John S

The Shapers could try a system where all decisions are handled democratically. :ambiguous:

Quote: Originally written by Ephesos: Quote: Originally written by Randomizer: Nagas are just a grinding battle with the fighters having to hack their way through them. ...do the black shades ever summon? I can't seem to remember. Yes. Just about as much as any spellcaster, which makes an invisible spellcaster pointless. You'd think that the one empty spot among the huge crowd of terrors would be a dead giveaway, or that the lines of fire and lightning wouldn't also tell you where they are. But I guess not.

I'm assuming you're talking about Geneforge 3. If you're not, I deny and can prove that I am not responsible for any broken games. If it's Geneforge 3 and your game still breaks, it's still not my fault because this is technically just friendly advice. Placing an item on a space isn't worth the trouble; I'm not even sure it's possible. Placing an item in a pack, however, is good if you need a certain random quest item or you just want an overpowered character. However, you should probably make, to be safe, 1) A backup of the save file for the character to whom you will give an item 2) A backup of the edited script before it was edited 3) A backup of your game if, for some reason, you messed things up so badly that you just want to start anew Okay. So. First you'll want to get at what are called "scripts". These contain most of the text and non-engine calculations in the game. On Windows, the directory is C:\Program Files\Geneforge 3\Data\Scripts. They should be opened with as basic of a text editor as you can find; double-clicking will probably open them in a format which will not cause any trouble, though. The way that you decide which one to open will be to find out at what point or zone in the game you want to recieve an item. The scripts should be listed by island, although you might not notice as they have funny names. The scripts you want to edit will have names like "zXYnickname"; the "z" should be there to signify that it is the script for a zone, the "X" and "Y" identify which zone, and "nickname" will usually be a shortened version of the zone's actual name. Don't yet open something with a "dlg" at the end; those are more complicated. Once you're reading the actual script with a text editor, you'll see things like "beginzonescript" and "beginstate". Don't put anything in the "beginzonescript" space; only very special things go in there. Instead, just start reading the dialog (the things that sound like they might be displayed in the game, e.g. "You step into the room and are immediately assaulted by a smelly man", not the things like "get_ran" or "set_aggression"). Once you recognize the text and can figure out where in the game you'll see it, you're ready to give yourself an item. Take note of the title of the text file and the state (you can tell which state it is by the "beginstate X" header which is justified almost all the way to the left). In the space between each "beginstate" and the following "break", everything which is written will be run by the game. That doesn't mean you'll necessarily be given any indication, but it will. So make a new, blank line in the state you're changing and directly below the "beginstate"; use the tab key to indent exactly once, and then write in your code. The code is "reward_give(x);". The "x" signifies the number of the item. For a full list of all items, see here . Make sure you include the ";" at the end of the line, there are no spaces, and that the line you just created and the next are separated (usually by pressing "Enter" or "Return"). Don't paste in "reward_give(x);" itself; fill in the "x" with the number of the item you want to give yourself. Then start up the game. Find in the game the place where you saw your selected dialog. Trigger the dialog. You should get a single item of the type you entered. If you run the dialog more than once, you should get the item more than once.

