I'm pretty sure... actually, I'm *quite* sure, that I've gotten events with a positive effect for the Good option. The Insectoid library event is the only one I remember offhand.

I guarantee they don't work.

This is the number one problem with mods that I download- the author thinks it's going to work that way, but it doesn't.

You can type in whatever effect you wish into the description, but what matters is what the event actually does. And a positive value in GoodValue gets turned into a negative number by the game engine.

~SDC~

Thanks for all the comments but help me digest them. Is there consensus that to win the game with the highest points, that evil will always be a better strategy to win than good? I am curious about this in the game design. I would think that the short term benefit of evil choices might be counterbalanced by some sort of long term benefit of being good. This might mean better techs but the evil techs seem pretty good too (that 25% economy bonus for ? Life Force today on evil was pretty nice). It might mean more likliehood of having the AI choose you to start a trade route with if you are good, but I haven't figured that out either. If one can dodge that UP event of the one trade route limit and have the fundamentalists be weenies then evil might look like a better route to victory.

As for the metaphysical aspect of being "good" or "evil", . . . uh . . . ya know . . . this is just a game. I can't imagine never playing Combat Mission as the Germans and not getting to try out the Tiger and Panther tanks. It is fun to play both sides. C'mon there has to be some balancing strategic advantage of playing good versus the strategic advantage of playing evil or else the game is just unbalanced in this area. Having said that, there are no shortages of both good and evil players and Gal Civ is a great game. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

Rick

~SDC~

Frogboy once put out an analysis that showed it is *easier* to win when Good than Evil.

Evil has short term advantages, but Good's benefits are more long term. You get along better with the other AIs, even Evil ones. Good is not subject to one of the more annoying random events- the Fundamentalists. Other things I can't remember off the top of my head, too.

I agree that on a small map, Evil might be the way to go. But for a diplomatic game on a large map, playing Good makes things a lot easier.

~SDC~

Thanks HawaiiFive-0. Maybe the "getting along better" gives one better deals when making trades? It is possible I struggle a little more with money issues when I have been evil than when I am neutral but I can't say that for sure and how much would those evil-choice planet bonuses compensate for that? Can others get more specific? TIA.

~SDC~

Getting along well with others means you can be at war with one target and not have everyone declare war on you at the same time. That can make a big difference.
And don't underestimate the havoc fundies can cause when tyou are the evillest civ in the universe, nor the power of trade centers (+15% to almost everything) vs. Lifeforce power (which gives +25% only to econ and yoy may be beaten to it).

Only problem I have now with The Better Way/Trade centres is that even when I play with all evil AI, they can always build Trade centres without the tech.

Seems like they get to build them once humans can build. I've captured demonic AI planets with or are in the midst of building Trade Centres even though I can see that they do not have The Better Way.

Did anyone else notice this?

Even in the long run there are more benefits for going the evil path than the good path when you compare the number of Evil only techs vs Good only techs and each have their own benefits over their counterparts. The ONLY benefit I've seen so far (all my games are over long before the 'long term benefits' can be gotten) for being good is that your don't have to worry about the Fundalmentalist taking over your home system.

I've never had a problem with diplomacy either since I'm constantly bribing the AI's to be nice to me.
[Message Edited]

One approach would be letting good get more rewards but require real long term commitment also. E.g. if you are good and stay good, your PQ will gradually get better and better. If you eat the worms, you may get some initial bonus, but you are also locking in a vicious erosion and crime cycle on your planets.

GOOD = slow start but better long term
EVIL = great start but diminishing returns

Good is great to get alliances. You can rely on the good guys more than on the evilones (not that much, but still). And fundies ARE nasty. Ever played an all-evil galaxy where the fundies suddenly take half the worlds???

On the tiny maps I find there are not enough events to get me either evil or good. The fundies took Sol in my last game when my morality was at 30, though I was still showing as 'neutral'

Yes, that's a pity. Moral shifts should be augmented on tiny maps so you can be good or evil.

I just finished the colonization stage of a huge abundant. I took every single good choice presented to me. My alignment is 65.

Did you get many choices? Sometimes, you won't get many events when colonizing a planet.

Not many choices, and all were low-value ones that shifted alignment by just one or two points.

I can't remember where I read it, but these choices in GalCiv are meant to parallel the difficult choices made, for example, by the early American settlers which devestated the Native American population.

Yes, tha'ts right, you are evil, Evil, EVIL!

I hate that when that happens.

You'll find that events wherein you lose money for the Good choice are your most effective morality bumpers.

~SDC~

That makes sense H50, money is so precious in the colonization stage of the game.

However, I thought the modder determined the morality weight. So does the game automatically determine the change in alignment based on the penalties involved?

They all interact.

Back in the day, BoogieBac said an event could move you a maximum of 10 alignment points. Personally, I've never seen that big of a good jump at one time, I've heard others claim that Evil choices can drop you farther than 10 in one pick.

For the sake of argument, let's go with what the coder said. So you can move a maximum of 10 alignment points with each event. This is modified by the Morality Weight of the event, 1 = Major Event, 5 = Insignificant Event. Then this is modified by how much of a penalty/bonus you are accruing with your choice. I believe there is a further modifier that makes Evil choices have more affect on your morality- I think we've all experienced that it is *much* harder to be Good than it is to be Evil.

I find that on small maps I'm forced to colonize down to 13s just to have a shot at Chaotic Good. Drives me crazy when I get an event that says -1% Economy, because I know it's only going to give me +1.

~SDC~

I've seen good jumps of 10.

I think I'm going to play evil one of these times to see if drops of more than 10 are possible.

~SDC~

Does evil have an affect on morale? Are your people afraid of you... I don't know if it's just my playing style (I don't build morale enhancers on planets), but I have a harder time with planet morale and elections playing Chaotic Good, the Evil... the only 2 elections I've ever lost were playing good. Playing evil, I don't even worry about it

Is this just in my head?

-Cypher

~SDC~

Not directly, but there are numerous ways it can indirectly influence it. For starters, being evil means worse relations with other AI, and thus more destabilization targeting you, which means lower morale on the average.

~SDC~

I have a question (or four)..... Is There any way to become "more good" without planet events? Does starting wars or eliminating a race make you "more evil"? Can you trade "good" & "evil" techs to those not of the appropriate alignment? and where can you find what your alignment is? :notsure:

Nothing to do with wars can make you evil. The morality events are the only thing that decideds your morality.

~SDC~