Moral Implications

[Babelogue]

Hey all. I'm mostly a lurker and don't really post - thank you guys so much for all your work on this mod, I love it to death. Anyhow, I just thought I would comment because of something that happened to me in a recent game.

I was playing as the Calabim, and up against Arendel Phaedra (a 'good' leader). What struck me was that after she yelled at me for being Evil and using various types of forbidden magic (Death, Entropy, etc)...

She sicced Typhoid Mary on me.

Now looking at Typhoid Mary's entry in the Civilopedia, she's a biological weapon tortured with horrid alchemical experiments and then used to spread the plague. And yet Arendel had created her, and had no problem using her against me.

What was even more troubling was the way Arendel indiscriminately slaughtered my Workers - even the Elven Workers that I had captured from her during our war.

The kicker was the use of the Tsunami spell - this isn't just razing a city, this is wiping it off the map with extreme prejudice, and taking a huge chunk out of the earth.

Now I understand that this is 'dark fantasy', but it seems hypocritical of the Good leaders to chastise you for 'evil' acts and then turn around and commit the same sorts of atrocities. I don't know if this is just a weakness of the AI, but is there some way to make Good civs less likely to perform such acts? At the very least, I can't see a Good civilization creating and using Typhoid Mary.

I was thinking that maybe civs that used these sorts of spells/units could take alignment hits. Just a thought! I'd love to hear your opinions.

 

[Sureshot]

the typhoid mary problem is bad because every AI civ tries to build her and she always magically ends up existing way too early somehow.

on a moral ground, might be interesting is so called evil units turned a good civ neutral the way OO does

 

[Dullscythe]

I love the way religions affect alignments. Heck, I really like the whole alignment thing, it's a really neat element. So, yeah, I think there are certain manas, spells and units that should have an impact on a civ's alignment.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I think there ought to be more universal heroes. Currently, the only two (not counting the trojan horse) are the Baron and Mary. Now, if there were some neutral or good themed ones in there, that would be nice.

 

[Xuenay]

At the very least, I can't see a Good civilization creating and using Typhoid Mary.

Even Good civilizations will do what it takes to win a war. If they don't, Evil will win since it's not so careful.

Think Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Yorgos]

I remember that somewhere Kael mentioned that dark fantasy means, among other things, that all civilisations will comit acts of atrocity. Unfortunately I can't find the exact quote. And that's what happens in real life, everyone speaks in the name of good, while performing terrible crimes at the same time (like Hirosima Xuenay) in the name of freedom, justice, god, etc.

 

[formless blob]

Justice is for the just. Even though those other civilizations pretend to be good, they are really corrupted and rotten. Surely that must be so, or they would be just like you! So it is only right that they be shown no mercy, like you would show no mercy towards a demon or wild animal. Kill them all, and let your own glory shine over the entire world!

 

[Babelogue]

Even Good civilizations will do what it takes to win a war. If they don't, Evil will win since it's not so careful.

Think Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well first of all, I'm not so sure the US is a 'good' civilization. It's not really fair to apply fantasy alignments to the real world.

Anyhow, even if it had been a 'good' civilization then, shouldn't dropping the bomb on Hiroshima drop it to 'neutral'? That's sort of what I'm getting at.

An evil deed done in the name of supposed good is still an evil deed. I think that should be reflected in the game, unless the good civs are supposed to look hypocritical.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

As I understand the mythos that FfH is based on and intentions of the mod team, the good guys ARE supposed to look hypocritical to us.

 

[lostkitten13]

Well first of all, I'm not so sure the US is a 'good' civilization. It's not really fair to apply fantasy alignments to the real world.

Anyhow, even if it had been a 'good' civilization then, shouldn't dropping the bomb on Hiroshima drop it to 'neutral'? That's sort of what I'm getting at.

An evil deed done in the name of supposed good is still an evil deed. I think that should be reflected in the game, unless the good civs are supposed to look hypocritical.

sooo true, but which kinds of people and civs' (reality or fantasy) is ever none-hypocritical? mayhaps evil people are just wrapped in good...wrapping paper. I guess what im trying to say is that; well, certain Catholic priests, I guess it doesn't apply to just people either. If anyone can clerify this more-so please do...

