Avadon 2 faction poll.

[Owenmoz]

After playing corruption i thought it was a hard choice on weather to stay loyal to the pact or not. Actualy even on the first game it was complicated(ok not so much as its impossible to kill redbeard unless you cheat) but much less so.

So im just trying to figure out what you people chose and why.

 

I ended up choosing to get behind dheless at first. And just overthrowing redbeard at the second try. I chose dheless because of patriotism sorta. Long story. And because he was smart and not greedy. I also sided with the wildrim rebels(even though i dont support their cause. It is foolish, untimelly, radical and shortsided. As alwan said in g3, there is a time to change constitution. Thats not when at war) because i'd rather not kill silke.

And no matter what i knew i had to kick redbeard out. I dont like him. And he wasnt being usefull at that point.

Also anyone else got annoyed at the complete lack of hints on what drinking water from the corruption would do? I was expecting something imediate or so like scribane and canisters that affect you in game and lets you keep track on how far gone you are. Didnt seem fair to waste the whole gamethrough over that.

 

Anyways im actually interested. On what you people chose.

[Slawbug]

It's quite possible to kill Redbeard without cheating. It takes a while, but it's very doable.

[Lilith]

If anything, Avadon 2's Redbeard is a harder fight than Avadon 1's, even if it doesn't take quite as long.

 

Also anyone else got annoyed at the complete lack of hints on what drinking water from the corruption would do? I was expecting something imediate or so like scribane and canisters that affect you in game and lets you keep track on how far gone you are. Didnt seem fair to waste the whole gamethrough over that.

 

Well, by the point in the game where you first get that choice, it was possible to have met another person who had done the same thing. If seeing what had happened to them wasn't enough to scare you off...

[Edgwyn]

I stayed loyal to the pact because the rebels did not offer any improvement over the pact. In the interests of seeing what would happen, I did complete things with Silkie and kill Red Beard, but my personal story line is that my PC stayed loyal to the pact.

[lordhoff]

If anything, Avadon 2's Redbeard is a harder fight than Avadon 1's, even if it doesn't take quite as long.

 

 

 

Well, by the point in the game where you first get that choice, it was possible to have met another person who had done the same thing. If seeing what had happened to them wasn't enough to scare you off...

 

The problem is, no way to know what is safe and what is not. As far as I can tell, the only unsafe item is the water found at one or two places. Seems the potions that restore health, etc are safe.

 

 

As usual, I tried each. The one in Av-I that I was most comfortable with was staying loyal to Redbeard. In Av-II, I felt very poorly siding with Dheless, the rebels, and with Redbeard - pro pact/anti-Redbeard was the most comfortable for me. I REALLY felt bad when I double crossed (memory problem) the general in charge of the anti-rebel forces.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

Odil

[Triumph]

Dheless was an interesting figure, but unfortunately I can't side with him without siding with the Wyldrylm rebels. And I find the Wyldrylm rebels to be incredibly, insufferably stupid and unsympathetic. Since I couldn't bring myself to betray Odil to the rebels, I had to forego being pals with Dheless.

 

I guess it's sort cheating (or not?), but setting the game difficulty down to the lowest level definitely made beating Redbeard in Ava2 very feasible, even for me. Keep that in mind if your goal is just to see how the ending plays out.

[Owenmoz]

Honestly i took a whole week trying to kill the first redbeard. Im not joking, i went for classes with the battle still on. Wasnt anywhere near rewarding either but i cant remember. With dheless's and protus's help redbeard was fairly easy. Just had to have someone to tank him. As a fighter Yoshira died easilly so had to be placed away. Speed burst,circle of fire,ressurection scrolls(if you dont mind the abscence of the medal) and ensnaring turrets were particularly usefull.

And yah betraying odil was really hard to do. He seemed like a good person. I actually stopped playing for a while when it came down to that choice.

