If anyone's interested in what I say....

[KrataLightblade]

Neither is "start a massive rebellion and murder lots of innocent people because you disagree with the treatment of other innocent people."

 

Obviously, the most important theme of Geneforge seems to be the law of unintended consequences and how you deal with them when they come up. But I detect a hint of "sometimes, being right isn't enough, you have to be powerful, and getting power can mean doing some pretty wrong things." On the whole, Shaper society is built on a foundation of building a better world for HUMANS. That's an incredibly laudable goal. Decry their methods all you want, but they were doing a pretty good job, on the whole, putting together a safe and stable world until some of their own people went crazy or outsiders started meddling.

 

Sure, it would have all fallen apart anyway eventually, but show me a system that won't fall apart eventually and I'll show you a person who's just a tad too idealistic to be realistic.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: KrataLightblade

On the whole, Shaper society is built on a foundation of building a better world for HUMANS. That's an incredibly laudable goal. Decry their methods all you want, but they were doing a pretty good job, on the whole, putting together a safe and stable world until some of their own people went crazy or outsiders started meddling.

Not really. If you look at the way Shapers put down and push around ordinary humans (to say nothing of Clois' proposal that serviles are in fact heavily shaped humans too), I think it's hard to argue the Shapers were trying to build a better world for humans. They were trying to build a better for themselves, plain and simple. It was all about them. Not "incredibly laudable," in my opinion. *Maybe* they were being successful at making a "safe and stable world," but I don't think we see the evidence of it.

[KrataLightblade]

We don't see much evidence of anything outside of isolated areas and/or areas caught up in outright rebellion, though.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Neither is "start a massive rebellion and murder lots of innocent people because you disagree with the treatment of other innocent people."

As you may recall from Geneforge 1 and 2, there was a group called the Awakened. They tried to free themselves from Shaper control in a relatively peaceful way, hoping to coexist with Shaper society as equals. Guess what the Shapers did to them? The Takers come to power and become the rebellion because the Shapers exterminate everyone idealistic enough to think they can actually reason with the Shapers.

Put more generally, the reason that so many in opposition to the Shapers in the latter part of the series are murderous fanatics is because the Shapers killed off everyone who wasn't one. I don't say this to justify various atrocities the rebels commit, but it does go to show the terrible ramifications of Shaper law. In fact, if you want to go far back enough, the very reason there are Takers/rebels in the first place is because the Shapers left an island's worth of sentient creations to die when they barred Sucia.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

In fact, if you want to go far back enough, the very reason there are Takers/rebels in the first place is because the Shapers left an island's worth of sentient creations to die when they barred Sucia.

It's worse than that. Not only did they abandon them, they failed to keep one rogue Shaper from coming back to the Barred island to release poisons that destroyed the land and indirectly led to the discontent that created the Takers. If that hadn't happened, the only factions on Sucia might have been Awakened and Obeyers - no violent insane Shaper-hating serviles would have existed.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Oh God, I forgot that part. I knew the environment on Sucia was gradually degrading, but I forgot that was the cause.

 

In response to one of your previous statements: there are a lot of individual Shapers who seem to want to make things better for outsiders, and in general sympathy for non-Shaper humans is one of the more acceptable forms of dissent among Shapers. Still, Shaper law as a whole isn't terribly nice to outsiders.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: KrataLightblade

We don't see much evidence of anything outside of isolated areas and/or areas caught up in outright rebellion, though.

There are plenty of hints in G4 and G5 that the Shapers came to rule the entire continent by conquering at least some of the human cultures that were already there. Violently forcing your way of life onto other people isn't the sign of a safe or stable society.

Quote:

On the whole, Shaper society is built on a foundation of building a better world for HUMANS. That's an incredibly laudable goal.

No, no it isn't. It was a laudable goal when there were only humans around, but that changed once other sapient beings came into the picture. Now the Shapers have to build a better world for the serviles and drayks too.

Of course, the rebels aren't much better at it than the Shapers are. Fortunately, there are other options in every game but G3. Which may be one of the reasons Dikiyoba never got the game.

[Randomizer]

Shaper society wants a better society for Shapers. Humans are the intermediaries below the Shapers that do the work of running things for Shapers.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Shaper society wants a better society for Shapers. Humans are the intermediaries below the Shapers that do the work of running things for Shapers.

Shapers are humans too, you know. Have you ever seen a Shaper fyora? Or pyroroamer? Other than that, I agree with you. Shapers (for the most part) only want to help themselves. If it means helping others to achieve that goal, then they will do so. If it means sending hordes of monsters to kill everything that opposes them, then they'll do that instead.

