Ever Play Ethically?

[Amenhotep7]

And by that, I mean; If you are against Communsim or Fascism or anything else in RL, do you still use those govt's? I hate communism in RL, but I'll sometimes use it if it saves me some money.

So, do you play according to your ethics?

 

[sealman]

I play to win. If that means Nuking the planet, then give me my radiation suit. If I have to starve a city into submission, so be it.

As Rodney Dangerfield once said "Look out for #1 but watch out for #2"

 

[BobV]

I tend to want to be the Americans and strive for democracy because I'm egotistical but Kill The AI is the name of my game, so I don't think ethics has much to do about anything in myu game play.

 

[earthguido]

Depending on the game and on the ethics. Every government type has its pros and cons. Usually I keep my ethics until there is no other way, then I switch to bastard and just kill them all.

 

[Tomoyo]

Only in my self-created variant: one very similar to Big Brother

I role play as the character Tomoyo, a very close friend to the first civ I meet, Sakura. I am obsessed about filming her and having her try out my new costumes (or outfits).

In civ terms, that means:

1) Embassy ASAP
2) Spy ASAP
3) Investigate capital very 20 turns
4) All techs go to her
5) Tomoyo is nonviolent, so only use force to support Sakura when the attacker is the second civ I meet, Syaoran, because the only time Tomoyo actually did anything to protect Sakura was against him.
6) Sakura dies, You lose
7) Sakura must win Diplomatic Victory, and if necessary, you can eliminate civs that don't like Sakura.

Based the the anime show Cardcaptor Sakura.

 

[Vizurok]

Well, maybe...
I have the reasons to hate communism in Rl and I havent used communism in the game... But it isn't the most important reason, I think communism is a total warmonger gov and total useless, democracy is better (for me.)

 

[IbnSina]

@Tomoyo

Whoa! I hadn't thought of a variant in which one tries to make a particular AI win. Anybody can win for himself, but to be so manipulative that you can choose the AI you want to win - that sounds like fun! I gotta try it. Have you put that on Arathorn's variant thread?

 

[Mise]

I play to have fun, not to simulate real life in particular (though sometimes I do). In real life, I don't like wars, but in Civ, I go to war whenever I'm bored.

 

[MikeH]

Ibn Sina, the RBCiv people recently had a game where you had to play England and maintain a balance of power, so you scored points based on the difference between the in game points score of the leading civ and the last placed civ - the closer they were the better, which also seemed like a good idea for a variant. They also have a nice set of house rules for 'ethical' play that some of the people here like to use in succession games.

 

[Tomoyo]

Ibn Sina, I did say that it was similar to "Big Brother", a variant played by the RBC people as a succession game.

I didn't come up with it.

 

[ozo]

I don't let ethics conflict with my gaming decisions. I kill my own people if needed. I burn down cities if needed. I do anything that I feel is necessary to win. In some games I decide to be Mr. Nice Guy tho, usually when I go for diplomatic victory. Then me being Mr. Nice Guy has nothing to do with ethics, I just am nice to everyone because that's the way I plan on winning the game.

 

[King PJ]

I use what is called "situational ethics". I usually go the peaceful republic/democracy route even if I don't have all resources. But sometimes I'll be a dictator just to get what I want.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I like to starve my enemies into submission and irradiate the entire planet with my nuclear missiles. So, yes, I do play by my ethical standards.

 

[rcoutme]

I voted yes, but only because there is no "Occasionally" flag to check. In some games, I limit myself to "Mr. Nice Guy", just as a challenge. In that, I forbid myself from burning cities, starving population purposely to cow them into submission, turning size 16 cities into 15 slave workers, etc. Usually, however, I play to win. If the aforementioned techniques will help me win, I use them.

 

[foods]

My games usually wind up as me conquering the planet and turning my once-working democratic civilization into a fascistic/communistic one. Which makes me the bad guy. Ethical, heck no.

But I remember playing Colonization. In some sessions (actually pretty often), I limited myself to never go to war or attack the Indians. It broke my heart having to go to war with those poor bastards.

 

[Longasc]

Saddam, Stalin and Hitler would be nice compared to the way I rule in Civ3. Gives me the creeps at times, what I do in my sand box world conquest games.

 

[Bigfoot]

Well, I don't cheat or use any exploits (at least not knowingly), so in that sense I play ethically (fair play, and all that). But my game tactics would not be considered very nice in real life -- I am not an advocate of starvation, raising cities, demanding tribute, etc.

 

[Black_Hole]

Never! The geneva convettion doesnt apply here

 

[nameless53]

ethics... ?


well , i say i play on some line of personal opinion...
basicly everything will have influence in how you play.
if your one of those people that hate having people say "whatever" or call you weak, demand things, im sure it effects your attitude towards AI and effects your desision.


morally i tried too.. you know.. be good friend, dont cause wars, trustworthy...
but i got sick.. real sick of tresspassers and threats and the fact that all AI wants these unfair deals...

i dont declare war often but TRESPASSING REALLY TICK ME OFF so nicey-nice goes out the door by then.

 

[Tomoyo]

i dont declare war often but TRESPASSING REALLY TICK ME OFF so nicey-nice goes out the door by then.

It's your territory. Manage it how you like. You could trap them in a corner of you empire by leading them with your units. (Create cells, and one pair per cell)