Siding with dheless didnt feel very good. I dont like betraying people as a whole. But i got where he was comming from. And with the council trying to take over avadon i felt slightly more justified. Siding with redbeard was pointless really. Better having him die there. At least he will be remembered still slightly strong/powerfull.

[Randomizer]

Redbeard's fight in Avadon 2 is timed so you don't spend hours at it. But both are hard for different reasons and Avadon 2 is harder if you don't get Dheless and/or Protus to help you. But both fights come down to properly placing your party and keeping Redbeard from getting protection and summoning help.

[lordhoff]

Honestly i took a whole week trying to kill the first redbeard. Im not joking, i went for classes with the battle still on. Wasnt anywhere near rewarding either but i cant remember. With dheless's and protus's help redbeard was fairly easy. Just had to have someone to tank him. As a fighter Yoshira died easilly so had to be placed away. Speed burst,circle of fire,ressurection scrolls(if you dont mind the abscence of the medal) and ensnaring turrets were particularly usefull.

And yah betraying odil was really hard to do. He seemed like a good person. I actually stopped playing for a while when it came down to that choice.

Siding with dheless didnt feel very good. I dont like betraying people as a whole. But i got where he was comming from. And with the council trying to take over avadon i felt slightly more justified. Siding with redbeard was pointless really. Better having him die there. At least he will be remembered still slightly strong/powerfull.

 

I beat Redbeard (alas, I play on normal) in a couple of tries but, I have to ask, how did ensnaring turrets help? I mainly used the fire turret and healing turrets. Throughout the game, I could never see much advantage with the ensnaring turret so I didn't even consider using it. I kept feeling it must have a purpose and you may be someone that knows its capabilities (I obviously don't).

[Owenmoz]

 

 

I beat Redbeard (alas, I play on normal) in a couple of tries but, I have to ask, how did ensnaring turrets help? I mainly used the fire turret and healing turrets. Throughout the game, I could never see much advantage with the ensnaring turret so I didn't even consider using it. I kept feeling it must have a purpose and you may be someone that knows its capabilities (I obviously don't).

 

Sometimes your sorcerers or weaker charachters argo redbeard. And he might try to attack them. Sometimes you're able to knock him back. And then there are the constructs he summons. Ensnaring turrets will prevent free movement. And a lot of the fight there is meelee so basically it gives you a high chance to hit without being hit back. As such you can use the extra turn to heal or buff yourself.

 

Edit: Its good because it cannot be countered. In other fights slowing turret is much better but in this one he constantly gets a speed bonus which can counter the slowing effect.

[Slawbug]

Ensnaring Turrets are maybe my favourite turret. Their damage output is middling, but because their damage hits a big area you tend to hit more enemies, and you have a lot of flexibility with positioning them. The ensnaring effect consistently relieves pressure from swarms, even when those swarms have ranged attacks, because they allow you to position your weaker party members out of range. (Or all party members, if you attack with AoE's or take non-direct-attack actions.) This effect lands especially consistently when you have Call of the Frenzy on.

[lordhoff]

That's one thing I like about these sorts of games - so many ways of doing things. The above never even occurred to me.

[Alberich]

I talked about it at length in this old thread -- http://spiderwebforu...poilers-within/

 

...I can't get why anyone would want to attack Redbeard. Once you get past how his various opponents have grievances against his rule, the question then comes: what happens after you overthrow him? And the answer seems to be, at best, a new war of conquest by the Tawon Empire (in which the Pact countries lose), or at worst new wars with no end in sight. Edgwyn has the right of it.

 

You might justify pro-Pact, anti-Redbeard on the theory that he's too old and weak to hold it together...but I'm told if you fight him you learn the opposite. I did try to favor more power being returned to Hanvar's Council, more transparency with the Pact, but actually overthrowing Avadon or breaking up the pact doesn't make sense to me.

[Lilith]

...I can't get why anyone would want to attack Redbeard.

