Sect popularity

[Val Ritz]

Steering away from litigating the definition of genocide, if we take Shaper policy and Shaper law at its word, there is no such thing as a neutral Shaper. Every Shaper is expected and required to do whatever is necessary to eradicate rogue creations--whether that means feral fyora or intelligent serviles. Someone like Sharon, who just wants to live in peace without contributing to Shaper hegemony, is breaking the law by retiring. Once you learn the Shaping arts, you're in until you die. If you asked the Council, Khyryk's attitude constitutes possibly criminal negligence.

 

One of the roots of the ideological difference between the Takers and the Awakened is this: the Takers are responding to the Shapers as they are, while the Awakened are dealing with them as they hope they could become.

[Broken Mind]

That is I believe one of the fundamental problems with the Awakened ideology. They seek to be treated as equals and free beings by shapers. Unfortunately this cannot happen, because any shaper who would treat them as an equal and free being is no longer a shaper. Shapers cannot tolerate rogue creations, as the awakened ending demonstrates. There is no way for the shaper order to tolerate their existence unless forced to change into something unrecognizable other than symbols and usage of shaping magics (which is arguably where the shaper order is at during 5).

[Aoslare]

2 hours ago, Val Ritz said:

Steering away from litigating the definition of genocide, if we take Shaper policy and Shaper law at its word, there is no such thing as a neutral Shaper. Every Shaper is expected and required to do whatever is necessary to eradicate rogue creations--whether that means feral fyora or intelligent serviles. Someone like Sharon, who just wants to live in peace without contributing to Shaper hegemony, is breaking the law by retiring. Once you learn the Shaping arts, you're in until you die. If you asked the Council, Khyryk's attitude constitutes possibly criminal negligence.

 

Yes, and yet, Sharon and Khyryk exist.  Why the heck would the Takers, of all people, privilege Shaper policy over the actions of an individual?  They're willing to make an exception for defectors; there's no reason why they couldn't make the same exception for those who reject the Shaper laws, but simply don't want to be part of any war effort.  That's a choice, and there's no practical reason to make it; it's made on purely ideological grounds.

 

I brought up the concept of "neutral shaper" and I wasn't referring to Shaper policy or law for the definition.  I'm not sure what this conversation gains (either in clarity or otherwise) by trying to use strict Shaper-policy-language for everything.  Relabel my "neutral shaper" as "neutral ex-shaper" if that works better for you.  The argument remains the same.  The Takers kill even neutral ex-shapers.

[earanhart]

The Taker view on Sharon is almost certainly the same as the shaper view on the Drayk knight and his shrubberies.

I forget her name, but the Takers are more likely to tolerate the Servant in the Upper Research Halls than Sharon: she doesn't keep Creation slaves around, to use Armena Blades words.

But we also see their actions towards the Sholai, who aren't Shapers at all. And the Sholai had an actual alliance with the Sucia Takers.

 

As for using the endings to justify or defend a group, none of the endings are fully canon. All of them favor the player characters group for the duration of the ending slides. We can see those as the intent of the groups leaders, but the Ashen Isles will still fall, even in an Awakened ending.

 

Now, if the two groups could learn to work together, Geneforged flying Drakons might be enough to tip the scale for a century or two. And I suspect the Taker Drayks would be behind that idea. But the Awakened don't tell the Takers their endgame. They pretend to all as though they have no plan once the Shapers say "No, you're Rogues."

[Broken Mind]

The closest to canon would be a unaligned character who kills everyone (basically what Litalia did). Although that is more the canon character screwing up, and then she gets sent and kills everyone except Ghaldring.

[Aoslare]

The endings aren't "canon" in the sense that they are not what happens as the series proceeds.  They are still the canonical outcome for what would happen if G2 ended with the PC supporting a given sect.  That changes the world compared to the "canonical" ending the series moves forward with, so it's not actually a given that the Ashen Isles would fall, for example.

 

...buuuuut if they did, do you really think the Shapers would be unwilling to prioritize dealing with the Rebels over the Barriered-up Awakened?

