Suspicious Vlish

Emp:

What about Geneforge II, where you can learn Create Drakon from the Barzites and Takers?

If the Trakovites had some effective means of fighting the Shapers (eg. Powerful magic?), I might be tempted to side with them. However, I think it's crystal clear that one would be unable to defeat the Shapers without taking advantage of the Shaping craft. So I tend to side with the Rebellion.

Emp:

That scenario reminds me of the 'Dark Age' ending for Deus Ex.

 

To be honest, such as option doesn't look so unattractive in the Geneforge series. Sometimes the only answer to a huge mess is to cut your losses and start over!

Emp:

I certainly hope the above doesn't occur, although it does seem to be Jeff's style to run out of creative genius as he wades through a series.

 

Instead of peace and Shapers giving 100% rights to serviles and humans, I'd rather Geneforge conclude with the Shapers beginning to show a more enlightened attitude towards drayks, humans and serviles. If Shapers on both continents are going to grant complete rights to creations and humans, it will be a slow, labourous process, which will result in the upheaval of the current social order (think of the outlawing of feudalism).

 

If Jeff ends the series with something similiar to 'And the Shapers made the serviles full citizens, and everyone lived happily ever after', I will be just a little disappointed.

 

This is where I'm inclined to agree. I would personally love to see a Rebel victory, and (if you are a pro-Rebel) play a role in attempting to establish a stable, functioning social order. Choices could include:

 

- Forging an alliance between drayk and servile.

 

- Overthrowing the Drakons in favour of a drayk-servile alliance, or vice versa. The attack on the Drakon headquarters could involve an entire drayk-servile army vs. the Drakon minions.

 

- Negotiating with the Sholai (both Loyal and pro-Rebel). From what I understand, the war has ground to a stalemate, and the entry of a new 'superpower' could tip the scales.

 

- A drafting of a 'Rights of Species' (sorry, I can't think of a better title), which will dictate where serviles, drayks, drakons, humans and Shapers stand. There would also be the issue of regulating Shaping activities.

 

- Determining whether Shaper rule returns to the area, or which rebel factions sit in government. Will you try to establish proportional representation (Lebanese style?), or favour one species over another.

Mica:

I don't care who he focused against (although he did focus on the Communist party, which was quite popular at the time). The fact still remains that the intimidation, abduction and murder of political opponents perverted the democratic process. The moment political opponents are manhandled, is the moment that democracy ceases to exist.

Mica:

 

If we follow that logic, Saddam and Stalin were both also democratically elected.

 

All that stuff about abducting and killing rival politicians, as well as storming the streets to intimidate and bash anyone who owes allegiance to a different party, is QUITE democratic.

I'm rather surprised that for both GF2 and GF3, Eyebeasts/Gazers haven't played a more pivotal role in balancing the scales of the conflict.

 

In my eyes, perhaps the only real threat to the Drakon alliance is the Gazer.

 

Think about it:

 

- One on one, the only creation strong enough to take down a Drakon is the Gazer/Eyebeast (and perhaps the Rotgroth). However, the Gazer is a very intelligent being, which means that it can actually attack its creator in a calculated way, whereas a Rotgroth cannot.

 

- Gazers appear to have a rather intense hatred of Drakons, whereas they are rather ambivalent towards Shapers. After all, Shapers really haven't done much to harm Gazerkind (yet), whereas the Drakons seem to enjoy using Gazers as pawns, despite the fact that it is quite clear that Gazers aren't to be messed with.

It only follows that Gazers/Eyebeasts should have broken ties with the Drakons, to form their own little elitist organization.

 

- Drakons have the ability to Shape. However, this is offset by a Gazer's ability to control the minds of entire regiments! All in all, a Gazer's ability to control the mind of entire regiments is more deadly than a Drakon's ability to create. In fact, by charming the Drakon's creation, it can quite easily turn the tables.

 

- Gazers/Eyebeasts apparently have a sense of 'collectivity' (I may be mistaken on this). When present in packs, they appear to have a social structure similiar to 'The Many' from System Shock II. If this is true, such a unique 'collective' social structure reduces the probability of power struggles between eyebeasts and gazers.