 

I mean, wanting the power and prestige that comes with being Keeper seems like a perfectly good reason in itself, if your character is that kind of a person. Sure, it's a dangerous job, but if you've gotten that far it's not like danger has stopped you before.

 

 

You might justify pro-Pact, anti-Redbeard on the theory that he's too old and weak to hold it together...but I'm told if you fight him you learn the opposite.

 

Well, he's strong in battle. It's less clear that he's still got all his wits about him, especially in Avadon 2.

[lordhoff]

I talked about it at length in this old thread -- http://spiderwebforu...poilers-within/

 

...I can't get why anyone would want to attack Redbeard. Once you get past how his various opponents have grievances against his rule, the question then comes: what happens after you overthrow him? And the answer seems to be, at best, a new war of conquest by the Tawon Empire (in which the Pact countries lose), or at worst new wars with no end in sight. Edgwyn has the right of it.

 

You might justify pro-Pact, anti-Redbeard on the theory that he's too old and weak to hold it together...but I'm told if you fight him you learn the opposite. I did try to favor more power being returned to Hanvar's Council, more transparency with the Pact, but actually overthrowing Avadon or breaking up the pact doesn't make sense to me.

 

Well, it's hindsight but Redbeard just disappears and does nothing if you support him and the outcome is worse.

[Owenmoz]

Ok honestly aside from the fact that siding with redbeard in the second game is very pointless. I mean Cahlan isnt that much worse of an option but ultimatelly if redbeard is to be replaced i'd rather do it myself. Pro pact anti redbeard seems like a very valid option.

 

But then lets look anti pact anti redbeard. I think throughout the games we realise the pact can be damaging to the pact nations(I.e., kva, wildrim etc) and its freaking savage towards the farlands. I get it against wretches titans and ogres, they seem to be not open to diplomacy. And i would understand khemeria(even if i dont agree) over them being strong enemies of the wildrim. And the viking pirates even. But the pact is relentless in their punishment. As a whole the destroyed that khemerian city over the stupidity of one person. Those questions redbeard asks on what to do with a vilage that did this or that anti pact action. Among others. Finally we have the tawons. You defeated them. Fair game. You gained independence. Even fairer. But to constantly harrass them and kick them while they are down? Not to mention the constant syphooning of their resources and disregard to their rights. Its not only wrong but ultimatelly dumb. They have money, they have magic they have experience and power. Much simpler to have them as allies. I do guess most aliances need a comon enemy to keep together. But i honestly think most pact nations and their people resent eachother more than they resent the tawons. Besides want another example on how diplomacy is better than autocracy? Dheless a single man managed to unite the farlands against the pact. Including titans, ogres wretches and vikings which through my personal view are not easy people tp deal with. Unlike with the shapers i cant understand the pact's arrogance in dealing with others.

[Randomizer]

Think of the Pact as the former Soviet Union, a strong central power keeping a group of formerly independent states from fighting each other and united against the West. By using its military the Communist Russia kept control of the other Soviet states and Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact countries). After the Soviet Union collapsed, the members started fracturing first into countries and then ethic areas that had only been held together by their Communist governments. Avadon 2 is the period just before the collapse with Tawon working to gain control of Avadon by making you the new Keeper and working for them.

 

Avadon is the enforcer for the Pact that keeps the peace both against their enemies and internal disputes by its members. The Pact considers Avadon a necessary evil against its enemies, but in Avadon 2 the Pact Council is trying to regain control from the Keeper.

[Owenmoz]

I think its easier to view the tawons as russia after the end of the cold war. I think marked difference being that tawon empire is not with 47% population bellow poverty line. Plus dheless *sorta* looks like putin. Although the curent situation with the pact and the random clashes are heavilly reminiscent of the situation in eastern europe leading to and after the colapse. Cept they seem to have different mindsets.

