Ethics

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Trevman
This is an incredibly interesting post and I am amazed that people haved argued reasonably over this. You ask if it is better to win or to win with honor. Certainly the latter is better but unfortunately we will have to compromise some honor to win at all. The problem with your ideas is that right now we might not even achieve the lesser goal so an honorable win seems to be ridiculous. I must agree that we must shoot for a win at any cost because the alternative simply is not feasible.

Currently, not waging an unprovoked war will certainly result in our demise as we will be trapped in our unproductive jungle until one of our stronger neighbors becomes strong enough to war on us, which we will not be able to defend against. Maybe it would fun for you to mill around in our tiny jungle until our inevitable honorable demise, but to most others, not.

ah, but i am not trying to force my ethics on you. the code would contain many different items. you do not have to include "no unprovoked war." some might want that, others no. all would need to be voted on.

it does make it more difficult to do now, because now you see your problems. and you all want to win, of course. on the other hand, if you had made an ethics code before starting the game, how many would be trying to get rid of it or adjust it now that some problems have occurred? many, i think.

my advice, for what its worth, is to at least have some code. even if it is short and simple. anti-slavery would be the one i would go for: all captured workers will be sent to cities to join, no free work, no killing them off, no letting them just sit. but that is just my suggestion. it would not stop your war effort, but would change some tactics.

anyway, love the whole thing. cheers!

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
You have? Please elaborate. I consider "life in jeopardy" when one is in serious fear that in a moment they might no longer be alive.

i have already said that there was no ethical decision to be made so i don't think it applies. however: here is one of a few frightening episodes:
when i was barely more than a lad i worked for a nursery that had a contract with the power company, good ol' florida, power and light. it was a hard job and it involved climbing trees that were close to or entangled with high-voltage power lines.

in a moment of fate, ka and liberally applied boredom and stupidity i found myself connected to a chainsaw that was connected to a half-cut branch which fell onto a 7000 volt line. ow. f'in ow. i managed to pull the saw back and fell back. luckily and because i wasn't completely foolish, i had a rope and saddle to catch my fall.

but now that i think about it, i did not drop the saw. and it would have been safer to let it go. but my crew was under the tree. anyway, we could debate whether that happened because of reflex or thought and never know really.

Originally posted by Andreiguy
In this case, I assure you that EVERY human being will turn to instict. You have no choice. It is a natural "darwinian" bodily reaction (we are surprisingly like the animal world in many other ways, as well). When in serious danger, any living thing's first and primary concern is its own survival. There have been some amazing people in history (Gandhi, etc.) who no doubt would unflinchingly give up their lives for their morals. *However* these people are all usually older and very religious. What this entails: they consider their mission in life complete when a higher power, as they believe, ends their life. Or maybe I'm wrong. Whatever...

wow. cynical. and untrue. people of all ages types have given up their lives to save others (even strangers) or just to keep an ideal alive. "give me liberty or give me death."

Originally posted by Andreiguy Remember: America gave up slavery later than Russia, England, and just about every other nation on earth.

i don't use america as my standard-bearer. it would strike me blind.

[Andreiguy]

Ah. Well. I see that you are very devoted to your cause. Many of your points are true. Original thread...

Let's not frighten Firaxis too much or they might just take out Communism, Despotism, workers, heck, Anarchy and all military units for that matter in Civ4. We can have SimCiv, the lovely game about a happy place.

edit:typo

[Jon Shafer]

Who are we playing?

We are playing no one but ourselves, and we have but ourselves to look to when it's all said and done. Are we satisfied merely with victory at any cost?

Eewolf brings up something important for us to consider. Is this just a game? Civilization III is a game. Isn't this? Are we bound to no honor, no morals?

Tell me, what stops you from looking at the map? That would be winning at any cost. If it's just a game, then why not? And don't say 'it would ruin our fun', because the only reason it would do that is because the game would be less challenging. Is that not what you aim to achieve? An easier ride?

[Switch]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
We as Apolytoinans are little more than apes right now.

Didn't we vote on a Monotheism as our religion? So, that would most likely mean a belief in creation, not evolution.

