Morality and conscience in Civ 3

[Aias]

I try to read as many post on these forums as I can. This is the first of Sid's Civs that I have played, having been introduced to the series through CTP I/II.

At any rate, it strikes me as rather odd that alot of people take morality into account when devising strategies for the game. I was stunned also by the heated debates over the fascist patch. I just want to hear from both sides. Personally, I don't take the feelings and needs of conquered peoples IN A GAME into account when playing. I will starve or bombard cities down to a population of one to prevent them reverting back to the motherland. I also doesn't keep me up nights when people in my own cities starve and the population drops by one. In CTP, I would also use biological attacks and I would build a huge empire early in the game by using slavers and taking barbarians to serve my cities. Slavery in the real world was/is a fact. Too bad that they didn't include slavers in Civ 3.

You see, we cannot change history to our taste just because we may find something in the past that we find abhorrent. Slavery, fascism, and yes even terrorism is a part of the world that we inhabit together. There are things in this life that bother us all. Taking an element out of a game isn't going to change that. The only way that real change is going to happen is you click Start-->Shut Down, push the chair away from the computer, and go out of your front door and make an effort to change it. To me, this is just a game. If certain elements are introduced into the game that you find distasteful, either don't employ them or don't download them. However, if an element is already in the game the computer may use it. Isn't that part of the appeal of this game, having the AI use a tactic that you dislike and then you strike back in righteous anger? Trust me, you'll really be hating life if we EVER GET MULTIPLAYER (are you listening Sid? You owe me, you ripped me off on the Limited edition, but I digress) and someone razes one of your cities because of your high culture or employs a dirty trick. Trust me, it WILL happen.

Well, I will get off of my soapbox and read other viewpoints. In fine, it's just a game. No, it's not historically accurate. If it was, we wouldn't have jet fighters in the 1920's!

[Heliodorus]

Do you only play to win?
If so, then at what point does winning cease to satisfy you?
Since you began your passage into these games via CTP, you're a little newer a convert. I lost a girlfriend in part because of the original Civilization (the only game I ever played for 25 hours straight).

For me, and many here, style plays a role. We play with an idea that we ARE the immortal leader of Rome (my favorite empire to act out). I play with my own personal concept of how to run a (Roman) empire. I aim to play an enlightened game with as much benevolence and peace as I can, while being brutal when I cannot. In essence, I apply a roleplaying style to my strategy gaming because that is how I conceptualize the gameplay. It is an evolving story where I interact on behalf of my (note MY) people.

Some elements of game design are distasteful simply because they force an interruption to our conception of us as living emperor and our civ as living empire. Razing in Civ3 being a prime example. Say I am the Roman fighting the Greeks in the Modern Era - by my own style and conception, the Greeks are to be admired - inferior in that their selfishness corrupts their ability to be a greater empire. And so I end up at war with them hoping to incorporate the greatest of their enlightened civilization into mine, gently dissuading them from their inferior ideas over time.

Then comes the game design, where it's actually better for me to burn Sparta to the ground and leave no trace of its great militaristic tradition. I find this distasteful in that it makes me think of myself and my empire as nothing more than barbaric Huns burning what we don't understand into the dust. However, game design means that I either do that, or I face the risk of having to reconquer Sparta a bunch of times, or bombard it into the stone age. All of this removes me from my own little storyline, and forces me to recognize a rather dumb little game implementation called "reversion"...

[Captain]

Great points Heliodorus and Aias!

I play the same way. I imagine myself the ruler or better yet, the spirit of a nation.

Of course I want to win and achieve dominance for my country but I want to do it as ethically and honourably as possible.

Of course it's a game, but it's part of the role-playing I assign myself as part of the immersion of the game experience! I happen to want to play benevolently.

I realize there are times that I can't do that and ensure my nation's survival. Sometimes rulers have to do ugly and distasteful things. I agree. But I don't relish them.

Anyone can be a tyrant. Only a true good person would restrain their innate violent & megalomaniacal tendencies even in a game!

In fact, therein lies another challenge, showing restraint. Sure I've got the most powerful nation with a huge army and nukes. But just because you keep encroaching on my borders doesn't mean I should nuke you. I could, but I don't because of restraint. It's uncalled for. I don't believe in victory at any cost. It is important to preserve the honour and dignity of a nation and people. (Yes, it's a game, but it helps make my experience more enjoyable if I look at it this way. Otherwise it's just moving electronic bits around... wheee!)

I don't abhor the choice. I abhor the lack of any real negative consequence for these atrocious acts. People would hate you for it, and maybe even rebel. Other countries would go to war over it.

You should definitely be allowed to nuke, terrorize, enslave, raze, and do any other abominable thing. And you should be forced to make a tough decision as to whether or not you want to go down that road.

But you shouldn't be hopelessly crippled because you refuse to make their use a general practice. If I get nuked, I nuke back, but otherwise no - it's uncalled for and I won't instigate it.

(Maybe this is why I lost at MP Starcraft, I identified too much with my marines and refused to send them to certain death in a human wave attack even when I knew it would work. Strangely I only lost about 20% of my games... maybe I just played against sucky people?)

Unless you're playing MP, razing is so much better because there's little penalty for it. There are times I might have to do it because I can't afford to lose the city back to an overpowering bloodthirsty nation, and I should be hard pressed not to do so. But doing it all the time should have some repercussions!

I just think it needs to be balanced better.

Thoughts? Comments? Threats?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Captain
You should definitely be allowed to nuke, terrorize, enslave, raze, and do any other abominable thing. And you should be forced to make a tough decision as to whether or not you want to go down that road.

Did someone talked about Alpha Centauri system of actrocities here ?

(Maybe this is why I lost at MP Starcraft, I identified too much with my marines and refused to send them to certain death in a human wave attack even when I knew it would work. Strangely I only lost about 20% of my games... maybe I just played against sucky people?)

Play with the Zergs, they are no more than moving cells, and they are genetically predisposed to suicide themselves

[Zachriel]

Re: Morality and conscience in Civ 3

Originally posted by Aias
At any rate, it strikes me as rather odd that alot of people take morality into account when devising strategies for the game. I was stunned also by the heated debates over the fascist patch. I just want to hear from both sides. Personally, I don't take the feelings and needs of conquered peoples IN A GAME into account when playing. I will starve or bombard cities down to a population of one to prevent them reverting back to the motherland.

Heros and reformers are a part of history too. You can choose to be whatever part of history you want. You can be Winston Churchill, or you can be Adolf Hitler. You can lead the world towards a peaceful future through the United Nations, or you can raze cities and leave the world a desolate place where no one dares to speak your name.

The choice is yours.