Currently, each civ has a preset alignment, which changes when they change to certain religions. This works fine, but here's another take.

Give each leader a scale from 1-100. Can't go above 100, or below 1, to prevent irrevocable changes.
1-30 is evil, 31-70 is neutral, and 71-100 is good. Each leader starts at a certain number. This will change based on the in-game actions and choices, such as
Each turn as Ashen veil gives -4 points.
Each turn as Octopus overlords gives -2.
Each turn as Fellowship moves 1 points towards 50, either plus 1 or minus 1.
Each turn as Runes of K gives +2
Each turn as Order give +4
compassion civics will give from -2 to +2 or so per turn.
Razing Cities will give an immediate -6
Regifting cities to original owner gives +6
Declaring war with evil civ gives +5, with good -5.
Sacing slaves gives -6
Building Death/Entrophy/Chaos Mana -5
Building Life/Law/Creation Mana +5
Etc.

If this isn't too processor intensive, anyway. Then Diplomacy penalty could give a bonus if the civs were less than 30 points apart, and -1 or 2 for each 10 points you are away in alignment beyond 30, i.e, If Basium was 90 and another civ was 60, they'd get a bonus for similar alignment, but if they were 90 and 10 they'd have -5 for you are evil/good.

Also, if your alignment strayed too far from your religion's set point, due to just changing or razing a ton of cities, maybe an unhappy penalty one for each 10 difference until it adjusts.

Again, this may be overly complex, but this way there is more to being good than adopting the order, you'd also have to not kill too many civilians. :lol:

I like this idea, although it seems a little too complex.

Yeah, I think Corlindale presented this too. We rejected it because it is to complex. By the time everything is said and done its better for the casual player to just have 3 states, good/neutral/evil than a sliding scale.

I suggested something similar a while ago, but I think we agreed that it would be too much complexity for too little "fun factor". Some of the restrictions might well be realistic, but they might also become annoying for players. Besides, stuff like razing cities will also give diplomatic penalties.

We had discussed a more finer Alignment system but what would be the advantage ingame?

The Alignment System does at the moment one thing, it gives diplomatic modifiers and divides the World by this way more or less into three fractions.
The maximum diplomatic modifier given is +-6 so at best 12 different levels would make sense. In the end there would be again three major fractions..

To tge points you listed that could cotribute to the alignment:

They either do this at the moment (religions) or give diplomatic modifiers all by themselves. So these diplomatic modifiers would become useless.

All in all you would have added a complete new layer of complexity, that does not change the gamplay.

Arrg this time two were faster than me.. im getting old...

I totally disagree that this system is too complex for the casual player. All you have to do is say (to the casual player) is that their actions will affect their allignment and perhaps give some feedback in game to what their current alignment is. And maybe give a few examples of what affects allignment (ie religion, civics, magic, sacrificing population,...). And give a couple of examples of how this will affect the game. At current, the only thing it affects is diplomacy.

Whether or not creating such a complex system is actually worth the effort is another question.

I also don't understand why you think this system is too complex. The player would only see the three states "good", "neutral" and "evil". The only change is that your alignment wouldn't switch magically upon changing your religion, but slowly and based both on your religion and on your actions. This seems more intuitive to me than the current system. (I'm still not sure which religion change affects my alignment. Runes of Kilmorph seems to make one neutral, but Leaves doesn't affect it at all. Huh?)

If it had a check box like the victories, raize and barbian options at the beging of a game then it might be cool but if players couldn't opt in and out I forsee what the teams concerns are with player feedback ect.....and have to say it won't work for everybody but as an option could be intriguing and probrably worth one out of five not saying I wouldn't enjoy it but remember"The good guys aren't always so good..........extreme situations call for extreme measures and who knows in the light and dark of war what the best of us is capable of.........all is fair in love and war. Victors say what is fair and not just for them but for those that live....if they make mistakes the just agree to what has been learned from those mistakes exposed...........the dead don't complain very often and when they do they are usually put in their place by the living........One of the Ultimate divisionary points of any arguement! Fits nicely here on this thread discussing Alignment, I think!,....and therefore am to blame.....hahaha(dark fading cryptic laughter)..........as for vampires and the like what do sheep think of their masters and chickens and pigs and cows.......yum he feeds me and protects me......not Oh no I'm his lunch........an coveralls and saddle and my goodness what a long drinking horn you have...

