Ugh. Just my 2c fwiw. I'm disappointed that galciv2 has twisted the question of ethical alignment into something which portrays being evil with being the strongest, hands down. The fact that they have made the evil colonizations choices the strongest, while making good the weakest is dumb, unimaginitive to say the least. For these devs apparently all they see in doing the right thing and being "good" is sacrifice. They cant see any "profit" in it apparently, and apparently cant think of a way where good might truly win out over evil somehow as they have made it quite impossible to do so in real game terms. Im not sayhing one c ant win playing good as is, but put it this way: if 2 evenly matched opponents were playing galciv 2, both evenly matched in resources and smarts, one evil, the other good, evil would win, no chance whatsoever for it not to.

Why was it so difficult for them to be imaginitive and allow for a good ethical option that could at very least have parity with the evil choice? WHile I can understand where theyre coming from and while there is sometimes sacrifice involved with doing the right thing it can also be rewarding and there can be sacrifice in being evil as well. I do think they could and shouldve masde all ethical choices just as viable as the next. The very least they couldve done is allow each option to stand on its own merits against the others. Neutral does that to some degree. Good simply handicaps the player; its benefits seem in no way to make it feasable to play when matched against either neutral or evil.

Wow... talk about dragging something up from the murky depths.

This is indeed true. It's a decent topic that deserves discussion, but after 4 months it's better to just open up a new thread.

---

I'm not so interested in the specifics of the colonization event choices because I think no matter how strong the good choices were made they wouldn't compensate for the advantage that both Evil and Neutral have over Good.

Good clearly gets the short end of the stick in this game. Evil gets the early powerful weapons, the Mind Control Center and the Artificial Slave Center; Neutral gets the Neutrality Learning Center, a 10% morale bonus, free terraforming and cheaper rush buying of ships. The only bonus of significance that good gets is the 20% defense bonus from the Empathic Tactical Center. In comparison that's pretty weak.

I think Good should get something like a 25% (or even higher) morale bonus to be even close to the advantages that Evil and Neutral get in this game.

The supposed advantage of Good, that they're less likely to be attacked, is totally bogus from what I've seen.

So they should get a boost to morale from being moral?

I must agree as well, they should get a significant advantage in this area.

I tend to agree with the recent posts from Mumble & Quixen.

But since the "in-game ethics" thing caught my attention here, I cannot resist again wondering why it is that "good" AIs like the Torians are so freakin' aggressive. Have any of you long-standing folks seen an AI make a serious go for a diplo win?

Torians are so freakin' aggressive

At first I always played Evil, then I noticed the bonuses the Neutrals get. I especially like the automatic tile upgrade. So now I tend to play in the center, with a slight leaning to the Evil side.

As for the Torians... I want to obliterate them first in every game. The first few games I played, they always played aggressive, even when I was on the good side. Now, I want to erase them from the universe as quickly as possible, can them, and sell them to the Terran Alliance as turtle soup.

I quickly came to the conclusion that with friends like these who needs enemies.

My sentiments exactly!

Have any of you long-standing folks seen an AI make a serious go for a diplo win?

This I have not seen.