AngleWyrm AngleWyrm

A better definition of Good vs Evil

▼

A better definition of Good vs Evil

from GalCiv2 Forums
In GalCiv-1, there is an association of profit with evil. This is erroneous.

A better arrangement is to have Evil be competetive choices, where one profits at another's expense. This is currently true of the game, and addresses the advantage of Evil.

The complement of this definition of Evil is a definition of Good as cooperative choices, where both entities profit from their collaberation. This is under-represented in the game.

Examples:

Evil: Ah, Slaves! +10% production.
Good: Culteral exchange! +10% morale.

This representation has psychological reprecussions that are interesting:

Good: Pirates--fine them and let them go +100 credits.
Evil: Execute them +5% influence

Good: Archeological site. +5% research
Evil: Ransack the place. +5 current research

Evil: Bugs? Kill em all. +5% living space
Good: Breed them for farm animals +5% planet quality

--
AngleWyrm
70,780 views 84 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
lomancy. I like Evil Roy's idea of kicking such an empire out of the UP.

Paul.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
somebody LIKES one of my ideas. i iz crackin' open a BEER
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
c bomb? eliminating another strong rival might prevent that rival to become more dangerous thus saving people living in the country that used the bomb.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ocence, will show you the millions of human philosophers who have argued all possible lines before this moment.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ve serious morality effects, being first to research such technologies should have minor morality effects.

Paul.

PS. Bearhugger, atomic=nuclear
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ocide (including species, not necessarily sentient, on the destroyed planet), thus it's always evil to use it. Developping it as a preemptive weapon is meaningless if you're not ready to use it.
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ct anything different in the game?
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
> Now that would be TRULY EVIL and deserving of the harshest possible punishment.

Elrikk
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ye MAD.
And if you read what I said, I am responding in kind. Being disrespectful to someone who was disrespectful is ok. Torturing them is worse than disrespect and is not ok.
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
down.

Does that make it any clearer?
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ny of the choices marked GOOD involve the prevention of said miserable ends.
Reply #40 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
nd allies or friends should not be considered evil, maybe even slightly good.

paul.
Reply #41 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
t, to him, period.
Reply #44 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
n GC. That is why, if you are very Good in GC, everyone trusts you and are willing to work with you more then if you are Evil (who are Dishonorable or having no Honor).
Reply #45 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
dockcentral.net/images/smiles/joke.gif" border=0 ALIGN="absmiddle">
Reply #46 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
es/smile.gif" border=0 ALIGN="absmiddle">

I said it was an idealistic interpretation. I don't think that war should affect morality at all, unless you are bringing war against an ally, or a civilization with similar morality to your own.
Reply #47 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
only be true for good, as it is not "evil" for an evil civilization to declare war on another evil civilization, as demonstrated in GC1 where evil civs would often get into wars of their own, while good tended to ally together.
Reply #48 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
pport of an attacked ally. Good change to morality.

Paul.
Reply #50 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
rs and worms on the planets) that live there, so it's evil. Point proven.