Slawbug

The endings aren't "canon" in the sense that they are not what happens as the series proceeds.  They are still the canonical outcome for what would happen if G2 ended with the PC supporting a given sect.  That changes the world compared to the "canonical" ending the series moves forward with, so it's not actually a given that the Ashen Isles would fall, for example.

...buuuuut if they did, do you really think the Shapers would be unwilling to prioritize dealing with the Rebels over the Barriered-up Awakened?

2 hours ago, Val Ritz said:

Steering away from litigating the definition of genocide, if we take Shaper policy and Shaper law at its word, there is no such thing as a neutral Shaper. Every Shaper is expected and required to do whatever is necessary to eradicate rogue creations--whether that means feral fyora or intelligent serviles. Someone like Sharon, who just wants to live in peace without contributing to Shaper hegemony, is breaking the law by retiring. Once you learn the Shaping arts, you're in until you die. If you asked the Council, Khyryk's attitude constitutes possibly criminal negligence.

Yes, and yet, Sharon and Khyryk exist.  Why the heck would the Takers, of all people, privilege Shaper policy over the actions of an individual?  They're willing to make an exception for defectors; there's no reason why they couldn't make the same exception for those who reject the Shaper laws, but simply don't want to be part of any war effort.  That's a choice, and there's no practical reason to make it; it's made on purely ideological grounds.

I brought up the concept of "neutral shaper" and I wasn't referring to Shaper policy or law for the definition.  I'm not sure what this conversation gains (either in clarity or otherwise) by trying to use strict Shaper-policy-language for everything.  Relabel my "neutral shaper" as "neutral ex-shaper" if that works better for you.  The argument remains the same.  The Takers kill even neutral ex-shapers.

They aren't willing to leave neutral Shapers alive, though.  Even sympathetic Shapers who stop short of actually joining the Rebellion -- see, yet again, Khyryk!  They're just making exceptions to genocide when it's convenient for them.  That's something else that's happened in historical real-world genocides.

It's been two decades, but as I'm reading the guide, looks like the recipe is

Blood Poison + Deep Focus Orb + Perfected Belt = Creator Belt

A
                + Purified item = artifact
B

A + B + Purified item = artifact

Does that do it?

9 hours ago, earanhart said:

But as to the excuse of genocide? If it's truly you or me, your children or my children, morality doesn't play in. That's not even grey, it's not on the white/black spectrum. And I don't see any evidence of the Takers as a group thinking the outcome of the existence of independent Creations being anything other than the binary survival of one group or the other. And even their leaders aren't totally on the "kill all Awakened" board.

I agree that iff it's truly you or me, there's no moral third way.  But this justification hinges on whether it is that way in reality.  I vehemently disagree that feeling that way is justification for genocide.

And it's not truly that way -- the Awakened ending proves that.  The Shapers don't stop attacking, but this is no surprise.  Nobody is under the delusion that the Shapers can easily be dissuaded, not after the burning of Sucia.  The Awakened concept isn't "we don't need to use force with the Shapers."  It's "we don't need to kill people just because their leaders are attacking us, if they themselves are not."  And the result is that, after a little while, the Shapers put in only a token war effort.  It's not clear that there are any meaningful casualties for the Awakened at all.  This so-called "moral" approach is also a pragmatic one, because the Awakened are actually willing to take Shaper psychology into account, and that pays off.

The problem with justifying genocide based on the feeling that "it's us or them" -- this has been the fatuous justification for plenty of real-world genocides.  (And we could use a different verb tense there, too, but let's stay away from that topic with a ten foot pole plz.)  Historical hostility is a justification for use of force, and there are times that means going on the offense.  But there's big gap between "going on the offense" and "every X must die."

To jump ahead in the series: the justification you've presented here for Taker genocide would also apply to Taygen's genocide, wouldn't it?

1 hour ago, earanhart said:

Let's spin your stance back into my earlier question then:

 

Can a moderate make a claim to moral goodness when genocide is on the line?

I think the problem here is calling the Awakened "moderate" in the first place.

They are "moderate" in the sense that they aren't ideologically inclined to genocide, but that's a truly weird term to use for that.  It is absolutely clear that they are willing to fight and kill when necessary.  Look at Pinner's reasoning behind the Spy Drayk quest, as an easy example.  Culturally, they're as radical as anyone else with the changes they are basically forcing on existing society.  They might be the closest thing Geneforge has to Professor X, but they're also the closest thing Geneforge has to Magneto (who was right).

What exactly about any of the other factions looks better via the genocide lens?

Seems plausible, would love an additional connection:

In Triola (G2) we have

John Maynard Keynes (economist)

JS Mill (philosopher, relevant to economics)

Henri Wald (much less famous, but also a philosopher)

Zyx (literary magazine) per randomizer, this was a backer-suggested name

Suspicious - any thoughts?:

Barzahl means roughly "cash payment" in German - this feels far too appropriate

Shanti means "inner peace" in Sanskrit

Zakary means "remembering/remembered by god" in various languages

New names in G2I -

Kieron Stoff is listed as a backer

Gardner Dozois - I think this is new in G2I? - SF writer, not connected to anything else but plenty of SF writers elsewhere in the series

Ultra-modern spittoon.

5 minutes ago, alhoon said:

 

I will see how the new finale plays out, but an eternal stalemate (even if it is that) is not victory.

Is a war with no end in sight victory?  Because that's what the Takers and Barzites get.