[alhoon]

8 hours ago, Slawbug said:

They aren't willing to leave neutral Shapers alive, though.  Even sympathetic Shapers who stop short of actually joining the Rebellion -- see, yet again, Khyryk!  They're just making exceptions to genocide when it's convenient for them.  That's something else that's happened in historical real-world genocides.

I agree.

I am just comparing them To Taygen that didn't make those exceptions. Taygen's genocide was unparalleled in history for its efficiency. Enough to push even the Shapers to admit that perhaps the Trakovites have some point. 

 

  

8 hours ago, Val Ritz said:

Steering away from litigating the definition of genocide, if we take Shaper policy and Shaper law at its word, there is no such thing as a neutral Shaper. Every Shaper is expected and required to do whatever is necessary to eradicate rogue creations--whether that means feral fyora or intelligent serviles. Someone like Sharon, who just wants to live in peace without contributing to Shaper hegemony, is breaking the law by retiring. Once you learn the Shaping arts, you're in until you die. If you asked the Council, Khyryk's attitude constitutes possibly criminal negligence.

 

One of the roots of the ideological difference between the Takers and the Awakened is this: the Takers are responding to the Shapers as they are, while the Awakened are dealing with them as they hope they could become.

 

Sharon expected to be punished when found out and when the illegal Shaping started she expected to be executed for her negligence. 

Khyryk ... I don't remember but in GF4, Trakovites are executed by gibbeting, letting them to die from starvation hanging from a cage. The Shapers are not tolerant of the Trakovites. 

The Rebels, with the exception of Litalia in GF4 (Lololol) are kinda-tolerant to the Trakovites; most consider them fools and only Litalia hunts them down as dangerous ideology (again, lol). 

 

  

5 hours ago, Slawbug said:

Yes, and yet, Sharon and Khyryk exist.  Why the heck would the Takers, of all people, privilege Shaper policy over the actions of an individual?

 

Khyryk is targeted when he is still a sitting Shaper lord though; I don't think they target him in GF4. Unless I remember wrong (and I very well could be), only Litalia wants him dead in GF4, not Greta.

 

That said, your point is again correct: The Takers do not make exceptions for any Shaper that is not on their side. The Rebels may do, but the Rebels are not Takers, they are "Takers and Friends" and it is mostly the "and friends" that are willing to do the exceptions. 

I understand why the Takers (or even the Rebels) would label even ex-Shapers as the enemy. That doesn't make it right though. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16 by alhoon

[Aoslare]

Everyone wants the Trakovites dead in G4.  Presumably that includes Khyryk, since he's a high-profile Trakovite.  But also, the Trakovites aren't really neutral shapers or ex-shapers, so moot point really.

[earanhart]

I'm not certain Taygen was faced with that ultimatum. I'm convinced he BELIEVED he was. There's a difference, and history would brand him a villain

beyond redemption or a heroic monster in hindsight. But no one would say what he did/tried to do was good. They might later believe it was necessary. Necessity is neither good nor evil. It just is.

 

As for ex-Shapers, those really aren't a thing. They can't be a thing. A trained Shaper doesn't need Essence to Shape. We see even 0 canister PCs making small Creations in their cell in the Shaper Citadel, presumably one of the most secure places on the planet specifically designed to contain dangerous Shapers. Any Shaper (human or Drayk) left alive has the potential to become an army or a plague. And if you can't control them, they remain a risk. The question is only how much risk do you accept? How long has infernalism been illegal? How many summoned infernals do we see? So long as the knowledge exists, it will be used. Even Shaped trees are a problem, and I don't mean the Tallest Tree. I mean the wiry, twisted, fast growing weed trees of Drypeak. Will those choke out other trees once they escape Drypeak via a bird or a storm carrying a seed? It only took 2 generations for those to become as rampant as they are here, and they were a mistake made from before all this insanity began.

From the Taker mindset, how much do you want to hope that The Last Shaper doesn't decide to go full Taygen or worse in desperation? Granted, should also be thinking that about every Drakon, but now we've come full circle back to the Council. 

[alhoon]

6 minutes ago, earanhart said:

I'm not certain Taygen was faced with that ultimatum. I'm convinced he BELIEVED he was. There's a difference, and history would brand him a villain

beyond redemption or a heroic monster in hindsight.