[SpaceCadetHX]

The way I see it, Shapers have the power and/or knowledge to create things where there was nothing before. It doesn't really matter what they want that creation to do, from battle to common tasks. There is no reason creations should be independent just because they can develop the same knowledge to make thier own creations and use magic.

 

That said, Shapers are in the right to destroy any creations that do not obey the law or could be dangerous if left alone.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

That just...wow. To invoke an analogy that gets a lot of play in the games: should a parent have the right to kill or enslave their adult offspring on a whim?

 

@Tirien: I haven't seen a Shaper fyora, but I bet it would be adorable. I'm half-inclined to mess around with character graphics in order to make one now.

[Triumph]

A big problem with your argument that about Shapers' rights over their creatures is that there is a strong case Shapers didn't create serviles (e.g. Clois' argument that serviles are in fact shaped humans).

[KrataLightblade]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Violently forcing your way of life onto other people isn't the sign of a safe or stable society.

I don't know, Rome lasted quite some time as a relatively safe and stable society. Yes, it eventually fell apart, but as I mentioned above, there really isn't any way to make a case that ANY society will last forever.

Quote:

No, no it isn't. It was a laudable goal when there were only humans around, but that changed once other sapient beings came into the picture. Now the Shapers have to build a better world for the serviles and drayks too.

Have to? Why? Because they demand it? Nevermind that they're a direct threat to the society the Shapers already built.

Once again, I'm not trying to claim the Shapers were necessarily right, just that there's a very strong case to be made that they aren't the black hats of this particular setting. Their actions may not necessarily be commendable, but they are perfectly understandable, and in many cases, exactly what any other group that had gone to great lengths to gather and maintain a stable power base would take.

The Awakened might have been "right" in some ways, but what they were not was practical, at least, after Geneforge 1. Certainly, the Barrier of the Winds was a good idea, except that they were relying on power they had no way of effectively controlling if any one of several points of failure fell apart. In other words, they were playing with the Shapers toys in an extremely dangerous way and proved exactly why the Shapers so tightly control their power. Being led by a man so augmented as to be an utter sociopath did not help.

Were the Shapers right to act as they did? In many ways, probably not. But in equally many ways, they acted as anyone would. To protect themselves and their way of life. Were there better ways it could have been handled? Absolutely. But understanding the core reasons they acted the way they did, and admitting that they did have strong reasons for many of their laws, even some of the morally reprehensible ones, is much like admitting that Rome had a lot of good points even if they built their empire on the backs of slaves and with oceans of blood.

[SpaceCadetHX]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

That just...wow. To invoke an analogy that gets a lot of play in the games: should a parent have the right to kill or enslave their adult offspring on a whim?

I would say there is a huge difference in a shaper killing his child who was born biologically and a creation what was made through magical means. I don't see how or why the creation should be equal to a real child.

[Triumph]

Creations that are *just* animals deserve the same treatment as any ordinary dog or horse or capybara. That excludes boundless cruelty, but does mean something different than what people deserve. This is things like fyoras. But the serviles and drayks seem to me to be people, albeit not normal humans, and deserving of different treatment than animal-like treatment the Shapers bestow.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Why? A drayk has the same capacity to think, feel, and suffer that a human produced from biological birth does.

 

Also, what about drayks and serviles who are born, rather than created? Neither species is sterile. Even if we assume (though God alone knows why we would) that a Shaper should be allowed absolute control over a servile s/he Shapes, does this apply to that servile's son, grandson and so on ad infinitum?

[SpaceCadetHX]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

Why? A drayk has the same capacity to think, feel, and suffer that a human produced from biological birth does.

Also, what about drayks and serviles who are born, rather than created? Neither species is sterile. Even if we assume (though God alone knows why we would) that a Shaper should be allowed absolute control over a servile s/he Shapes, does this apply to that servile's son, grandson and so on ad infinitum?

I would say that the problem with creations making new creations by using magic or biology falls under the "dangerous" category. Those creations were not made to breed, they were made for whatever task needed to get done.

Yes, a Shaper should have absolute control over whatever he creates and maintains. If creations go rogue, escape or do something they were not intended to do, it should be dealt with before the creation/s can become dangerous and harmful to everyone else.

[SpaceCadetHX]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Creations that are *just* animals deserve the same treatment as any ordinary dog or horse or capybara. That excludes boundless cruelty, but does mean something different than what people deserve. This is things like fyoras. But the serviles and drayks seem to me to be people, albeit not normal humans, and deserving of different treatment than animal-like treatment the Shapers bestow.