Quote: Originally written by Thuryl: Quote: Originally written by ****: Once something dies, it no longer feels anything. So once it's dead the suffering it underwent no longer matters. It's only while that something is suffering or remembers suffering that there's a problem. As the amount of time that something suffers or remembers suffering before death increases, it becomes worse. Isn't that, if carried to its logical conclusion, an argument for exterminating all life on Earth? Well, that depends on whether you think that the happiness you will experience should factor into the equation somehow. If you believe what I posted, and also believe that happiness and pleasure can make up for suffering, then no, as long as you can have more fun than sadness, you're fine. And if you're in so much pain that the suffering outweighs your hapiness and you have no way to improve your lot in life, you don't have time to think about why life exists anyway. If you believe that neither happiness nor suffering will matter once you're dead, like me, you start to live for the here and now. And as long as you don't plan on dying sometime soon, you can justify trying to avoid stife in your life and even in seeking fun. And if you feel like committing suicide, there's always your instinctual cowardliness and the knowledge that life isn't worth the effort of avoiding it because nothing is worth anything post mortem. I know you were joking, by the way.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Quote: Which would mean that if the situation didn't require it, you would have to avoid hunting them down and killing each on sight. You lost me here. The 5 or 6% of "good" drakons don't outweigh the danger of the morally apathetic drakons, and due to their pride, it's unlikely the "good" drakons would sit idlely by and watch their brethren be killed off, nor would they agree to any proposed terms of peace with humans. They might agree to live in seclusion, but they wouldn't agree to stop making or researching geneforges and shaping dangerous creations like gazers. First of all, I accidentally left out an "all". I meant to say that the nasty Drakons should be exterminated and the good ones can roam free. However, by "good" I mean the ones who don't intend to harm humans. There's no problem with Geneforges or dangerous creations; Drakons are more capable than humans in controlling them. It's just when they intend to destroy humanity using those tools that it becomes a problem. If a Drakon doesn't intend to harm humanity, I don't see why it has to be killed. Quote: Quote: Style 2 was my explanation for how an individual capable of Shaping could manipulate and torture a life without being, in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Whether the argument is used by Shapers or Drakons doesn't matter as far as I can tell. You really lost me here, since I can't see much difference between the way this argument is structured and the first one. Unless I'm reading something profoundly wrong, they're saying basically the same thing, more or less. They're leading the reader to the same conclusion, but from different points of view. Quote: Quote: The reason I broke up my last arguments into Styles was to try to show that whether you look at it from a Loyalist point of view or my own personal view, creations which die soon afterward don't have to be treated well, which would mean that empathy is unnecessary. Now you've really lost me. If you were planning on killing the creation anyway, it's okay to kill it, because it was made to die anyway? I could be understanding something terribly wrong, but that sounds a little circular to me. I can't see how longevity is an iportant factor in deciding whether to treat something humanely or not. Once something dies, it no longer feels anything. So once it's dead the suffering it underwent no longer matters. It's only while that something is suffering or remembers suffering that there's a problem. As the amount of time that something suffers or remembers suffering before death increases, it becomes worse.

I probably didn't make clear two or three things which I was doing. Style 1 was my attempt to mirror your beliefs and then use them to justify the death of a creation. Also, I was trying to show that the vast majority of Drakons if not all, though probably capable of feeling empathy, don't. Which would mean that if the situation didn't require it, you would have to avoid hunting them down and killing each on sight. Style 2 was my explanation for how an individual capable of Shaping could manipulate and torture a life without being, in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Whether the argument is used by Shapers or Drakons doesn't matter as far as I can tell. The reason I broke up my last arguments into Styles was to try to show that whether you look at it from a Loyalist point of view or my own personal view, creations which die soon afterward don't have to be treated well, which would mean that empathy is unnecessary. It's a bit more difficult to justify it from the majority's (in this thread) point of view, that any suffering is bad and should be avoided unless it prevents even more.

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.

But hopefully, she/he can appear as a ghost seeking revenge. And I think I remember hearing that Geneforge will have a plot which goes in a different direction. And it's great to say so, but it's even better to give us examples. Please?

Quote: Originally written by Lowbacca: How did what happen? be more specific. They were almost certainly referring to the double-post. And while people are critiquing post styles, I should tell you (and you should know by now, if you've been lurking for even a short period of time) that Spidweb forumers hate it when they have to read posts which defy commonly accepted laws of punctuation and grammar.

You need this .

Quote: Originally written by Enraged Slith: Making good graphics takes time. I'd advise spending the time to make one really good graphic as opposed to hundreds of lazy edits. Also, before starting, try to picture the general pose and idea of the creature (or terrain) you are bringing to life. For monsters, more important than expert color shifts and shading, your graphic needs to convey realistic energy and movement. Notice how the whole body moves when he swings? This process can be time-consuming but the accomplishment feels so much more rewarding. Yeah, I know I should spend more time on my graphics and I know I should draw new ones for each space rather than editing previous versions, but I just don't have the skill or the sustained interest.

