Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS)

[Lowbacca]

Wow. Ok. Hows about, you 2 girls stop arguing? kay? Holy Crap. This forum is for talking about the games. Im assuming you both like geneforge, and if you dont like it, then you should leave. And dont be offended by another person you dont even know. It implies that you are immature. And having all CAPS, isnt yelling. If you have all caps AND an "!",then that would be an implication of yelling.

 

And you cant compare the creatures and humans with machines. there are major differences. First, machines dont have a soul. Secondly, a machine cant formulate there own morals and behavior. They are based upon the template the creator made for it. much like how God made the templte for our personalities. And, there arent any such things AS self aware robots. They dont EXIST. Its all in your imagination. The're having problems with robots serving DRINKS, much less being aware of themselves. Alright. I think im done now. Bubye.

 

Oh wait. i was playing GF3, and both greta AND alwan left me. Alwan died constantly so i cared not so much, but greta actually did well. Probly cuz i started off as a rebel then turned into a loyalist. Because the head of the rebels are crazy drakons, which i dont like at all, 'cept for the one you trade with on the last island hes cool. Oh, and some shapers are the heads but they are just power hungry. And im just doing what i think is right, and killing the rogues seem right, because they are hurting innocent people. Sure i feel sry for the serviles, but they shouldnt have gone along with the crappy drakons and power hungry x-shapers. Alright, NOW im done. Bubye

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

I would think that the onus is on you to explain why a thinking, feeling being should be completely at someone else's disposal, creation or no.

If you can make it, you can break it. That's the idea in a nutshell.

Quote:

This is, by the way, analogous to another question: if there is a god like the Christian God, and if He did create us, are we by the very act of creation therefore obligated to serve Him, or must there be some other justification in addition? Ultimately, the answer to that question, I feel, is that there would have to be an additional reason, namely that God's commands are inherently good, since gratitude for creation (or whatever) is not by itself sufficient to make us slaves.

IF such a being existed, we wouldn't be obligated to obey it, but then again it wouldn't be obligated not to wipe us out of existence either. I fail to see how a creator is obligated in any way go out of its way to attend every need and want of its creations. Making creations that can enjoy their own thoughts and have a free existence is a waste of time and energy. It's either make serviles or use children to mine and cut lumber until they're old and infirm. What choice would you make?

Quote:

Originally written by Waylander:
Mica:

Quote:

Edit: Waylander: what do you call GF3, if not a Drakon rampage?

1. I wouldn't call a resistance effort a 'rampage', exactly.

2. The Drakon's aren't really doing the 'rampaging'. They are just pulling the strings.

The question here is why Drakon's should be restrained (from a neutral perspective, of course).
They are powerful. So what?
They are dangerous. So what?
They have a tendency to react to violence with violence. So what?

From a neutral perspective, what makes Osama Bin-Laden so much of a threat? He doesn't make or set up the bombs himself. He doesn't personally do all the research to make weaponized anthrax. He doesn't strap a bomb to his chest and detonate it in a crowded shopping area. So why does the whole free world have such a problem with him?

The answer is that he incites other people to perform these actions, and worse, for some reason he can actually convince them to do it. The drakons in Geneforge are the same way, more or less. The average drakon is obviously more involved in the whole maiming/killing/terrorizing humans thing, and based on the Loyalist ending (the only one I've seen so far) they didn't make distinctions between outsiders and Shapers when they wiped out Terrestria. Entire cities were burned to the ground, and I doubt they took in refugees or prisoners. Maybe they did. It's impossible to know for sure when all you find is a charred wasteland. But it seems like they're determined to wipe out the Shapers at all costs, and however many gullible serviles and outsiders they have to sacrifice to acheive that in the process, oh well.

[*i]

Quote:

Originally written by Lowbacca:
Wow. Ok. Hows about, you 2 girls stop arguing? kay? Holy Crap. This forum is for talking about the games. Im assuming you both like geneforge, and if you dont like it, then you should leave. And dont be offended by another person you dont even know. It implies that you are immature. And having all CAPS, isnt yelling. If you have all caps AND an "!",then that would be an implication of yelling.

1) Read up on nettiquette, many versions of using CAPS is yelling. We expect our members to follow these rules.
2) Your sexist remarks will not be tolerated.
3) You are not a moderator, we'll worry about the acceptable bounds of discussion.
4) The Geneforge plotline is inherently tied to the morality of the decisions you make and are open for debate, as such the discussion is definitely within fair game.
5) Don't come into this community, a relative newbie, and start preaching and especially telling people to leave the board that you are new to.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
If you can make it, you can break it. That's the idea in a nutshell.

I am intrigued by your support for, among other things, infanticide.

Thuryl: Yes. Yes, I did.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Lowbacca:
And, there arent any such things AS self aware robots. They dont EXIST. Its all in your imagination. The're having problems with robots serving DRINKS, much less being aware of themselves.

Please look up the word "hypothetical" in a dictionary and don't come back until you know what it means.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Mica:

Quote:

They're not just reacting - they're actively seeking violence

That's akin to say that the Allies sought out violence during WWII by infiltrating German territory. The desire to forcibly overthrow a regime which will not allow you to even exist isn't exactly an unethical ideal.

 

Quote:

How was the academy of Greenwood Isle a threat to them?

The academy of Greenwood contained several Shaper Masters who were enemies of all free creations. The academy was a place where young individuals were indoctrinated and brainwashed into becoming true, bigoted Shapers. Enemies of the Rebellion.

Greenwood academy was a legitimate target.

 

Quote:

The people of Terrestria (we are told "the whole of Terrestria is in flames") weren't violent towards drakons, they never even knew they existed.

1. Terrestria is under the control of the Shaper regime. The Shaper regime has demonstrated many times in the past how it feels about powerful, independent creations. They did so on Sucia, and they did so in the Drypeak colony.

 

2. You also forget that the Drakons aren't fighting for themselves. They are also fighting to free all independent Creations.

 

Quote:

As for point 2, sending others to rampage on one's behalf does not exonerate one from a charge of murder.

You made it sound as though Drakons are mindless killing machines. This could not be further from the truth.

[Micawber]

Waylander, let's not make this an argument about words (clearly 'rampage' has a lot of connotations).

 

Surely we can agree on this: 1. the shapers are antagonistic towards the drakons, and other free creations, 2. rather than merely hiding away, the drakons have developed war-making capacity in order to challenge the shapers, 3. there is some justice in the drakon cause, i.e. resistance to the shaper council which believes they do not have a right to exist.

 

However, their methods involve indiscriminate killing and destruction, in my view this cannot be justified.

 

Unfortunately, the diplomatic course proposed by the awakened was not pursued and instead the taker viewpoint (kill them before they kill us) prevailed.

 

The drakons have gone beyond resistance and started down a very dark path. A shiver runs down my spine when I hear the argument that the school should be destroyed, because it is turning out young enemies of the creations.

[Student of Trinity]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:

If you can make it, you can break it. That's the idea in a nutshell.

The frustrating thing about your discussion, Savage Ed, is that this is really all you seem to be saying, over and over and at length. To any suggestion that there might be other overriding factors, you simply say, 'No' and repeat your basic assumption, which everyone else finds self-evidently abominable. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but there is supposed to be a difference between repeating an opinion and arguing.

Quote:

I fail to see how a creator is obligated in any way go out of its way to attend every need and want of its creations.

Nobody said anything about catering to wants. Most people acknowledge a responsibility to provide for needs. The important point is that the creator is not entitled to treat the creation as a slave. Care to address this one?

Quote:

Making creations that can enjoy their own thoughts ... is a waste of time and energy.

No doubt. So the Shapers were stupid to do it. But how stupid it was to make sentient creations has no bearing on the right of the sentient creations to a free existence. Why do you keep raising this issue as though it did? Do you have some unstated premise that wasting time and energy must entitle one to compensation in the form of slave labor?

Quote:

It's either make serviles or use children to mine and cut lumber until they're old and infirm. What choice would you make?

Nonsense. Pretending that the only alternative is heavy labor by children and the elderly is pretty shabby argument. Pay healthy adults a fair wage for mining and cutting wood. The Shaper culture, like ours, can well afford it.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Mica:

 

Quote:

Waylander, let's not make this an argument about words (clearly 'rampage' has a lot of connotations).

