Some will argue that a good nation can invade other nations either to "spread their values of goodness" or to "preemptively defend themselves."

I wish I could draw some current or historical examples but I can't seem to come up with any.

I wish I could draw some current or historical examples but I can't seem to come up with any.

i think he was being facetious.

That neutral PQ bonus SO rocks.

Ahhhh.........
The old debate that inevitably pops up when people start to realize that not all is what it seems in the time honored perspective of good and evil.
Truth: Don't know any.
But anyway, if you look back in history you see countless cases of this very phenomenon.
WWII: The rest of the world disagrees with what the Nazi's did right? Well, they thought they were doing the right thing. They honestly believed in what they were doing. Also... Anyone here like Martin Luther (Not King... the one known as the Reformer in the 1600's). Well, Luther wrote a treatise on the Jews that was later used as a model for Hitler's actions. Read it if you get the chance, it's mindblowing (Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies)

Too often in history the side that is "good" wins because they're the ones that get to write the History books. If Hitler had won WWII we would all have learned about the Nazi party's great and God lead crusade against the world.

Another thing to do is Watch Kingdom of Heaven. It's the same sort of Story, both sides tout the phrase "GOD WILLS IT!" to rally themselves.

Something Real: Humans are incapable of truly knowing right from wrong. I believe that the eventual harm that is committed is a good indicator of evil actions, but they must be balanced against the concerns of the individuals. But that's just me. I may be totally off my rocker, I'm human and I accept that.
I also believe in God and Jesus Christ, but I recognize the right of others not to, and I entertain the idea that I may be wrong. I think God wil judge me as She will.



Truth: Decide for yourself.

Sure you can think of an example. Iraq!

Lots of wars if not all were made to spread "goodness" , as said before it depends on the one who wins what is "good".

Historic example "The holy crusades" (In the time of "King Arthur").

In a way Hitler preemptively defended Germany by attacking his neighbours (get them first before they attack me). Later he did the same with Russia. Attacked them before they would decice it was in Russia's best interest that Germany would not win the war with the west. Indeed if Hitler had won (and he was very close) Europe would now have German as their native language, learn the true meaning of the German way and how bad the jews really are. And most people would then believe that it is good to think that way.

"I saw a very cool movie today: Star Wars. It is Good versus Evil." "Oh? And how do you know who is good and who evil?" "Quite simple: You know the evil guys because there are lots of them, they always attack from ambush, but they almost always miss. On the other hand, the good guys are just a few, they only shoot back, but they almost always hit their targets." "So in other words, you recognize the good guys because they kill a lot more people than the evil guys?" "Er, Yeah, pretty much so." "I guess Good and Evil isn't really what it used to be" Hope this cleared up any misconceptions about Good and Evil

And lets not forget the teachings of Kevin Smith's "Clerks" Between Dente and his friend/coworker Randal. Basically saying, that the second Death Star was being built, when the rebels ("Good Guys") blew it up. What about the workers building it? Did the "Good Guys" ever think of them when they decided to blow it up? Nope. Gooooo Emipre!

Lets not forget that the bad guys always give the good guys a chance to surrender, and then the good guys always turn around and blast them! "Put down your weapon!"....."Aaaaghghhh". "Freeze!"....."Aaaahaghgh".

Why do people alway assume that "good" can't shoot first? What would they have the Alterians and Torians just sit there and wait for an invasion? Sounds boring.

Good gets to shoot first TOO!

good and evil are just labels people use. whether for a purpose or out of ignorance. Altarians are really shifty in some of my games, and the dregin at least let you know where you stand with them.

but what side gets what label? depends on the eye of the beholder

Here's a thought for you all, in the vein of this conversation. George W. Bush is, in almost every way, exactly like Adolph Hitler. How he justifies things, how he acts towards people, how he views his country, and everything outside of it. They are virtually identical.

Wrong. Hitler was never really religious, just claimed to be to win popularity (which he really didn't need in the end: he was loved, and killed people who didn't love him)

Bush actually claims to be sent by God. I'll admit to not be an American, and not know the laws. But I SWEAR that there was a seperation of church and state in there somewhere. Having a, sorry if this offends anyone, moronic fanatic who claims divine right (the thing that we over here cut James the first's head off for) as his reasoning is a conflict to that.

Personally I think that would add another dimension to culture war. Of course the AI would have to approve of it, but I'll lay my ideas out.

Yor keep 100% loyalty bonus: Why do machines need religion?
Thalan 40% loyalty bonus: They're from the future/alternate dimension. They already know how it's going to turn out, but some want to believe otherwise.

Now, imagine say a Torian 20% resistance to bloodthirsty, fundamentalist religions: Drengin, remember
Drengin 35% resistance to peace loving religions (Altarians): But skin tastest so good!
Humans 10% resistance to religions believing in peace and harmony: Let's face it, we're cynical.
Korx have a 80% resistance to any good religions that believe in chaarity, but a -10% to normal/evil religions.

I can't think of any more resistances, but say the Arceans would be weak to cultures that have a religion promoting strength and unity combined with a powerful army. Drengin would be weak to any radical cultures that have undergone revolutions and are now bloodthirsty. The Korx have supremacist attitudes, and would go with the strongest economy religion.

It wouldn't work like civ, and I doubt mine would be any good, just laying some groundwork so people can add feedback.

Must... complete... circle of tangent...

Well, personally listing I believe listing the commandments outside a courthouse IS mixing it too far. They shouldn't be banned anywhere, nor should they be advertised. Remember in some states they have actually arrested and prosecuted people for denying CREATIONISM of all things.

Seriously, the pope have up that fight decades ago. Let it go, microevolution is a fact. Whether you want to debate it as being single cells to modern day humans, or God created us in his image and makes corrections to adapt us to the world, it's up to you. But at some scale it's still happening. Macroevolution: Theory with a lot of proof. Microevolution: FACT. Creationism being taught as science while banning "evilution" is teaching kids blind obediance without bothering with knowledge.

I don't believe in banning Christianity. I gave up religion due to the sheer lack of evidence. But to say "no, ten commandments shouldn't be taught" is rubbish, I still try and live by them. and holidays (wrongly or not) associated with religions should be allowed to be celebrated as such if people so wish.

Incidentally, any dev's going to tell us how society will handle religion?

And back on topic: Just remember this. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. And people can use being holy and Good as reasons for being slimy, repulsive scum (Fred Phelps and co)

If you only knew who was behind it you would be VERY afraid. The truth is stranger than fiction.

Giant blood drinking lizards, right? I KNEW I should've listened to David Icke, I'm a fool, a damned fool!
*ahem*
And in any case, the 10 commandments aren't really the ones you think they are. No, really.