In the end i have to give you right here. If you compare avadon with the soviet military you quickly realise that both were one of the few things keeping a strong grip in the pact and enemies at bay. All changed with the attack on avadon/afghanistan unnecessary fiasco. Never thought about it that way. But ultimately i get where the pact came from and i get why the tawons reacted the way they reacted. But i still firmly believe the whole situation could be easilly sorted out without violence if only the pact had been more diplomatic and hadn't taken their victory for granted. Either keep your enemies close or completelly erradicate them even from a purelly military point of view the pact went about it all wrong.

[Alberich]

If you’re going with RW analogies, the “rebel” factions in Jeff’s games (the various anti-Avadon factions here; the Takers/Rebellion in the Geneforge games) come across like terrorists – whether of the anarchist, communist, or jihadist variety. They can talk a good game when it comes to listing grievances against the government, and some of the grievances are even real. But when you look at the world they’d create if you smash everything and let them take power – it’s North Korea or ISIS, or worse.

Avadon’s not much like the Soviets at all. The Soviets were aggressive always interested in expanding their own borders and influence (witness Afghanistan, about the last thing they did before collapsing). But the Pact really is a defensive organization.

Neither Europe nor any of its southern neighbors was interested in invading the Soviet Union. When the whole thing fell apart, the consequence was not a mass invasion from every direction followed by lengthy war and oppression. In Avadon’s case, by contrast, the neighbors really do seem interested in invading, whether to smash and loot or conquer and control. The Tawons, as far as we can tell, would punish just as hard as Avadon and leave the “provinces” less autonomy than the Pact does…and that’s after all the death and destruction that comes with a conquest. And the Pact, with the power of Avadon, really is all that stands in the way of that.

[Owenmoz]

Yeah Alberich. I have to correct you on equating comunism with terrorism. Even anarchism doesnt fully equate but still you have to point me to a terrorist attack orchestrated by a comunist body. Now the soviet union was just about as expansionist as the united states otherwise there wouldn't have been a cold war and instead a creeping dominion. And lenghty war against the soviet states would be lenghty indeed and very costly. There was however a vaccum of power in most places that everyome tried to fill one way or another leading to amongst others the break up of yugoslavia. Also avadon and the pact may have started out as a defensive organisation but well it quickly became the equivalent to a bully with imunity. Also avadon is very controling over the farlands. And while they don't loot, they do charge heavy taxes to the farlands. To conquer the farlands would be a waste of time and resources and unless they were willing to commit mass genocides pointless. Even if you erase a government to erase a culture is a much harder job to do. Not only that partizan and guerilla warfare would likelly be the end result of it and severe instability.

I would really rather not go into this discussion however.

This was to be a poll. Even a light hearted discussion on factions. Not a full hearted conflict between personal beliefs

[Alberich]

Yeah Alberich. I have to correct you on equating comunism with terrorism. Even anarchism doesnt fully equate but still you have to point me to a terrorist attack orchestrated by a comunist body.

Do I really have to? Well, heck, that’s easy. Britannica allows fifty to the Red Brigades alone: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Red-Brigades

[Blxz]

To be honest, Avadon always strikes me as very similar to the thing that Athens had going on with the 'Anti-Persia' League. Started as self defence, became a hegemony where the Athenians were at the top, ended up getting pulled into wars with the neighbours in Sparta, et al.

 

But then again, you can find similarities with anything if you look hard enough.

[Alberich]

Not a bad parallel at all—Avadon draws some of the same kind of resentment that Athens did. I think it points up the fact that Jeff has an understanding of the logic of power, both in this game and the Geneforge series, which is part of what makes the games fun.

[Owenmoz]

Yeah Alberich. I have to correct you on equating comunism with terrorism. Even anarchism doesnt fully equate but still you have to point me to a terrorist attack orchestrated by a comunist body.