 

So the question here is... why haven't gazers and eyebeasts banded together to form a collective, and take the battle to both the Drakons and the Shapers? They seem quite capable of kicking ass. Why doesn't Jeff exploit this potential?

Emp:

 

The analogy makes perfect sense when tied in with my main contention.

 

The main contention: Option 4 may be feasible, even when the government/stratum of society that you are fighting against is NOT foreign. Hence, the distinction of 'foreigner/indigenous ruler' is incidental in some cases.

 

As you yourself have admitted, you would employ Option 4 (No holds barred) against the white regime, despite the fact that it is an indigenous (not foreign) government.

 

You've given no indication that you have in the past. Which is rather annoying, as I would have used analogies from '1984', which I find far more applicable to Shaper society. I succumbed to utilizing an Imperial Japan hypothetical, because:

 

1. Very few people have read '1984', whereas anyone worth their salt knows basic WWII history.

 

2. Knowing that most posters here are American, I wanted to involve them on an emotional level.

 

Granted, the Imperial Japan hypothetical isn't as accurate a portrayal of Shaper society as '1984' is, but it does the job, all the same. No analogy is perfect, especially in this case, where Jeff has invented an entire political order from scratch.

 

INNER PARTY.

 

I used it to demonstrate that a different stratum of society is identical in nature to a 'foreign' force in the eyes of another stratum of society, if their aims are in conflict, and one oppresses the other. Ergo: It is possible that while your oppressors are indigenous, they may behave in a manner which makes the 'foreigner' distinction incidental.

 

It makes sense because Creations behave in a predictable way, whereas the humans and Shapers tend to be more complex creatures, and hence have varying alliances. A human mage may feel resentment towards the Shapers due to the overt control exerted over them, whereas a wealthy merchant may feel quite happy with the Shaper regime.

 

I was never looking at what 'common' people would do in this situation, but as to how those severely oppressed would respond. Given that Creations suffer by far the most under the Shaper regime, it would make more sense if they were used as the baseline when it comes to determining how one reacts to Shaper oppression.

 

Given that the Drakons were few and far between in GF 2 and GF 3, whereas the serviles, drayks and rogue Shapers performing most of the militant work, it doesn't seem like such a stretch to assume that they could overthrow the Drakons. If it suited them to do so, that is...

 

Of course, this doesn't take GF 4 into consideration. Given that I didn't create this thread in the GF 4 forum, I'm assuming that it is reasonable that post GF 3 events should not be mentioned.

 

Freelance mages? Are you kidding? Freelance mages are under extreme scrutiny by the Shapers. For Christ's sake, the Shapers extreme control of all magic is mentioned several times during GF 2 and GF 3. The rebel mage on Greenwood Isle complains bitterly about such harsh control. A dialog box that pops up when you enter the School of Magery in Dhonal's Keep makes it quite clear that the Shaper's have very tight control over who becomes a mage, and what spells they can learn.

 

If by original scenario, you mean the Imperial Japanese scenario, may I point out that the occupied Americans are equivalent to the slaves of Imperial Japan?

 

Umm, yes. Given that I asserted that the Shapers were responsible for the creation of the Rebellion due to their blundering on Sucia, it follows that I accept that the Rebellion has not always existed.

 

Good for them. I'm not criticizing the Shaper regime of 100 years ago. I'm criticizing the state of the recent Shaper Regime, beginning at the events of Sucia, and ending at GF3.

 

As with the Roman Empire, I have no doubts that the Shaper Regime once functioned efficiently. But it's quite clear that ever since Sucia, it's messed up time and time again. The Shaper regime is in decline, and can no longer be designated as an orderly and efficient Empire.

 

The above is just an internal contradiction on your behalf. If the Shaper regime wasn't incapable of keeping the world from falling into chaos in the first place, then there would be no present chaos. You seem to forget that the Shapers are not fighting an external foe. They are fighting an enemy of their own creation.

 

Yes, I can ignore all those years of peace, given that the Shaper regime of 100 years ago is not necessarily representative of the Shaper regime of today. Empires have a tendency to become decadent and decline as the times change. The Shapers have had a good run, but it's come to an end. They will either adapt, or crumble.

