Strange Civilization Rewards

[xienwolf]

Aye, Good vs Evil alignment would be interesting if based on a scoring mechanism. Religion, Civics, and certain rare event decisions having large score effects, while most others having smaller effects. Score exceeds a certain ration of good/evil and alignment shifts.

Could make it interesting, trying to stay good, but run slavery and whip rush from time to time.

 

[KillerClowns]

I really want rare random events to do this i.e.

A traitor from (civ) was found in your midst, planning to starta fire in Cahir Abbey.
1. Pardon the traitor but send him from your lands.(+2 with civ and alignment to good)
2. Make an example of the traitor. Kill him, but humanley.(Change to neutral)
3.Kill the traitor and nail his head to the gates of the city. (-2 with civ, change alignment to evil.

Naturally, leaders should be slanted towards certain choices.

Good idea. But, IMHO, there should be a certain weight to the "natural" choice. You wouldn't lose or gain anything for an "unnatural" choice, simply change alignment. But the choice for your own alignment would give a bonus. Sort of a non-religious conversion, if you want the benefits of that alignment more then what you'd get for your "natural" choice. Feel free to steal my ideas, modifying them as you see fit. I'd be honored.

A good civ might be presented with:
A traitor was found planning to start a revolution. Many of his complaints are legitimate, but he also speaks of the wholesale slaughter of "the unclean." Specifically, most of the middle and upper classes of our civilization.
1. The greatest strength is mercy; pardon him, and address his legitimate grievances. (Happiness bonus)
2. We understand his grievances, but he is clearly a madman. Execute him, and those found plotting with him. (Change to neutral.)
3. Let's show him just how "unclean" we are. Publicly execute him. Then kill all those plotting with him, and just for good luck, kill his family. Oh, and start an inquisition to see such people don't show up again. (Change to evil.)

For an evil civ:
A wandering prophet has been found in our lands. He has been preaching that all, even the most evil, can be forgiven their crimes. He says, if you will hear about him and his way of peace, he will see that the gods forgive your sins. While he has converted every assassin sent to kill him, those around him whisper that he has a weakness for beautiful women. We may be able to use to our advantage.
1. Really? Make amends with the gods? Perhaps there's been enough bloodshed. Send him to me. (Change to good.)
2. Don't waste any more assassins. Let the fool preach to my people if he must, but tell him to begone if he comes knocking. (Change to neutral.)
3. Don't we have some beautiful women to spare? Show him the rewards of the dark side. Perhaps he'll stop wandering if he knows where to find our finest loose women. (Free Great Prophet specialist your capital.)

For a neutral civ:
We have discovered an ancient artifact near (City name). It is unnaturally beautiful, but those who have spent time with it say it fills people's minds with terrible thoughts of cruelty and evil. However, we can shatter it and, if we're careful, use it to power our forges...
1. Destroy it utterly, and see that none obtain its fragments. A thing of such evil cannot be allowed to exist, no matter what temporary gain. (Change to good.)
2. There is nothing so evil it cannot be used for good. Do what you can with it, but be careful. (Forge productivity increases slightly)
3. How can anything beautiful be evil? I must see it for myself. Send it to me; I'm sure it can do no harm. (Change to evil.)

EDIT: Score system is also a great idea. Perhaps these events would affect that score instead, although enough to make sacrificing the benefits worthwhile IF you really wanted to convert. Maybe the "neutral" choice for good/evil civs would provide slight benefits and a lesser push towards the opposite alignment.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Yeah, that sounds more like it. (and would better within a score system)

I'm not really sure the madmad from the first event should be executed in the option that makes you turn neutral. I'd prefer locking him up. Perhaps it could also grant a benefit from the OO UB the Asylum. Actually,within a score system it would work better if the asylum choice moved you very slightly towards good and executing only him slightly towards evil (and perhaps also give a bonus to The Order civs). Other effects would also be nice. (The last choice in the first event should also have the effects of inquisition, or a limited purge of the unfaithful, possible including the revolts. I'd also specify the means of executing his family, like crucification.)