Do I really have to? Well, heck, that’s easy. Britannica allows fifty to the Red Brigades alone: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Red-Brigades

 

Fair point. But it still does not equate one to the other. I could go out and bomb a building in the name of capitalism. That does not mean i speak for it. And if you know about the red brigades you would know the italian comunist party strongly condemned those attacks and even tried to contact the kgb so that they would pressure Czeck republic to stop the funding. Terrorism is terrorism. Its not equal to a political/economical/religious ideology. And i think besides geneforge 3 most acts by rebels in all spiderweb games were acts of rebelion not terrorism. You might not agree with their ideology nor with their methods but its wrong to equate their ideology with their methods.

 

I get where you're coming from but you came off as a right wing extremist with your comment on the matter.

[Owenmoz]

To be honest, Avadon always strikes me as very similar to the thing that Athens had going on with the 'Anti-Persia' League. Started as self defence, became a hegemony where the Athenians were at the top, ended up getting pulled into wars with the neighbours in Sparta, et al.

 

But then again, you can find similarities with anything if you look hard enough.

 

Nice one! But the delian league ended up with athens being overbearing towards the members of it. Not towards persia. I mean they fought and won the war *allegedly*. But unless i rememember it wrong they didn't keep persian under their boot. They did try to get revenge but i don't think they actually got to have any control or influence over persia. Unless you're comparing the tawons with spartans. In which case. I don't agree a lot.

But thats a very nice analogy. Its actually stricking because lesbos the weakest member was the first to revolt which sorta resembles wyldrim(i actually like shamans but they are by far, by very far the weakest of the bunch, their attacks are worthless against about a quarter of all oponents. Plus they don't have an organised leadership/government and if im not mistaken the population isnt very high)

[Slawbug]

Terrorism is terrorism.

Is it? The choice of what to label "terrorism" and what not to, is a highly political, subjective choice. It doesn't have to be, but at least the way the word is used in English it sure is.

[Owenmoz]

 

Is it? The choice of what to label "terrorism" and what not to, is a highly political, subjective choice. It doesn't have to be, but at least the way the word is used in English it sure is.

Its not that subjective. The use of violence induced fear and unrest to achieve a goal(usually, political, ideological or religious) is reggarded as terrorism.

My main point is that it shouldnt be equated to the ideologies in the name of which it is done. Its unethical. And labelling things terrorism subjectivelly or for political reasons is very wrong not to mention decietfull and its the sort of thing that fuels prejudices. Not only that but it also is playing with the feelings of people whose lives have been affected by it.

You might not agree with one or other ideology or religion or whatever. Thats cool. It is your right. I sure hope no one is forcing you to. Actually most countries give you the power to vote to exerce your view to a limited extent. Hell you can even discuss those views as adults. Most countries do not censor freedom of speech. And i hope a lot more join the list. But don't go throwing the word terrorism around like its nothing. Get me?

[Slawbug]

Well, I agree with you that it's not a word that should be thrown around, mainly because it carries so many value judgments and negative associations. The basic definition might be generally agreed upon, but people absolutely do not agree what it should be applied to. In my experience, it's applied very selectively depending on whether people think the ultimate goals and motivations of a violent actor are sympathetic or not.

[Alberich]

Fair point. But it still does not equate one to the other.

 

Neither did I, actually. I simply pointed out that the rebel factions have things in common with terrorists – whether of the black-powder anarchist, Communist or Jihadist varieties. But someone else did: “We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.” – Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, final issue.

 

And if you know about the red brigades you would know the italian comunist party strongly condemned those attacks and even tried to contact the kgb so that they would pressure Czeck republic to stop the funding.

 

So what? The BR considered themselves the real Italian communist party, and the Czechoslovakian government was run by a communist party as well. You asked for me to show you a terrorist attack orchestrated by a communist body, and I obligingly pointed you to a group that did at least fifty. Are you sure you “don’t really want to go into this discussion?”

 

I get where you're coming from but you came off as a right wing extremist with your comment on the matter.

 

So what?

[Owenmoz]

Yes im sure. It would be obviously pointless