that could be bothered to participate. For important issues, that would tend to be in step with the people, but even then, it can be out of step with their beliefs, if someone or something was to manipulate their popular media or inflame their passions prior to the vote.
Reply #20 Top
Morality is relative. You can't say that one race is good and one race is evil, they are only that way from another race's persective. If we're to call races good and evil in this game then it should be based not on a simple system of races are objectively good or evil, but based the race looking at them. For example if your race has 50 "evil points" then races that are many points away would be seen as evil no matter what direction its in. Its just like capitalists and socialists. Each sees each other as evil.

In a peaceful society a warlike person would be seen as evil because they want to kill and use conquest to achieve their ends. However, in a warlike society a peaceloving person would be seen as evil because they are unwilling to risk their lives for the good of the society unlike everyone else. Like I siad, its all relative.
Reply #21 Top
Why not just make it Peaceful vs. Warlike? A peaceful society would benefit from better trade, relations with other races, and defensive technologies (armor, shields, pin-point). Warlike societies on the other hand would benefit from better mining of resources, weapons technology, and higher counter-espionage. The same can be true of the events: Help a dying people to either exploit their survival for manual labor, help them out of the goodness of your heart and gain influence with other peaceful races and the U.P., or just let them die.
Reply #22 Top
Only good civilizations believe in good and evil and strive to achieve the former. Nuetral civs take the line of Malrin Guller, morality is relative, although the personal veiws of the civs inhabitants. Evil civilizations take the nuetral line too, except while nuetral civs also believe power is relative, they don't. To them power is the ultimate goal and hence it doesn't matter how many suffer or die to achieve it. It doesn't matter what the justification for that power, only that the evil civ puts it above all considerations of morality.
Reply #23 Top
Why not following choices:
Social Diversity-Social Equality
Free Market-Central Planning
Expansionism-Centralization
Wartime Mobilization-Peacetime Demilitrarization
Tight Security-Lax Security
Open Society-Closed Society

This sliders would be modifided by events as well as by player's choice. War breaks out? Event "Mobilization for war" springs up and moves slider towards Wartime Mobilization. You don't have enemies? Demilitarization will cut maintenance costs and social project costs but increase military building cost. Low security increases oponents espionage and sabotage chance but makes planet more productive and happy. Expansionism would encourage migration on new planets, and make colony ships cheaper, but centralization gives bonus on industry and max population. Also Expansionists would get instant Casus Belli (Reason for war) on minor civilizations but have lower relations with them. Open society increases relationships with other civs and increases research, closed makes waging war easier. These are just examples.
Reply #24 Top
i Agree that would be a good domestic policy setting...
Reply #25 Top
I could type effect for each slider if required... Also maybe some penalties would be good, so too-wartime society gets a penalty on unrest, too-expansionist makes you hard to make good and devevoped planets...