 

No, I can't give them a break. The Shapers have just made too many inexcusable blunders. The Rebellion is the product of their arrogance, decadence and inability to compromise and adapt.

 

You're trying to rationalize simple inadequacy on behalf of the Shapers. The fact that the Shapers are having difficulty handling their own creations is testimony to their plain short-sightedness and stupidity.

 

I merely wanted to point out that 'Siding with the Devil You Know instead of the Possible Devil' philosophy isn't always sound or appropriate. If the current 'devil' is a barbaric and all powerful 'Inner Party', then you haven't got much to lose by siding with another possible devil (EastAsia perhaps?).

Emperor:

And tell me, do creations and/or non-Shaper humans have any representatives in the ruling body? From what I understand, the government consists solely of Shapers.

 

If we accept your logic, we must conclude that both human non-Shapers, and Creations, are being ruled by what is the equivalent of a foreign government, which has not been democratically elected.

 

The more you continue talking, the deeper you dig your own grave.

 

Interesting. You'd be willing to commit treason by killing your own people? Or are you willing to admit that perhaps whites aren't your own people? Perhaps they are a different strata of society, whose interests conflict with your own strata of society.

 

Careful, you're ever so close to further justifying acts of extremism against different stratas of your own society.

 

No. I'm altering the scenario, since you seem to be hung up on irrelevancies. While the Shaper's are indeed part of Shaper society, they are in a different strata from both non-Shaper humans and Creations. They may as well be considered a foreign force. Which is what I attempted to demonstrate by the 'blacks vs. whites' example.

 

I'd say that the Shaper society's hierarchy resembles the one observed in "1984".

 

Inner Party ('Aristocracy') = Shapers

 

Outer Party ('Peasants') = Non-Shaper humans

 

Proles ('Slaves') = Creations

 

You're nitpicking. The question here isn't whether prostitution would have any strategic value. The question here is assuming that encouraging prostitution DID have strategic value, would you be willing to engage in that act?

 

Quite simply, I'm merely attempting to gauge 'how far' the audience would go when attempting to fight a regime. I actually pilfered part of that quote from Question 4 from the novel '1984' (by George Orwell), a book which I have continually suggested you read in order to shed some light on my manner of thought.

 

1. Unsupported assumption.

 

2. Merely being the 'biggest fraction' of a population is not a justification for designating that faction the 'control group'.

 

So wouldn't it make more sense to use Creations as a baseline?

 

Personally, I don't think that any strata of society can be designated the 'control group'. Each strata has different (and often conflicting) goals.

 

Nonsense. The non-shaper humans are not the closest your can get to humans in the real world. The non-Shaper humans represent a strata of Shaper society, which is equivalent to the peasants in Roman society.

 

The Drakons dominate very little. In fact, they generally seem to be confined to the research halls, whereas the rest of the Rebellion is spread throughout the lands.

 

If it so suited the drayk-human-servile portions of the Rebellion, they could quite easily depose the Drakons. But it wouldn't suit their interests to do so. Much better to do so once the war is won, and a Free Republic is to be established.

 

A Sergeant generally treats the soldiers he commands like crap. Hell, the Allies used many of their footsoldiers as cannon fodder (D-Day and Gallipoli come to mind). Treating someone 'like crap' doesn't exactly amount to oppression. Also note that the vast majority of Rebel Lands are administrated by serviles and Drayks, not Drakons.

 

By live freely, do you mean living in perpetual fear, and slavish obedience, to the Shaper regime? Where even an apprentice Shaper can order about experienced mages, quartermasters, and human captains?

 

Don't delude yourself. Given that the Shaper regime can quite easily confiscate the goods of a merchant on a whim, I wouldn't say that free trade exists in the Shaper Empire.

 

Complete and utter nonsense! It's stated many times throughout the series that what magic non-Shaper humans can practice is tightly regulated by the Shaper regime. It fact, it's one of the reasons that non-Shaper mages are so bitter towards the Shaper regime.