 

Surely we can agree on this: 1. the shapers are antagonistic towards the drakons, and other free creations, 2. rather than merely hiding away, the drakons have developed war-making capacity in order to challenge the shapers, 3. there is some justice in the drakon cause, i.e. resistance to the shaper council which believes they do not have a right to exist.

Agreed.

 

Quote:

However, their methods involve indiscriminate killing and destruction, in my view this cannot be justified.

The primary targets of the Drakons are the Shapers, and outsiders who are loyal to the Shaper cause.

I have no doubt that there is collateral damage. The Drakons are forced to unleash awesome power in order to have any chance of survival against a regime which has an iron grip on two continents. It's unfortunate that civilians must die, but sometimes such deaths are justified for the greater good.

Numerous civilians died during the liberation of mainland Europe from the Nazis. Horrific acts were committed during the French revolution. The American revolutionary butchered many individuals with loyalist sympathies. And yet we don't really condemn such actions. We see these acts as 'necessary evils'.

 

Quite simply, it is easy to label someone an extremist. However, very few revolutions could have been successul without 'extreme' acts. The Drakons and their followers are fighting for survival, and liberation.

If they take the moral high road, then they will be destroyed. And let's be honest, what good is it to have 'the moral high ground'? The creations have had the moral high ground for centuries, and they still remain slaves. The creations had the moral high-ground on Sucia, and they were destroyed. The Awakened has the moral high ground in GF2, and they were destroyed.

 

Quote:

Unfortunately, the diplomatic course proposed by the awakened was not pursued and instead the taker viewpoint (kill them before they kill us) prevailed.

Sometimes diplomacy is a lost cause. Would you have 'pursued' diplomacy with the Nazi regime? How many concessions would have you made before you woke up in the middle of the night to realize that all of your kinsmen had been destroyed, and a gun was being pointed in your face?

 

As Magneto once said:

"When I was a child, my people talked while others prepared for war. They used reason while others used tanks, and they were destroyed for their trouble! I won't stand by and watch it happen again, I won't!"

 

The current Shaper regime will never accept even the existence of an independent creation, let alone a country of creations with some measure of power. So the Shaper regime must be destroyed. It must be scattered to the winds.

 

Or at least, if the rebellion wants to negotiate a fair deal, they need leverage. After all, why would the Shaper regime make concessions, if it isn't necessary?

 

Quote:

The drakons have gone beyond resistance and started down a very dark path.

Sometimes, the motives of the Drakons are a little ambiguous, and we must wonder about whether they love power more than they love freedom. However, their justifications for why the Shaper regime must be fought in such a manner make sense, even if the Drakons aren't entirely sincere about their motives.

It is debatable as to whether Lilita truly cared about creation liberation once her 'transformation' was complete, yet her arguments still remained valid.

 

Quote:

A shiver runs down my spine when I hear the argument that the school should be destroyed, because it is turning out young enemies of the creations.

So it is not right to target an institution which not only has fully fledged Shapers, but also Shapers in training?

 

We will have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the Greenwood Academy was a legitimate target.

[Micawber]

Waylander, we seem to see the Geneforge 3 situation in different ways. Loosely speaking, you see things in terms of WWII, and have identified the shapers as the nazis and the drakon rebellion as the western allies. Equally loosely, I tend to see things more in terms of the Irish troubles, with the shapers as the British government and the drakon rebellion as the armed republican movement. In your eyes the drakons are a liberating army, in my eyes they are terrorists. I have tried to take account of your viewpoint below, but please also consider how things look from the other viewpoint. The problem with the taker viewpoint is that it pre-supposes that a peaceful solution cannot be found.

 

Quote:

Originally written by Waylander:

I have no doubt that there is collateral damage. [...] Numerous civilians died during the liberation of mainland Europe from the Nazis. Horrific acts were committed during the French revolution. The American revolutionary butchered many individuals with loyalist sympathies. And yet we don't really condemn such actions.

While I accept your point about collateral damage (see below) I'm not too sure about your examples. That is the first time I have seen the French revolutionary terror justified! There is a difference between inadvertant harm to civilians (as in Kosovo) and deliberate targeting of them. The carpet-bombing of Dresden, nuking Hiroshima, and in general 'rounding up' and execution of dissenters - these have often been condemned. That doesn't mean the cause wasn't just, but you can't go around killing others because they don't agree with you. It is possible to take prisoners, you know.

 

Quote:

If they take the moral high road, then they will be destroyed. And let's be honest, what good is it to have 'the moral high ground'?

If you act without concern for morality you become a monster. To act reasonably you need to target the aggressive elements within your enemy, not just indiscriminately kill everything that moves. How successful your targeting is of course depends on other factors, such as intelligence, precision of weaponry etc. In WWII both weaponry and intelligence were very limited, and consequently there were a lot of civilian deaths resulting from justifiable action against military targets. I accept these deaths were unavoidable. But this is in a different league from deliberately taking action which targets civilians.

 

Quote:

We will have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the Greenwood Academy was a legitimate target.

I can certainly agree to disagree there.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Mica:

 

Quote:

Waylander, we seem to see the Geneforge 3 situation in different ways.

I think I see the entire Geneforge series very differently from you.

 

Quote:

Loosely speaking, you see things in terms of WWII, and have identified the shapers as the nazis and the drakon rebellion as the western allies.

Yes, I feel that the Nazi vs. Allies example is a rather fitting analogy. The Shaper regime believes that they are superior due to their magical abilities and status as Shapers, and hence have a right to dominate the 'inferior races'. Sometimes, this right includes genocide. Just look at what happened to the Drayks.

 

The Drakons aren't morally pure, but then neither were the Allies. The Allies often targeted heavily populated German cities (eg. Dresden) in their bombing campaigns, in order to lower morale and encourage an uprising.

 

Quote:

Equally loosely, I tend to see things more in terms of the Irish troubles, with the shapers as the British government and the drakon rebellion as the armed republican movement.

Is this an accurate comparison? I don't think so:

 

- British control over Ireland in the 1900's wasn't absolute.

 

- The British didn't kill Irishmen merely for being Irish. They at least allowed them to exist. The Shaper regime won't even grant the Drakons the right to exist, as we observed in GF2.

 

Quote:

In your eyes the drakons are a liberating army, in my eyes they are terrorists.

1. You forget that the Drakons aren't the only ones fighting. Serviles, drayks, other independent creations, outsiders who are sick of Shaper oppression, and even a rogue Shaper or two, are all fighting in this liberating army.

 

2. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

 

Quote:

I have tried to take account of your viewpoint below, but please also consider how things look from the other viewpoint. The problem with the taker viewpoint is that it pre-supposes that a peaceful solution cannot be found.

Oh yes, there is a peaceful solution. Lay down and die if you're too powerful. Become a slave to the Shapers if you're not.

 

I don't mean this as an insult, but have you played the Geneforge series? Since when have the Shapers shown ANY ability to negotiate and treat anyone who is not a Shaper with fairness and dignity?

In all three games in the series, the Shaper regime has reacted with extreme and unconditional violence to any creation which demonstrated independent thought.

The Awakened tried the peaceful approach, twice. They tried it on Sucia, and they tried it on Drypeak. They were destroyed.

 

The question here is: Do Awakened sympathizers now have the courage to try to path of the Takers?

 

Quote:

While I accept your point about collateral damage (see below) I'm not too sure about your examples. That is the first time I have seen the French revolutionary terror justified!

Do you agree that the French revolution had remarkable outcomes, even if 'terrorism' was employed?

 

Quote:

There is a difference between inadvertant harm to civilians (as in Kosovo) and deliberate targeting of them.

There is very little difference. In both cases, you know that your actions will harm civilians. Yet in both cases, you proceed with an action in which you know civilians will suffer. In both cases, you kill civilians for the 'greater good'.

 

Quote:

The carpet-bombing of Dresden, nuking Hiroshima, and in general 'rounding up' and execution of dissenters - these have often been condemned.

And yet many feel that such actions were justified. Since there is such controversy in the area, your assertions remain opinion.

 

Quote:

That doesn't mean the cause wasn't just, but you can't go around killing others because they don't agree with you.

But the Shapers don't just 'disagree' with the rebels. They want their total annihilation.