For the evil specific event, I'd specify which gods you are making emends with. It might be better with different versions for atoning with different gods, and maybe a luonnotar version. It should also spread/get rid of religions, and if there are multiple versions it could chance a civ of any alignment to the alignment corresponding to whichever gods are chosen. The second options should probably cause some uphappinesss, or make it reoccurring instead of becoming neutral (although moving towards the middle might still be good). The last one seems good, I might prefer different versions for different vices (or even virtues, if the event were making amends between a good civ and Agares) and more colorful language (I'd at least replace "loose women" with something like "harlots").

The third event seems quite nice. It reminds me very much of the Garrim Gyr's civilopedia entry where the dwarves find that strange crystal (I believe it has been strongly implied that it was one of Agares's gems that contain the power of infinite plains of pure elements, of Mammon's element of mind/greed in this case, iirc.) This event could be made very powerful (or lead to more powerful events) since the power of these gems is said to greater even than power of all the Gods (except The One, of Course) since with them you can essentially regain the power of creation which was taken away from them by The One before the Age of Dragons. Such objects would likely be even more powerful than the Godslayer, if used correctly, but almost impossible to control. Quests tied to this and he other gems should be the most powerful in the game. Their full power could probably put such events as Armageddon to shame.

 

[KillerClowns]

Yeah, that sounds more like it. (and would better within a score system)

I'm not really sure the madmad from the first event should be executed in the option that makes you turn neutral. I'd prefer locking him up. Perhaps it could also grant a benefit from the OO UB the Asylum. Actually,within a score system it would work better if the asylum choice moved you very slightly towards good and executing only him slightly towards evil (and perhaps also give a bonus to The Order civs). Other effects would also be nice. (The last choice in the first event should also have the effects of inquisition, or a limited purge of the unfaithful, possible including the revolts. I'd also specify the means of executing his family, like crucification.)

For the evil specific event, I'd specify which gods you are making emends with. It might be better with different versions for atoning with different gods, and maybe a luonnotar version. It should also spread/get rid of religions, and if there are multiple versions it could chance a civ of any alignment to the alignment corresponding to whichever gods are chosen. The second options should probably cause some uphappinesss, or make it reoccurring instead of becoming neutral (although moving towards the middle might still be good). The last one seems good, I might prefer different versions for different vices (or even virtues, if the event were making amends between a good civ and Agares) and more colorful language (I'd at least replace "loose women" with something like "harlots").

The third event seems quite nice. It reminds me very much of the Garrim Gyr's civilopedia entry where the dwarves find that strange crystal (I believe it has been strongly implied that it was one of Agares's gems that contain the power of infinite plains of pure elements, of Mammon's element of mind/greed in this case, iirc.) This event could be made very powerful (or lead to more powerful events) since the power of these gems is said to greater even than power of all the Gods (except The One, of Course) since with them you can essentially regain the power of creation which was taken away from them by The One before the Age of Dragons. Such objects would likely be even more powerful than the Godslayer, if used correctly, but almost impossible to control. Quests tied to this and he other gems should be the most powerful in the game. Their full power could probably put such events as Armageddon to shame.

I intended the first event as a good civ only event, and good civs can't be OO. If, however, it were to be used as a moral event for all alignments, then it would be an interesting alternative option. It makes sense, now I think about it; all alignments might suffer from would-be dictators. Not sure about exact effects of these options; if they end up used, I leave them to the discretion of modders.
2. He has legitimate grievances, but he is also a madman. Lock him in a dungeon and let him rot. (Not sure...)
2a. He's insane. We have an asylum for the insane. Clean up a room, decorate it like a throne room. Tell him the revolution was successful, and that he is now lord of the [Empire name]. Oh, and charge the wealthy for the opportunity to watch the little fool play king. (Local asylum starts producing gold.)