 

They are practiced on Creations. You know, sentient beings. You haven't forgotten about that, have you? Then again, people tend to forget about the slaves/lower class.

 

Again, you're wrong. The Shapers have not kept the world safe, otherwise rogues wouldn't be such a threat to the citizens of their Empire.

 

No. All they ask in return is complete and utter obedience from both creations, and non-Shaper humans. The Shapers control far more than just the 'Shaping Aspect' of the world.

 

Open your eyes.

 

That's not a very effective rebuttal to a statement which I have supported with numerous examples.

 

Are they? From where I stand (having not played GF4), the Rebellion continues to grow stronger and stronger, despite the best efforts of the Shapers to hamper it.

 

If the Shaper regime were truly as orderly and efficient as you claim, then:

 

1. The Rebellion wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

2. The Rebellion wouldn't have been allowed to ferment, and grow to become such a significant threat.

 

3. Anarchy would not exist in the Shaper Empire.

 

I don't remember claiming that the Rebellion is a ruling body is superior to the Shaper regime, precisely because the Rebellion hasn't yet established a new order.

 

It makes perfect sense. The French knew that they were suffering under the Germans. They weren't aware of what liberation would entail for France. Hence, according to the saying you continue to make use of, the French would have been better off accepting the devil they know (German rule), instead of the devil they don't (Liberation, and possible anarchy and takeover).

mars:

I note that the above poster has been 'Canned'. Why? He provides a constant source of comic relief.

Zeviz:

 

I couldn't care less if you find my example 'insensitive'. I merely made a factual observation, and that was that Israel makes systematic use of collective punishment in order to quell dissent. And all you've been doing is attempting to pick a fight, merely because I dare to mention Israel. Since when was using Israel as example forbidden in these forums? Am I breaking any rules? If so, please quote which ones.

 

Otherwise, if you have a problem with my posts, you're welcome to ignore them. I wouldn't consider it a huge loss if you refused to respond.

Emperor:

And yet there is very little difference when it comes to oppression. Oppression is oppression, not matter who is dealing it out. I'm doubt that you'd find it much consolation if it was a countryman attaching electrodes to your testicles, instead of a foreign occupier.

 

Also note that your phrase 'your own government' is a little deceiving. I seriously doubt that a government which engages in such crimes of humanity was democratically elected by the people (and no, Hitler was not democratically elected, contrary to common misconception). Hence, to call it 'YOUR government' is highly misleading. Especially since Shapers aren't representative of the citizens they lead (non-Shaper humans and Creations).

 

That's rather reassuring. I was a little concerned that you didn't have the spirit of your forefather revolutionaries in you. After all, American revolutionaries fought against their own government, hence committing High Treason.

 

Would you be willing to hurt civilians if they supported the corrupt regime? Let's revert to my 'whites and blacks' scenario.

 

Assuming that you are a black slave in a white dominated country who maintains control with brutality similiar to that of Imperial Japan, would you be willing to harm any white civilian, or any blacks who collaborate with the white regime, if it aided your struggle for liberation?

 

I agree that in some instances, terrorism and extreme acts of violence merely detract from your cause. However, you will note that I carefully worded Option Four:

 

"I would engage in a 'dirty' war of resistance against the invaders, employing any acts of resistance which have strategic value in destabilizing the occupying regime, no matter how ethically unsound they may seem."

 

In otherwords, Option 4 does not necessarily require for you to support senseless acts of terrorism which detract from your cause. All it states is whether you would be willing to commit acts of terror if it had a net benefit effect to your resistance.

 

Would you be willing to kill civilians which supported the corrupt regime which you are fighting against, if the act resulted in a more successful resistance effort?

 

The above is a strawman argument. You've obviously misunderstood. I never claimed there was no difference between a foreign power, and a tyrannical ruling strata of society in your own country. Indigenous inhabitants often tend to be more outraged when occupied by a foreign power, due to a human's ability to feel a sense of nationalism. However, I did claim that this difference was incidental when it came to one of my contentions.