I disagree, how do you judge what creations to be deserving of fair treatment? Should we not use a living tool on a door because we could possibly be offending it and causing it pain and hardship? Perhaps that Living Tool wanted to be used on a golem instead? Where do you draw the line with creations?

In my opinion, creations are just that, creations. Doesn't matter if it is a servile with intelligence or a clip of Thorns for a Baton. Creations were made to do the bidding of the Shapers who made them.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX

I disagree, how do you judge what creations to be deserving of fair treatment?

Tell us how do you judge what creations are deserving of fair treatment. Oh wait, you already told us. None.

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX

Creations were made to do the bidding of the Shapers who made them.

If a creation was born naturally, then a Shaper did not create it. Should it be killed simply becuase it had parents and the fact that the Shapers cant control its every action, simply due to the fact that it might be dangerous? Im sure the Awakened were comforted to know that when they were killed off, despite being peaceful.

[SpaceCadetHX]

Quote:

If a creation was born naturally, then a Shaper did not create it. Should it be killed simply becuase it had parents and the fact that the Shapers cant control its every action, simply due to the fact that it might be dangerous? Im sure the Awakened were comforted to know that when they were killed off, despite being peaceful.

That is exactly right, if you allow a simple act like that to go unpunished and uncorrected then you invite worse and worse acts from your creations.

I can not see any reason why a Shaper should do anything but command his own creation. They are not his children so I don't understand that comparison either. I don't view my Plated Clawbugs as my 2 sons.

Lastly, I wouldn't classify the Awakened as "peaceful". The Barrier of the Winds was meant for war.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Niiiice. A Taygen supporter, I take it?

 

On the subject of the Barrier of Winds: it was meant for defensive war. The Awakened realized that the Shapers were going to try to kill them (like they, y'know, ended up doing), and so they worked on defenses. If you can't at least discern a difference between offensive war and self-defense, I don't see much point in discussing ethics with you.

[Dikiyoba]

KrataLightblade: I suspect we're mostly arguing over semantics rather than actually disagreeing here.

 

Quote:

Have to? Why? Because they demand it? Nevermind that they're a direct threat to the society the Shapers already built.

A, because intelligent serviles and drayks are fundamentally no different from humans and therefore deserve the same rights. B, because if they don't, the serviles and drayks are going to resort to violence and rebellion because that's the only hope of survival they have.

 

The Shaper society may be decent, but it could be a lot better. The damning thing is that they refuse to improve, or even admit that they could use improvement. There's nothing good about a society that makes the same mistakes and enforces the same injustices over and over again without learning how to correct them. The rebels, for all their faults, have at least not been shown to be completely stuck in their ways.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX

Quote:

If a creation was born naturally, then a Shaper did not create it. Should it be killed simply becuase it had parents and the fact that the Shapers cant control its every action, simply due to the fact that it might be dangerous? Im sure the Awakened were comforted to know that when they were killed off, despite being peaceful.

That is exactly right, if you allow a simple act like that to go unpunished and uncorrected then you invite worse and worse acts from your creations.

You dont seem to understand my post. The Awakened were never a threat, but were still destroyed simply becuase they were not under shaper control.

So basically since you might be dangerous and we cant control you, then you must be punished? That is basically what your saying. If you cant control something then it must be destroyed. Which reminds me, do you support genocide and slavery? Becuase your posts certainly make it seem like you do.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Hence my reference to supporting Taygen. TV Tropes* sums it up nicely "A Nazi By Any Other Name: Taygen in the fifth game, down to the concentration camps and plan to annihilate all creations."

 

*(will ruin your life)

 

It bears noting, however, that it is often difficult to deduce a person's moral beliefs about real life based on their beliefs about fiction. If an interlocutor of mine were to express views that I consider analogous to SpaceCadet's about the real world, I would find that seriously troubling. But it's difficult to say what qualifies as really analogous between the two settings, since fantasy by definition brings up situations that haven't occurred in real life.

 

Mauve deer: I'm not willing to assume that someone would agree with a real Nazi By Any Other Name on the sole basis that they agree with a fictional one.

[SpaceCadetHX]

Of course I do not support slavery or genocide in real life. At no point in my discussion was I referring to anything but this game world. I don't think you should compare the issues because, as you can see, they can be very different given when seen from another point of view.

 

I compare creations directly to tools. We create Hammers and Nails for a specific purpose. The Shapers do the exact same thing but in a different form (magical). Just because that creation can think and feel doesn't mean it is still not just a tool for a specific purpose.

 

You said the Awakened were not a threat to the Shapers. I don't see it that way. By definition, the Awakened are exactly what the Shapers do not want to happen under any situation regarding creations. How can that not be a threat to the Shapers as a whole?

