Because good choices often have the effect of requiring some personal sacrifice.

If you were to make the good and right choice all the time at work, for example, you might just lose your job.
Case in point, try being a car salesperson and never lie to or mislead your potential customers.

While I can't say I disagree with your points, Wheeloffire, you're borderline flaming with a post written like that.

Because there has to be some disadvantage to being good, and without that there really isn't. If you're evil, you are going to have some substantive diplomatic problems. If you're good, you're going to have some unpleasant event choices. If you're neutral, you're going to be so-so across the board. It's the way the game's balanced, and I think it works pretty well.

1. Sorry about the spelling error, I ussaully catch these things before I post.
2. I was making a point. You can remain undecided, by not researching "Xeno ethics", throughout the entire game, and possibly be stronger for it.



Actually, I've taken Philosophy 101 and passed. I'm taking 102 right now. My teacher makes the point of teaching us some of the more advanced material which includes reading the reprints of the original books, and not the books written by people who read the reprints and think they know the stuff. He had us take an oath not to google anything about philosophy while taking his class. He said that would only end up getting confused.

Heck, one of our assignments was to act like Socrates for 24 hours. If you heard anyone say that they know something, you were to ask them why. He also warned us that most people would probally be insulted, so be prepared for people react negatively, such as geting a cup of water thrown in your face.

Thats part of the reason why I'm having a problem. The game only provides 3 limited choices, with good almost always being bad. There is more than one good choice you can possible make. Some of those choices I'm thinking about might require more effort, but I can see how to make my "sacrifices" benefical.

________________
*Sigh* I'm probally going to make a new post about this...

In complete sincerity, you can't. In the late stages of the game, it helps to have Xeno Ethics. It's best if you're the first one to get it. With military superiority and Xeno Ethics you can force all your opponents to choose by gifting the tech. That makes the political situation clearer so everyone can die with greater efficiency.

If you like random events, that's a preference. It doesn't make you part of some secret "fr0th" alignment.



Wow. Please specify if you want a medal or a chest to pin it on.



Insults? You mean like, "You, your teacher and everyone participating in your Socratic dialectic project can visualize my middle finger!"?

Yes, I can see how that's a challenging task.

I always choose good or neutral. I tried evil once or twice, and the Altarians used my evil alignment as an excuse to declare war on me. If you want to be evil, take Altarians out of the game because they do punish you for it.

*Stares at Wheeloffire*
You're trying to pick a fight, aren't you.
...
...
I'm going to ignore you now.



That example only started to bug me about 10 minutes after I read it. Being a moral car salesperson who never lies is difficult because its how the profession is designed. I forget the terminlogy, but doesn't a car salespersons get paid by commision? Aka, they get a percentage of the profits of what ever they sell. This means that they will attempt to sell potential customers a really expensive car every possible chance they get. If they don't, they miss a chance to get some money, and it makes them feel bad when they don't do a good job.

So we have a profession that will attempt to sell you something that makes them the most money, and not something that is worth your money and could make you happy. Do you really need a car that has every possible feature: built in tv, seat warmers, faster engines (what do you need those for, getting a speeding ticket more often?), hands free phone (just as bad as a cell phone), etc... Or do you only need a car that gets you from point A to B.

The transition from evil to good can difficult, and in many cases, sacrifices might need to be made. The problem is, there is no benefit for being good. Sure you would probally lose some money by replacing efficient car salespersons with moral ones, but wouldn't the morale of your civilization be greater. Not only would there not be any car salespersons trying to scam them, but they would probally have more money in their pockets and less likely be in dept. Shouldn't losing some money be a worthy exchange for increased morale?

I grabbed this random event from:
https://www.galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Random_event



I'll be using this one as an example of how you can be good, and yet, not stupid.

This example is a colonization event where you find some worm like creatures that exists on your newly colonized planet. You're given only 3 options, and they are limited to: leaving them alone, moving them, or exterminating them.

Here is my issue with this one


They can communicate by using seismic vibrations. What does this mean? Hmm... maybe if we research universal translator, we might be able to talk to them. Maybe we'll learn that most of these worms don't actually like where they are rooted at, and would appreciate it if we moved them elsewhere, thus freeing up some of the soil for us to use. That would reduce some of the penalties for being good.

Alternatively, they could be much more intellegent, and much more advanced form of life than we thought. Perhaps they a nack for science and would enjoy helping you with your research (It must be boring being rooted to the ground). In time, after you research soil enhancements or something, they might suggest that it might be possible to make some modifications to that tech. These modifications might convert soil that you couldn't possibly use, and convert it to something that they could use, thus providing more room to move them to, and freeing up more room for yourself.

________________
The points I'm trying to make is, you don't have to be stupid to be good. I'll write up so more examples latter.

DivineWrath,

Maybe I went a little too far on mocking your Socrates project. Socratic dialectics can be devastating against people if you learn to use them with subtlety. I think Socrates was far more sophisticated than portrayed in the dialectics. Besides having been written over 2500 years ago and translated from an ancient dialect of Greek, I believe Plato wrote them for people not quite as intelligent as himself or Socrates. The dialectics are a teaching tool.

You can do the real deal and not get insulted or beaten up. Done right, people are left wondering about their intellectual capacities. They won't have the inclination to blame you for pointing out flaws in their comprehension.

Peace.

Perhaps I over reacted. I was pointing out that I wasn't just some random person who after after reading a little wikipedia, thought that I knew everything about philosophy or, in this case, ethics. I had actually read and studied various philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle, Hobes, and Kant.

Oh well... Thanks for the apology Wheeloffire, and sorry if I over reacted.

In this example, we have a bunch of rouge scientist who managed to discover a method to... raise the dead. Ooh... scary!

Any how, to my point. The good option basically destroys all of the research (questionable), imprisons the rouge scientists (acceptable), and then make sure that the rest of the science community keep with the views of society (acceptable, maybe). The Neutral option simply doesn't use it (acceptable). The Evil option uses the research (Clearly evil).

The first problem I'm having is, why must the data be destroyed as part of the good decision? So long as they didn't actually create one of these creatures, I wouldn't have a problem with keeping the data intact, or even archieved. Second, if they were kind enough to not create any undead, and merely inform me, I would be willing to help them stop being rogue. As for their research, walking dead that suffers a tormented existance isn't what I would call good or humane, but I would be willing to let them play with their research so that they may come up with something better.

One of the better things you might be able to use the research for is for medical applications. If we can eliminate the suffering, and find a way switch someone from a person to zombie and back again, it could be used for medicine. Think about it, if these zombies are as tough as they portrayed in the movies (as in not technically alive so they don't die as easily), they could be put through medical proceedures that would dangerous, or highly fatal for a normal person. Once done, we could turn them back.

Responding to the question of being a good race, there is one advantage: good/good diplomacy. In some cases, you could practically demand everything but the kitchen sink virtually for free and the good races will happily agree to your deals. Heck, you could even ask for freebies as well, and they will most likely hand them over too, no questions asked.

NOTE: Does not work with planets!!!