 

And that contention is that rationally, oppression is oppression, plain and simple. Merely because your own government is practicing it, instead of a foreign power, does not make such acts of barbarity more palatable. In fact, I'd argue that it is far worse when your countryman oppresses you, instead of a foreigner. You'd expect better from a comrade.

 

Control group? Huh? Are you treating a highly complex political and sociological situation as a science experiment?

 

Nevertheless, each group in Geneforge has its own interests and goals, and you need to justify why non-Shaper humans should be considered as a 'control' group.

 

1. Drakons are insane? I'd disagree. They just seem like reptilian forms of Barzhal. However, the hatred for creations is substituted for a hatred (and admiration) for Shapers.

 

2. Would I prefer rule under Drakons? I don't really know, as they haven't been given the chance to form a government in peacetime. They are pretty brutal when fighting a war. But then agian, who isn't?

 

But that's irrelevant, because as the matter stands, the drakons don't oppress diddly squat, and they most likely never will, as the Rebellion consists of far more than just the Drakons.

Presently, the Shapers hold almost total control, and oppress all that is not a Shaper. So you essentially have a choice between CONTINUING to remain under Shaper oppression, or POSSIBLY ending up Drakon rule.

 

As you yourself said, if you were under oppression, you would seek aid from Nazi Germany. After all, you couldn't fight Nazi Germany while under the bootheel of Imperial Japan.

 

Why are you suddenly changing your tune? What's the difference between 'insane' Drakons, and megalomanic Nazi Germany?

 

3. Even if your claim that "Shaper society is orderly" was accurate, it is still a laughable claim. After all, all that is required to maintain such order is the deprivation of basic human rights, the suppression of all free and independent thought, and the practicing of cruel and inhumane experiments. That's not so bad, right?

 

As I see it, there are two major questions here:

 

1. "Can an orderly society exist in which human rights are respected, and creations are awarded equal rights?".

I believe that the answer here is a resounding YES. However, if this is to happen, the Shaper regime must be deposed and replaced with a new government. The Takers were right in this aspect. If Creations are to ever be treated with any respect or dignity, the Shaper regime must first be scattered to the wind.

 

2. "Can the Rebellion produce the society I outlined in Qu 1.?"

Again, I believe that answer here is yes. There will definitely be anarchy and chaos during the transition from a Shaper regime to a Free Republic, but that is the trademark of any revolution. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

 

The Drakkons will definitely make forming a democratic Free Republic a headache, but I think it's reasonable to say that cooler heads will prevail. The younger generation of serviles, drayks and humans seem to be a pretty rational bunch.

 

Let's look at this objectively. The Shapers were the major contributors to the Rebellion, because they:

 

- Abandoned the serviles on Sucia, hence producing unchecked Shaper resentment, and resulting in the formation of the Takers (the 'seeds' of the Rebellion').

 

- Abandoned the drayks on Sucia, and declared them 'Barred' Creations after realized that they had created something that they couldn't control. This pretty much forced a rogue Drayk - Servile alliance.

 

- Engaged in almost unchecked research, which they left unguarded.

 

- Allowed one of their own members to get his grubby hands on this forbidden research (Barzhal). Many Shapers defected, and allied with Barzhal. As a result, extreme power was put into the hands of the serviles-drayk alliance, and the Drakon was born.

 

- Due to their stubborness, inaction, and refusal to compromise with a new political power, the Shapers allowed the Rebellion to grow and further feel justified in a war against the Shapers.

 

You've just missed the clue train. In my previous post, I pointed out that the only real reason put forward in support of the Shapers is that they are a stable, orderly, efficient regime.

 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. It was Shaper inaction, arrogance, brutality and stubborness which triggered, and was the main contributor, to the formation and fermentation of the Rebellion, and the anarchy which now sweeps through Shaper ruled territory.

 

The anarchy observed in the Geneforge series is prime evidence that the Shaper regime has failed. Their way of life no longer works, and the creations and humans are beginning to realize this. If the Shaper regime was stable, orderly and efficient (as you claim), then they wouldn't be in such a mess.

 

Then you'd need to explain the vast number of revolutions which have occured over the centuries.