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I believe I recall that in Sabathiel's entry, it states that he's willing to commit atrocities (not the exact words, mind you) to achieve the greater good. So, the ends matter but not the means, at least to him.

That doesn't mean that I don't want to see some good and neutral themed universal heroes, though.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, and we got a good horsemaiden that would be perfect for a good or neutral heroine (which also might spice up the super poop mounted line)

could put her in Stirrups since shes a horse archer i believe

 

[khanjackal]

what is evil?

typhoid mary is pretty universally evil, i have to say, building her should put you in neutral, she's pretty clearly evil

but the baron? not so much, not good, but not evil, just cruel nature

i think a bunch more non-specific heroes like these would spice the mod up, especially becuase these aren't heroic macemen, or horsemen, but truly unique

maybe a unique prophet with philosophy, with minor divine spellcasting, and a reuseable culture bomb?

but regardless, things like hiroshama and dresden beg the question, what is good and evil? in the real world, the proof is in history... hiroshama ended the war quickly, kept japan a soveriegn nation instead of it being divided up between the US and Russia like Germany

and as in FFH, if you can convert an evil and oppressed civ into a happy, productive, and more developed one through military conquest, than all those pillagings and werewolf blitzes were justified

 

[QES]

I've always been thinking that Kael and Ko have been using some sort of D&D like arbitrary/objective notion of morality. The "Static" method.

The good guys are good guys cause they say they are, and the evil guys are the evil guys because they say they are. Its more like "teams", than actual morality. "Im on blue team" "I'm on red team". Its sort of well, just for flavor. Becuase the hypocrasy or at least "moral ambiguity" is defeinately part of the fun. But the good guys have to at least think they're good, hence the alignments. The bad guys dont have to worry about such qualms. If the bad guys do something "good" its merely for more power, and/or a reduction in hassle from some other annoying source. I mean honestly, we never really complain about the "bad guys" doing good things "out of character" because we can easily excuse the behavior as either manipulation, machevellion tactics, or pure insanity. The hard part is when the "good guys" do bad things. I maintain that they're more "lawful" than they are "good"

Honestly, ive always looked at these alignments as more "Lawful" vs "Chaos" than good vs evil. Perhaps we ought just change the alignement titles?
-Qes

 

[lostkitten13]

what if they really didn't have titles of good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. What if what you do within a game, be it of a evil chaotic action such as creating Typhoid that your civ will draw neutral but the more evil you commit: such as civics, religion, certain units(heros),foreign matters, The more your people draw into a negative light to being labeled "evil". I dunno, just me I guess.

 

[Dullscythe]

Well, I don't think the 'good' civs should be banned from making units like Typhoid Mary. If that were put into place, then by necessity you'd want units that were only buildable by 'good' civs and so on.

I'd prefer it to just be an alignment adjustment, along the lines of what certain religions currently do.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Disclaimer: Discussions of the FfH world are my own opinion.

Typhoid Mary and The Baron are the dirty means that are always there to tempt even good leaders with their power. Using them will certainly move a leader in the evil direction (and possibly AI goodies should tend to avoid them) but perhaps not enough to fully cross the line. Two reasons for this-

1-a more complicated alignment or morality system is not desired, since it would probably end up being complicated to code for little gain and really confusing to casual players.

2-All people and other complex humanoids are a mix of good and evil. Nonetheless, in everyday life and fantasy fiction, they may still be judged good or evil or neutral on the whole even by an objective, universal system of morality.
The Order are harsh, brutal in warfare, often disregarding collateral damage, and stiffling in their cities some of the individual freedoms that I personally hold dear. Yet they are the good. Is it hpyocritical to label them such? Not necessarily. In their lands people are free from threat of death or enslavement. Their adherants are willing to die to free others from these threats in lands foreign to them. They keep their word and treat each other civilly. They are not perfect, but their positives outway thier negatives, so they rightly earn their good title.

