I sawa one event which was

Good 25% increased research

Neutral - Free Precursor Ship, -25% pop cap

Bad - Free Precursor ship, much of planet is flooded

So being 'good' isn't that bad

Yeah the discreet 3 steps morality thing feels a bit date or something to me, it should be expanded a bit more, or maybe directly relate to diplomacy numbers wise (more votes for saving lifeforms found rather than indirectly through 'happiness'

I'm trying to figure out which XML file holds the parameters for these events. The one I 'think' it should be doesnt seem to have the parameters I think it should.

I concur. The boni should be not so polarising.

Maybe also not "malevolent" and "benevolent". It's much more interesting to not just have good and evil reskinned. It might be neater to have individualism and collectivism. So instead of "evil" you have a ruthlessly individualistic, which you would still find that focus on strength, but also on the a cult of exceptional individuals and in collectivism, you see pop growth and caring society that has the effect of ironing out the benefits of individuality. It works well with the third choice being pragmatic, because while not being "good" or "evil" (however you want to call them) they do represent two polar opposites of idealism.

And these themes fit with the science fiction genre and leave a lack of "right" decision. Sure, individualism as presented might create a bleak, dystopian capitalistic nightmare, ala Blade Runner or even Bioshock, it still has bright side of heroic adventures and promises of meritocracy. It's the model of Kant's vision of the Engligthenment. An empire where one's success is solely tied to talent and effort. On the other hand, one's success is solely tied to talent and effort.

Collectivism would be a place where the state governs for the good of all. This sort of utopia would be frequently documented in tv shows like Star Trek. Except, if you notice one thing about Star Trek they keep sending their best and brightest off to explore the frontier and their best and brightest keep going crazy and founding societies that are not at all in line with federation values. Seriously. Sure, you've still got people like Kirk, but something about Federation society that drives talented people to their breaking point.

Which raises an interesting subidea:

What if each ship/planet had their own ideological leanings. Planets maybe would be affected by the ideological buildings you build on it, which would make them more resistant to the culture of other empires with different ideologies. But ship captains might defect to empire with more appealing ideologies, which might provide interesting conflicts. What if a prototype warship defected to your neighbour and they refused to give it back? What if while invading a peaceful civilisation, one of your captains goes "native", tired of the endless bloodshed and wars and takes his taskforce with him? Or maybe a governor of a boarder colony, seeing the approach of a much more appealing overlord surrenders his colony without a struggle?

The ideology system could also be used to deal with a criminally underplayed element of previous Galciv games: splinter empire. They existed, but you pretty much had to intentionally make your empire unhappy to see them. If a faraway cluster of colonies have a much different ideological makeup than the rest of your empire, they might wait for you to become weaker and declare independence. Civil wars have always been such a huge part of science fiction as we know it, so makes sense to use the revamped ideology system to achieve that.

Finally, there shouldn't be a right way to form the ideology. Even if you make one that is perfectly 33%, 33%, 33%, it shouldn't make it "the best". It should make it a solid defence, but also not overly strong in any given area. Instead of the lure of joining any empire being 100% strength, it should be 66% strong, but also means any of defections or whatnot unlikely to happen for you at all, because even a 50,50,0 split should be so much more appealing for defectors.

You can already edit the xml files if you want to get into the nitty gritty stuff of the game.

Most of the data xmls are in

C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\Galactic Civilizations III\data\Game

On a side note,  The benevolent Perk gives you a +10% growth rate right off the bat + additional 5% with the special buildings. I don't know about you guys but this sounds better then what you get with the malevolent perk. Especially since you would really benefit from the pop growth in early game and since your whole economy revolves around population.

That seriously made me think twice about whether going evil or good.

That sounds about right.  Evil should be about strip-mining, pragmatic about controlled-mining, and good about environmental protectionism.  The evil faction gets all their benefits in the short and medium term, pragmatic beats them in the long-term, and good has a completely-different bonus that is less initially-impressive but more subtle than either.

I don't think we have to stop at 3 choices for each of these events.  You could have on with 4 choices (2 of them would be the same alignment but different benefits) or additional choices that are only available if you have a certain trait.

I'd say that's a simplistic view of good and evil you hold. I don't mean that as an insult, but good isn't a defined concept. In fact, pursuit of the question of "what is the good?" has plagued mankind for millennia. It's why the subset of moral philosophy exists. Some ethical systems DO define good as about the good of the collective, namely Abrahamic religions, so I'm not surprised that you would come to that conclusion-- whether you're personally religious or not. The main problem with your assessment is that nobody thinks of themselves as evil, unless they are trapped within a larger moral construct that labels them as such. (Unless you're talking about an absolute good and evil, but those are not really viable setting without actual proof of the divine. e.g. angels, demons, deities.)

