Hello, I 'm new to the cf. I've been playing civ 4 for about a two months.
I'm close to finishing the game in Epic mode with less than 45 turns left.

I'm behind 200 culture points from the leader. Other civilizations seem to have more advanced weapons than I do except a couple.
Should I go ahead and attack an ally to win?? I feel morally wrong to attack an allied civ. What do you guys think??:confused:

I know what you mean; by the end of a game, I always feel genuinely pleased to see my allies when they approach me for diplomacy, and irritated whenever I have to talk to my enemies. When people attack my friends, I feel enraged; when they attack my enemies, I feel happy. I'd hate to need to attack an ally. :(

I'm not too great at the game, so I've mostly played on Warlord difficulty so far. As such, I'm always the tech leader, so I end up doing a lot of tech trading with Mansa Musa (since he's no threat to me either way). As a result of this, I really like the guy, and it was genuinely upsetting to have to declare war on him in a recent OCC. :( But that didn't stop me. :p

So yeah, go for it, but if you're already worried about it, then yeah, you WILL feel guilty!

I always pick my target based on what is the best strategy for me. Sometimes I feel a faint sense of regret as I slip a knife into the back of my ally. But I get over it pretty quickly. ;)

Thanks for quick responses guys, I guess I'll go for it.
I somehow feel less guilty posting my quandary on cf and getting okay from you guys. Sort of like acholics anonymous meetings.:D

it is unethical to :
- whip away large number of citizens
- send your people to war for land domination
- trade away techs you just got in a trade (copyrights!)
- bribe neighbours
- let people starve because they are unhealthy
...

Do you really care?
IT'S A GAME!

(If you want to play ethically, run for cultural and don't whip)

There are few things that you can do that are short of war.

Stop trading luxury and health resources to them. This will reduce their happiness and health and slow the culture growth a bit.

If you have spies, you can sabatoge key resources. Again, reduced health and happiness will slow them down. You can also use spies to to eliminate farms and food resource improvements around the key cities. Starvation kicks in right away; it will take a while (more than 45 turns) for them to fix all the damage and regrow the population.

Is it morally ok to stick it to them before they stick it to you? You decide.

Thanks Anorium, I didn't think of stop trading with rival civ.
I'll give that a shot.:)

It is unethical to attack your ally, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. What I like to do is see if they will gift me anything just before I declare war. Hey Isabella, can you spare 400 for poor old me? Only too happy to help a friend. Great, now I declare war on you!

Cheers.

It is just a game.I has nothing to do with ethics.

Yes, you guys are right, it is just a GAME.
But sometimes I find myself doing same things that I do while playing games.

Sometimes I drive in real life like I drive on PGR, xbox.

Crazy huh? :D

Unethical ? What's that ?

yeah- you nut case, haha. played burnout? theres a game to copy

unethical is like; should i steel food from this guy, hes asleep and im hungry. that could be considered unthical
use wikipedia.org

Nice guys finish last.

Be as nice as you like, but ethics aren't going to help you win the game.

Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical) :goodjob:
unethical is like; should i steel food from this guy, hes asleep and im hungry. that could be considered unthical
use wikipedia.org
So it's like in that game i played as a kid ... Carmageddon ... when you wondered wether you should run over a large bunch of pedestrians at high speed or very slowly, right ?

:lol:

Ok, ok i'll stop being offtopic now. Fun thread. :lol:

Once you play long enough you will get used to you so-called allies stabbing you in the back, so why not beat them to the punch?

Regardless of what cabert and some others said, I say that it's normal to have such feelings. Some people do not have them. Some are sensitive some are not. This is how this world is built. I am happy that someone raised that issue. It's only up to you, what you will do.

However it's the game only, as cabert noticed. It's good to remember this.

edit: f.e. I did not build nuclear weapons, cause thought it's the essence of evil. But when Wang nuked me, I gave up my habits. You will see, that AI's are not very moral too.

edit2: I am very convinced that character influences the game very much. It's called gamestyle.

Hello, I 'm new to the cf. I've been playing civ 4 for about a two months.
I'm close to finishing the game in Epic mode with less than 45 turns left.

I'm behind 200 culture points from the leader. Other civilizations seem to have more advanced weapons than I do except a couple.
Should I go ahead and attack an ally to win?? I feel morally wrong to attack an allied civ. What do you guys think??:confused:

Its a god damn GAME! Who cares, if it will help you win then do it. Do you think Hitler gave 2 shits when he attacked Russia in 1941 after a peace treaty? NO he didn't, he wanted to control the continant and he would have if the stupid British didn't get in the way.