Part of what makes this dark fantasy is that the good characters are not faced with simple, clear decisions of right and wrong. Staying alive may require either using abominable means, or making a deal with the devil. The alternative is fighting to the last man, and in so doing sacrificing your own people and allowing your good way of life to end, being replaced with that of the decadent Calabim or brutal Doveillo or bloodthirsty Orcs. Or the nothingness of the Sheaim.

Another part of 'dark' fantasy is that most of the evil guys are REALLY evil... but that doesn't mean they aren't understandable or pitiable at the same time. Sheelba wants to destroy humans, but one can still (hopefully) empathize with her while wishing her stopped. Keelyn was a fragile abused child, which explains her utter disregard for life, but cruelty is cruelty and she can rightly be called evil.

2 points away from FfH at the moment:
Hypocrisy is seen in this non-judgemental age as perhaps the greatest sin. If everyone should do what is right in their own eyes, then the only bad people are those that say one thing and do another, right? However, I would prefer hypocrites to those that don't even bother to advocate standards and decency. And merely failing to do what you say is right is not actually hypocrisy; hypocrisy is believing that there is one set of rules for everyone else, and it is perfectly alright for you to break them.

The morality of droping atomic weapons in wwii can (and should) be debated. However, in this case, as in so many others, reality was not too different from "dark fantasy" as I described above. Taking out huge numbers of civilian lives is aweful, but Imperial Japan was an enemy that had to be stopped (while the Nazis get first prize, Japan at the time committed its share of attrocities, Batan death march, murder and rape in china, etc.), was the aggressor, followed an emperor worshiping ideology that would have them fight to the last civilian, and the cities that were attacked were major military-industrial centers in a long war of attrition. It's easy to condemn the bombing as evil now, while forgetting that it may very well have been the lesser of many evils.

 

[QES]

I've always liked the moral set up of most dark fantasy.

There's Bad.

And there's Worse.
-Qes

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I've always been thinking that Kael and Ko have been using some sort of D&D like arbitrary/objective notion of morality. The "Static" method.

The good guys are good guys cause they say they are, and the evil guys are the evil guys because they say they are. Its more like "teams", than actual morality. "Im on blue team" "I'm on red team". Its sort of well, just for flavor. Becuase the hypocrasy or at least "moral ambiguity" is defeinately part of the fun. But the good guys have to at least think they're good, hence the alignments. The bad guys dont have to worry about such qualms. If the bad guys do something "good" its merely for more power, and/or a reduction in hassle from some other annoying source. I mean honestly, we never really complain about the "bad guys" doing good things "out of character" because we can easily excuse the behavior as either manipulation, machevellion tactics, or pure insanity.

I abolutely hate the "static" method. However, I still realize that it might be the best way to handle things in what is, after all, a TBS, not an RPG.

Honestly, ive always looked at these alignments as more "Lawful" vs "Chaos" than good vs evil. Perhaps we ought just change the alignement titles?

This does seem to be the case. I guess it's more Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil, hence the Order vs. Entropy theme. Still, some good leaders may actually be chaotic at heart, and some evil leaders may wish to see a dark tyranny held over the world. Good vs. Evil is the easiest to understand, and if we aren't going to incorperate a second alignment axis, then keeping it that way may be best.

Perhaps Mary could be considered evil (to create), and the Baron could be considered neutral (I'm not sure about this one), but I'd still like to have a good-themed hero. Perhaps Mary could be buildable by good Civs for a diplomatic penalty, but the good hero wouldn't be buildable for the evil Civs.

So, what would this good hero be like? I know Sureshot favors a horsewoman, but I'd personally like to see a redeemed demon. As he's a demon, the Order shuns him, but he has come to see the light, and wishes to fight for Good. FfH doesn't have anything remotely like this, but I'd like to see redemption somewhere in Erebus.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

but I'd like to see redemption somewhere in Erebus

Redemtion is good, but for mortals. Demons ... i don't know. Now, a good Svartalfar is doomed to comparisions. Good vampire dilutes the flavor of the Calabium. Ah! A good barbarian! A redeemed Orc, perhaps.