Individualism isn't evil: neither is valuing strength or freedom. It's a trait that was admired as the very best of humanity from Ancient Greece to 18th century to Europe to today. There seems to be a certain truth that a man who is able to rule his own life, rules himself best. This is why libertarians exists, it's why Nigel Farage (not that I admire Farage) can say things like "Britons rule Britain better than any European" and it's why Kant wrote that "the Enlightenment is man's exiting from the tutelage of others". It's long been believed that an individual who cultivates their inner strength is the basis for a strong (and good) society. Just because one is focused on individuals ahead of any mythical grouping (indeed, many of the ways we choose to group ourselves outside of family -- race and nationality, for instance-- have no rational basis in construction, but were constructed to suit political purposes) doesn't mean one is disinterested in society. It means, at its heart, that a person is interested in the good of persons and not the good of people.

Yes, that's vague. It would have to be if three categories could encompass umpteen dozen different empires, who all evolved independently from one another and yet can all be shoehorned into the same three categories. All three views would have to be simultaneously utopian in aspects and dystopian (a fact reflected in the prototype feedback documents in the vault). After all, one man's utopia is another's dystopia. I honestly think, by representing both sides of the coin you get a more realistic, believable and interesting social structure, which is really only glossed over by the concept of "good and evil". Dare I say it, games also serve as educators of younger impressionable minds. I know playing Alpha Centauri has a big influence on me as someone who was interested in society and philosophy. So if more meat can be put on the political system, if only in terms of the ideas presented underlying the ideology, then I think we, either for the good of the collective or the individuals within, ought to do it. I use the collective "we", I have nothing to do with Stardock, obviously.

I'm not going to conclude this with an attack on collectivism. There are plenty of examples of "evil" societies which clearly put the collective above the individual. By your own definitions that the Borg, lacking all individuality are the purest example of "good". Communism, or the version of the Enlightenment criticised by Horkheimer and Adorno could also be said to be examples of good societies. Collectivism, in its dystopian form, is dehumanising. It's reducing people down into units-- pieces of the great machine that can be replaced interchangeably without consequence. It's drones within a hive; it's cogs within a clock. I don't think anyone who would look at those examples of living would term them as a good way of life.

The virtues of collectivism are widely known, so I'm not trying to deny their existence. Simply remind people that there are two sides to every coin. It's a complex issue that hasn't been solved in the last 3,000 years and therefore is unlikely to be solved in the next five minutes. You can't just boil the distinction down to "good" and "evil", we move move beyond "good and evil" if there is to be a sophisticated understanding of morality behind the system presented as a pyramids of unlockable perks.

There is beauty in simplicity. 

From a survival of the species point of view, working against the survival of your species (through individual or colective action) would be "evil". That includes stripping your planet of resources while not caring about the consequences for the future generations. Allowing people with diseases that can be inherited to have children would be "evil" as you allow the gene pool to weaken (I have no kids but by my own definition, I shouldn't be allowed to have them except by adoption). We define what is good and not. We define what is accepted and what is rejected. More usually than not, we just do it in a smaller scale than the best interest for the survival of our species.

Studied in catholic school. Studied some islam, buddhism, hinduism,..  When I die, I'll just banish as a person and my matter will recicle in another stuff. If there happens to be a God and such stuff, I'll worry about that bridge when I have to cross it. Meanwhile I'm happy just helping people around me.

Not sure if nobody, but certainly some don't. Some may enjoy being the "wrong" side, others may think that they are not the "bad guys",... Slavery was legal and natural on ancient Greece, which was considered quite advanced. I don't think that slavery is particulary popular these days in "advanced" countries. If you support abortion, are you evil? And death penalty? Is it evil to eat animals? (but ok to eat plants) I don't think that the guys blowing the twin towers considered themselves evil. Not at all.

I don't believe that indiviual actions are evil per se. Neither collective ones. Nor they are good. From the game point of view, which must(/seems to) be based on extremes, individualism is more "evil" that colectivism. Someone imposing it's point of view over the rest. Not caring about anyone else except his personal goals. But it's obvious that societies themselves can be  not caring (hey, let's take the lands from those natives and put them in camps). As I tend to understand the game's ideology system (which may be totally wrong), is that malevolent societies are composed by power hugry individuals that don't really care about their comrades. They may form a very solid and strict society but they simply don't value other lifes. Benevolent ones do care. It's exaggerated and some kind of mix in the ideology trees would be nice (so you can have "caring" and "uncaring" options in all the trees).

Maybe I misunderstand this (sorry if I do) but I don't say that the Borg are good. The Borg are. Period. Good? Evil? That depends on the point of view. They don't consider themselves "wrong" (otherwise, they would alter their behaviour?), it's outside forces who label them as such. From a current GalCivIII point of view, they don't fit the ideology trees that I can see. Hell, at this point and from my ignorant point of view, not sure how the Yor fit. Even if they don't care for meatbags, they do care abuot their own kind, right?

But the current system does allow you to cherry pick options from all the trees (if you do it right and don't mind not being able to complete them), creating a more realistic model than just "pick one tree and stick to it.

If you haven't yet, go and check out the Founder's Vault and look at the latest PDF about the Ideology Tree - some very interesting game options there depending which philosophical route you take. Would be interested in your thoughts Verenti how your collective-individualism concept might fit into the game mechanics indicated in the PDF.