Our God (whatever His/Her/Its name is) thought that the world was too boring, so our God found a most perfect banana, with a perfect shade of yellow, a perfect bend, no bruises or mushiness, and an absolutely unforgetably good taste, and thus formed the first human. Well, lets say there were two perfect bananas. Then these two eventually led to the world as we know it.

However, I guess you could say that we DO believe in evolution, and so our God punished us, and thus we ended up setting up camp surrounded by the Notylopa Jungle.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
In this case, I assure you that EVERY human being will turn to instict. You have no choice. It is a natural "darwinian" bodily reaction (we are surprisingly like the animal world in many other ways, as well). When in serious danger, any living thing's first and primary concern is its own survival.

WARNING: RANT

First of all I'd like to point out that many biologists are turning from Darwinism and evolution simply for the fact that the facts just don't fit. And in fact, you should always use Darwinism with caution, as most of what he said turned out to be false, it was just the basic idea of evolution and natural selection that has been kept. I could also point out a load of arguments against evolution or at least for creationism, but I won't as this is starting to go off topic. For more information, please visit Answers in Genesis Ministries.

My main point was simply that I disagree with your comparison of animal and human instinct, and since it isn't really proven or anything, people should refrain from such arguments.


Secondly, true, we are a democracy, and most people don't agree with a code of morals. That's too bad.
Now, I don't think that games create killers and generally bad people. I DO think, however, that it can quite easily desensitise people to such atrocities as murder and slavery (yes, I do consider killing one person, no matter who they are or how they were killed, to be an atrocity). WE should take care to keep this to a minimum. This is truly a game, so some flexibility is allowed, ie war with the French is quite acceptable. However, in games there is a limit. I think we shouldn't enslave, poprush, raze, etc. However, in reality my morals run much deeper, but let's not go there.

Sorry, but I ramble on a lot when I have a point to make, so if you actually missed my point, that is quite acceptable.

[Duddha]

First of all I'd like to point out that many biologists are turning from Darwinism and evolution simply for the fact that the facts just don't fit. And in fact, you should always use Darwinism with caution, as most of what he said turned out to be false, it was just the basic idea of evolution and natural selection that has been kept. I could also point out a load of arguments against evolution or at least for creationism, but I won't as this is starting to go off topic. For more information, please visit Answers in Genesis Ministries.

My main point was simply that I disagree with your comparison of animal and human instinct, and since it isn't really proven or anything, people should refrain from such arguments.

Don't turn this into an evolution debate. You know he was just using a figure of speach.

[Switch]

I repeat: Sorry, but I ramble on a lot.

Sometimes even I'll lose track of my own point.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Trip
Who are we playing?

We are playing no one but ourselves, and we have but ourselves to look to when it's all said and done. Are we satisfied merely with victory at any cost?

Eewolf brings up something important for us to consider. Is this just a game? Civilization III is a game. Isn't this? Are we bound to no honor, no morals?

Tell me, what stops you from looking at the map? That would be winning at any cost. If it's just a game, then why not? And don't say 'it would ruin our fun', because the only reason it would do that is because the game would be less challenging. Is that not what you aim to achieve? An easier ride?

look, look... its a president with ethics!

kidding aside, you have driven in and gotten right to the point. it is just that, up for consideration.

your question is valid. why not look at the map? its against the rules. what rules? civ rules. are you playing civ? yes. is that all? no. what are the other rules? uh, we created them. from where? from our ideas, our knowledge. your ethics?

and the big one that everyone here should answer: why are you participating in this? to win? i assume yes. is that all? i doubt it. so answer it and then decide whether a code of ethics, something else to put you beyond the other ai civs, is needed or wanted. then, if voted yes, come up with whatever code the people want. then do what politicians never do: stick to it.

[OPD]

Civ 3 is about escapism not reality. I want to play a game where i can be supreme overlord and take over the world by doing whatever I want.

I don't want to follow the normal rules of society where you can't go around whipping people. I'd rather play a fantasy game.

If you want reality then walk down a road where people live on the street while a priest will live in a big house and preach about giving money to the poor.

A code of ethics would take some of the fun out of the game, which can only ever be a bad thing.


