kliebor kliebor

Thoughts on being a Good Guy

▼

Thoughts on being a Good Guy

Good needs more return still

from GalCiv3 Forums

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.

88,385 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting LordChess, reply 24
If you haven't yet, go and check out the Founder's Vault and look at the latest PDF about the Ideology Tree

I've enjoyed watching this thread, and have reserved comment until now because I wanted to wait until a little more was revealed by the devs.

Before alpha launched, some of us were discussing this topic in the GalCiv III Founder's Vault! thread. I wanted to post some of what I said as it relates closely to what is being discussed here.

Again, these are my thoughts pre-alpha:

Quoting trumpeter87, reply 158
I'm not trying to be critical, but right now, in my opinion "benevolent," "pragmatic," and "malevolent" read very much the same as GalCiv II's ethics system (though the implementation of a points-based tree is certainly different and an improvement).

But the terms "benevolent" and "malevolent" aren't much of a departure from "good" and "evil." They merely express the same basic idea using a different word. I realize that their definitions are technically different, but "manifesting a desire to do good" and "wishing evil toward others" versus being "good" or "evil" is a tenuous difference at best.

I still feel that this system isn't much of a change from GCII in its core concept--the implementation is certainly improved, and I really like what I'm seeing in that regard.

Regarding the actual issue of ideology, I said:

Quoting trumpeter87, reply 158
I liked the suggestion of "altruistic," as that more generally expresses a "regard for the welfare of others." "Ruthless" and "merciless," however, aren't too different from "malevolent." Neither of these words really describe an ideology. A pragmatic society can certainly be ruthless and merciless if it is most practical (and often, that is the case). And even an altruistic society can, for the safety and welfare of others, make decisions that would be considered ruthless and merciless.

The opposite of altruism would be more along the lines of egocentrism--basically, self-centeredness.

Right now, IMO, the only real ideology listed is pragmatism. Ideologies really deal with the underlying motivation for certain behavior (why is a civ merciless, and can it be merciless in some situations but not others?). Here are some ideologies off the top of my head: altruism, pacifism, isolationism, hedonism, materialism, opportunism, expansionism.

I'm not saying GalCiv III would benefit from having all these ideologies (though making decisions based on a hedonistic ideology could be interesting), but I do think that sticking to three ideologies will effectively result in the same basic dynamic as was present in GalCiv II (a basically "good" ethic, a basically "neutral" one, and a basically "evil" one).

If the devs desire to go away from this basic "good vs. evil" mentality, I really think we would have to have at least 4 ideologies to choose from.

Quoting trumpeter87, reply 158
It may help to have more than three ideologies with some overlap, perhaps something like altruism (help others at all cost), pacifism (no violence at all cost), pragmatism (path of least resistance/whatever works best), and expansionism (financial and territorial growth at all cost).

I tend to agree with what ParagonRenegade said in the thread, Ideology tree discussion:

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 5
I want at least six ideology trees, with more varied colonization/random events to compensate. 

This would make ideology so much more meaningful, IMO.

We've also discussed this, as well as how the ideological paths should interrelate, in the thread Ideologies - Thoughts?, and I know there is a lot more discussion on the forum regarding this topic.

I've said it elsewhere but I'll say it here as well: I feel that the ideology system is ultimately meaningless if we can get every perk from each tree if given enough time. If all the players have all the perks by the endgame, especially in multiplayer, then our differences based on those choices will be limited to when, not what.

I don't like to end on a negative note, so I won't. ;)   I do like what I'm seeing--that new ideology doc in the vault gets me pretty excited. I look forward to watching how the devs continue to work through the new ideology system.

Reply #27 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Wintersong, reply 25

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).

 Good and Evil, Malevolence and Benevolence: these are describing the intentions of the individual, not the acts. I would personally say, an individual who has a inheritable disease who breeds for the purpose for ensuring that their offspring will have to live with a disease is "evil" and someone who has children DESPITE the disease is not. You're really feeling around the morality of negative eugenics, which is something I do not embrace at all. Personally, I think no authority should have the rights to tell any two individuals whether or not they can have offspring. I think if we have the technology to "clean" the genes of said offspring to make sure they have no genetic disease, then we are morally obliged to do so.


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".

I wouldn't call the Americans evil, but yeah, that's a fair point. I would point out that EU societies, contributing more than 50% of global foreign aid maybe aren't doing it for completely selfish reasons? I mean, there are many countries with genuine concerns about human security and human dignity and take development issues very strongly, and no, none of them have spotless records, but assuming altruistic behaviour in international politics is a bit of a naieve dream from the 1990's. Then again, most of GalCiv can be described as such, so...



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.

I agree on a lot of these points. A pole only exists in relation to it's opposite. In reality, they are both a part of a greater continuum, so the idea of one triumphing over the other is nonsense. But I will say you can blame society. Society, nations, these things do not exist. They're big imaginary things that are given rights ahead of the people who comprise them. So of course they cannot be blamed, because they have no autonomy or will. They do, however, have fair substantial acts carried out in their name. Personally, I believe in government. I think that while there might be individuals, people who are best left to their own devices, there are people who need the government to act as a parent. There are people who just want to keep their heads down and live the same life as everyone always have: safe and protected. Those people need a government to protect them from the world, because they tend to get violent if they aren't. They need a higher authority and they want it. For good or bad, most people seem to support peace, order and stability, despite any injustices present in that system.