I can just imagine the WWII French denying the assistance of the Allies as they were being led to the gas chambers. "Nope, sorry, but we don't want your help. We'll take the evil we know over the evil we don't."

 

What you need to realize is that the beginning of the end of the Shaper regime has come. Geneforge 1 contained a classic quote, which describes the entire series. "You can't unring a bell."

 

This quote doesn't just apply to the forbidden Shaper knowledge which has been leaked out to anti-Shaper factions. It also applies to the Rebellion in general. It has been demonstrated that creations and humans are capable of gaining and maintaining independence, as well as being able to hold own against the Shapers.

 

If the Rebellion were utterly crushed tomorrow, the seed of Rebellion would remain, to spring forth again and again. Thanks to the events on Sucia Island, both Creations and humans know that they can function as dignified and independent beings. And while this notion remains, the Shapers are doomed to eventual defeat. You can't unring a bell. Ideas never die, no matter how many people you kill.

Dikiyobi:

 

That's passive resistance, especially when you compare it with the Geneforge scenario.

 

Serviles and humans can't 'escape' Shaper territory, unless they take an active part in the Rebellion. And if they take any part in the Rebellion (even a non-violent role), they are engaging in resistance to the Shaper regime.

Zeviz:

I'm not. You are attempting to push me into discussing it, however. In order to prevent the derailing of this topic, I won't respond to any attempt to open a discussion relating to the Israel vs. Palestine conflict.

 

1. Quite simply, I don't agree that posters have 'chosen randomly'. Quite the contrary, the posters have chosen the option which is most similiar to their actual opinion.

 

2. If a potential voter feels that my poll does not include a viewpoint similiar to their own, they can quite easily abstain from voting, and merely express their option in this thread.

 

The below 7 poll options you suggested are not necessary...

Emp:

Thanks for the term. Although Aussies and the British do use the term 'majority' to describe the largest proportion, even if said proportion is less than 50%.

 

Not really.

 

- Imperial Japan uses the occupied Americans in cruel experiments. The Shapers use creations in cruel experiments.

 

- Imperial Japan does not allow the occupied citizens to form any political movement, or voice their desire for independence.

The Shapers do not allow the thought of independence from Shaper rule to even enter the heads of the non-Shaper humans and their creations. Needless to say, a political party consisting of creations is out of the question.

 

- Occupied Americans have no rights. Humans and serviles have no rights, even to that of a fair trial. If a Shaper wishes to dispossess you of your home and your possessions, tough titty. If a Shaper takes a dislike to you and wishes to vapourize you, tough luck.

 

- Imperial Japan uses extreme brutality to enforce its rule. The Shaper government employs extreme brutality to enforce its rule.

 

- Imperial Japan possesses an elitist attitude, where it considers the Japanese man superior to all other races. Likewise, the Shapers consider themselves superior to all non-Shapers.

 

In fact, I can't really detect any noticable difference between my Imperial Japan, and the Shaper Regime.

 

1. The above is debatable. Did the Shapers establish their order by invading the two major continents, and tearing the land from the hands of the indigenous, non-Shaper inhabitants?

 

2. I've explained why the distinction between 'foreign oppression' and 'indigenous oppression' is irrelevant. My hypothetical scenario was established to demonstrate that under severe oppression, one is willing to employ desperate measures in order to resist and refuse.

 

WHO the oppressor is is incidental to my contention. Oppression is oppression, whether your oppressor is black or white, foreigner or countryman.

 

Would you go with the Shapers if you were a servile? What about a non-Shaper human? Would you aid a regime which has a long history of oppressing and intimidating your kind?

 

You might claim that at least Shaper society is stable. On the surface, that may seem a valid objection. However, Ancient Egypt and Nazi Germany were also a stable societies. Unemployment was at a record low, law and order dominated, and society ran smoothly.

 

However, I doubt that the Egyptian slaves would have smiled when you reassured them that 'at least you have a job, and a place in the current society'. And I'm sure that it would have been of little consolation to the Jews if you told them "Well, by accepting your gassing without resistance, you are ensuring that Germany remains stable", as they were being led to the gas chambers.