Oh and I am aware of the moral dilema of escapism to a game where some of the most terrible evils of the world are carried out and I don't care

[Guardian]

Originally posted by OPD

A code of ethics would take some of the fun out of the game, which can only ever be a bad thing.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that...

Yes, it would take some elements away, but it would add a whole range of new ones!

Where's your imagination, man??!?

The "it's just a game" line is getting old already.
Yes, it is a game, but it's a game in which a lot of things actually happen in your mind, and not just on the computer screen.

If you just want to tromp all over everybody without a care in the world, you can do that any day of the week in your own games with the computer!

Personally, I like to keep some ethics in my games. There are things that I just don't do, and I still have fun! I like to make people happy - a good city should have lots of smiles in it.

However, I have gotten mad a few times and razed cities, or bombed them until there was nothing left standing.

And afterwards I've had guilt trips at the thought of hundreds - maybe thousands of years old temples and libraries being blasted and smashed, and of all the pain I would have inflicted on all those people.

I also don't like it when I open a city where I've just settled a bunch of captured workers and see all of their sad little faces in the city screen...

I prefer to keep people happy and hurt as few as possible.

I know they're not real people, but I imagine things!

What is this game without imagination anyway??

[UnOrthOdOx]

I will have more later, took too long to read all through that.

eewolf, this is a masterpiece.

I feel strongly along with what MWIA said. These are some excellent suggestions, but perhaps being brought up a bit late. Perhaps the next Demo game could incorporate such things to a fuller extent.

If you read through some of the posts, you will find we are having quite a discussion on how to play as it is. We are feeling the whole system out at the moment. To add another layer would be great IMO, but would neccessitate stopage of the turns till it was worked out. I do not know if that, the stopage, would be able to pass a vote.

Can a code of ethics be use? Sure. Should it? Perhaps. Would it be interesting? Oh yeah!

On the case of role playing, I most certainly am. If I were attempting to act seriously, I would not be here as the warmongering SOB that some have come to see me as. If ethics debate commences, count on me to continue role playing. I am here for the fun, and as I have said, I enjoy debates. eewolf has suggested that SOME code be placed, not suggested what it should be. We could leave room for slaves, whatnot. I encourage eewolf to remain and continue to bring this up when new issues arise.

[OPD]

Thats the thing about people taking the moral high ground, it encourages others to so the same to prove that they're not immoral *******s.

I on the other hand am an immoral ******* (when i play civ).

This thread is very dangerous for us. eewolf has suggested an ethical level which others have met inorder to shows themselves as good moral people. No one wants to be seen as immoral or as a bad guy, which is how they are portrayed unless they agree with these ethics or reach this ethical level.

The opportunity to portray yourself as a good and moral person is attractive (as shown above) but I urge people to admit that in eewolfs terms you are an immoral ******* for the good of the game and so that we can return to reality.

[OPD]

D'oh
I didn't know you couldn't say the A word
sorry

[mtgillespie]

In my opinion, ethics are not something which should be imposed from above, they are something which comes from within. Also, everyone will use their own code of ethics in every decision they make with this game. Our "ethical code" will come with the decisions we make as a society, and the officials we elect, not in a pre-set "code of laws" type document.

Some people may use the same ethical standards that they use in everday life, whereas others will (and have) invent(ed) personalities with which to role play the game. While accepting this is a good way to increase enjoyment of the game, it should also be noted that we have two, connected but quite distinct, areas to consider. one is the ethics of the game itself. here i believe people can be (not should be) as evil as they choose, as they are not hurting anyone, and there are penalties in the game for such behaviour.

The second area is in dealing with the community on these boards, and it's here that we need to remember that we're dealing with real people, and while you may have the most evil game persona around, that should not spill over into how you treat your fellow citizens.

OK, i'm sur i had a point at the start of all this, but it's turned into one long ramble
Apologies to anyone who fell alseep at any point

[UnOrthOdOx]

The second area is in dealing with the community on these boards, and it's here that we need to remember that we're dealing with real people, and while you may have the most evil game persona around, that should not spill over into how you treat your fellow citizens.

I most certainly am in agreement here. We can have open debates, such as this, without getting personal.