We've already established how lazy I am. Sieg Heil. I'll probably have to fix that one up some day, partly because it has actual promise and partly because it's so bad.

Are there any plans to port this to Windows? Is that the same as porting it to work on an Intel processor?

Well, I was thinking about my idea of a Catholic priest. I google-imaged "Catholic priest" and found many pictures of white men in black dress-thingies. I was thinking about editing pictures like this one, ones which are on the public domain and so free to be edited for my own use. But then, while I was looking for a good palette for the monk, I noticed that Stareye had already made a graphic that was pretty much the same as what I would make. But he didn't look priestey enough, so I gave him a shiny necklace. Also, here's a link to the Archbishop graphic by Jayne Holt.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Quote: I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you. I have a right to express and defend my opinion and give supporting arguments for how I came to that conclusion. Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care), I haven't accused anyone of slinging insults nor am I "paranoid." I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, or what it even has to do with the issue at hand. Of course you have a right to argue. What you don't have a right to do is insult people. You may feel that they started it, and that you then have the right to answer in turn. That's where your paranoia comes into play. You're seeing insults where there are none (or occasionally where there are, but not so often). And what do debating tactics have to do with this specific issue? Pretty much nothing. But if you would quit your smear campaign this whole thing would be much cleaner. It's not like they're helping you convince others or win the argument. And I assume that you'll deny that you ever insulted anyone during the course of this debate. Well, here's some evidence; if you feel that this isn't enough, I can find more. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand. You interpreted my post as an insult and responded in what you percieved to be the same matter. Though you said, "Or maybe...", your intent is clear. Also, aside, you cannot say that my sympathy is misplaced until you have proven so, because that is part of the key issue. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Calling someone pathetic is not the best way to do things in most cases because in most cases you want to avoid using tactics commonly seen on the primary school playground. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care) Disdain, especially when you go out of your way to point out your disdain, is not a proper attitude; he is, after all, a human being with rights and emotions.