The second event could have an Agares style option, in which an evil prophet either killed or converted all sent to arrest him, but he came from a poor background and is extremely charitable. You could invite him in (going evil, converting, having the religion put in your capital), ignore him (the religion spreads a little), or pay a beggar (with a chunk from your treasury) to convince him to abandon darkness and instead use his skill to help the poor, causing him to settle down and become a Great Prophet specialist. Similar changes for other religion's prophet events (must pay to convert prophet, ignoring causes spread, accepting spreads religion to capital).
There should also be a specific Grigori response. Specifically, it should be the only option available to the Grigori. You invite the prophet to your palace, regardless of his religion, and convert him to the One by showing him either the evils committed by his god (for Order, FoL, or RoK prophets), or the horrible fate that awaits him (for OO or AV prophets). Your alignment would be untouched.

The third option was actually inspired by Garrim's pedia event. I never thought of it as possibly being a world-changing event, but it would work well there. I was actually imagining a moderately powerful artifact, not a gem of creation; some archmage's toy from the Age of Magic. The good option might take a fair chunk from the AC, the neutral option might give a universal forge bonus with a risk of an AC rise every time a forge is built. A full change to the evil option is required, I think.
3. Unnatural beauty? Thoughts of cruelty? You mean you have an artifact that can turn a population into the perfect warmongers? Are you seriously suggesting destroying such a wondrous thing? (Gives you a Dragon's Hoard type artifact allowing a wonder that significantly decreases war weariness, increases unit's build speed and XP, and has a chance of granting prophecy mark to any units built in the city. Also angers all good civs.)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Sounds good. I would also make a rare non-Grigori version of the second one where the wandering prophet is a Lounnatar. Then, instead of spreading a religion he would eliminate them. I don't think converting him would be possible, but perhaps you could convince him that another civ is much further from the will of the One and needs him more than you do (giving a chance that a civ with a different state religion would experience this event instead of you. This could be quite useful, since there isn't much you can do to eliminate state religions from rival's cities) . Accepting him in could instead give you the next level or two of the Altar of the Luonnatar, move you towards neutral, give you the Agnostic Trait, and make you convert to no state religion. This would, of course, cause a huge diplomatic boost with Cassiel and perhaps a smaller penalty with all the religious civs.

 

[the_fish]

Not sure I like abrupt alignment changes from these events...but then again I didn't really like abrupt alignment changes from religion either (why can't I have an evil Order? Unquestioning obedience sounds sinister to ME).

How about using events as a dynamic way to shift alignment:

(edit: realised this had been mentioned before) Say you have a hidden variable ranging from +75 to -75, with ranges EVIL(-75 to -26), NEUTRAL(-25 to +25), GOOD(+26 to +75). Civs start at -50/0/50* (e/n/g), and events can increment or decrement this hidden value so that you can gradually change your alignment, role-playing style.

Choices MUST also do other things as well, else there'd be no incentive to play other than at your desired alignment - in this way you can add more temptation to the evil acts, for example.

So now I could have my evil Order by performing bloodthirsty acts within my empire! Of course, you could make it so that changing alignment in this way removes your state religion and cause your people to hate you (or stop you adopting a particular religion UNLESS you are the correct alignment...which arguably makes more sense than the current implementation), but thats all part of the fun.

*(could instead have different (hidden) starting values for each leader/civ combination...more shades of grey )

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Still, I think that alignment should eventually be based on what you choose to do when faced with difficult choices, like random events. This would greatly enhance the game and would fit well with one civilopedia entry especially:

That's the way it works in Galactic Civilization 2. Sometimes when you colonize a planet you will find a native life-form, a pirate base ... how you deal with them will make you good neutral or evil. There could be events in FFH that work the same way, slowly turning you towards good or evil depending on your choices. I'm not sure it would be possible to weight every action, but maybe razing cities or the like could turn you towards evil. However, sometimes the AI puts cities in such SILLY places you just HAVE TO raze them if you are only slightly clever, raising the AC is bad enough in such cases ...
It would also change the atmosphere of the mod much. Having a good AV civ, or evil Order one, thought interesting would be strange in the Erebus world.

 

[zxcvbnm]

It would also change the atmosphere of the mod much. Having a good AV civ, or evil Order one, thought interesting would be strange in the Erebus world.