[Papa Chubby]

A code of ethics that will prohibit us from using all the manuveours that the game allows, just in order to add to the realism of the game. Don´t know whether I like the idea or hate it, but I will say that this whole debate is very interesting.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by OPD
Civ 3 is about escapism not reality. I want to play a game where i can be supreme overlord and take over the world by doing whatever I want.

I don't want to follow the normal rules of society where you can't go around whipping people. I'd rather play a fantasy game.

If you want reality then walk down a road where people live on the street while a priest will live in a big house and preach about giving money to the poor.

A code of ethics would take some of the fun out of the game, which can only ever be a bad thing.

Oh and I am aware of the moral dilema of escapism to a game where some of the most terrible evils of the world are carried out and I don't care

the subject of your sentences above is always "I" and rightly so. and when the game is played normally, that is all there is for everyone. but this game you have entered into is a pact. decisions are not made by one or a few, but by all.

while you may view this as escapism, others may not. and even if they do, their idea of escape may not fit yours. in this is the challenge and the beauty of this democracy game.

you believe a code of ethics will hurt the game. i don't think so. difference of opinion. vote and be content with the outcome. whether the code is voted in or out, no one should be unhappy with that. once the decision is made, keep on playing, keep on in whatever role you have chosen.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by OPD
Thats the thing about people taking the moral high ground, it encourages others to so the same to prove that they're not immoral *******s.

I on the other hand am an immoral ******* (when i play civ).

This thread is very dangerous for us. eewolf has suggested an ethical level which others have met inorder to shows themselves as good moral people. No one wants to be seen as immoral or as a bad guy, which is how they are portrayed unless they agree with these ethics or reach this ethical level.

The opportunity to portray yourself as a good and moral person is attractive (as shown above) but I urge people to admit that in eewolfs terms you are an immoral ******* for the good of the game and so that we can return to reality.

you are making some pretty broad assumptions here. you assume that decisions of morality are made for show as opposed to true caring. that is certainly true for some, but not all, and i do not believe most.

everyone came into the game with expectations. everyone had and has their own ideas of how it will be played. this thread is only "dangerous" for those who came into the game thinking that it has to be a certain way, their way. how could that possibly happen in a true democracy game?

in democracy, one has to be ready for new and different ideas. and change.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
eewolf has suggested that SOME code be placed, not suggested what it should be. We could leave room for slaves, whatnot. I encourage eewolf to remain and continue to bring this up when new issues arise.

alas, i cannot remain. i am but a weary traveler from a far off continent, shipwrecked on the shores of your new nation. i am a voyager and a drifter at heart and must be moving on. but i will be back because what i have seen here in all your citizens is heart.

[OPD]

no dont leave

[OPD]

Originally posted by eewolf


you assume that decisions of morality are made for show as opposed to true caring.

True but only in this thread and on this game. Not in real life.

IMO, all the morality in this thread is just for show.

True caring? What for units on a computer game?

But thats just my opinion.

[UnOrthOdOx]

It does not take long before many words lead to exhaustion

- Lao Tzu

If you MUST go, may the winds blow your ship our way yet again.

[Andreiguy]

My main point was simply that I disagree with your comparison of animal and human instinct, and since it isn't really proven or anything, people should refrain from such arguments.

Precisely because it isin't really proven, people should argue. Arguing is good, always, even if it brings up controversial topics, that's what these threads are for.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Trip
Who are we playing?

We are playing no one but ourselves, and we have but ourselves to look to when it's all said and done. Are we satisfied merely with victory at any cost?

Eewolf brings up something important for us to consider. Is this just a game? Civilization III is a game. Isn't this? Are we bound to no honor, no morals?

Tell me, what stops you from looking at the map? That would be winning at any cost. If it's just a game, then why not? And don't say 'it would ruin our fun', because the only reason it would do that is because the game would be less challenging. Is that not what you aim to achieve? An easier ride?

Trip is right. This shows that we already are playing with some morals. I think I would vote for a code of ethics but only if it could be changed by the people at anytime with a simple majority vote. This way our ethics could adapt in the way Ninot suggested and the game would be more challenging. We are playing on emporer but ethics add a challenge that is not simulated in Civ 3.