 

Quote:

It is possible to take prisoners, you know.

Why show mercy to any enemy who wishes your destruction?

 

Quote:

If you act without concern for morality you become a monster.

One can act commit small evils in order to satisfy the greater good. Collateral damage is merely one example.

 

Quote:

To act reasonably you need to target the aggressive elements within your enemy,

Isn't that what the Rebellion is doing?

 

Quote:

In WWII both weaponry and intelligence were very limited, and consequently there were a lot of civilian deaths resulting from justifiable action against military targets. I accept these deaths were unavoidable.

They were? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture?

 

We will never truly know whether the civilian deaths during WWII were 'unavoidable'. What we do know is that the Allies weighed up all of their options, and decided that a small evil was necessary to liberate Nazi and Japanese occupied lands. It is easy in hindsight to condemn such actions. 'Could've, should've, would've'.

The fact remains that at the time, the Allies were confronted with two highly aggressive nations who had very little appreciation for human life, and who wanted to crush all opposition. So they fought back, and civilians suffered. It's sad, at the time, it was reasonable to believe that such actions were necessary.

 

What we must try to determine is whether the force the Rebellion uses is proportional to the threat. And given that the Shaper Council has almost unlimited power, and absolutely no sympathy for an alliance of independent Creations, I'd say that anything goes.

 

The Shapers are the occupiers. They are the oppressors. They have military superiority. At any time, they could deal fairly and justly with their Creations.

Yet they choose not to. They cannot, and will not.

War is the only answer. War is inevitable. And it is only reasonable that the Rebels should attempt to strike first.

 

Quote:

But this is in a different league from deliberately taking action which targets civilians.

1. Not really, as I explained above.

 

2. I've never seen the Rebellion 'target' civilians.

[Micawber]

Rather than trying to demolish my viewpoint, why not do what I asked, try to imagine what things look like when you look from a different angle?

[Suspicious Vlish]

Can you demonstrate that there is even the slightest chance that the Shaper regime will grant freedom, equality, and the right to life, to all independent Creations?

 

If not, then how can you condemn the rebels for attempting to take their freedom?

[Drakefyre]

I think it's apparent that there are elements in Shaper society who support the rights of individual creations and are uneasy about Shaper policy, but are more uneasy about joining a group of violent, angry rebels who will destroy their entire way of life. I think that there are four main groups of people on Terrestria:

 

1) Shaper traditionalists. "We made the creations. They are ours to control, and our lifestyle is the best." It should be noted, however, that Shapers outlawed the creation of Drayks and Drakons - creations thought to be the most intelligent.

 

2) Those who live in Shaper society and are sympathetic to the rebel causes but not their methods. They are not willing to give everything up in a suicide mission but are not in favor of slavery of serviles and drayks. They don't know what to do, don't have much power, but recognize the intelligence of the creations but are helpless.

 

3) The rebels who are uncomfortable with rebel methods. They realize that something needs to be done, but not at the expense of their continent. They are wary of becoming as bad as the Shapers. They don't want killing - they want equality. However, they are afraid to speak out within the rebellion.

 

4) Die-hard rebels. They will do whatever it takes to overthrow the Shapers, and in doing so become just as bad. In this group are pretty much all of the Drakons, a lot of drayks, some serviles, and rebellious shapers like Litalia. They are willing to go as far as create an army of Shapers with different names to combat the Shapers.

 

Personally, my views fall around the 2/3 point, closer to the 3. However, as GF3 really only had points 1 and 4, it was easier to justify pov 1, at least for me. However, I'm confident that GF4 will offer a difficult 2/3 road, which seems exciting. It seems like a good BoE scenario that has "finishing, winning, and Hall of Fame" conditions.

[Micawber]

Khyryk sympathised with the rebels' cause, but would not condone their methods. Raeche (GF2) learned to respect serviles. Litalia clearly held similar views, but was unwise in the way she expressed them. Not all shapers are completely lacking in conscience.

 

Prior to the rebellion, most shapers weren't even aware of the problem of independent creations. How can you judge all shapers on the basis of the actions of a handful, including the vast majority who are ignorant of the facts.

 

Remember when you first arrived on Sucia Island, you were astonished to discover that the serviles possessed enough ability to survive on their own and the intelligence to establish their own civilisation. This is news to most shapers.

 

There's no denying the rebels need to be able to defend themselves. However there was a chance that sympathetic shapers could win over the shaper council and agree a peaceful solution. Following the war that chance is now gone.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Mica:

Quote:

Khyryk sympathised with the rebels' cause, but would not condone their methods.

Khyryk may have felt a little sorry for the rebels, but he was still a Shaper at heart. He could have chosen to remain neutral in the conflict, but instead participated in the release a psychotic Shaper.

Despite knowing that Agnatha was borderline fruitloop, and what a terrible vengeance she would take on a town populated by free creations, he aided in the massacre. He is a Shaper at heart.

 

Quote:

Raeche (GF2) learned to respect serviles.

True. And what did she do? She ran away from Shaper society. She knows that anyone who wants to grant concessions to creations cannot exist in Shaper society.

 

Quote:

Litalia clearly held similar views, but was unwise in the way she expressed them.

How else could should have expressed them?

Could she have petitioned the Shaper Council, expressing her disatisification about their policy of genocide and oppression?

 

Lilita had seen first hand what happened to those who questioned the absolute rule of the Shapers. She participated in it, remember? That's why she ran off to Ghadring.

 

Quote:

Not all shapers are completely lacking in conscience.

And yet any Shaper with a conscience and a desire for Creation liberation has fled Shaper society and joined the Rebellion.

 

Tell me this. How many Shapers are active in the Shaper Community, attempting to press for greater rights for outsiders and Creations?

 

If the answer is "None", tell me why not.

 

Quote:

Prior to the rebellion, most shapers weren't even aware of the problem of independent creations.

Partially false. Shapers are quite aware that independent and rogue creations/outsiders/Shapers are a possibility, which is why they have agents, discipline wands.

 

True, they aren't aware that there is an organized resistance of creations. However, judging by how they deal with individual rogue creations, and how they genocided the drayks, it doesn't take the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to predict how they will respond to an organized resistance of independent creations who are using 'forbidden, Shaper-only' magic to defend themselves.

 

Quote:

How can you judge all shapers on the basis of the actions of a handful, including the vast majority who are ignorant of the facts.

You're ripping the situation out of context. This isn't about the actions of just 'a few Shapers'. It's about an attitude of superiority and elitism held by the Shaper society in general.

It's about the fact that independent thought in creations and outsiders is routinely and systematically crushed by a cult who has an iron grip over two continents. It's about the fact that time and time again, whenever a creation or outside attempts to escape Shaper domination, they disappear in the night.

There might be a few of the Shaper order who feel that such an attitude is not quite right, but they are too scared to say anything. They can't bring their objections before the majority, because they know that will be stripped of their rank, and most likely killed.

 

Quote:

Remember when you first arrived on Sucia Island, you were astonished to discover that the serviles possessed enough ability to survive on their own and the intelligence to establish their own civilisation. This is news to most shapers.

1. You hadn't even started your apprenticeship at the time.

 

2. Your character was aware that Serviles could 'act out', and hence required discipline (hence the punishment cells).

In otherwords, independent thought IS observed in creations (and outsiders) in Shaper society. And it is crushed.

 

3. Ironically, you've forgotten the ending of GF1. When your PC alerts the Shapers to what has occurred on Sucia, the Shapers travel there are decimate the Awakened. The Awakened attempted to reason with the Shapers, and were destroyed for their trouble.

 

Quote:

There's no denying the rebels need to be able to defend themselves.

This isn't just about 'defense'! It's also about liberation, and striking first.

 

When will you realize that the Shaper regime will NEVER allow the existence of independent creations? It's not in their nature. It's contradictory to all of their beliefs regarding complete dominance and mastery over their creations and the 'inferior' outsiders.

 

The rebels are perfectly justified in striking first. Not only are hundreds of thousands of creations and outsiders under the oppressive regime of the Shapers, the fact is that as soon as the Shapers learn of a group of independent creations, they WILL attempt to destroy them.

 

This has been demonstrated twice in the past.

In Geneforge 1, the Shapers destroyed the Awakened on Sucia.