Regardless of what cabert and some others said, I say that it's normal to have such feelings. Some people do not have them. Some are sensitive some are not. This is how this world is built. I am happy that someone raised that issue. It's only up to you, what you will do.
right
I onlymentionned that there are loads of moraly dubious things to do in the game.
A good deal of those dubious moves are amongst the most powerful ways to play.
There are ways to win without them, but not a lot.

edit: f.e. I did not build nuclear weapons, cause thought it's the essence of evil. But when Wang nuked me, I gave up my habits. You will see, that AI's are not very moral too.
I never built a nuke. Only used the WB once to see how it looks.

edit2: I am very convinced that character influences the game very much. It's called gamestyle.
yep
until you ind out that some unethical moves allow you to gain the upper hand ;)

It is unethical. Don't attack anyone. it's mean. ;)

You may also not use nasty civics like State Property, or build military units, because people might die!

It is unethical. Don't attack anyone. it's mean. ;)

You may also not use nasty civics like State Property, or build military units, because people might die!

why would state property be nasty?
You certainly are confusing it with police state, aren't you?

A good deal of those dubious moves are amongst the most powerful ways to play.
There are ways to win without them, but not a lot.


Not necessarily. Do you believe that Hitler achieved victory? I say he failed. His strikes were unfair and he failed.

I believe that the same rules are in the game.

edit: On the other hand, Jesus Christ poisoned mankind for 2000 years and some experts say that Christianity hasn't even begun. Jesus never stroke anyone.

why would state property be nasty?
You certainly are confusing it with police state, aren't you?

Yeah, I was.:)

In fact it's not what I wanted to say.

Maybe the most powerful acts are visible only too people who act fair. Am I not crazy?

I guess it's very hypotetical, but never know :)

if you want to win the game make the best move, if you cant see the best move, likely if you are a beginner, then make the move you think is best, you will slowly learn whether theses moves were a good move or not.

if you want to have fun do what ever the hell you feel like and don't let anyone elses opinion affect you.

I like to play 'ethically' from time to time, partly because it makes for a very different playing experience, partly because it's nice to feel like the good guys for once. No war without just cause, no razing cities, no nukes, no slavery, no theocracy, no policestate, protecting peaceful civs against Monty et al, and gifts to the weaker civs to help them develop.

Sometimes I make 'ethical' choices in my normal games too, but never at the cost of a significant advantage (just like a lot of countries in the real world, methinks). It's easy to be good when you've got the strongest armies and the most money; being utterly evil is often the most effective policy when you're struggling to compete.

It is unethical to attack your ally, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. What I like to do is see if they will gift me anything just before I declare war. Hey Isabella, can you spare 400 for poor old me? Only too happy to help a friend. Great, now I declare war on you!

Cheers.

you're evil

Just play as the Romans. Then you're free to do anything you want, and you can call it "roleplaying." :goodjob:

Often times when I'm about to declare war on a weaker nation, I will demand that they give me all their gold as a tribute. Then I immediately declare war on them. This prevents them from upgrading their already horribly outdated units.

What I like to do is see if they will gift me anything just before I declare war. Hey Isabella, can you spare 400 for poor old me? Only too happy to help a friend. Great, now I declare war on you!

you're evil

i figured everybody does that to have upgrade money hahaha! i know i do. i've never thought about it as evil, either. i think of it as "all's fair in love and war." oh did i forget to mention we're about to be at war? oopsies. it kinda does sound evil typed out that way i suppose. but wow, i thought we all did it, not in a justify it to myself "everybody does it so it's ok to do it" way but it just didn't occur to me that people don't do it!

to me it's a game, and it's completely separate from my character/personal beliefs /shrug. i love the mild-mannered grandma-type in the civanon ads. i forget what she says that totally cracks me up in the video, but her words on the webpage are "I've been attending CivAnon meetings for approximately 18 months now. Partly because I began to get a perverse thrill out of wiping out entire civilizations with atomic intercontinental ballistic weaponry, and partly because they serve cake at the meetings. I like to kill, that's true. But I like cake even more."

on the other hand, i do feel guilty when i have to, say, kill hatty, after she's been nice all game. such a cute pout when i have to deny her a request, and when she says "That's not very nice" i have to agree with her, but i can't be nice to everybody all the time, it's not called "Learning to be Nice" it's called "Civilization IV" silly girl. and when it's your turn to die, i have to kill you. and when gandhi gives me dirty looks, ouch. his dirty looks are the worst!!!

i love talking to the AI after i build a wonder, to see if they're all of a sudden rich and have any money i should take off their hands in a tech trade deal or something. so fun, knowing you beat them to a wonder and can often profit from their attempt at it. heck, i check their wallets every time anybody finishes a wonder. "cha-CHING!" do some consider that kind of opportunism unethical?

Since I tend to ally with all the thugs anyway, Monty, Alex, Mehmed, etc. I never feel guilty about backstabing them.

