So, if you guys want Good to actually gain something with each choice, are you willing to give up the option of having everyone as allies? If so, then play neutral. If not, then you're overpowering good and destroying game balance.

While I agree with most of your post, I have to strongly disagree with this part. I normally play neutral for the tech bonuses and have rarely had problems allying with any civilization I want to. I agree its easier to ally when you are good but neutral ends up letting me ally with both the good and evil races equally, making it far easier to win diplomatically if I so choose. I think good does need some sort of boost, though what exactly I dont know. Maybe an improvement in all production by some percentage to represent the happier and more creative people you have working for you would do it.

Those who live by the sword, Die by the sword.

Will you turn the other cheek?

I guess it comes down to your style of play. If you are part of the "want it now generation" and or want to reap the immediate benefit of some evil scheme to further your cause.... Evil is the route to take. No cuddling the Energizer bunny here... you snatch him up, rip him apart and use his motors, batteries and gears to build a diabolical weapon to devastate your opponent whilst you sleep easily at night on his soft pink fur. Personally, this route fascinates me. I have played the long drawn out games and I really hate them. I want to destroy my adversaries as quickly as possible, therefore, its open season on lil pink bunnies!

I do not believe the game should be altered. Balance in this case, does not seem logical to me. Every race should have strong points and weak points, such is life. None of them should be identical. Some races should be stronger than others just a fact of life... A minnow is not a shark and vice versa... although they both swim and breathe in water and are both fish. Also each race plays differently... or at least should if you do not alter their starting abilities. I have found that some like a challenge, not the same old mundane, dry, dull routine.

With this I must admit, I admire those who play on the good side. To me it appears to be more difficult to achieve a victory, or at the very least, takes longer. Caused by your own decisions. For those of you.... I salute you. For the rest, including myself at this time, Fire up the grill and grab the beer... We have some Varmints to kill !!!!!

Aww, c'mon, good isn't that pathetic! Folk like you more; neutrals treat you as one of their own, and the goodies really like you. The evils dislike you... but, while I've often made alliances with an evil race as good, I've yet to ally with a good race as evil.
Oh yeah, and... fundamentalists. Hate those guys. It seemed things were going fine in one game I recall, then, kaboom! A bunch of my folk suddenly went "peace and love" on me. Oh, sure, I could have re-conquered them... if the Torians hadn't decided the time was ripe to crush me. Trigger happy lil' toads...
Or how about the one lousy trade route the United Planets informed me I was allowed to have... as the Dominion of Korx, no less? How are we supposed to deliver bags of glass to all the children of the galaxy with one trade route?!
Evil can be great, but if the weight is in the hands of good, it can be tough. Especially if those hands are Torian.

Good gets a big advantage because more races seems to be good then bad which gives you more allies meaning less people potentially attacking you. Though, the side I join depends more on logistics for me. If my neighbors are evil I am going evil because if I don't they are going to kill me (this is in suicidal). Strategic alliances is the single most important thing that keeps me alive so I can eventually rule the universe.

My current game, I set it up to have 2 neutral (Arcean and the insects), 2 evil (Yor and Drengin), and 2 good (Altarians and me). I made 3 "good" choices and 1 "neutral" choice (I couldn't take a -38% production bonus!!!), so I was leaning good, though just barely.

Even after I researched Xeno Ethics and chose "good", the Altarians at best have me at "warm", but that was only after some really good gifts when they were at war. Most of the game they were "Cool" with me. So I don't buy that good civilizations immediately start liking you.

The DRENGINS of all races were "Warm" with me after I had chosen "good"! The only reason we're at war right now is because the Drengins attacked the Arceans, who I was allied with. Of course, my plan was to take out the Drengins after the Yor anyway, but I wanted to research some Drengin-specific techs first.

Anyway, to the original point, I'm not seeing a "good guy club", at least not in the one game where I intentionally went good (I normally make evil choices and then research Xeno Ethics to go neutral).

I didn't read all these, but i think the problem is the drawbacks of evil are in-significant in GC2. Lets see evil suffers these :
1) good guys don't like you. -> who cares...lol
2) trade can suffer. -> trade is pathetic for money generation, so no real loss
3) planets can rebel into fundamentalists. -> invade them the next turn, big deal


I think the solution is beefing up these drawbacks and adding some new ones. It would be neat that if you turned the natives to slaves that they flip and maybe go to your arch enemy, (and get the ships in orbit).

I think trade is the biggest problem. In GC1 going evil could really work against you because trade was so powerfull, in GC2 it just isn't worth it on larger galaxies.

I just thought of something. If your good and since good get really sucktastic bonus's once you've killed off the evil civs, that's when you're supposed to (well what I would do unless i'm going for diplomatic victory every time) stab all your allys in the back, that wouldn't go well, and if there are neutural civs wouldn't it be easy for them to give everyone a kick in the ass. Take that and shove it down your preaching maw!

In my current game I started with a 'Good' race and during the colony rush I chose the *evil* selection at every moral dilemma (about 7-8 IIRC). After the rush, on a large galaxy, I researched Xeno Ethics and chose the Good path, since my race was still leaning good (altho approaching Neutral).

So I get all the benfits of the evil choices on those planets and still get the Good benefits from the Tech.

Cheers,
Reaver

It seems to be very easy to win a diplomatic victory as good. If I can get my military built up enough (to deter any aggressors which includes other good races) it's often possible to win without firing a shot.

I always liked the defense techs. Get some large ships with good defense matched to my enemy and I can walk all over them even if they're technically much more powerful then me. Those techs eventually become obsolete, but there's a period when they can make a real difference.

Trade isn't huge, but at least for me it's often the missing piece needed to keep me from bottoming out my economy during the tail end of the colony rush. If my economy bottoms out for more then a couple turns it seems like I might as well just give up then and there.

Other then that I guess there isn't much in the way of benefit for being good other then roleplay if you're into that.

I've been playing on hardest difficultly level with the following restrictions (to make a very challenging game):

1. cannot build a spin control center
2. no tech trading
3. only evil opponents
4. MUST DECLARE YOURSELF GOOD

So far I haven't been able to beat it (though I only tried a couple times).

I never pay people to ally with me, I wait for relations to improve naturally.

Nobody's mentioned the defence bonuses from good, probably because they suck so much.

It's a nice idea, but poorly implemented. Both evil weapons and good defences are the equivalent of several steps down the tech tree. However, weapons techs are *considerably* more expensive, so those superpowered evil weapons are much more of an advantage.

Here's the comparion of how many research points you need to spend to reach an equivalent tech, weapon vs defence in each case
Shields - 20000 vs 2000
Mass Drivers - 28000 vs 1700
Missiles - 9400 vs 5000

The comparisons get worse the larger the hulls you typically use because the hull size dependency for the good defences is higher than the typical for the tree whereas for the evil weapons it's the same. For example, unless you're hell bent on reaching Doom Ray, you might as well stop at the Psionic Beam since it's a match for anything else in the tech tree.

Good is also stupid but who's checking?