(I'm still not sure which religion change affects my alignment. Runes of Kilmorph seems to make one neutral, but Leaves doesn't affect it at all. Huh?)

Basically you have the five religions with five different alignments:
The Order: Good
Runes: Good-Neutral
Leaves: Neutral
Overlords: Neutral-Evil
Veil: Evil

As I understand the alignment system(might have missed something,though):

- If you're good, and found the Order, Runes or Leaves, nothing happens. If you're good and found the Overlords, you'll become neutral. If you're good and found the Veil, you'll become evil.
- If you're neutral, your alignment will only change if you found Order or Veil
- If you're evil, and found the Veil, Overlords or Leaves, nothing happens. If you're evil and found Kilmorph, you'll become neutral. If you're evil and found the Order, you'll become good.

I think it makes good sense, even if it seems a bit complicated at first.

Replace "found" with "adopt" there methinks :)

(I'm still not sure which religion change affects my alignment. Runes of Kilmorph seems to make one neutral, but Leaves doesn't affect it at all. Huh?)

Ah, yes. I figured people would adopt any religion they founded anyway, but of course this applies to adopted religions. And AI-civs will never found a religion that changes their alignment, but they may adopt one.

First off - many thanks for putting alignment into the game. It makes for a much richer play experience.

Secondly - i'm in agreement that adding some alignment based consequences would not make it too complex for the player.

I know the AI's sharp changes in alignment caused from a single religion shift sometimes feel a bit too jarring to me. A system where your actions effect a more gradual shift as Nikis-Knight proposed above seems an excellent idea to me, but i'm not the one that would have to code it of course.

- feydras

I agree whit the alignment system that Nikis-Knight, and don´t think it will be too complex for the casual player.

Of course that the decision of putting it on the game or not is of the Design Team.

I agree whit the alignment system that Nikis-Knight, and don´t think it will be too complex for the casual player.

Of course that the decision of putting it on the game or not is of the Design Team.

These guys have alot to stay up on but remember what Kael has said about sometimes he has to chew on something awhile before he finds that it fits somewhere or it may inspire something else, like keep the ideas flowing and eventually things manifest to be harvested or rejected and sometimes it is left to grow abit more........this does not mean pushing your luck and trying to dominate others, it does mean that you provide stimulous and that is nessisary for growth on large projects...........feedback is always important and it is what makes this Forum so great.......put it forth you never know what the Team will have a use for and have just been waiting for you to post.....think it out and contribute...........there is life in that.

And yes it is for the Design Team to decide on..........just remeber that if we don't post about things then the vision aquires limitations like obseration perifials on CIV........and that would be sad.

Agreed with the others. I don't see there being anything overly complex in this - after all, it's still not a sliding scale, but still the same system with three different alignments.

Agreed with the others. I don't see there being anything overly complex in this - after all, it's still not a sliding scale, but still the same system with three different alignments.

Very good you stated the agument against this change yourself ! :D
You add complexity but get no reward!

If you go for Veil you will still be evil after some turns (you cannot gift as many cites) and if you go for order you will still become good (you cannot contiously raze cities). So the effect will be the same with the difference that it is delayed by some turns.
Not to mention that introducing balancing and teaching this system to teh AI will take many hours that cannot be invested into game aspects that are fun and actually change something.

This isn't really related, but this seemed as good a thread as any to bring it up. I was wondering if it would be possible to make an option in the custom game windows to select a random civ for each slot based on alignment. There is a random option by default, but I think it would be really useful to add options for Random Good, Random Evil and Random Neutral. This would allow balancing the alignments in the game without losing the element of suprise a lot of gamers cherish. I just don't know how possible this would be. Maybe these new random options could be added as dummy leaders, and then once the map is built a script could be added that changes these dummy leaders to an actual leader of the chosen alignment? I'm not at all a scripting expert. If it requires SDK work its probably not worth the effort right now. But I think it would be a good feature some day.