 

Nah, the GF5 endings make it clear that history branded him as a villain, not a heroic monster. 

 

8 minutes ago, earanhart said:

From the Taker mindset, how much do you want to hope that The Last Shaper doesn't decide to go full Taygen or worse in desperation?

It is not just that. That Last Shaper, in most Taker eyes, deserves death as punishments for a lifetime of crimes. 

[oceanes]

You know, this discussion underscores the fact that the Takers in GF1 and 2 are not so much an ideological movement, really, but an "ethnic" nationalist movement that adopted an ideology to animate their people, the nationality in question being serviles, later expanded to thinking creations as the drayks/drakons became more prominent, with the commons being bolted on as a kind of auxiliary because the movement's philosophy applies to them as well, and the Takers are smart enough to want the manpower. The same applies to the awakened to a lesser degree. The Rebellion as started by Ghaldring continues this, with the ideology becoming more and more prominent in people's thinking as more commons join, so that by GF4 we see little of the Takers' commitment in GF2 to keep Shaping purely in creation hands. There are just too many humans in the movement for that.

[Aoslare]

12 hours ago, Val Ritz said:

if we take Shaper policy and Shaper law at its word, there is no such thing as a neutral Shaper.

 

2 hours ago, earanhart said:

As for ex-Shapers, those really aren't a thing.

 

Guys, this is just a terminology issue.  I don't want to spend hours going through a thesaurus to find a phrase everyone will accept.  We all know what we're talking about: Shapers who don't support the Shaper Council's attacks, or potential attacks, on free creations, but who also have not joined the Takers/Rebels.

[Aoslare]

1 hour ago, oceanes said:

You know, this discussion underscores the fact that the Takers in GF1 and 2 are not so much an ideological movement, really, but an "ethnic" nationalist movement that adopted an ideology to animate their people, the nationality in question being serviles, later expanded to thinking creations as the drayks/drakons became more prominent, with the commons being bolted on as a kind of auxiliary because the movement's philosophy applies to them as well, and the Takers are smart enough to want the manpower. The same applies to the awakened to a lesser degree. The Rebellion as started by Ghaldring continues this, with the ideology becoming more and more prominent in people's thinking as more commons join, so that by GF4 we see little of the Takers' commitment in GF2 to keep Shaping purely in creation hands. There are just too many humans in the movement for that.

 

Except that the ideology really did come first, just not the ideology you're talking about.  "Take our free" - in the context of the Obeyer-style thinking everyone was doing at the time - was absolutely an ideological movement.  That's the whole Taker identity.

[oceanes]

53 minutes ago, Slawbug said:

 

Except that the ideology really did come first, just not the ideology you're talking about.  "Take our free" - in the context of the Obeyer-style thinking everyone was doing at the time - was absolutely an ideological movement.  That's the whole Taker identity.

True. I suppose it depends on what context you are looking at it from. Sucia had no humans on it, so in its genesis, it was ideological, but when put in a broader Terrestrian context it became ethno-nationalist to some extent, as few humans were willing to go as far as the Takers were, initially, and the fact that the Shapers had already delineated a division between humans and creations.

[alhoon]

41 minutes ago, oceanes said:

True. I suppose it depends on what context you are looking at it from. Sucia had no humans on it, so in its genesis, it was ideological, but when put in a broader Terrestrian context it became ethno-nationalist to some extent, as few humans were willing to go as far as the Takers were, initially, and the fact that the Shapers had already delineated a division between humans and creations.

The Rebels are closer to the Takers, they are not the Takers. The Rebellion has many factions. The Takers being one of them. The Drakon nationalists you talk about are not bona-fide Takers. The Takers are about defeating the Shapers for revenge/justice or for their right to survive.

[earanhart]

2 hours ago, Slawbug said:

 

 

Guys, this is just a terminology issue.  I don't want to spend hours going through a thesaurus to find a phrase everyone will accept.  We all know what we're talking about: Shapers who don't support the Shaper Council's attacks, or potential attacks, on free creations, but who also have not joined the Takers/Rebels.