[Dantius]

What? I leave for a week and we've already got a debate on Geneforge morality? Was I shot two years back in time perchance?

 

In all fairness, there's no reason that the shapers are obligated to make life better for the Serviles or Drayks. Those two species would provide competition for resources and space, so it's only natural (from an evolutionary point of view) that the Shapers would want to compete (read: eliminate) them in order to get those resources for their species.

 

Granted, the Shapers do treat humans pretty poorly, but human leaders in our world treated their subjects pretty poorly for about 99% of all human history. I'd image that the Pope in the Middle Ages would have about as much incentive to make life better for the people under him using his vast wealth as the Shapers would have for improving life with magical powers, but at least the Shapers try to do so.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

What? I leave for a week and we've already got a debate on Geneforge morality? Was I shot two years back in time perchance?

I never even noticed you were gone. Guess this explains why the forums have been somewhat quiet of late.

[Tracer Bullet]

The Awakened are a threat the way Trotsky was a threat. Not through violence.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Sage of Numenor

The Awakened are a threat the way Trotsky was a threat. Not through violence.

Last time I checked, which was yesterday actually, Leon Trotsky was a brilliant military genius who managed to carry the poorly manned and supplied Red Army to victory against the White Russians with little to no combat or command experience.

Well, he was a military genius, at least until Uncle Joe decided to have his skull ventilated with an ice pick, but ah well, can't win all the battles you fight.

[Tracer Bullet]

Aye, but HE HIMSELF was not a terribly great swordsman.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

In re evolutionary competition and medieval rulers: we're really setting the bar high for morality here, eh?

 

I'm not even all that sure it's to the Shapers' advantage to treat creations and outsider humans like crap. The plot of the Geneforge series, after all, is basically about a huge war that started in large part because Shapers treat creations and outside humans like crap.

 

Certainly Shaper law exists for a reason. My point has been that the ends it seeks to accomplish are basically immoral; selfish and power-hungry at best, outright genocidal at worst. The fact (which I can hardly dispute) that many governments throughout history have also been bad doesn't mean that the Shapers aren't bad, merely that they are so in a recognizable and (depressingly) ordinary way. As for trying to make life better for outsider humans, I don't think the Shapers do this substantially more than most human governments have. I'm not convinced that the Shapers are better rulers than, say, the average Roman emperor or Abbasid caliph.

[Shaper Shaper]

"Rebel morality" is an oxymoron.

[Tracer Bullet]

As is "Shaper Morality"

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Andras1444

"Rebel morality" is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted By: Sage of Numenor

As is "Shaper Morality"

Go Trakovite, were the only moral ones here it seems.

[Tracer Bullet]

Nah, Awakened. They had WMDs, admittedly, (drakons) but only in self-defense.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Astoria has merit as well. Then again, I may be parroting what Sage said, since her faction has so much in common with the Awakened.

 

On a related note, I find it an entertaining (and realistic) bit of historical garbling that the residents of Penta, who are basically Awakened 2.0, named their town after an Obeyer community in G1.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

On a related note, I find it an entertaining (and realistic) bit of historical garbling that the residents of Penta, who are basically Awakened 2.0, named their town after an Obeyer community in G1.

Although by G2, it appears most of the G1 Obeyers ended up joining the Awakened eventually, so hypothetically that might explain how the name could have later gotten connected to the independence-seeking serviles.

[SpaceCadetHX]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

What? I leave for a week and we've already got a debate on Geneforge morality? Was I shot two years back in time perchance?

In all fairness, there's no reason that the shapers are obligated to make life better for the Serviles or Drayks. Those two species would provide competition for resources and space, so it's only natural (from an evolutionary point of view) that the Shapers would want to compete (read: eliminate) them in order to get those resources for their species.

Granted, the Shapers do treat humans pretty poorly, but human leaders in our world treated their subjects pretty poorly for about 99% of all human history. I'd image that the Pope in the Middle Ages would have about as much incentive to make life better for the people under him using his vast wealth as the Shapers would have for improving life with magical powers, but at least the Shapers try to do so.

Actually, I regret even posting my opinions on the matter. I didn't realize anyone would tie what was said about this game universe to real life concerns and problems. I didn't see them as related but I guess they can for some people.

I had discussions like this before in the Dungeons and Dragons universe and it never took a real life perspective.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted By: FnordCola

On a related note, I find it an entertaining (and realistic) bit of historical garbling that the residents of Penta, who are basically Awakened 2.0, named their town after an Obeyer community in G1.