In Geneforge 2, the Shapers razed Medab to the ground. I distinctly remember that the Awakened's request for equal treatment was laughed at by the Shapers, before any dissenters were destroyed.

 

If you know that an individual is determined to murder you, do you wait for him to point the gun at you and pull the trigger before you defend yourself? Such reasoning is absurd.

 

Again, I quote Magneto from the X-Men animated series, since he sums the issue up quite well:

"When I was a child, my people talked while others prepared for war. They used reason while others used tanks, and they were destroyed for their trouble! I won't stand by and watch it happen again, I won't!"

 

Quote:

However there was a chance that sympathetic shapers could win over the shaper council and agree a peaceful solution.

If this is true, why didn't Raeche return to Shaper society and attempt to negotiate with the Shaper Council, instead of joining the Awakened?

 

Why didn't Khyrk speak out long before the Rebel uprising about his desire for fairer treatment towards creations?

 

Why doesn't the Shaper in Dhonal's Keep express his doubts about the morality of creation testing?

 

In fact, all three of these Shapers only voice their views once the Rebellion has begun, and all individuals are forced to have an opinion.

 

Your belief that these Shapers could have reasoned with the Shaper Council is a foolish dream. The very reason that they did not speak out is because they knew that they would be persecuted, and most likely killed.

 

Quote:

Following the war that chance is now gone.

The Awakened tried to reason with the Shapers, twice. They were destroyed for their efforts. "They used reason, while others used tanks. And they were destroyed for their trouble."

 

Quite frankly, if the rebellion is willing (and stupid enough) to attempt the twice failed methods of the Awakened, I suggest that when they go before the Shaper Council with a list of their demands, they also take a bottle of lubricant with them. They'll be needing it.

[Lowbacca]

Quote:

Originally written by *i:

Quote:

Originally written by Lowbacca:
Wow. Ok. Hows about, you 2 girls stop arguing? kay? Holy Crap. This forum is for talking about the games. Im assuming you both like geneforge, and if you dont like it, then you should leave. And dont be offended by another person you dont even know. It implies that you are immature. And having all CAPS, isnt yelling. If you have all caps AND an "!",then that would be an implication of yelling.

1) Read up on nettiquette, many versions of using CAPS is yelling. We expect our members to follow these rules.

2) Your sexist remarks will not be tolerated.
3) You are not a moderator, we'll worry about the acceptable bounds of discussion.
4) The Geneforge plotline is inherently tied to the morality of the decisions you make and are open for debate, as such the discussion is definitely within fair game.
5) Don't come into this community, a relative newbie, and start preaching and especially telling people to leave the board that you are new to.

Uuummm. Im not really new to this board. Relative or otherwise. Lol. Even though you are number six and im number like 10,000. I'm not in any way new. to this forum or game. And I wasnt being sexist. I was assumin you were female. I'm slightly sorrowful to you if you arent. i wasnt trying to be mean to a large majority of people. Im rather fond of females. And i wasnt telling anyone to leave, twas merely a suggestion that if you dont like the games, then why talk about it? Lol. And I also was just debating about the moralities of the game. I like debating. Im decent at it. Not great, but i dont suck either.

Now, me replying to your reply, is just defensive, because it seems i offended you in some minor way. Wow, you need some tougher skin. Lol, I'm light hearted, so please dont feel the need of being offended at every other remark. And dont think i dont like you either. I like everybody, just some more than others, lol. Ok, im done now. Bubye.

Or not.

quote:This is, by the way, analogous to another question: if there is a god like the Christian God, and if He did create us, are we by the very act of creation therefore obligated to serve Him, or must there be some other justification in addition? Ultimately, the answer to that question, I feel, is that there would have to be an additional reason, namely that God's commands are inherently good, since gratitude for creation (or whatever) is not by itself sufficient to make us slaves.

IF such a being existed, we wouldn't be obligated to obey it, but then again it wouldn't be obligated not to wipe us out of existence either. I fail to see how a creator is obligated in any way go out of its way to attend every need and want of its creations. Making creations that can enjoy their own thoughts and have a free existence is a waste of time and energy. It's either make serviles or use children to mine and cut lumber until they're old and infirm. What choice would you make?

now on to you two. I myself am a Christian. The reason God created Adam was to look after the animals. As such, would BE an act of service. (NO, im not yelling, its just easier to use caps then to use italics). However, he was givin free will, and im sure you guys know the whole story, if not, Read Genesis, its a good book to start off with. Also, Godis a being of Love and understanding. He doesnt punish to be mean. And rewards good effort.And the reason God made everything, is because he was lonely. o to speak, and probly bored. Anyhew...If i made creations, i wouldnt feel obligated to give them their needs, I'd WANT to. Why wouldnt i? Suffering isnt a pretty thing in the least. And the only reason having its own thoughts might be dangerous to ME, is if i were mean to it, and if i appeared lazy. Which i wouldnt be.

quote:Originally written by Lowbacca:
And, there arent any such things AS self aware robots. They dont EXIST. Its all in your imagination. The're having problems with robots serving DRINKS, much less being aware of themselves.

Please look up the word "hypothetical" in a dictionary and don't come back until you know what it means.

Hypothetical-Theoretical, suppositional, conditional, contingent.

Happy? I was just trying to point out that its too hard to compare the two, for the simple case that one never has or will exist. I think, i typed a few days ago, or yesterday i cant remember, anyways, i cant be sure why i pointed it out but anyway. IM DONE! BYE!

[*i]

Quote:

Uuummm. Im not really new to this board. Relative or otherwise. Lol. Even though you are number six and im number like 10,000. I'm not in any way new. to this forum or game. And I wasnt being sexist. I was assumin you were female. I'm slightly sorrowful to you if you arent. i wasnt trying to be mean to a large majority of people. Im rather fond of females. And i wasnt telling anyone to leave, twas merely a suggestion that if you dont like the games, then why talk about it? Lol. And I also was just debating about the moralities of the game. I like debating. Im decent at it. Not great, but i dont suck either.

Now, me replying to your reply, is just defensive, because it seems i offended you in some minor way. Wow, you need some tougher skin. Lol, I'm light hearted, so please dont feel the need of being offended at every other remark. And dont think i dont like you either. I like everybody, just some more than others, lol. Ok, im done now. Bubye.

Personally I don't care one way or another. Your response partially violated the Code of Conduct, not seriously, but enough. I just want it to be clear that posts like that (especially telling members to leave) will not be tolerated, period.

[Lowbacca]

Quote:

Originally written by *i:

Quote:

Uuummm. Im not really new to this board. Relative or otherwise. Lol. Even though you are number six and im number like 10,000. I'm not in any way new. to this forum or game. And I wasnt being sexist. I was assumin you were female. I'm slightly sorrowful to you if you arent. i wasnt trying to be mean to a large majority of people. Im rather fond of females. And i wasnt telling anyone to leave, twas merely a suggestion that if you dont like the games, then why talk about it? Lol. And I also was just debating about the moralities of the game. I like debating. Im decent at it. Not great, but i dont suck either.

Now, me replying to your reply, is just defensive, because it seems i offended you in some minor way. Wow, you need some tougher skin. Lol, I'm light hearted, so please dont feel the need of being offended at every other remark. And dont think i dont like you either. I like everybody, just some more than others, lol. Ok, im done now. Bubye.

Personally I don't care one way or another. Your response partially violated the Code of Conduct, not seriously, but enough. I just want it to be clear that posts like that (especially telling members to leave) will not be tolerated, period.

Lol,i didnt tell anyone to leave. I said they should if they didnt like it. I was slightly annoyed because whoever was debating, they were passing the line between debate and arguing. And both were being extreme in there reactions to each other. And they were doing so in a way that reminded me of my sisters, im not being mean, or trying to be sexist, it literally did. Oh well, i guess this is where liberals become conservative in sort of "politically correct" doggy doo im tired of hearing about. Anyways, i guess you are correct that i did cross the line in wanting others to leave, no matter the excuse. Alright, no matter, have a nice day!