"Good" and "Evil" are very unclear in FfH so those might be possible logic-wise but as the Order follows Junil's commands they are fighting against the "evil".

Actually FfH alignment consists of three parts:
Order (not religion but system)
Ethics (how you treat other people)
Politics (do you want to end the world)

Order varies from law to chaos, although often misunderstood as ethics because of the silly monotonous views in light fantasy, law being good and chaos being evil, this has nothing to do with them. It is only the nature of the system, is it centralised and how much liberty individuals have to affect, for good or ill. Calabim and Ljosalfar are clear examples of how law-chaos alignment has nothing to do with good and evil.

Ethics is the "real" good and evil as usually defined. It depends mainly on your way of treating those weaker than you. It isn't however the only thing affecting the good-evil alignment in FfH, because there are good vs. evil wars that are more political than ethical.

Politics varies from active preservationist to active destructionist with passive preservationists and destructionists between them.

Active preservationists are those who want to save the world and are willing to fight the evil and bring the battle to their lands. It's often very militant and they treat their enemies sometimes as cruelly as their enemies treat them. Examples are Bannor and Mercurians

Passive preservationists do what they can to prevent armageddon by peaceful ways. They defend themselves when attacked but don't very eagerly go on offensive. Elohim and Ljosalfar are typical passive preservationists.

Passive destructionists are people who are on the "evil" side. Their actions contribute in the ending of the world although that is not their goal, but power or revenge. Most evil civs and people fall in this category. Savants of the Ashen Veil trade their souls to demons, not to end the world but to gain personal benefit.

Active destructionists are the rarest group: only a few people in Erebus can be considered them. They are focused in ending the world, not caring about themselves or anyone else. Interesting in this is that actually the most important who belong to this category aren't followers of the Ashen Veil in similar way as most others. Os-Gabella wants to kill herself but she's immortal so the demons would never get her soul, Ceriwden promised Tebryn Arbandi that he would be saved from going to hell if he ends the world, and he is reborn every time he dies unless the rune keeping him immortal is destroyed, so he wouldn't either be of any real use to Agares. Hyborem is a demon already so he can't sell any souls (except others')

Because good-evil in FfH includes both of these, evil Order is impossible as they keep active preservationists though they might be ethically evil. Good Ashen Veil is similarly impossible because the Veil is destructionist and would you call someone who worships demons good?

 

[the_fish]

Fair enough then, in other fantasy I could imagine a corrupted force of zealots, though I'm struggling to see a 'good' demon worshipping interpretation. (I have, however, once managed to convert the Sheaim to the Order )

However, on a civ by civ basis I reckon there can be roleplaying reasons why e.g. the Calabim repent and join the Order. Of course, this is currently possible, and converts them to 'good'. What's less obvious is why they'd suddenly switch from becoming an evil society to becoming a good society. Just because they have lots of that religion in their cities? I'm not buying it...

How about instead of the current, religion=alignment shift thing, religions (and maybe associated techs) cannot be adopted unless the civ is of the correct alignment...with alignment shifts possible by events or other factors, a list of which is given below (with an 'ethics' scale, as mentioned before).

I don't have BtS (yet...), so I don't know if the AI gets these events as well. If they do, then choices can be made with regard to the other effects of each option, with the alignment shift as an afterthought.

If they don't, then the other factors below would be simple to calculate and provide a similar "role-playing" effect.

Non-events that could affect this dynamic alignment shift:
- # cities with AV (/esus?)
- # cities with Order (/empyrean?)
- types of mana
- conduct in diplomacy (intimidation is evil, helping others is good, for example)
- civics
- tech choices
- building certain units (e.g. building Drown can pull a neutral OO civ towards evil)
- constructing certain buildings (things which help your citizens = good, things which make them unhappy/ill = evil)
- actions that affect the AC, in the appropriate direction