 

From the Takers viewpoint (not the Rebels, specifically the Takers) it's not a terminology thing. Even their traitor Shapers are still Shapers. People with the power to create and enslave Creations. This isn't semantics. The Takers hate the Shapers who join them. They're just useful and so tolerated. For now. They don't believe in "ex-Shapers". Neither does the Council. The only ones who MIGHT are the Sholai and the Trajkovites. The rest see rebel Shapers as exactly that: Shapers who are disloyal to the Shaper Council. They haven't STOPPED being Shapers.

[alhoon]

25 minutes ago, earanhart said:

 

From the Takers viewpoint (not the Rebels, specifically the Takers) it's not a terminology thing. Even their traitor Shapers are still Shapers. People with the power to create and enslave Creations. This isn't semantics. The Takers hate the Shapers who join them. 

 

Not true. 

The Takers create "people with the power to create and enslave creations". Through the Geneforge. Lifecrafters are "people with the power to create and enslave creations" they just choose not to. 

Edited April 17 by alhoon

[earanhart]

It's been a while since I played GF4, but I don't remember being able to Control a Rogue into killing itself in that game. Sure, Lifecrafters make Creations, but it seems their Control is lacking compared to Shapers. 

Also, those are very specifically lesser Geneforges. More of a bundle of reusable canisters than a Geneforge.

But also, by that time the Takers are no longer the sole powers of the Rebellion and they know WELL the limitations between a canister-junky, a Geneforged lifecrafter, and a Shaper. Only one of those has the knowledge to create a new danger to the Drakons. The other two you can either reproduce or limit their access to power.

[Aoslare]

It doesn't matter if the Takers or the Shapers agree with the terminology.  We need that terminology to have this discussion.  Just because the Takers and/or the Shapers don't recognize a distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[earanhart]

Do we? Rebel Shaper. Disloyal Shaper. Taker Shaper. Trajkovite Shaper. 

 

All terms far more useful and less prone to misinterpretation than "ex-Shaper". I say "rebel Shaper" and you know what I mean, a Shaper acting for a rebellious group. I say "Taker Shaper" and you know exactly what I mean. I say "disloyal Shaper" and while some ambiguity remains it mostly evokes one who is attempting to stay neutral in the power struggles.

 

"Ex-Shaper" implies somehow they've they've lost the defining characteristic of being a Shaper. Was the ability to Shape Shaped out of them? Did they forget years/decades of training to act superior to everyone around them? Is the Monarch an "ex-Shaper"? Or is he merely a "mad Shaper"?

 

The terminology you propose directly conflicts with lore in several places and causes unneeded confusion, solely for the sake of saving a few keystrokes.

[Aoslare]

I don't care if it's "neutral shaper" or "ex-shaper" or "disloyal shaper" or whatever but you guys each object to a different one.  We need something that can be used to communicate effectively in this world.

 

But yes, we should use terminology that is based on what something actually is (stated as flatly as possible) rather than what one or more parties subjectively want to classify it as.  The Shaper Council would call Sharon disloyal, maybe, but that's their definition of loyalty, and not even a universal cultural judgment among Shapers, let alone anyone else.  And whether or not they were okay with the term "neutral," the Shaper Council would not object to drawing a distinction between an actual rebel shaper fighting against them, and an old shaper who basically retires to the countryside as a hermit.  I agree that "ex-shaper" is confusing for various reasons.

 

"Factionless Shaper" is maybe more precise than "neutral Shaper."  If it's a factual and direct label, then for our purposes, it doesn't really matter what anybody in-world thinks about it.

[alhoon]

5 hours ago, earanhart said:

Do we? Rebel Shaper. Disloyal Shaper. Taker Shaper. Trajkovite Shaper. 

Rebel Shaper: Lifecrafter

Taker Shaper: Lifecrafter

Trajkovite Shaper: Mage that could, theoretically Shape. 

Disloyal Shaper: Shaper 

 

We could argue terminology and splitting hairs all day. The point I think we try to raise is "do you understand what we mean, not the Shaper Council, not the Takers" mean? 

I think what "neutral Shaper" or "Ex-Shaper" means in the context of this discussion is "Someone that was once trained by the Shapers, that can Shape but is not-aligned to the Shaper council any more but has not joined the Rebels either." 