[Lord Safey]

No side has any moral backing. They have excuses yes but esstincaly both sides have done their share in unaccidental killings of innocents. Both are fighting for the survial and superimacy and will stop at nothing to have it. So I choose my favorite based on who will be most likely to provid stablity. During geneforge 3 rebel ending you see hints of servils and drakons not geting along. Drayks may be envyious of drakon power. Gazers have their own cult/cast. Will drakons be will to hand over their athourity. If the rebels do win I find it very likely that they will fracture. Their goals and rules are design from and for overthrowing stabilty not stablity it self. Shapers has been developing their laws for centuries even possibly millenia for stabilty. Also ingame shows that creations (esspically expermental creations) and modify humans have unstable tendencies. I choose shapers becuase if I show them loyalty all I have to worry about is the enemy and not as much with internal politics. In geneforge 2 you have kill a errant rebel leader who goes power hungry. If the shapers win you will get a life closely controled by the shaper council. Join the rebels get a knife in your back.

The only group that had a moral reason was the awakaned and apparently your enemies don't care if your right or not. Personaly I'm not going to create something that will come back to haunt me or if I can't sell it or it serves me in some way.

[Delicious Vlish]

Shapers got rid of the Dryaks, thus removing a potential enemy of the Vlish. Things are going as planned, and we will be in control soon.

 

**Gurgles evily**

 

No one would ever suspect a Vlish rebellion.

[the Great Potato]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a split between Drakon and human rebellions - they're after different things. I have a hard time distinguishing Drakons from hardline Shapers.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
If you can make it, you can break it. That's the idea in a nutshell.

The frustrating thing about your discussion, Savage Ed, is that this is really all you seem to be saying, over and over and at length. To any suggestion that there might be other overriding factors, you simply say, 'No' and repeat your basic assumption, which everyone else finds self-evidently abominable. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but there is supposed to be a difference between repeating an opinion and arguing.

I haven't seen any convincing overriding factors, only analogies to infants and human slaves (which I don't accept) and appeals to emotion (which isn't a logical justification). It doesn't matter if everyone finds my "basic" assumption "self evidently abominable." Other than twisting my perspective to argument that to mean I condone the killing infants or the enslaving of humans by other human beings, I haven't seen one rebuttal that didn't jump to presonal assumptions against me or my position. You don't agree with me, fine. I really don't care if you do. All I'm asking at this point is give a logical and well thought explanation why you think man made creations, especially those made to ease overall human suffering or those that are inherently dangerous should be free from their creators.

Quote:

Nobody said anything about catering to wants. Most people acknowledge a responsibility to provide for needs. The important point is that the creator is not entitled to treat the creation as a slave. Care to address this one?

Apparently if I did, I'd just be "repeating my basic assumption, at length." I'll leave it up to reread my previous posts for my stance on that. If you wanted, you could give a convincing argument why a creator doesn't have the right to treat their creation like a slave.

Quote:

No doubt. So the Shapers were stupid to do it. But how stupid it was to make sentient creations has no bearing on the right of the sentient creations to a free existence. Why do you keep raising this issue as though it did? Do you have some unstated premise that wasting time and energy must entitle one to compensation in the form of slave labor?

No, but I have a clearly stated premise that the endeavors of human science are meant to improve the lives of human beings. If that includes creating "slave labor" to augment the workforce in dangerous and unsavory occupations, so be it. Unless you want to put into words your obvious fundamental objection.

Quote:

Nonsense. Pretending that the only alternative is heavy labor by children and the elderly is pretty shabby argument. Pay healthy adults a fair wage for mining and cutting wood. The Shaper culture, like ours, can well afford it.[/QB]

I really don't think so. Based on the apparent world economy in Geneforge, children could be seen as a viable source of labor probably as young as 10, which would be consistent with many agrarian and developing societies throughout history. It was even commonplace in the United States up until around the 1920s. I think the main reason serviles exist is because there's a shortage of man power, and using them allows for greater productivity. Also, I see no indication from a basic analysis of humans in the game to believe that the average outsider, other than the odd mage or blacksmith here or there qualifies for what could be financially well off in the world of Geneforge. Most of them are similar to medieval peasant workers in our world; uneducated, dirty, poor, tired, and hungry. The idea of what a "fair wage" is in Geneforge is more than likely just enough to get by from one day to the next, living from hand to mouth. I doubt they have any kind of labor union demanding a "fair wage" on their behalf.

Other than being used as "slave labor," and being destroyed when they get too much independent thought, I don't see much that seperates how human workers are treated in Geneforge and how the serviles are treated. Drakons are inherently dangerous, and nobody seems to genuinely care about the poor ghlaaks and battle alphas for some reason.

I'm not saying the Shapers aren't an oppressive, overbearing, tyrannical magocracy. They learned how to make their own living beings to do their bidding and almost instantly let it go to their head and started lording their power over other human beings. They've placed themselves above the law as far as so called outsiders go and don't hold themselves accountable to them beyond the Shaper laws they barely even acknowlege. If anything that's my main beef against Shaper rule and policies. The treatment of creations made to perform some task for the overall benefit of society isn't really one of my concerns as long as it isn't excessively cruel or inhumane. You obviously disagree with that last point, so if you like, feel free to articulate that fundamental underlying opposition in words. If it's convincing enough, you might even change my opinion back to feeling sorry for the serviles.

Otherwise, I agree, this is getting frustrating, and also very boring.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott:
I haven't seen any convincing overriding factors, only analogies to infants and human slaves (which I don't accept)

The point of the analogies to human beings is that your principle — if you can make it, you can break it — seems to apply equally well to both humans and to GF-style creations. You have yet to make a reasonable distinction that shows why your point of view does condone killing GF creations but doesn't condone killing people.

EDIT: By the way, this is a standard counter-argument strategy. I'm simply showing that your basic premise leads necessarily to an unacceptable conclusion, which proves (by contradiction) that there's something wrong with the premise in the first place.

[Retlaw May]

Waylander:

You see the Shapers as the Nazi's of WWII and the Drakons as the Allies... I could not more strongly disagree. The Nazi's rose to such power because the Allies let them (look in a history book, WWII was not that hard to prevent). I see the Drakons as the Japanese in WWII. The Japanese saw what had happened to China when Western Imperialism came and was like, "Holy @#$@! We see how it is... You must either conquer or be conquered!" The Drakons are even worse than this. I'm not going to say that the Shapers are America, but they are deffinatly closer to being America than the Drakons are to being the Allies.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

I've went over extensively how giving birth to an infant is different than using magic to turn raw organic material into a hulking humanoid lifeform. If you feel the creations of human beings are inherently equal to humans themselves, than justify and explain your position. If you think giving birth to an infant is equivalent to making a battle alpha or ghlaak (which I personally, for a variety of reasons, don't agree with) than instead of making the analogy justify it.

 

If you can't see the obvious difference between a mother carrying and giving birth to a child and shaping a creature through magic, there's not much I can do personally to explain the facts of life to you. In the end, all you're saying is that your life is worth as much as a battle alpha or artilla, and the inconsistency I'm pointing out with that line of reasoning is that everyone seems to be reserving sympathy for serviles and drakons but they don't care too much about the rights of ALL creations. If a human is equal to a servile, then a human should also be equal to an artilla and a human should be equal to a golem. If the life of a human conceived and carried in its mother's womb for nine months, bonded and connected to her by an instinctual emotional bond, suckled on her breast and taught fairness, morality, and kindness through her guidance is in the end worth as much as the life of a servile, then it's worth as much as the existence of a roamer or vlish as well. It doesn't matter if a human's mind develops and matures over years and years of learning and a shaped creation has its adult intelligence from the moment it's created, nor does it matter if a human starts life as an infant while teh creation is brought into existence in its full adult form.

 

If that's the case, then creations run amok such as overpowered golems have as much right to life as you or I, regardless if its first act in life is to kill its creator and anything else that moves in its immediate vicinity.

 

Not that I'd agree with that perspective, but if you genuinely feel everything about your life and existence is equal to a being made through magic, that's fine for your own personal philosophy for life. But you also have to accept that the same rule applies down the line, and ALL creations without exception have to be seen as inherently free as well, regardless of if their natural inclination is killing and eating humans.

 

I'm well aware what a reductio ad absurdum argument is. The only reason your counter argument fails is because you assume the lives of creations is equal to humans, while I believe human life is inherently more fragile and valuable. For the most part, creations don't start lives as infants, or even children. They start as fully adult, and while they gainnew experiences and learn, they start with a full adult intelligence, not the relative blank slate of an infant.