 

An orderly society is not necessarily a desirable social order. And I think it is debatable as to whether the Shaper society is even orderly, given that they are responsible for the creation of the Rebellion. How anyone can support the Shaper regime when it in fact created the anarchy which they claim to detest is contradictory.

 

You're apparently confused, and are unintentionally obfuscating the issue as a result. The question here isn't whether you would assist an invader, but whether...

 

1. You would employ severe means to overthrow a regime (either indigenous OR foreign) which oppressed your particular strata of society.

 

For instance, would your opinion change if I substituted 'Imperial Japan' for the ruling white elitist class, while I specified that the rebellion consisted of the oppressed blacks (assuming that the individual answering my question is also black)?

 

2. You would ally yourself with another group suffering for megalomania in order to fight your current oppressor.

 

Does it really matter WHO your oppressor is? Would the severity of your resistance change if your oppressor was not a foreigner? Think carefully about this.

Dikiyobi:

 

45% can be a majority, if each of the other three options received less than 45% of the votes. If there are more than two options available, the majority can be less than 50%.

 

Remember, Tony Blair was voted in on a majority of less than 50%. Perhaps the word 'majority' has a slightly different meaning in American politics (note: I'm Australian).

 

Either way, Option 4 has received far more votes than Options 1, 2 or 3. That is what is important here.

 

We could quibble over this, but I think it's obvious that the poll does suggest that people will take extreme measures (which are often labelled as 'radical' by spectators) against extreme oppression.

 

Thanks!

Alberich:

I suggest you read 'The Moon is Down' by John Steinbeck. He argues that when occupiers use the harsh tactics which you describe, support for the resistance would actually increase.

 

Collective punishment only increases resentment amongst the occupied, and hence encourages resistance. Witness Israel's use of collective punishment against the Palestinians and Lebanese in order to 'suppress terrorism' (this is merely an example. And yet, we observe the opposite effect (this is merely used as an example, not to open a new point of discussion).

 

The Nazis also employed collective punishment, to their detriment.

Wow, this thread has turned out to be quite a success. I think that most (if not all) posters here are aware as to what I am alluding to with my hypothetical scenario.

 

What's interesting here is that a majority of individuals have chosen option 4, where you will do 'anything it takes' to resist oppression, no matter how unethical it may seem.

And yet, it seems that when it comes to the issue of the Shapers vs. the Rebellion, posters seem to have very little sympathy for the Rebellion. Mostly because it is too bloodthirsty.

 

Perhaps now that I've painted a analogy which is more relevant to our lives, people can at least be a little more sympathetic towards the Rebellion's perceived extremism.

 

Why was Nazi Germany mentioned? It does NOT represent the Rebellion, as one poster suggested. More accurately, it represents the Drakon alliance.

 

The serviles, humans and drayks of the Rebellion are often criticized for allying themselves with the megalomaniac Drakons (Nazi Germany), who may not be ethically superior to the Shapers (Imperial Japan). But as Emperor Tug pointed out earlier:

 

Many would say that the serviles/humans/drayks are merely exchanging one master for another. But that's not a given. It's not even really known whether the Drakons will be on top of the food chain when the war ends.

 

What IS a given is that in their current condition, serviles, humans and drayks suffer under the complete and total control of an oppressive Shaper regime, and have done so for as long as they can remember. The crimes of Shaper rule against non-Shapers are well documented.

 

When you're desperate, you get the help which you have available. Not the help which you'd necessarily want. Allying yourself with a megalomaniac is not an act of evil. It's an act of desperation.

 

This has been demonstrated time and time again. A rather nice example is Poland. During the early 1800's, after the Partitioning of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia, the Polish served with distinction under Napoleon Bonaparte. They did so because Napoleon promised to do his best in order to carve a new Poland out of Europe. Sadly, due to Liepzig and Waterloo, he wasn't successful.

 

During WW1, Poland was willing to support Germany in order to liberate itself from Russian rule.

 

During WW2, they allied themselves with the Russians in order to liberate themselves from Russian rule.

 

Quite simply, I do not see the Drakons as 'the' Rebellion, but a Nazi Germany. A necessary evil, which the Rebellion must (temporarily) ally itself with. They are powerful, but there are relatively few of them when compared to the rest of the Rebellion.