Neutral may not be the right term, but it is easier to write than the entire sentence. 

Edited April 18 by alhoon

[alhoon]

4 hours ago, Slawbug said:

The Shaper Council would call Sharon disloyal, maybe, but that's their definition of loyalty, and not even a universal cultural judgment among Shapers, let alone anyone else.

That is what Sharon thinks, at least. We can't be sure that the Council would kill her for running away.
Lying Zackary the Deceiver, Shanti and other Shapers are more sympathetic to Sharon. Shanti would rat Sharon out, but it seems to be no animosity or malice there. And while the Shapers are still in absolute control in GF2, by GF3, I doubt the Shaper Council would come down on Sharon like a wall of bricks. They would tell her that "in the old days" she would be severely punished but she would probably get away with a slap in the hand and a demotion - as long as she returned to work.  

Edited April 18 by alhoon

[Aoslare]

It would be interesting if news about Sharon finds its way into the G3 remake somehow.

[alhoon]

5 minutes ago, Slawbug said:

It would be interesting if news about Sharon finds its way into the G3 remake somehow.

Isn't a very old Shaper in Geneforge 4, in the Shaper camp? Where you can confuse that old lady to Shape you for a +1 spellcraft, by basically telling her it is not really shaping but "unlocking potential"? 

 

Khyrrik would probably let her be. And throwing her to the Ashen Isles to do menial work like supervising the growth of plants and batons/mines as a punishment for her running away would be fitting. 
We should learn to make real Vlish from her. Not the ones we have here, the real Vlish of GF3-era. The real Vlish should be extremely useful for their essence cost. 

 

I have a Drakon and 2 Drayks in my party, I am 12th level and I still pause when I see Vlish and check their level and approach carefully. It is ingrained in me now after GF3-5 and the massacre of the Vlish fields outside the Obeyer Village in Mutagen. 

Edited April 18 by alhoon

[earanhart]

15 minutes ago, alhoon said:

Rebel Shaper: Lifecrafter

Taker Shaper: Lifecrafter

Trajkovite Shaper: Mage that could, theoretically Shape. 

Disloyal Shaper: Shaper 

 

We could argue terminology and splitting hairs all day. The point I think we try to raise is "do you understand what we mean, not the Shaper Council, not the Takers" mean? 

But there is a distinct difference between a canister/geneforged Lifecrafter, a trained non-Shaper Lifecrafter, and a Rebel Shaper, regardless of what faction they belong to. All three terms comes with a set of meanings and preconceptions around them that have been given by the lore.

If we talk about Lifecrafters, we specifically call forth the concept of people with the ability to Shape who were never trained by the Shapers. They were _never_ a part of that culture. Gretas status as a failed Shaper is important because it places her into a unique position between Lifecrafter and Shaper. Sure, by G4 she has gained most if not all of the abilities of a Shaper, but notice the difference in treatment towards her by both sides versus all the rebel Shapers, and again the difference between her and the Lifecrafters. To call her either a Lifecrafter or a Shaper feels wrong, because she is neither. There exists a fundamental difference about her (and presumably other failed Shapers who join the war on either side) that denies either term.

Both sides would view the disloyal or neutral Shaper as an enemy and paint them with the same brush as their enemies (so either Shaper or Rebel), so such a term only exists for the sake of our discussion outside the world. But given that we need to acknowledge that a term we use will be seen by new players. If someone googles "Geneforge 2 Infestation Sharon" and sees us call her an "ex-Shaper", will that make any sense? What about Tuldaric? Or Litalia? The term creates confusion, and as such should not be used. "Rebel Shaper" would apply for Tuldaric and Litalia both, but would that apply to Sharon? And Barzahl could be argued either way, though most Barzites should be considered rebellious (assuming they were ever Shapers to begin with).

But disloyal Shaper? Yeah, that makes sense. It technically includes all the Shapers who join the Rebel side, but it more specifically evokes the Sharons of this world. The ones who break Shaper Law but don't join the war, because if they joined the Rebels we'd call them Rebel Shapers and have no issue with the term. 