 

It's not enough to compare humans to shaped creations; you have to contrast them as well. If you think the obvious and self apparent differences between humans and shaped beings doesn't inherently make the lives of one distinguishable from the other, convince me.

 

Because I have a hard time thinking of a baby when I see fire breathing 12 ft. tall 3 ton reptile.

[Kelandon]

As far as I can tell, the distinction you're drawing between humans and GF creations is that the creation process itself is different for both, and humans are simply harder to create — this splits humans and GF creations into two categories, hard to create and easy to create respectively.

 

The distinction that others have been drawing is that the end product is intelligent — this splits humans and serviles and drakons into one pile and most other creations into another, intelligent and not intelligent respectively.

 

I'm not sure why the fact that something is difficult to create therefore makes it more deserving of freedom and self-determination than the fact that something is intelligent does, but then, I'd have to think about it to argue the other way, either. I think that there is something to the intelligence angle — I can't think of a particular reason that horses, for instance, need to be rid of the oppression of the bridle — but I can't immediately articulate it.

[Lowbacca]

A common thing among people, are to judge the level of importance, is by the level or degree of intelligence. or how much they look like people. However, what creations lack, are souls. Humans have souls. Which makes us a priority. But, evil people harm other people, so we eliminate them. So, if shapers think the rouges dangerous, they must be killed/removed/destroyed. however, non-shapers dont make the same distinctions and lines. They think creations are cute and cuddly and want them alive, even if they endanger humans.

 

Ok, i forgot where i was going but, im done now.

[*i]

Quote:

However, what creations lack, are souls. Humans have souls. Which makes us a priority.

And you know this how? Do animals have souls? If so, which ones? What if humans were able to create sentient animals through genetic engineering -- how does one determine if it has they have souls? Who should decide and what objective reasoning can we use to determine if something has a soul and what does not?

Of course, the nature of a soul is one of faith. If I have a religion that believes dolphins have souls, what makes my religion's view on the matter less correct than another.

I hope this illustrates the problem with the soul argument. It goes beyond a value argument, but to a supernatural/theological one. Values are open for debate/discussions, theology on the other hand is not if you start from different assumptions.

Quote:

If you feel the creations of human beings are inherently equal to humans themselves, than justify and explain your position.

Now things like Fryoas and Roamers are really not comparable as they lake much in the way of intelligence. However, let's look at things like Serviles or Gazers. Both are obviously capable of free thought and carrying on conversations. In the GF world, they can pretty much do everything humans do minus shaping -- even the Drakons can do that.

My justification is the level of sentience. When a being is intelligent enough to be consciously self-aware, make its own decisions, converse freely, and capable of abstract thought, I'd put that as equivalent to humans.

The one way out of that is to admit a superiority to humans since you are human. Although this argument is somewhat tautological, it is tenable from a values standpoint.

[Lowbacca]

Lol. I understand your point about the souls. Many if not most leading religions pointto the argument that humans have something more over animals, other than intelligence. Also, They could make a fyora that talked. All they really need to do is a bit of experementing. Im just making assumptions. If they made drakes in the first place through trial and error, they could easily make the lower level creations smarter. Would that somehow make the fyora special compared to the dumb ones? And your point about freewill and making decisions, you dont need to be able to speak or be intelligent to make a decision. Example, my dog is fat. She eats too much. She made that decision. To overeat. So, why are the other dogs not overeating? Are they smarter? Or dumber? Is she fat cuz shes dumb, or smart? My friend is real fat, he also eats much. He can talk and function mostly, except run. Lol, where am i going with this? I forgot. I'm losing it!

[*i]

Just to clarify, souls are entirely a metaphysical thing with no answer that can be independently verified and checked. 99.9% of people may agree on something, but that does not necessarily make them right.

 

I would not consider dogs to be particularly intelligent, even if they could talk. The reason comes from the ability to understand consequences of actions, this is what I was getting at with self-awareness.

 

Yes, your dog overeats, and does make "decisions". I use quotes because those decisions are somewhat unlike human decisions. Your dog eats because he is hungry. So do humans, of course, but we are aware (or at least have the potential to be aware) that the consequence of overeating will lead to obesity which in turn leads to more serious problem. I honestly doubt your dog has that capacity.

 

To understand why other dogs don't overeat, I would attribute that to their physiology. Dogs (even of the same breed) are not identical, some of them will be more predisposed to eat because their body sends signals to tell them to more so than others. Again, this goes back to the same thing I mentioned above that decisions that dogs do are not the same as humans because of the inability to fully appreciate consequences.

 

Now let's go to the Fryoa that talks. What makes it different than say, a Drayk? Well, it depends on how intellectually developed the Fryoa is. If it has a limited vocabulary to indicate basic needs and that's it, I would consider that Fryoa to be non-intelligent. If, however, it is able to have a conversation about abstract things, then I would put it in the intelligent category.

 

I guess to boil it down, I would say the capability to understand abstract thought.

[Lowbacca]

Well, a mentally retarded person may not understand the consequences of their own actions. Im not trying tobe mean or anything, from what i understand of them, from many people's experiences, many of them can't comprehend that everything has consequences. Are they unintelligent? They're smarter than a dolphin, which is considered self aware, therefor are the 3rd most intelligent species on the planet.

[*i]

Dolphins are capable of some very primitive abstract thought. However, if you try to convey the concepts of free market capitalism, allegory in literature, and the scientific method to one, I doubt you would succeed. Most humans above the age of 8-12 (depends on their development) can at least understand the general ideas behind the above three listed concepts. I doubt they could get all details, but then there are some adults with the same.

 

I know it's not a firm line, but it should work generally to determine the intelligence/non-intelligence of a certain species, if we were to create such a dichotomy.

 

As far as mentally challenged individuals, they are just "damaged" subjects of the human species. I don't see how it invalidates the argument as we have to look at the species capabilities as a whole. On one end of the distribution you have the geniuses and the other you have the extreme mentally challenged. Overall you should find that humans meets the above metric whereas dolphins do not.

[Lowbacca]

Ok, i concede to your point.Wait, what are we even debating about? I dont know. So, would you agree that all creations are equally important, and should be treated equally with each other? And that humans are higher. But, not to a point that we should be mean?

[Retlaw May]

The topics of souls, of course, is purly a religious topic. I, for one, reject that the world was made for humans in specific. You can make this mean whatever you want to in your mind, but doesn't this just make us all (including animals) just destined to join a greater whole once we die?

[Lowbacca]

I'm not going to argue about religion. Cuz I'm not affiliated with one, im just a person of a christian faith. However, Whats wrong with including religion. Arent Shapers a religious sort of sect? And religion includes science, politics, AND history. Also, in my faith, the world wasnt made for humans, we were made to rule over the animals and the world God had created. And once we die, all who have been faithful do become one in a sense that we all join in community. true peace for once. Lol. Ok, my ranting is complete

[*i]

Quote:

Arent Shapers a religious sort of sect? And religion includes science, politics, AND history.

Depends on how you define religion. Personally I would not consider it one no more than the Green Party is a religion. Granted, they both have dogmatic beliefs, but the goal of neither deals with the "supernatural".

Just remember just because religion may include more aspects under some definitions does not necessarily make it a better way of ascertaining truth. I would contend it can make it worse, because it inherently can lack rigor.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

Originally written by *i:
Now things like Fryoas and Roamers are really not comparable as they lake much in the way of intelligence. However, let's look at things like Serviles or Gazers. Both are obviously capable of free thought and carrying on conversations. In the GF world, they can pretty much do everything humans do minus shaping -- even the Drakons can do that.

My justification is the level of sentience. When a being is intelligent enough to be consciously self-aware, make its own decisions, converse freely, and capable of abstract thought, I'd put that as equivalent to humans.

The one way out of that is to admit a superiority to humans since you are human. Although this argument is somewhat tautological, it is tenable from a values standpoint.