This isn't really related, but this seemed as good a thread as any to bring it up. I was wondering if it would be possible to make an option in the custom game windows to select a random civ for each slot based on alignment. There is a random option by default, but I think it would be really useful to add options for Random Good, Random Evil and Random Neutral. This would allow balancing the alignments in the game without losing the element of suprise a lot of gamers cherish. I just don't know how possible this would be. Maybe these new random options could be added as dummy leaders, and then once the map is built a script could be added that changes these dummy leaders to an actual leader of the chosen alignment? I'm not at all a scripting expert. If it requires SDK work its probably not worth the effort right now. But I think it would be a good feature some day.

Personally I like having everything random, so when a game starts I dont know if Im going to be the lone good guy in a world full of bad, or find a bunch of friends in the new world.

But I don't have a problem adding it as you have suggested, just to give the players a little more control on the custom world. Of course you can just as easily just select the AI civs, but I know that takes some of the mystery out of the game.

I dont know an easy way to do what your suggesting, I'll add a request for it and we will see if its possible.

On the topic of civ selection, when making a Custom Game, why on earth does it have a box "choice" for Civ AND leader, when you can't pick the Civ, you can only pick the leader.

Whenever there's a patch I keep hoping I'll be able to pick a Civ, then choose a Random Leader for it. Or that I'll be able to pick a Civ I like, then browse my selection of Leaders at a glance (like in the "Play Now!" option) instead of having to choose a leader just to see what Civ they are.

Also to do with Custom Game civ selection, would it be possible to allow picking the "minor" civs and such? I like having Infernal in the game cause they look so scary, but I can't pick them from the list, so I'm forced to pick 18 randoms to have a good chance of having them ingame.

While most certainly leaders affect your "alignment", when society grows it tends to effect the landscape as much as its leaders. If it differs greatly from its leaders, it overthrows them.

I personally like the shifting alignment complexity. What I don't like is the lack of influence alignment has on your decisions.

What if you got MORE complex. What if each city in your empire had an alignment rating and your civic and religious choices had an alignment rating?

Then your ability to manage cities, keep the people happy, improve culture, and even build buildings would be affected.

----- FOR EXAMPLE

I start the game with a leader that has a rating of 90. Meaning 90% good. My first city starts with a rating of 90 as well. As does my "society" rating.

I capture a city and decide to raze it. My society rating drops to 80, just an example. Now the first city is 10 points of of my current society rating. Because they are not pleased they decide to provie 1 less research per turn until they are back within 5 points.

Every turn they move x points toward 80.

Now later I discover The Veil. I make it my state religion. Dropping my society rating to 50. My initial city was at 85. They are pissed. Instead of moving toward 50, they wove slowly away until they defect.

This is truly a complex system. But would simulate how we react when our government/leaders do things we like vs things we don't like. I think it would take a full-time developer to implement and woud rework much of the current system.

All of this sounds interesting, but doesn't sound fun.

Cities that defect because I take a good civ and switch to the veil is not fun. Likewise playing as the Calabim and having them have an "awakening" and convert to good by following the Order religeon is a choice that you don't have as a player if your cities are going to defect.

Welcome to Civilization...

It shouldn't be fun to lose your towns and people. Ask England what they thought about us leaving. Or the French about Marie Antoinette. Decisions leaders make should have negative consequences if they go against the people's desires.

In strong rule, or dictatorships, you might get away with that stuff. But happy, good people, don't like you starting wars in small countries and spending all their tax money there.

Oops I digress...

The fun in the game is in managing an empire of people. If you don't care what the people want, you are probebly going to have a hard time as leader and it should be reflected as such. And consequently if you do a good job, you should be rewarded.

The trap you may get caught in is that the game may be playing you instead of you playing the game. In real life leaders guide within the will of the people (some with more success than other). But the abstraction in civ is that you are the empire. There are a few minor examples of unrest but in large "you" (ie: the player) are a civilization, not a leader.

A change to move you out of the godseat of immortal embodiment of the cizilization and into a lesser role of mere political leader could make for an interesting mod, but wouldnt be desired in FfH.

The player builds his civ the way he wants to, we would prefer to present challenges from other civs. Test the machine he built against other entities, not have the challenge come from within. To do so takes away the players control and limits his sphere of influence in a medium where we want to give the player the most control possible while still being able to provide resonable challenges and decisions.