So yes, in order for me to understand what you mean, and you to understand what I mean, and a new player to understand what we mean, Ex-Shaper is a bad term.

[Aoslare]

"factionless shaper" removes all potential for confusion, doesn't it?  "disloyal" is really subjective.

[earanhart]

It would have until Infestation added the Unaligned path which by not having an official name in-world kind of means that for this game at least "factionless" is supportive of the Shaper Council.

Although in metaconversations we specifically call that the Unaligned path already, and I doubt any new player would be confused by the term, excepting possibly the singular interaction there and that will be rare.

 

I like "factionless"

[alhoon]

On the Takers vs All Shapers: 

 

It is apparently not always so: 

 

I think these were around in the O-GF2 too. Anyway. 

 

- The Awakened didn't notice a bunch of Takers setting up camp next to their town.
Which I can't 100% blame the Awakened, considering where this camp is, but on the other hand, they are trying to stop the Takers from burning Troia to the ground so ... it is great negligence anyway (Also, as for the Takers don't attack Awakened; this is like the 3rd group of Takers I found besieging Troia, and I haven't gone to the fort nearby then, nor I count the brigands that poor Eko Blade was running with. The ones with the plan to bring a bunch of Infernals to purge the world from my kind.) Eko was a Taker. I liked Eko. But I think he counts as "ex-Taker" in this case; he still wants to fight the Shapers but he turned to something ... different than geneforge and all. I do not blame him, mind you. It is insanely risky to consort with those Infernals, obviously, but is it less risky than a geneforge? I don't know. The Takers seek power to stop the Shapers, and Shapers fear the Infernals. And for a very good reason from the Infernal I saw... 

 

- The Takers do not attack you on sight. That was O_O surprise for me. I remember cutting through an army of Takers till I managed to speak to one. These Takers are actually willing to talk to a Shaper instead of Take their Free. And mind you, a Shaper which they (rightfully) assume is an Awakened. Even when I lie to them that I am a Taker but don't have that token, they are still not attacking me, just not letting me... in their tiny camp. 
Honestly, those are "rogue" Takers by Taker standards. They claim the name, they don't hold the conviction. They are brigands, plain and simple, that used to be Takers. 

And yet... they don't attack me. I have leadership 7. I told them to back off, they didn't but they still didn't attack me, when I showed by "True Colors" of being an evil Shaper that would threaten Creations. 

Cowardice? Perhaps. But these are "the moderate Takers" I was talking about. 

[Aoslare]

45 minutes ago, earanhart said:

It would have until Infestation added the Unaligned path which by not having an official name in-world kind of means that for this game at least "factionless" is supportive of the Shaper Council.

Although in metaconversations we specifically call that the Unaligned path already, and I doubt any new player would be confused by the term, excepting possibly the singular interaction there and that will be rare.

 

I like "factionless"

 

Infestation didn't add that.  It was present in the original.  A few more people comment on it, but it was already described by a couple of them, and it already had a different ending.

[alhoon]

13 minutes ago, Slawbug said:

 

Infestation didn't add that.  It was present in the original.  A few more people comment on it, but it was already described by a couple of them, and it already had a different ending.

I think that was the ending more close to what we learn in GF3. 

[earanhart]

Huh. I remember way back when trying a "kill everyone" run and I guess I just didn't realize it was different from the Zachary ending other than skipping his trial. I thought he was effectively "not a faction" as far as endings went.

 

Edit: or, rather, that his "faction" and the Shaper Council were the same faction and the one you defaulted into by virtue of being an apprentice in their system.

Edited April 18 by earanhart

[Aoslare]

I can only repeat: Infestation didn't add that.  It was present in the original.

 

The endings have not changed other than a few minor text changes.

[l33tmaan]

I just finished my Torment run with an Awakened-aligned guardian. They are, of course, correct in the long run, but it's a bitter ending knowing how the rebellion will end up. If they were able to absorb some of the Taker/Barzite edge and use it against the shapers, things might have turned out a lot differently. At least I can imagine how things turned out in this ending.