There's an artilla in Fort Kentia that is on the verge of going rogue, and you can actually try to talk it into either joining you or letting you put it out of its misery peacefully. Talking artillas may be more the exception than the rule, but the fact remains that all creations can be given some level of ability to understand and respond to human speech. You never have a conversation with a vlish or roamer in game, but that doesn't mean it's inherently impossible for a sufficiently skilled shaper to give them the ability. Thaads and Battle Alphas are usually mute by default by skilled shapers can give them at least a rudimentary ability to speak and reason. Also, the abstract thought argument doesn't hold because drayks and most drakons lack empathy or remorse, meaning they're unable to understand the concept of protecting and defending the weak or general kindness.

As for fyoras and roamers, I assume they'd be equivalent to dogs, and even though dogs don't have comparable intelligence to us, our possession of that intelligence allows us to think abstractly about pain and suffering and avoid doing anything inherently cruel or malicious to our pets. You can "own" a dog, but that doesn't give you the right to force it to obey whatever command you give it.

If serviles deserve the same rights as humans, then all creations deserve teh same rights as natural animals of corresponding intellect. That's the only way I can see that position as logically consistent.

Personally, I don't see it as inherently wrong to use the technology to create serviles to perform manual labor and augment the workforce; it's wrong to abuse that technology and treat serviles excessively cruel. Serviles get the three basic things needed for survival -- food, clothes, shelter -- on a level probably much different from what the average outsider could afford for themselves. You can argue it's wrong to destroy them when they become too intelligent, but in a sense one servile with an overactive mind could possibly ruin all serviles it meets from doing work, and if you wanted to be completely humane and sympathetic, you'd have to release the vast majority of your workforce. Intelligent serviles wouldn't be too much of a problem if they still enjoyed the work they were created to perform. You could argue they have the right to find their own place in life, but the outsiders that supervise them and work side by side with them don't have the same luxury of quitting a job the hate and living happily ever after.

Geneforge takes place in a fantasy world, but fantasy doesn't imply perfect. There will always be people needed to perform work, and for the most part they will always be exploited by those who control the capital. This holds true for both human and servile.

[*i]

Quote:

There's an artilla in Fort Kentia that is on the verge of going rogue, and you can actually try to talk it into either joining you or letting you put it out of its misery peacefully. Talking artillas may be more the exception than the rule, but the fact remains that all creations can be given some level of ability to understand and respond to human speech. You never have a conversation with a vlish or roamer in game, but that doesn't mean it's inherently impossible for a sufficiently skilled shaper to give them the ability. Thaads and Battle Alphas are usually mute by default by skilled shapers can give them at least a rudimentary ability to speak and reason.

Again, the ability to speak and understand some speech is fairly low level. A lot of creatures can communicate with very crude language like things, but that does not make them "intelligent".

Quote:

Also, the abstract thought argument doesn't hold because drayks and most drakons lack empathy or remorse, meaning they're unable to understand the concept of protecting and defending the weak or general kindness.

This has got to be the most non-sequitor argument that I've heard this week. I'll break this up into a few points:

I don't see any evidence that Drayks/Drakons are unable to feel empathy and remorse. They probably do with their own kind. Be that we've never played a Drayk/Drakon, it is hard to tell much about them other than what humans see.

Different cultures have different values. You could say the Drakons are immoral, but that does not make them incable of abstract thought. Connecting the above paragraph, let us suppose you are a Black slave living on a plantation in the US South in 1840. You might see Whites as immoral and lacking empathy from your perspective. This is not necessarily true of course.

Even if I concede the above empathy and remorse are not the only type of abstract thought. Sociopaths can still comprehend advanced mathematics, politics, etc. without having empathy/remorse.

What it boils down to is a logical flaw that if you lack one compnent it necessarily destroys the whole argument. I agree empathy and remorse are part of abstract thought; however, there are many others. Being incable of one does not mean that you are incapable of doing the others in the category.

If a creature is able to comprehend freedom verus slavery, physiology, aerodynamics, etc. I would put them in the ability to understand abstract thought despite lacking a couple others.

Quote:

As for fyoras and roamers, I assume they'd be equivalent to dogs, and even though dogs don't have comparable intelligence to us, our possession of that intelligence allows us to think abstractly about pain and suffering and avoid doing anything inherently cruel or malicious to our pets. You can "own" a dog, but that doesn't give you the right to force it to obey whatever command you give it.

True. Being cruel to "lesser" beings is unnecessary and can lead to destructive behavior to others. Now, there is nothing inherently unethical of having animals carry out dangerous tasks or ones that humans are physically not suited to do. Also, raising animals for slaughter is not unethical either.

I would contend, however, that raising humans (or other sentient beings as defined above) just to do for slaughter would be over the line in terms of ethics. As far as doing dangerous tasks, it depends I suppose. If it is incapable of pain/suffering (say a robot) then it may be allowed. This would come down to a case by case basis.

Quote:

If serviles deserve the same rights as humans, then all creations deserve teh same rights as natural animals of corresponding intellect. That's the only way I can see that position as logically consistent.

Yes. The fact that we make an animal through genetic engineering or fairie dust does not make that animal inferior or different than other animals. If we make an improved horse, that does not give us the right to be unnecessarily cruel to it.

[Retlaw May]

Just playing devil's advocate here:

i*, just because something can't talk doesn't mean much really... Vlish are superbly intellegent but they don't have the means of communication. It is like with animals, they don't have the correct vocal cords to speak as humans do, and yet a gorilla can learn sign language which means they can understand and (if given the right means) can communicate themselves.

[*i]

Keep in mind by intelligent I'm meaning sentient. Talking is not required. Abstract thought is. Yes, gorrilas and dolphins are capable of rudimentary language skills, but I doubt you will find one capable of learning and comprehending calculus.

 

Vlish are the same way, "intelligent" relative to other creations. However, I don't see any sign of them being more than just a roamer with psionic abilities. The difference between a Gazer and a Vlish is much more than eyes and a mouth I contend.

[the Great Potato]

When you "talk" to the artilas and rogue creations, they don't understand you. You're using your shaper mind powers to control them.

[Retlaw May]

No offence i*, but you probably should have put in mathematics instead of calculas in your last post. Most of the human population probably wouldn't be able to learn calculus. Also, how many serviles or drakons would be able to learn calculus?

[*i]

Quote:

Originally written by Retlaw May:
No offence i*, but you probably should have put in mathematics instead of calculas in your last post. Most of the human population probably wouldn't be able to learn calculus. Also, how many serviles or drakons would be able to learn calculus?

This goes back to the fallacy of one part missing means the whole is as well. Suppose 5% of the human population can learn calculus, this means that as a species we are, in principle capable of abstract thought.

Each and every human being incable of comprehending each and every abstract thought out there does not imply that humans as a whole cannot comprehend abstract thought. I contend it does not matter how many can learn calculus, as long as some can learn some abstract thoughts beyond basic instinct or programmed instructions.

For example, my computer has programs that allow it to do calculus. Does that make it intelligent? Definitely not. The computer is only able to follow rigorous instructions. It is unable to develop methods to solve calculus problems that have yet to be solved because it cannot "understand" the theory behind calculus, it can only do what it is told. Humans, on the other hand, do not have preset instructions for calculus, we think about it abstractly.

Back to GF, Serviles and Drakons clearly understand the concept political freedom and liberty, an abstract concept. I doubt any animal (or my computer for that matter) could really understand that beyond being in a cage or from very specific instructions. From what we've seen of the Serviles and Drakons, they tend to be quite articulate.

Serviles in GF2 were able (with the help of Tulderac) develop and breed their own Drakons to defend Drypeak. Likewise the Drayks and Drakons could comprehend genetics well enough to refine themselves as well as create things like Rotghoths. Such things I would put as requiring abstract thought.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

Quote:

This has got to be the most non-sequitor argument that I've heard this week. I'll break this up into a few points:

I don't see any evidence that Drayks/Drakons are unable to feel empathy and remorse. They probably do with their own kind. Be that we've never played a Drayk/Drakon, it is hard to tell much about them other than what humans see.