Every Awakened leader we've seen has been willing to compromise their ideals when necessary, and "no shaping" isn't even a core Awakened ideal.  But more relevantly than that, the Awakened in their ending aren't just "Medab," they have all of Drypeak; and similarly the Awakened even during the game aren't just the serviles.  Carnelian and Raeche and Charye are part of the Awakened, not just Tuldaric; and given how little fuss is made over those other three, it's hard to imagine they are the only such people.  Like any RPG, one imagines people exist in the world who don't show up in the game.  They aren't without Shaping.  It's just not super widespread for them.  It's not super widespread for the Takers, either.

The Awakened end up with the full benefit of Barzahl's work greening up the valley.  He obviously got it working better in the Rising area, and the whole map ends up Awakened territory in their ending.

2 hours ago, Val Ritz said:

But in G2 we start to see some systemic problems that are hampering their capabilities as a serious movement. For one thing, by committing themselves to never learning to Shape, they rely entirely on defectors for their research.

This isn't fully true -- in their ending, they raid Rising, going on the offensive to absorb the research and resources of the Barzites.  It's not clear to me that this is any less effective a setup than what the Takers have, particularly given Akkat as an example of problems with their approach (which they have to turn to a Shaper to resolve).  The Barzites presumably have a few more actual Shapers, but most of the "Shapers" we see are just canistered-up commons.

They are not too good for that.  Read their ending.  They do just as well as the Rebels eventually do, and create a less miserable existence for their own members.

The Awakened aren't perfect.  Is that disqualifying to "being the good guys"?  It's the good guys, not the perfect guys, surely... is "good" really supposed to be a binary quality?  There's no shades of good?

The Awakened do some things that aren't good, by any standards, but it's kind of ridiculous to hand-wave their intentions, their actions, or the outcome of their actions and say "yup no difference from the other factions."  Their ending is less destructive than the others, full stop.

Ending 1 is the "didn't finish" ending.  I believe every full ending (i.e., 2 through 6) counts as good for achievements.  Endings 3 through 6 have their own unique achievement as well, but ending 2 does not.

I believe these are all possible for a pacifist run.  Endings 5 and 6 are probably simplest for them, but they are all doable.

Syros was pretty rational in G1 too.  As was Gnorrel.  As will be Greta, and as, even, will be Ghaldring.  The Takers/Rebels do seem to include a lot of mob-violence types but rarely in leadership positions, which I guess speaks to relatively good management on the part of the Syros-types.  (Witness recruiting you to deal with Akkat in G2.)

2 hours ago, alhoon said:

And I cheat-saw Rotdhizons and they are absolute beasts in battle. I mean, they can get a passive 30% resistance + an active 40% resistance.... that is nuts. That works out as 52% resistance to all, effectively doubling their already high hp.

Rotdhizons are crazy expensive compared to Rotghroths, have lower damage potential, and while the resistances are neat and do make them tanky -- you have to pay extra essence for those as well.  (Also, the active 40% resistance is only to physical and acid, not everything.)

I like playing solo Guardians, but it's not what they were designed to do.  Their 2nd best skill set is shaping!  You can play them solo, and it's fun, they are balanced around having reasonable shaping skill, and not solo play.

The enchanted anvils, just like with the other artifacts.

Update: based on testing, 10 canisters are required to get the ending changes due to canister use.  Alteration still has no effect.

1 hour ago, xensaya said:

If your talking about npcs' then it shouldn't really change them. I did this on the older games when I was editing the script. As long as your only changing the base template stats, it only affects you character.

What you are saying here is specifically wrong.  The PC definition's stats are 100% imported as-is by some other character definitions.  I believe this was true in every previous Geneforge as well.

You can mod in to-hit bonus, but it's universal to-hit bonus.  It applies to everything, not just attacks that use that weapon.  So this is really only a good idea if you're the sort of player who thinks having hit chance even exist in the first place is dumb.

He's said he prefers emails.  If you want to be thoughtful and not "fill up his inbox" you might consider making a list of things like typos and sending them in large batches rather than one at a time.  Either way, posting in two forums simultaneously is probably not going to help him, as it just becomes more to sort through.

This is getting pretty off-topic for the atlas so if this needs to be discussed further, feel free to PM or start a new topic.

Also, just to reiterate for everyone's sake, emailing support@spiderwebsoftware.com is still the most effective way to bring bugs to Jeff's attention.  He's said this a lot.

1 hour ago, mikeprichard said:

Since it's potential late-game equipment, I thought it might be worthwhile to note: it looks like the Slayer's Chestguard (per comparing weapon/spell tooltips when it's equipped/unequipped) may actually boost melee/magic damage by 20%, not 10% - unless the weapon/spell tooltips are the ones that are bugged. I did report on the Steam forum, which Jeff is checking frequently due to the recent release/in preparation for v1.0.2.

EDIT: OK, it seems only melee weapon tooltips show a 20% increase; spells show only 10%. Either way, something's probably off here.

I don't think this is an error.  I think this is multiplication with stat-based bonuses.  What was the base melee % and what was it with the chestguard equipped?

In both games, when it is in your pack, Dante's Guile reduces the mechanics requirement of certain interactable items by 1.  In G2I, this is limited to generic power spirals and spore boxes, and only if their base difficulty is 6 or higher.  I think the list was the same in Mutagen but don't have it in front of me.

It literally reduces the requirement, rather than increasing your effective skill, which is one of the reasons a number of the mechanics requirements listed in the atlases are off by 1.