Brainless Void

Especially in the Geneforge Series. Shapers in general (shapers, guardians, agents) should be intelligent as a primary requirement, before being accepted in an academy or school of shaping. Remember the in the start of G3, all students have to endure very hard academy work, learning, studying, memorizing all about the shaping arts. Surely no intellectually challenged people can be accepted at school. So, a very low intelligence stat feels and looks weird for someone who should be at the intellectual top of the society. Maybe it can work, if we look at it relatively where 1 Int stat is generally considered as very high compared to the intelligence of the average citizen. But it still looks weird to me.

In the game, Int really just functions as a stat that increases you essence and spell energy, so it feels even weirder. Maybe just replace it with a different name for possible remakes? What could be possible replacements? Its really weird isn't it, or maybe its just me. 

IIRC, it says Sucia is near Dillame, which places it off the east coast.

The Drypeak area (from G2) is actually on the G5 map, I believe, in the lower right, which places it south center on the main continent.

Is the g2 map really within the g5 map and cant be seen because of how it scales with the g5 map? Or is it just east of Gazaki-uss and cant be seen in the g5 map?

And there's a giant lake between the g4 and g5 maps?

And is it stated in the begining of g4 where greta, the pc and the party came from by boat? The 1st area is in the southeastern most tip of the map right?

Yes thank you alhoon. I think this connects g4 ane g5. Got any ideas where the maps of g1-g3 get into this? IIRC I saw a thread connecting the mountains of Gazaki-uss to that of the taker lands in g2. Dunno if thats correct tho.

And where do the sholai lands fit into all these?

Has someone already tried to piece together the 5 gf maps? If there is already a thread for this could someone kindly link? Or if there is none maybe we can try to put the big puzzle together

 

 

Ohh, well if you can just rephrase the question then that sort of makes the entire discussion a moot point.

 

I mean, I can say "would you like me to give you a million dollars and be held to that with this legally binding contract here?"

 

But then I can subtly change it (rephrase, if you will) so that it becomes "Would you like to give me a million dollars and be held to that with this legally binding document here?"

 

Sure, the whole thing is totally different but if you've already come along and said yes and then I changed the wording, even slightly, because I didn't like the original result then I can hardly blame you for being a bit disappointed.

Thats why I put an apology there for not being very specific in stating the question. And I assure you that it wont be changed anymore because what I said when I rephrased it is what exactly Im thinking to begin with.

 

 

D'oh, I was just thinking of numbers.

 

But to answer the question whether there's anything at all, be it abstract or real, that can't be used for evil, I'd have to with Alorael.

 

Hmm. Well, philosophical discussion in excess? It propably couldn't be used for evil? When a philosophical discussion is taken to an excess, all we reach is a nihilistic point where we can be certain only of the fact that the subject itself who thinks, exists. Cogito ergo sum. But everything else outside the said subject is not quaranteed to exist. Therefore only the subject is the only one that exists for sure, and the only ethics that apply are those invented by the subject; which means that there can be no evil or bad so long as the subject doesn't perform any such deeds.

 

Therefore, philosophical discussion in itself can not result in bad or evil; the humaine component is responsible for the evil, should (s)he choose to do so.

I will just mention one of the many possible bad effect of excessive philosophical discussion. It will consume massive amounts of time tn the point the participants neglect to do other things.

I also think that the name Vlish dont fit it nicely. I think it should be called Squiggles or something...

Is there anything that can never be bad in any quantity? I'm drawing a blank. I can always concoct a scenario in which a given amount of anything is pretty much catastrophic. So... I guess the answer to your question is no, but it seems like a rather meaningless question.

 

—Alorael, who could go deep into abstractions to answer this. An infinite amount of zero is at least no more likely to be bad than no zero at all, and for the same reason. Goodness as a quality definitionally only gives you more good as it increases.

I posted this topic here because I had this heated argument with my friends 2 days ago about this. Im on the side of disproving the statement so I had to come up with something but like you, Im also drawing a blank so I came and posted here, maybe to find so fresh ideas.

As for goodness, I think that goodness in anything can be abused so thats negative.

"0% chance to affect anything in any negative way" is a pretty stringent standard for anything. Under that definition, you might well prove not just that excess is always 'bad,' but in fact that any quanity (zero or nonzero!) is always 'bad.'

AFAIK there is no statement that says just the right amount is always good, so there is no point discussing things not in the excess.

If we are to prove that something is right, then there must not exist any exemption, and any small chance is an exemption. So I think that it is still a good definition.

Im sorry if the question in the first post maybe too vague. It could be rephrased more accurately as: Is there anything, be it matter, energy or abstract, that can be increased infinitely and still has 0% chance to affect anything in any negative way?

If there is something that could qualify this then it can be debunk the saying that anything in excess is bad. Otherwise, the statement remains true.

Edit

I forgot to state that it must be in excess too. There are some things that you can increase infinitely but still not be in excess (like numbers).

The pork dish that I've discribed above is not considered weird in my country. Some weird (for me) food here include fried frogs, stir fried worms, and fried 1-day old chicks(hatched chicken egg). Sadly the only one that I have tried is the day old chick.