In the conversation with Hurka in the Breeding Caverns, if you've become addicted to canisters she mentions how it eventually takes away "your" species (note how she specifically says "your") ability to feel compassion and sympathy for "lesser creatures." If you press her for how to cure the effects or reverse the changes, she only asks why you would care or would want to. Then there's the Geneforge and the surrounding labs, which routinely performed shaping experiments on how to make more powerful drakons, and mentions the experiments that resulted in failure, i.e. a deformed monstrosity that died either during or shortly after it creation, and what it was believed to be the cause of their death. Like being shaped without a head, for instance. Drakons clearly lack empathy for what they consider lesser creatures, and they barely have enough for each other if they're willing to sacrifice the lives of their own kind in the name of science. Also, they aren't much different from Shapers because Omen Eye will tell you it was created and enslaved by Akhari Blaze, and forced to guard Agatha and the other captured Shapers. Sure, they might be able to do calculus, quantum physics, open heart surgery, write deep metaphor-rich allegorical poems, or sing songs about the joys of eating and devouring humans. My point was the ability to think abstractly wasn't enough criteria to determine if an intelligence to be allowed to exist if it doesn't understand the most important thing of all: why it shouldn't go around terrorizing and eating any lesser intelligences it may encounter.

Quote:

Different cultures have different values. You could say the Drakons are immoral, but that does not make them incable of abstract thought. Connecting the above paragraph, let us suppose you are a Black slave living on a plantation in the US South in 1840. You might see Whites as immoral and lacking empathy from your perspective. This is not necessarily true of course.

In that time period it would probably be a safe bet as a runaway slave to assume all Whites would betray them and turn them in if given the chance. Sure, there were abolitionists and Quakers, but the fact is the vast majority would be lacking in empathy, especially if they could rationalize to themselves the enslavement and torture of human beings and use religion and "science" to prove how they must be subhuman. It doesn't matter if they actually owned the plantation or worked as an overseer. It was ingrained into American society (including the North) that African people weren't human and there was no need to feel sympathy or pity for them. It was a culture that invented minstrel shows, lynchings, Slave Codes, The Fugitive Slave Act, and the Grandfather Clause. Black people weren't even allowed to vote in the South until about 50 years ago. There are exceptions to every rule, but a slave living in the Antebellum South would have perceived White people in general to be immoral because at that time the vast majority were immoral.

Quote:

Even if I concede the above empathy and remorse are not the only type of abstract thought. Sociopaths can still comprehend advanced mathematics, politics, etc. without having empathy/remorse.

And we have a place in society for sociopaths that act out on their disregard for life; prison. The worst of which either serve life terms or receive death sentences. It doesn't matter how "smart" someone is if they're seen as a threat to society. We remove their ability to do harm to the average citizen by placing them institutions where they can either learn to feel and express empathy or spend the rest of their days among other dangerous, amoral individuals.

Quote:

What it boils down to is a logical flaw that if you lack one compnent it necessarily destroys the whole argument. I agree empathy and remorse are part of abstract thought; however, there are many others. Being incable of one does not mean that you are incapable of doing the others in the category.

What it does mean is that such a being is a ticking time bomb waiting for the right provocation to set them off. It's bad enough preventing human criminals from doing harm to society. Imagine trying to capture and imprison a 2 ton fire breathing lizard.

Quote:

Keep in mind by intelligent I'm meaning sentient. Talking is not required. Abstract thought is. Yes, gorrilas and dolphins are capable of rudimentary language skills, but I doubt you will find one capable of learning and comprehending calculus.

I fail to see how that means they're unable to understand love, friendship, kindness, anger, or hate. I also don't see why having "thoughts about thoughts" is more important than simply having "thoughts." If you treat a dog kindly it's entire life, it'll form a bond and want to spend time with you. Treat it cruelly, and eventually it'll start attacking you on site. It doesn't matter if the dog can think "I like/hate so and so because..." as long as it can form the attachment or repulsion based on prior experiences.

Quote:

When you "talk" to the artilas and rogue creations, they don't understand you. You're using your shaper mind powers to control them.

Your Shaper mind abilities allow you to influence how they respond and control their thoughts if it's strong enough (think about Jedi mind tricks). They actually do have the ability to communicate, even if only rudimentarily.

[Retlaw May]

Even though animals are not able to comprehend our politics, doesn't mean they don't have almost equally complex politics either. Many animals do have social structures that basically integrate politics as part of it. Think of merekats, gorillas, several types of monkeys, and several others.

PS Dolphins share in common with us a rare trait in which they have sex for pleasure whenever they wish, and form complex relationships.

[*i]

I'm saying they share some in common, but they cannot comprehend much of what we can. I'm certain their politics are much simpler than ours, they cannot comprehend the issues we can. Their politics is definitely not "equally complex".

 

Again, you are grasping at minor details and very specific examples I give and not the big picture. Sure, you will find similar things elsewhere as you get "closer" to humans in an evolutionary sense. I doubt you will find any other species with the ability to ponder and analyze the universe around them which is huge in being self-aware.

[John S]

Quote:

Savage Ed Walcott:

Quote:

This has got to be the most non-sequitor argument that I've heard this week. I'll break this up into a few points:

I don't see any evidence that Drayks/Drakons are unable to feel empathy and remorse. They probably do with their own kind. Be that we've never played a Drayk/Drakon, it is hard to tell much about them other than what humans see.

In the conversation with Hurka in the Breeding Caverns, if you've become addicted to canisters she mentions how it eventually takes away "your" species (note how she specifically says "your") ability to feel compassion and sympathy for "lesser creatures." If you press her for how to cure the effects or reverse the changes, she only asks why you would care or would want to.

Drakons can match humans in terms of intellect, right? So assuming that humans sympathize because of their intelligence, Drakons should have the capability as well. I think it's safe to assume that humans sympathise because I think they examine the situation and realize that it could have been them, or they had a loved one who was in the same situation, etc., meaning that they think about the facts as they are percieved and use their experience to decide what to do.

You say (at least, I hope you say; my reputation can't take another accusation that I'm misrepresenting things, much less gleefully) that Drakons, because they show no evidence of feeling empathy, must not be able to. But then, if you take capitalism to an extreme level with any hypothetical society, you get pretty much the same result; even if that society were hypothetically human. And if you oppress a group of humans (say, a race) and make them aware of their oppression, they will lose empathy for those who oppressed them. So in short, I blame Drakon greed (which becomes extreme capitalism) and oppression for their lack of symapthy.

Quote:

Then there's the Geneforge and the surrounding labs, which routinely performed shaping experiments on how to make more powerful drakons, and mentions the experiments that resulted in failure, i.e. a deformed monstrosity that died either during or shortly after it creation, and what it was believed to be the cause of their death. Like being shaped without a head, for instance. Drakons clearly lack empathy for what they consider lesser creatures, and they barely have enough for each other if they're willing to sacrifice the lives of their own kind in the name of science.

I dispute the belief that, because they kill one of their own, they must be short on empathy. Watch this.

Style 1) Well, that was its purpose. Drakons made it, they should have a right to decide how it lives and dies and even if it has to work for them in dangerous conditions. It may seem a little extreme, but they acted within their rights as creators.

Style 2) The only thing that suffered for its creation was the creation itself. Since the creation died, there is in effect nothing which is in pain for related reasons or remembers pain for related reasons.

[Suspicious Vlish]

Text:

Quote:

Drakons can match humans in terms of intellect, right? So assuming that humans sympathize because of their intelligence, Drakons should have the capability as well.

Sorry to butt in, but I see a few questionable assumptions are being thrown about.

 

I don't agree with the assertion that intelligence is proportional to the ability to feel compassion.

 

From what I understand, intelligence is the ability to mentally adapt to one's surroundings. Hence, the ability to feel empathy isn't necessarily related to intelligence. I'd say that a brilliant sociopath such as Hannibal Lector is more intelligence than the average human being.

 

Personally, I think it's pushing it to say that Drakons can't feel empathy. I think that they do feel empathy, but choose to ignore it for the 'greater good'. Pawns must die in a game of chess. Unfortunate, but necessary.

[Major]

Well, Savage Ed Walcott did point out something. It is that the rebels don't treat their creations any better than shapers. It says that a number of times through out the three games.

The only time I can think of it not being so is when the rebels let that Battle Gamma live it's life out when it was deformed. Though you could say it was cruel to do that because the extreme amount of pain it would feel before it died.

However, I found an example of extremely intelligent creations that are made by shapers and even (in a way) honored by shapers.

 

The servant minds!

 

--------------------

"You shall be my servant with a mind!!! Eventually."-The crazy person behind me.