Bump. I decided that BoA needs more Catholic clergy. So here we go. A monk , color-shifted from a Spidweb graphic. A priest , which varys very little from the original graphic by Stareye except that it's been blinged out.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Quote: Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed. Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand. That was no implication that you are brainwashed or otherwise less intelligent. That was a statement that you shouldn't accuse people of being brainwashed, which gave slightly humorous reasons why. I'm getting tired of you arguing. Not for the reason you might expect: I fully understand that someone who disagrees is by no means automatically unintelligent and that their opinion might have merit as well. It's because you're being paranoid and assuming that since everyone is on the other side, they're slinging insults at you.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning. Ah, but it's okay to declare yourselves above these creatures? It's okay to decide which of them die and which of them live? To play god in another way? Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous. What exactly do you do? Also, it's always a bad idea to accuse someone of being brainwashed. It's always possible that the accuser is the one brainwashed but has been brainwashed to think that they're not, as well as being brainwashed to think that people who disagree have been brainwashed.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Quote: I think that, if no third parties suffer, intelligent or dumb, then there is no problem with killing something or someone. If you shoot me in the head and convince everyone I know that it was for the best, then whatever. But if something wants to live and so do its buddies, then no deal. I find this attitude towards the value of life disturbing and honestly don't see what it has to do with the subject at hand. I assume this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum, but I can't be completely sure. If a tree falls in a forest and no one heard it, did it make a sound? More importantly, did anyone hear it make a sound? The reason this is relevant is because I'm saying that in some cases the destruction of sentient life can be justified independently of the sentient's personal thoughts on the matter. If that's not relevant, we have a problem. You obviously have no problem destroying sentient life, so what is so disturbing? That it's humans instead of machines? Why does that matter? Human life is no more sacred than machine life; you have yet to show otherwise. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: Quote: If the way that something was created is as irrelevant as you say, and only the purpose matters, then we have a lot of people on this world which need killing. Simply because a parent got drunk, had an unlucky and unprotected fling, and was unable to abort, are they now allowed to kill that child? What about a family which disowns their child? That child certainly no longer has a purpose. This is a gross misinterpretation of my words and a gleeful contortion into something I never said. I find it personally insulting that you would try to twist my words into something so ridiculous to try to prove your point, but I'll use both real world and Shaper logic to refute what I assume is an intentionally fallacious proposition: Real world: Of course not. First of all, the child will potentially develop into an intelligent, independent being. Second the purpose of childbirth, regardless of whether the parents intentionally made the choice or not, is continuance of the species. We as human beings aren't bound to fulfill a designated purpose, or function, or value, or utility. Whether you become a hobo or a billionaire is irrelevant since you owe no obligation to contribute to society. As long as you don't pose an immediate threat to those around you you're free to do whatever you please with your life within the bounds of the law. That and the only killing other humans things tends to be disruptive to society. Shaper: Of course not. Human lives cannnot be replaced and are not expendable commodities. A human child cannot be replaced as easily as the life of a servile, and even if so, the shaping and altering of humans is a severe violation of Shaper Code. It is the duty of Shapers to protect and defend the lives of humans and improve that quality of life to the farthest extent within the resident Shaper's power. Okay, so rather than correcting me about what I said you said, you'll disprove what I said you said. This is going somewhere, but I'm not sure it's the right direction. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: You can stop trying to use killing babies or grown humans as an analogy. I've already explained the inherent difference between a genuine human and a magical (or technological) creation designed in lab by a human intelligence, especially if it was designed for some specific labor-intensive purpose. Machine, golem, servile, drakon, android, sentient program, I'm sorry but if it didn't pop out of a woman's legs and was crafted by human intelligence and design, it has some function in mind and was built to fit said function. If it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board to design a new one. I personally think it would be dangerous and irresponsible to allow an uncontrolled man made creation to roam free, and it's definitely a drain on resources. You've already explained the inherent difference between a human and a sentient machine. You haven't yet shown why that difference matters. Retlaw May, you simply have to convince the intelligent serviles that their unintelligent cousins are a) happy doing what they're doing and not being trained to think that they are serving the Shapers. Then the intelligent serviles have no reason to meddle with the unintelligent serviles.

Quote: Originally written by Retlaw May: Quote: Originally written by MagmaDragoon: I'm starting to think that the promblem cannot be solved... Smart serviles are smart enough to understand what freedom is, but the dumb ones can't even understand what freedom is, because they are... dumb. Then, if we could shape a smart servile from a dumb one, he surely want freedom, because he can think about/what is it, though when he was dumb he only wanted to work, and the prespective of freedom scares him. Sure, we can make all serviles free, but the dumb ones will never be happy... So, what the solution can be? Finally someone recognizes what I have been saying and arguing. It seems to me that whenever someone does not agree with another and the other makes a thought provoking arguement, THEY IGNORE IT. Look, MOST SERVILES ARE DUMB AND THEY LIKE (NAY EVEN LOVE) SERVING THEIR MASTERS AND DOING THEIR JOBS. These serviles don't care that the others are happy, they shove everything down the throat of others. Remember that in G3 there were 2 occasions where the intellegent serviles ruined the lives of 2 perfectly happy and loyal serviles who just became angry and confused in the meeting that occured between them. I already addressed this issue. I did not ignore it. Both of you ignored my post. Savage Ed Walcott, I find the concept of a true, thinking robot to be hard to grasp. But that really doesn't matter. I think that, if no third parties suffer, intelligent or dumb, then there is no problem with killing something or someone. If you shoot me in the head and convince everyone I know that it was for the best, then whatever. But if something wants to live and so do its buddies, then no deal. If the way that something was created is as irrelevant as you say, and only the purpose matters, then we have a lot of people on this world which need killing. Simply because a parent got drunk, had an unlucky and unprotected fling, and was unable to abort, are they now allowed to kill that child? What about a family which disowns their child? That child certainly no longer has a purpose. I just find the idea of deciding who you can kill and who you can't kill according to purpose be silly, because it's totally random. You get no choice in the matter of what purpose you're assigned; a shaper might have had a floor-scrubber in mind when you were shaped, and god knows what parents were hoping for when their children were concieved.

Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: magically clean oil spills Don't quote me on this, but I believe that there already are bacteria which are devoted to consuming oil. Quote: Originally written by Savage Ed Walcott: [We have a right to decide what happens to creations because we created them and they're unnatural.] And so what if they've been magically created? Why are they any less worthy? They still live, they still think, they still want to survive. Except for the nature of their creation (which has nothing to do with rights), they are no different from natural creatures. I'd like to know why the way you were created should cause such a drastic change in something totally irrelevant, or why it is relevant. Cars and robots do not have the same rights as humans because they cannot think. They can sense conditions and they can respond, but they must be set to respond and in what manner. They cannot reason; they can only see what is, check if they have been told to do, and then execute whatever command they've learned. Feral creatures need not be given the same consideration as humans because they would not notice, much less comprehend, the freedoms they had been given.

Quote: Originally written by Retlaw May: What gives the intellegent serviles the right to destroy the happiness of so many of their own kind? Why would every single servile have to be freed if only some want to be? Those that want to be free should be free, and those who want to serve the Shapers can serve the Shapers. If they are simply raised from birth to think of themselves as equals, then they will never want to be anything but free. So the intelligent ones can be free and can train their children to want to be free, and the unintelligent ones can keep having children who think of themselves as being unworthy.

Right, so I had this great post written out. It pointed out puns, it had elegant quote-work, it had FYTs. It was beautiful. But when I tried to post it, "the connection timed out" and I lost everything. So this time, I'm just going to spell out the main point rather than answering every little detail individually. What gives humans the right to command and destroy creations? It's not their superior power, intelligence, or numbers. It's not their ability to rationalize or to organize themselves into societies and communities. It's not because they can shape. So what is it?

Quote: Originally written by Retlaw May: I would sooner say that they were made from chimpanzees or something. Well, of course you would. That's the easy way out. It lets you continue to think the way you think, even though the only humanoids we've seen have been humans and creations. Quote: Originally written by Dikiyoba: It's been hinted at the serviles were created by modifying humans. But it doesn't really matter if they were human, it matters whether they are human (enough) to be given the same freedoms that the ordinary humans have. Dikiyoba. They quite clearly are. You can argue that some serviles are less intelligent, and so don't deserve the same rights as a human, but I would like to stress the point that they can become intelligent when raised in the proper atmosphere. Much like the situation of women a few hundred years ago.

If I don't argue about something here, that means I agree. I doubt that we'll see a separate faction for the Awakened. First of all, because Jeff doesn't have the time to outdo G1 with its multiple factions. This is because now, he'll have to make NPCs respond differently based on whether the PC is a servile or human, as well as (I assume) G4 being larger than G1 and having more opportunities for such encounters. The second reason is because if there's going to be an all-out war, those who can't make up their mind generally are mistaken for the enemy by both sides. Being able to summon demons would be a pleasant change from Jeff's solid record of making basic, undepressing games. I would really appreciate a little more straying from the target market of 9-year-olds, but it's not going to happen. Too many nosy, fearful mothers (but not fathers, for some strange reason) trying to pass on their fear of fairy-tale monsters to their little dears. I don't understand what's meant by "super-artifact" and "super-creation". Do you mean creations like Ur-Drakons, or even stronger things? Do you mean artifacts like rechargeable blessing-and-hasting wands, or do you mean something like a Geneforge? The Shaper Council hasn't appeared except in the endings so far. If they did appear, they wouldn't be done justice because of the Geneforge engine's inability to display anything more detailed than a vaguely human-shaped figure. I would like something impressive and dramatic, and I know that all I'd get would be a color-shifted Shaper graphic. Learned Darian has appeared in every single Geneforge, right? And undergone a sex change, if I remember correctly. If that couldn't keep him down for just one sequel, nor could ravenous creations touch her, then there are few things that would be strong enough to take Darian down.