Its easy to understand why people do feel some sort of ethical alignment if you will. Personally, I tend to go along with the idea of the ends justifying the means. However there can be exceptions. For instance in another game (Galactic Civilization II) I always go for the good guys, and typically the good ethical alignment choices, no matter how badly it damages my empire. I should add I will consider going for the ethical choices that crack me up when i read them, when colonising a planet.

Gameplay and style are unique to each individual, and its good to see that as a Civ community, it isn't necessarily filled with robotic like thoughts of attacking a weaker civ because you can, it does (scarily enough) seem to bring in some sort of human element. Hopefully this isn't the predisposition to intelligent AI, and soon robots take over the earth enslaving us all.

I never have allies. All Ai's are my enemies:lol: . However I suck up to some AI's in the beginning when I am weak, biding for my time. Even becoming friendly with someone meanwhile, sharpening my sword behind their back for some :hammer: .

Eh? Did you say something about being unethical? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my bombers destroying my enemy's food sources in order to starve his big, productive cities.:p :goodjob: :nuke:

I'll consider being ethical after I have my spies sabotage all his hospitals.

If you're playing only to win, just backstab everybody... but if you're playing in a bit more of an "rpg-mode", in SP (kinda like myself), then yeah, i see how you might have qualms about things like war, whipping etc.
I play a lot of OCC's (although i'll hardly ever play them out) and i usually start up normally with whipping and all that... but a little while into the game i'll have a revolution, rename the capital and become a nice guy... it makes it really hard to win anything but a diplo-victory, but like i said; i hardly ever play out my games anyway.

I flatter myself that in real life I do behave ethically, even altruistically sometimes. But when playing Civ I am aggressive, expansive, greedy and utterly treacherous. Turn to the Dark Side and win !
Let's hope that in the next expansion we can train assassins, incite revolts, and bribe armies. How very uncivilised.

I have never considered it unethical since the AI is just a bunch of math equations...


Actually I did feel bad once. Somebody that I was friendly with wanted me to help them in a war and I declined. They lost and for the rest of the game I had to look at that 0 next to their name. If I happened to run my mouse over it I would see this:

"friendly towards papakapp
+4 we care for our brothers and sisters of the faith
+3 you have wisely chosen your civics
+3 we appreciate the years you have supplies us with resources
+1 you shared your technological discoveries with us
+1 open borders
+2 years of peace
-1 you refused to help us during war time!"

:sad:
rest in peace Mana Musa

It's a game, people, no need to put your feelings in front of an AI

demand money to your neighbours and then send them to the grave!
captured a small city (size 2 to 5, without buildings you can use) that doesn't share your state religion or isn't placed on a strategic position? BURN IT!
At war? Change to Police State, Nationalism, Slavery, State Property and Theocracy!
Captured your enemy's holy city, BURN IT!
No Production? WHIP your way to the TOP!
You like being cruel to a bunch of numbers? Besiege cities and raze their improvements!
You live for war and domination? Declare war for FUN!

Of course...It's never wrong to have allies but don't get too attached.

it is unethical to :
<snip>
- trade away techs you just got in a trade (copyrights!)


Copyrights? Falling under ethics? You don't own stock in the MPAA or RIAA, do you?

I think you meant "patents" anyway.

In either case, there is controversy over whether the current regime of intellectual property is ethical... or even well-thought-out.

- O

Ask yourself this instead:

Is it ethical to allow your entire civilization and all the people in it to suffer defeat because you failed to act?

If a war means the difference between your people's lifestyle and culture living or dying, then you have a moral obligation, as the leader of that civilization, to do whatever is necessary to defend it. Even if that means a pre-emptive war.

Who decides what's ethical?

I happened to think that whatever Mansa Musa and his followers did at their peaceful (though somewhat technologically advanced) island was a threat to the Confucian Brotherhood. So when my galleons arrived, filled to the brim with macemen, catapults and trebuchets to burn all their coastal cities until the few cities that were left capitulated, the Malinese had it coming! Totally justified. And completely ethical: I'm quite sure they were sacrificing cute bunnies. I had cool looking satellite photo's as evidence. ;)

Hmmm...strangely, I take great glee in stabbing my allies in the back. Does that make me a bad person?

Usually it'll work like this.

Declare war on an enemy, and bring an ally into the war. Destroy the enemy, then declare war on my weakened ally.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Not necessarily. Do you believe that Hitler achieved victory? I say he failed. His strikes were unfair and he failed.

I believe that the same rules are in the game.

edit: On the other hand, Jesus Christ poisoned mankind for 2000 years and some experts say that Christianity hasn't even begun. Jesus never stroke anyone.