[Spiffor]

Eewolf :
Here's a constructive post. You should write a code of ethics (it doesn't have to be extremely detailed, even a "10 comandments" will do) and discuss it on this forum, with people who are interested in this. You won't have to integrate the "we don't need no frigging ethics code" comments.
Once the constructive discussion is finished, you should post a poll, to see if people agree on this code or not.

Chances are, most people won't agree for now, but the question will arise later again, when more people feel we can "afford" morals.

I really think you should work on this ethics code, bacause you're the most diehard supporter. Once the code is ready, it will indeed add a whole new layer of role playing to the game, and thus a whole new layer of fun.


PS : don't get me wrong : I'm currently against a code of morals, because I place our survival at the highest priority, and losing the game early, even with honour, wouldn't be fun for me. But I'll suport a moral code later, once our survival isn't jeopardized, for the sake of the fun.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by OPD
True but only in this thread and on this game. Not in real life.

IMO, all the morality in this thread is just for show.

True caring? What for units on a computer game?

But thats just my opinion.

The point isn't that it's a game that we're playing. Civilization III is a game. The Apolyton Civilization III Democracy game is more than that. People realize that. That's why no one has said "you guys are stupid it's just a game" so far in 3+ pages. And the reason we're involved in this is because it is more than just a game. Why have 170 people joined in on one 'game'? Don't you think there's something more that matters?

If you are to be off, farewell eewolf, may the wind blow to your fortune.

And for all of those who disagree, maybe I'm just ideological, but I hold honor in accomplishments very highly. Let me give you a good analogy. It's the beginning of the semester. You've slept in the first day, so you're not on the best terms with your professor, and you've missed a lecture. There's a guy in front of you who's really smart. You figure out a way to cheat. Okay, so you have the option: it's the beginning of the semester. You can sleep through class and not pay attention, then cheat on the final, and get a sure A. Or... you can work hard that semester and still get the A. What do you do?

[UnOrthOdOx]

If I may, I suggest we put this to a vote. Should we have a code of ethics? Should it be allowed to be violated by a popular vote in certain situations? Should we stop playing till it is written? (if the first vote passes, before the war)

we can worry about what it contains after we see if people want one.

[OPD]

With all this morality it's starting to sound a bit like an episode of star trek.

Should we introduce a code of ethics because it's the right thing to do?
No

Should we introduce a code of ethics if it would enhace the game and make it feel more realistic. One that would make us feel like we really are leading a race of people and that we ourselves are good people in the game?
Yes

Trip. Would I sleep and get an A?
I refer you to a poem I once read on a table in an exam room.

Look up for inspiration
Look down in desparation
Look to the side for information

[GePap]

I always try to play a moral game when it comes to pop. rushing (since I think people are more valuble to me alive than dead) and razing cities, but unfortunitelly, the game mechanics are such that such a course might be impossible.

This is a democracy game, which means that we gamers pick the route, but we are constrained heavily by the game. Until we are a monachy or republic, if we need to rush, our citizens will need to die:sadly the designers did not allow the gamer the choice of money v. lives when rushing for certain govs. but we must play with it. Also, I think bombardment is crucial in modern war and while i recognize the terrible effects on the captured cities, we should remember that we are the gov. of our own civ., not of others. We can't help but destroy randomly in cities, as that was the way the game was made.

I would make a few suggesions here for a simple moral code:

All ministers must agree for a city to be razed.
We would only pop. rush in cases where defensive units are immidiately needed for defense (after all, if the city falls and is razed, what good did we do?)
Slave policy shoul be voted on with each new gov.(whether we use them, disband the workers captured, or incorporate them into cities as new population points)
Avoid totalitarian goverments, swith to Communism must have 2/3 vote approval.
Limit bombardment of terrain to vital strategic targets: Squares with resources, vital roads for the enemy.
Allow bombardment of cities if the Defense minster thinks it wise (if you want to keep it low, vote for a minister that says in campaign they wont).
Maintain all signed agreements as best we can: Never take advantage of a right of Passage agreement to move troop into position.
Use of nuclear weapons must be unanimously approved by all ministers.