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 lives 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 everybody else anyway).

 

If I might be pedantic, the survival of the species means that the species continues to exist. It doesn't prescribe how the species continues to exist. If survival is something one values, then one usually throws morality out the window and embrace one's inner savage (i.e. resorting to cannibalism in a life raft.) Survival is the most basic of all acts. It is foundational. It's only what we do after we successfully survive that matters. That said, in the choice to amputate one's arm to survive is complicated by the fact that one's arm in this case is a number of thinking, feeling persons with their own right to live their lives as they see fit.

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.

I'd argue that that those who back "the herd" do so because it represents their own interests better than going it alone. The might even be backing an inefficient system that in turn would be handicaping the whole, because the people in question are resistant to change and afraid of difference. I'd also say forcing people, against their will, to provide for the whole, is tantamount to slavery. If the thought of a handicap is enough suspend the freedom of a minority-- if order must be enforced at all costs-- then handicap or not, that's not something I want to be a part of. Everyone has to come willingly to the table, and if the current constitution of order does not provide for the inclusion of individuals on terms acceptable to individuals then the system claiming to represent humanity is not representing humanity, but a mob of humans and will rule with as much wisdom and justice of a mob. I've seen my fair share of pitchforks to know what benevolence such people hold in their hearts.


Why should "supernatural" beings make any difference? Are not alien enough the people that live in other countries? Those who believe in different things? The notion of good and evil makes no sense in any context as we talk about "Doing what we think (or forced to think) that is good(best) for us". Surely alien lifeforms (illegal or not) can understand that simple concept.

 

Supernatural beings make a difference because the give something concrete that one can point at and identify as good or evil. Without this, what is good or evil is simply what one person or people find good or bad. It is a subjective concept. Therefore, if left subjective, then it loses it "true north" and any act can be regarded as good or evil. i.e. A Drengin likely does not see eating people as an evil act. Perhaps it is a good act. Maybe to another species genocide is a good act because it relieves the genocide-y from having to live one moment more in their impure form.

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting LordChess, reply 24

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.

Without actually coming up with a new tree, I would like to see some of the bonuses (boni?) shifted around a bit -- were it to be collectivism and indvidualism. For example, the tech and influence bonuses being on the individualist side. Other bonuses like "trust" would be silly in my preferred poles. Free planets is also a bit weird. Maybe put Infamy and Greed and Fear (for their bonuses, not their names) on the Collectivist side.

I'd have collectivism be easier to negotiate with, more happiness, maybe even more planetary defence, as well as more productive. They'd also have higher tax income, as its citizens are more willing to sacrifice for the whole. Individualism would see boosts to science, as there is less concerns about technology's reaction to collective security. We'd see an innovative society, who's thinking outside the box makes them better tacticians and decentralised nature makes them able to reap their citizens being able to "donate" to the government (maybe for concessions elsewhere.) Maybe a bonus to trade income as well. However, they are in comparison an unruly lot: like pirates or vikings, and they need continued successes, lest the empire risks revolts.

I note that none of these paths include maluses, but they have been mentioned before. All in all, I know the choices placed before us mean one ideology for one strategy. Personally, I'd shuffle them around a bit to give them the perception of depth-- shades of grey instead of black and white and make "good" a viable warmonger strategy and "evil" a viable diplomatic strategy. I'd give them different tools, but I wouldn't close off one way or another or make a side non-competitive in a certain dimension of the game.

 

 

Reply #29 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Verenti, reply 28
I'd give them different tools, but I wouldn't close off one way or another or make a side non-competitive in a certain dimension of the game.

Based on the doc in the founder's vault, I'd generalize the ideologies as benevolent=influence and growth, pragmatic=trade and diplomacy, and malevolent=production and military.

Although I too would like to see a shift in the approach (as I have mentioned), I don't totally agree that the current ideologies are as exclusive as you make them out to be (i.e. "non-competitive").

For example, by having greater growth and influence (benevolent), you also have greater production and research, which could lead to more military ships that are also more advanced. The same could be said of pragmatism, in which trade and diplomacy could result in higher tech (assuming some form of tech trading is available as it was in GCII) and more money, which could be funneled into military production.

The converse is true of malevolent societies being diplomatic and influential, because (I'm assuming) military power (or perceived military power) will have an impact on diplomacy and influence. You could be malevolent, build up a huge military, and never attack anyone but complete an influence or diplomatic victory in which nobody wants to attack you due to your superiority.

So I'd say that these are different tools to achieve the same ends.

Reply #30 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I'm a simple guy and most of this debate is too deep for me. I want to choose the best option for me at that moment in the game. In GC 2, I generally chose a neutral path, but I did it by choosing options from all three categories. I like that freedom of choice. I am not so fond of having to always choose one path.