What of Kaz? In fact, the one that got left out was Vakkiri. How odd.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX

I compare creations directly to tools. We create Hammers and Nails for a specific purpose. The Shapers do the exact same thing but in a different form (magical). Just because that creation can think and feel doesn't mean it is still not just a tool for a specific purpose.

actually one can make a pretty reasonable argument that's exactly what it means

you may for example be familiar with the views of one Manny Kant, one of the most important moral philosophers in history, who argued that all rational beings have a moral obligation to treat each other as ends in themselves, and never merely as means to an end

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX

I compare creations directly to tools. We create Hammers and Nails for a specific purpose. The Shapers do the exact same thing but in a different form (magical). Just because that creation can think and feel doesn't mean it is still not just a tool for a specific purpose.

actually one can make a pretty reasonable argument that's exactly what it means

you may for example be familiar with the views of one Manny Kant, one of the most important moral philosophers in history, who argued that all rational beings have a moral obligation to treat each other as ends in themselves, and never merely as means to an end

I prefer Fried Willy to Manny Kant, actually.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

To elaborate on this: while Kant is perhaps the prime example, the idea of reciprocal moral obligation between rational beings pervades most of western moral philosophy. It goes at least as far back as Plato, and is visible in the ethical work of most of his successors. Plato himself is especially notable for holding even the gods up to these same moral standards. It's also visible in various Biblical sources, e.g. Matthew 25:40 "whatever you have done for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Islam in the Qur'an and hadith explicitly bases its ethical and juridical rules on the idea that they convey the most benefit to thinking humans.

 

The idea of sentient beings as tools and nothing more flies in the face of most of the major western philosophical and religious movements of the last 3000 years. This doesn't make it wrong, but I certainly disagree with the notion. Of course, as we've seen, it's also a fairly difficult topic to argue, because for many people it's a matter of arguing axioms. For many people, the idea that promoting the welfare of other sentient beings is an end in itself is the foundation, rather than a consequence, of their moral beliefs.

 

Also, "Manny Kant?" I like it.

[Goldengirl]

Freddy Nietzsche has some things to say about all of these moralities, that, I think, the Shapers would probably find more preferable to Manny Kant. According to Freddy, morality as we know it is an invention of the "slave" class, the underclass, whatever you want to call them, for the purpose of constraining the "master" class.

 

Freddy says that the Rebels' and Serviles' morality is actually just a justification for forcing the Shapers to do what they want them to do. The truth of the matter, though, is that this Rebel morality is only a ploy used by those weaker in the social order to try and command control over the hegemons of the society. They do this to justify a rebellion against the Shapers that, at its heart, is actually about desires for power and freedom, not morality at all.

 

Beings can surely be means to an end, insofar as one is able to control them successfully to create positive outcomes. For most of the time in Shaper history, this is done well, and it is entirely conceivable that this trend could have continued inevitably, were it not for a few fatal mistakes.

 

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[Slawbug]

The problem with the Zarargument is that for most of human history, the people dispensing morality have been in control of society. There are counterexamples, such as (very) early Christianity, but they are relatively limited.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

The problem with the Zarargument is that for most of human history, the people dispensing morality have been in control of society. There are counterexamples, such as (very) early Christianity, but they are relatively limited.

I completely agree with this when taking into account the real world view of philosophy. I believe, however, the same cannot be said of Terrestia. Well, it can, but the Shapers hold true to more of a master morality than a slave morality, so the point still stands.

Ultimately, though, Terrestia could do with a good dose of amorality.

[Txgangsta]

Philosophically, morals are controlled by whatever the individual deems to be god. To a loyalist, god is the shaper council. Their morals are to be submissive to anyone above you in this hierarchy and wisdom and temperament are highly valued. Those like Barzahl/Ghaldring set themselves as their god, and they value power and authority. Geneforge does fine with the morals built in the game.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Txgangsta

Philosophically, morals are controlled by whatever the individual deems to be god.

Right... so those of us who are atheist have no morals? I really hope thats not what you meant.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Tirien

Originally Posted By: Txgangsta

Philosophically, morals are controlled by whatever the individual deems to be god.

Right... so those of us who are atheist have no morals? I really hope thats not what you meant.

That is not at all what was meant. What was meant that we derive our morals from those whom we follow, or those in whom we place our loyalty, etc. For the vast majority of Terrestia, besides perhaps the cultists, the "god" that was referenced is of the tangible world.

[Txgangsta]

Goldenking got my point. I used a lowercase "g" to designate something other than a supernatural deity. Uppercase "g", and I'm generally talking about the God of Abraham.

[Slawbug]

Uhh... there are lots of "supernatural deities" to talk about besides the God of Abraham, and the convention in many languages calls for nothing special for them, just lowercase "god."