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I agree with you about the events and the non-events that should alter alignment, but I don't think setting hard limits on who can adopt what religion. (I also think that you should be able to trade any religious tech to any non-agnostic civ of any alignment, but that that desire to research/acquire the techs should be heavily weighted by their alignment. E.g., A very evil civ shouldn't even accept Orders from Heaven for free, but would still consider taking it if that is the way to acquire other things it really wants. The same goes for good civs and Corruption of Spirit, and for the Council/Empyrean techs, Way of the Earthmother, and Message from the Deep, but to a lesser extent. Other techs, like Righteousness or Malevolent Designs, also need such weighting. )

I wouldn't mind if there was a certain alignment range a civ must be in in order to adopt a religion, but not a hard requirement that the civ already have the alignment associated with said religion. A neutral civ should still be able to adopt either a good or evil religion, and have its alignmnent than changed toward that end (but not necesarily all the way. Actually, I think that a good civ should still be able to adopt an evil religion, but only if they were on the verge of loosing their good status anyway. Likewise for evil civs.

For example, on a scale of 0 to 100 (where 0 to 30 is considered evil, 31 to 69 neutral, and 70 to 100 good) any civ below 75 could adopt the veil or Council of Esus (which would also then drop the alignment score), and those above 25 could adopt the Order or Empyrean (which would then raise the alignment score), while anyone between 20 and 80 could adopt the Leaves (which would not effect alignment).


I don't think that having your alignment change should ever force you to lose your state religion either, but it could perhaps encourage it; e.g., religious happiness could be tied to having the appropriate alignment, and religious (and even civ specific) heroes might abandon you if your civ had strayed too far from his alignment. Also, if could have interesting effects tied to the Overcuncil and Undercouncil (Shadow wonders that are like the AP, but tied to alignment). (I still think that these heroes shouldn't dissappear from the game, but perhaps join another civ with the appropriate religion/alignment, possibly even rejoining you if you change your ways. Also, I would be nice to add a new set of heroes that can only be obtained under rare religion/civ/alignment combinations.)

 

[zxcvbnm]

Fair enough then, in other fantasy I could imagine a corrupted force of zealots, though I'm struggling to see a 'good' demon worshipping interpretation. (I have, however, once managed to convert the Sheaim to the Order )

However, on a civ by civ basis I reckon there can be roleplaying reasons why e.g. the Calabim repent and join the Order. Of course, this is currently possible, and converts them to 'good'. What's less obvious is why they'd suddenly switch from becoming an evil society to becoming a good society. Just because they have lots of that religion in their cities? I'm not buying it...

How about instead of the current, religion=alignment shift thing, religions (and maybe associated techs) cannot be adopted unless the civ is of the correct alignment...with alignment shifts possible by events or other factors, a list of which is given below (with an 'ethics' scale, as mentioned before).

If all three alignments were included then you pefectly could have an evil Order civ as they are ethically evil although fighting the Veil. As long as good and evil represent more preservationism and destructionism the Calabim will become "good" when switching to the Order, because the Order forces them to be "good".

I don't think ethics should really influence which religion you are able to have, there's always the chance of evil repenting and good corrupting by sudden events. The Order and Octopus Overlords are both unquestioning when it comes to their god(s)'s commands and laws, their main difference is only who commands. Instead they should be some kind of extra diplomatic influence, as between Bannor and Elohim, who agree of goals but disagree of means.

 

[nealhunt]

I like the idea of an alignment score. I'm nowhere near a programmer, but it seems like there are already some tracked values which could be harnessed to run an alignment calculation, most notably:
* % religion
* AC contributions

If you just tracked a couple more values in the same fashion as diplo bonuses/penalties it seems like it should be possible to create a formula. For example, that "experiment on your people for health benefits" event could provide an alignment mod in addition to the short term happiness penalty.

% population in religion X * multiplier for religion X
+/- innate civ bonus
+/- state religion bonus (possibly civic mods as well)
+/- event bonus
+/- action bonus (AC contributions)

Diplo penalties for alignment could be based on the difference in scores, rather than an absolute good/neutral/evil split. A strongly good civ and a strongly evil civ would be more at odds than 2 civs that were barely good/evil. Two civs might be different nominal alignments and actually have no diplo penalties because they are both so close to the (arbitrary) line between their alignments.