Hitler and Jesus aren't in the game.
I didn't say in reality, bad actions are rewarded.
I said that the game's most powerful mechanics and moves are dubious.
Try playing an ethical game (= no Dow, no betrayal, no slavery, no police state, ...) and see if you win easier than when using all the options.

Copyrights? Falling under ethics? You don't own stock in the MPAA or RIAA, do you?

I don't know what MPAA and RIAA are,
I think you meant "patents" anyway.
English isn't my natural language, sorry.
What I meant is that trading to civ B a tech you got from civ A is in some way a betrayal of civ A, since you didn't find this tech yourself, and civ A didn't trade it to civ B.

In either case, there is controversy over whether the current regime of intellectual property is ethical... or even well-thought-out.
game and reality are 2 different things.
I wasn't THAT specific. The ethical issue IMHO is about the reward of the research effort.

Ask yourself this instead:

Is it ethical to allow your entire civilization and all the people in it to suffer defeat because you failed to act?


But in the case of the original poster the choice is not between life and death but between finishing first and finishing second.

But in the case of the original poster the choice is not between life and death but between finishing first and finishing second.

finishing second is death ;)

To me, the fact that the AIs have so many bonuses is even more unethical. They don't play fair to start with.

To me, the fact that the AIs have so many bonuses is even more unethical. They don't play fair to start with.


Play on noble ;)

Play on noble ;)

even on noble, they don't play fair.
Heck, they don't even play. At least they don't seem to have fun.

Who decides what's ethical?


You do. :p

The whole point of playing 'ethically' imo, is that it requires a bit of imagination; it means not treating the game as simply a load of numbers which can be manipulated in a certain way to allow you to win in the most efficient manner. Optimal play isn't always the most enjoyable way to approach civ, nor does it necessarily provide the most memorable or immersive experiences. Playing with 'ethical' restraints is one of many 'variant' approaches that can be taken to give the game a bit more spice.

What counts as 'ethical' can also vary from game to game. In some cases it might mean being peaceful and generous towards other civs, or refraining from the use of tactics that harm your people. It might, on the other hand, involve playing in an 'honourable' manner, wherein friends and enemies alike are treated with respect, but where any insult must receive a harsh punishment.

Playing in a thoroughly evil, but decidedly sub-optimal, manner can also be highly entertaining.

even on noble, they don't play fair.
Heck, they don't even play. At least they don't seem to have fun.

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me... ;)

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me... ;)

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

not really
there are some AI bonus, like the upgrade costs that have massive discount, even on noble.
There is also a different way to conduct trade between AIs AFAIK.

Long time lurker - 1st time poster.
This topic really struck a cord with me last night as I had just finished up a game where I was faced with the same ethical dilemma. I've always been a rather peaceful builder mostly trying for rather peaceful spaceship or cultural victories. However I wanted to see what a noble domination victory would feel like when I chose a random leader (Kublai) and was surrounded by Monty, Izzy, and Toka. Originally my plan was to wipe Izzy off the face of the earth first but quickly Toka declared on me and he was my 1st victim.
By the time I go done with him I had adopted Judism and Issy, Rosavelt and I were the best of friends. So on I went the other way and with a little help from my friends took out Monty and his vassal Victoria. By the time I was done with them (fighting pretty much non-stop into the mid 1900s) I was only 10% of land mass away from domination and Issy was ripe for the picking on my border....... I couldn't do it. I had the Un built and had destroyed most of my enemies - so I took another victory route and went to free religion / bribed Hatty with a couple of techs and won easily on the 1st diplomatic vote (only my 2nd diplomatic win ever - and 2nd highest score ever).
I have to say - it felt awesome to win that way and even though I am well aware that it is "just a game" I don't think that I would've had that same satisfaction had I stabbed Izzy in the back..... and I've always kinda had a little thing for her too.

Thanks for listening to the rambling of a new civ-fanatic.

ICT

To me Monty always seems to be having fun every time he comes knocking on my door to declare war on me... ;)

BTW: How do AIs cheat on noble? I always thought everything was level on noble.

There are a number of bonuses AIs gain even at noble level, e.g.


human: bonus vs animals = 40%; vs barbarians = 10%; AIs: bonus vs animals = 70%; vs barbarians = 40% (looks trivial, but losing your warrior at the beginning can be a big thing)
AIs' unit upgrade cost is only 30% (so in a blink their archers all turn into longbows and laugh at your pathetic axes)
AI has reduced war weariness (80%) and reduced inflation (80%).
Some subtle bonuses such as diplomacy rating (e.g. those irespect crxps).


Also remember the AIs do backstab a lot. Playing a "fair" game when nobody plays fair is an invitation to self-destruction. If one really wants to be truly "role-playing" then he or she must think like a leader of million of people. It is a major hypocrisy for a leader to allow his own people under his rule to be dominated by people of the other races because this guy wants to act like a high horse riding knight.