Also i remember saying most cases here. Lots of stuff are bad in excess. But some are only bad if the being that has them is bad. In their own they are just a tool. I can use a spoon to it i can eat a spoon to rob a bank. The spoon isnt bad(although excess spoons are to be avoided) the spoon is just a means to an end. The end is dictated by an array of things including your personality, upbringing, creativity, morals etc... for instance the glofish. Using our knowledge of genetics we created this perfectly useless being. Not a good or bad thing in terms of well mostly usefullness. But they are neat. With genetics we also created some usefull stuff like production of insulin using microbes. Using genetics we also have the bad sides such as proponents of eugenics. The knowledge of genetics didnt create any of those. We did.

Also see zaego. Give computer excess storage space and excess information. The computer will do nothing with it. It lacks a conscience.

Well humans are the ones responsible for the creation of the concept of good or bad, so I think anything that we label as good or bad is valid.

I feel like this is tautological; excess strongly implies (or denotes, but I don't want to double check the dictionary) too much of something, something to the point that it's bad.

 

In general, there are diminishing marginal returns. I would like to drink a latte. If I drank another latte, I'd probably still enjoy it. If you made me drink twenty lattes, whew, I'd be suffering. This is simply considered a law in economics.

I have to disagree that this is simply just a problem in economics because of the fact that not everything excessive is quantifiable and can be measured with numbers.

I'm so sure that in most cases here its not the excess of the thing that is bad. Just the humans that hold the thing in excess can be bad. In which case is as i said above. A bad person will still be bad if they're broke and dumb and starving and busy and stand alone etc... Its human. A computer with excess knowledge or the internet for that matter can't be evil. Its only people that can.

Also i really second almost everything blxz has said.

Well some things can be bad too without humans in the picture. Take a volcano for example. Imagine it erupted so excessively strong it wiped out everything off the face of this planet. Well thats bad right?

My favorite dish is called Sisig from where Im from. Its a pork dish using parts from the cheeks and ears, some fat and liver. Sometimes brains are put in it. Lots of onions. Some hot chillies. Everything diced and cooked on a sizzling plate. Perfect with a bottle of cold beer.

I forgot to mention that all pig parts are cooked over fire first.

Yes I totally agree that excess money can also be good, but can also be really bad. Thus, money can also fit the definition of anything in excess is bad.

Well if there is a chance that it will be bad in excess, no matter how small the chance is, then it is still bad.

Well what I mean of excessive here is that a little excess and an excess in unrealistic amounts mean the same. I think that all your examples will be bad in unrealistic excessive amounts.

Excess food crop production.

 

Excess money after a purchase.

 

Excess time after running errands.

 

Excess space in your backpack.

 

Excess delegates in the presidential nomination.

 

Excess letters after making your favourite swear word out of magnetic letters on the fridge.

 

Excess payment given as a tip.

 

Excess examples of times when excess was not really all that excessive but was pretty much done just for the fun of saying excess an excessive number of times.

 

Excessively using words in that last sentence. Or alternatively, using words in that last sentence to excess.

Well I think everything excess that you mentioned is either a waste of resources and/or energy and/or be used for evil purposes.

Well, we work to get what we need and want in life. I think if we are excessively happy it means we have more than what we want and need. Then we might think why go to work?

Well, if it's good, surely it's not in excess?

How about being an excessively good person? It is good, but it is bad at the same time because others may abuse your goodness.

I wonder if there is something that you can increase infinitely, be absurdly in excess, but is still good.

Exercise? And I second Owenrus. (Sadly I have liked too many posts so I couldn't like any more posts in this thread. It makes a bit sad.)

 

Oh and happiness! Smiling!

Too much exercise can injure you. Happiness and smiling? Hmm, I think there are certain times when smiling will be an inappropriate reaction, so too much smiling will get you there.

As for happiness, you can get to the point when you are too happy so you already neglect your problems or maybe even your job. I think that would be a mental problem too.

Knowledge is knowledge. Power is power. They can be used for good or for evil. But the quantities don't matter. A little knowledge can be used for evil too. On it's own Knowledge isnt bad in excess.

Thats exactly the point. It can be used for evil. You are also right in saying little knowledge can be used to do evil. So, we can say that a lot more knowledge can be used to do a lot more evil. Yes knowledge can be used for the good but the possibility that it can be used for bad purposes make it really bad in excess.

Well, too much knowledge can be used to do evil things, so I highly doubt this.

Sometime in the past I have also heard a saying that knowledge is power, and we know that too much power can be used to do evil too.

I often hear the saying anything in excess is bad. Is this true? Lets see if you can think of anything that can be good in excess then lets prove/disprove it here.

Honestly, vlishes creep me out. And then I come here and see people suggest you make seven of them in G3.

But maybe they would taste great barbecued.

Would replacing the vlish graphic help?

I dont see Jeff retiring anytime soon. Just think how hard it is physically to use a computer. Even my grandma uses one and she's 73. So we can expect more or less 20 years more game making from Jeff. Lets just hope he doesnt forget vitamins and exercise.