===
So just to throw out near-random numbers for illustrative purposes...

-500 to +500 as a guideline range, though the counter would be effectively unlimited. -150-+150 would be neutral.

Order - *4 multiplier for population
Empyrean - *3
Runes - *1
FoL - 0
OO - *-1
Shadow *-3
AV - *-4

Order - +150 for state religion
Empyrean - +100
Runes - +50
FoL - 0
OO - -50
Shadow - -100
AV - -150

Innate civ alignments could be shaded...

Elohim +250 for civ alignment
Bannor +200
Malakim +175
Luchuirp +175
etc...

You would then calculate something like... a Luchuirp player goes for the "turtle up, bring the apocalypse":

Luchuirp: +175
60% AV: -300
20% Runes: +20
10% Order: +40
AV state religion: -150
Added 50 to AC: -50
Total: -265, definitely evil

A Clan of Embers which managed to found Runes and ended up at war with Hyborem because he spawned right next to them might look like:

Clan: -200
70% Runes: +70
10% OO: -10
10% AV: -40
Runes state religion: +50
Lowered AC counter: +5 (Killed Hyborem, razed some AV cities, whatever)
Total: -125, neutral


Obviously, lots of point tweaking would be required...

===

I think that due to various synergies as alignment heads one direction or another (high % AV would make AV state religion desirable = bigger total alignment mods), that civs that were good or evil would generally tend to polarize more strongly as they rack up scores and diplo penalties would mean increased likelihood of war (in addition to the war script effects). Neutral civs would tend to remain more steadfastly neutral as % religion served to anchor them in place. Something like an Inquisitor sweep or Purge the Unfaithful could possibly cause a radical alignment shift.

Before a civ becomes too polarized, you might even manage to switch a civ's alignment significantly by spreading a religion to their cities and changing the % followers. Right now it's nearly impossible to convert an evil civ to the Order, but with a system like this you might catch them before another religion was entrenched and shift their alignment to neutral to convert them.

 

[zxcvbnm]

If you are talking about ethical good then Malakim and Bannor might be switched. The idea of unquestioning obedience doesn't sound very good, unlike the idea of being tolerant fanatics.

 

[xienwolf]

Ooh, just thought of a nifty way to monitor, and reward, alignment.

Why not just do it as Diplomacy? Diplomacy bonuses with the barbarian count toward being Evil, diplomacy hits with them count toward being Good.

Then introduce a second Barbarian Civilization "Monks" which are the normal Monasary dwelling Jet-Li Capable Evil-killing Monks. Bonuses with them count toward Good, hits against them count toward evil. Make a few leaders start with a trait to give an alliance with the Monks and a small hit to military production to balance it out.


And it makes moderate sense to allow there to be a new roaming band of barbarian's who, though supposedly good, love to kill any unit that passes by: Either they caught your unit doing something bad, or they were testing him and he was found lacking

 

[the_fish]

I figured it out: a 'good' AV civ would still be one that makes pacts with demons and such for research/ritualists, but actually manages to get away with it - keeping the AC low and treating their people well. In this way it'd be more of a science religion than an evil religion. (I can't believe I just wrote 'science religion' )

nealhunt's formula above was similar to what I was thinking, except maybe weighted a bit less on religion. This is the sort of thing i'd have a go at modding, except this PC doesnt have civ on it, and the one that does is 100 miles away...I'd probably wait until Shadow anyway

Not sure about the 'good' barbarians...this dilutes some of the uniqueness of the Clan and Diovello.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I figured it out: a 'good' AV civ would still be one that makes pacts with demons and such for research/ritualists, but actually manages to get away with it - keeping the AC low and treating their people well. In this way it'd be more of a science religion than an evil religion. (I can't believe I just wrote 'science religion' )

Being a good AV worshipper is quite hard, you propably know what happened to the wizard trying to trick the demons (Infernal Grimoire 'pedia entry). But interesting if somebody really managed to do it.

 

[zxcvbnm]

THIS!

Damn that 10 chars