 

Those in the front lines, those marching in rank and file, are serviles, humans, drayks, and rogue Shapers. They are more numerous, and if they truly wished it, they could shake off the Drakons like a horse shakes the flies away with its tail.

 

No doubt people are going to start and nitpick my analogy. Yes yes, it's not 100% similiar. That's what makes an analogy an analogy. What is important is that it demonstrates that:

 

1. The majority of posters here appear to be willing to engage in methods of resistance which are 'extreme', when they are being held in thrall by a highly oppressive regime. Whether it is foreign, or an 'indigenous' strata of society (think the 'Inner Party' from 1984, or the Royalists in France), is not really relevant. Oppression is oppression, whether it is being dealt out by foreigners, or by a strata of the said society.

 

2. These posters also seem to have no qualms about allying themselves with a highly questionable foreign regime, in order to fight their oppressor. This demonstrates that when under oppression, it is wise to take whatever allies you can get, even if they megalomaniacs.

 

My apologies to those who feel that the poll offers too few options, but I feel that the main ones have been covered. I can't rightly include every option, including every act which you may be/may not be willing to commit against the regime. The poll would be three pages long. If you have a '3.25' opinion, it might be a good idea to round down and vote for option three.

Zeviz:

 

- attacking off-duty soldiers = Forbidden by Geneva Conventions. An off-duty/reserve soldier is not taking part in the conflict at the present, hence he is considered a civilian.

 

- attacking military factories = Fine by the Geneva Conventions.

 

- attacking railroads, bridges, and other infrastructure that can be used by both soldiers and civilians = Controversial. Witness Israel turning Lebanon's infrastructure to rubble. From what I understand, damaging infrastructure is not strictly forbidden, if the resulting damage to civilians is not excessive. It's been argued that Israel's destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was excessive and unnecessary, and I'd be inclined to agree.

 

- attacking power plants, machine shops, and other industry that has both military and civilian use = Same as above.

 

- kidnapping/killing political leaders = Forbidden. Arresting them and subjecting them to a fair trial for war crimes is not.

 

- kidnapping/killing relatives of leaders = Forbidden.

 

- kidnapping/killing relatives of soldiers = Forbidden.

 

- kidnapping/killing regular civilians = Forbidden, although some allowance is made for collaterol damage. Once again, 'excessive' collaterol damage is frowned upon.

Zeviz, if you're confused by what I mean when I say 'Gentleman's War', think of the Geneva Conventions. Sure, they probably wouldn't exist in the alternative history I created, but use the Geneva Conventions when attempting to determine how one conducts a 'Gentleman's War'.

I agree with Dikiyoba on this one. Trajkov stayed sane after using the Geneforge because he had an extraordinary strength of character and will.

Drakey:

 

The option of violent 'non-extremist' resistance is made available in Option 3. Hence my expression 'Gentleman's war'.

I've decided to create a poll so that veteran Geneforgers can respond with their opinions on a hypothetical scenario.

 

Let's assume that the following alternative history occured:

 

World War II has concluded, and has resulted in a victorious Axis (Nazi Germany has conquered Europe, the Africas, and what was the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Imperial Japan has conquered all of the Pacific and much of Asia).

 

Imperial Japan's occupation of the United States is as brutal (if not worse) as the occupation of China during World War II. American citizens live in constant fear of an oppressor who abducts American citizens for use in forced labour camps, and as lab rats for cruel experiments.

 

At a whim, the Japanese invaders can execute any American citizen, without giving him a trial.

American political parties are banned, and even the slightest resentment of the occupying force (or the thought of United States Independence) is labelled as treason, and brutally crushed.

 

Now that I have set the hypothetical scenario, all that remains is for you to explain how you would respond to this Asian threat.

I'd definitely choose the Rebellion over the Shapers. Viva La Rebellion!

I remember boosting Luck in GF2, and getting two Roamertooth Bands (+2 to Fire Shaping) in a row, just outside the Magus Complex. Highly unusual, and quite a nice perk.