The Takers don't feel as hostile as I remember, and was fun to discover how much more sympathetic I am towards them now than 20-ish years ago. Diplomacy and free trade aren't as useful for taking your free as a 12-foot tall dragon, and I would be VERY interested to see how Drakons are treated in an Awakened society. I assume they're still arrogant enough to fall for Ghaldring's power consolidation, but that just feeds into the conversation of tyranny the series touches on as a whole.

 

Shapers think they're better than commons and they act like it. The problem is that they ARE better than the commons. It doesn't give them an ethical justification to treat them like second class citizens, but a full Shaper is some bizarre combination of "doctor", "untouchable g-man", and "walking god". Just one of those is enough to put someone on an ego trip, but all three? It makes the humble shapers we DO see all the more surprising. Sure, a blacksmith spent years honing their craft and is a valuable member of the economic system, but THEY can't wave their hand and make a giant catman, or a floating mind control squid. THEY can't discover the literal secrets of life itself and control it through years of rigorous training.

And then canister junkies & drakons think of shapers like shapers think of commons! They operate on a level of power that I can't personally conceive of surviving with my current ego intact. I'd probably go mad with power, too. 

 

The Trakovites were right. If it wasn't for the whole "killing all creations" thing, Taygen would have been right too (IIRC). Shaping is more trouble than it's worth since it always leads to a Geneforge.

[alhoon]

About the Takers not attacking the Awakened: It is not "a drayk and a few serviles". 
It is an army of Takers that has taken over the Western Part of the Awakened lands (the swamp) and is strangling Troia.  The Awakened are under a complete siege by the Takers. 

[alhoon]

The Power corrupts thing:
It hits me in this game more than other GF games. I mean, my own corruption thanks to power. After I found the super-awesome Shaper Robes from Sharon's closet (she wears hers, those are totally spare that she can live without), my Drakons are 20th level and my Drayks are 19th level. 

I walked into Gerth. I saw the turrets. I saw the "stupid, obeying Serviles" and "return to the Norm". I checked levels of guards and turrets and I can wipe the place clean. I am struggling to not do just that, say "Screw it" to the story and my mission to find and sabotage the Radiant College (which should certainly be  much harder to purge than Geth, so I have to be diplomatic) and start killing Barzhite soldiers, turrets and creations with abandon. 

I have to think of aaaaall the loot I have in my pockets that I need merchants with money to sell. Of the seer pleasure of turning Barzhal's machinery to scrap metal so that the Creations raise up. I have to think that the Obeyer Serviles will be caught in the crossfire even though they did nothing wrong. 

 

But man, I am itching to go out and start killing Shapers and Barzhites. I have had it with their ways. Every zone is a horrible reminder that they should be torn to pieces and we should wage a serious war against them. I swear if I had the option, I would throw an Unbound on Gerth and let it eat everything. 

...

Perhaps I need to rethink my faction affiliation. I strongly dislike the Takers for how they treat those that disagree with them - and I am pretty much the same when it comes to Shapers / Barzhites. I dislike the Takers but I hate the Shapers / Barzhites. 

I will have to hear what Syros has to say... I am conflicted. 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, I am not allowed to trade in Gerth... buddies, your usefulness is severely reduced. 

Edited April 20 by alhoon

[oceanes]

1 hour ago, alhoon said:

The Power corrupts thing:
It hits me in this game more than other GF games. I mean, my own corruption thanks to power. After I found the super-awesome Shaper Robes from Sharon's closet (she wears hers, those are totally spare that she can live without), my Drakons are 20th level and my Drayks are 19th level. 

I walked into Gerth. I saw the turrets. I saw the "stupid, obeying Serviles" and "return to the Norm". I checked levels of guards and turrets and I can wipe the place clean. I am struggling to not do just that, say "Screw it" to the story and my mission to find and sabotage the Radiant College (which should certainly be  much harder to purge than Geth, so I have to be diplomatic) and start killing Barzhite soldiers, turrets and creations with abandon. 

I have to think of aaaaall the loot I have in my pockets that I need merchants with money to sell. Of the seer pleasure of turning Barzhal's machinery to scrap metal so that the Creations raise up. I have to think that the Obeyer Serviles will be caught in the crossfire even though they did nothing wrong. 

 

But man, I am itching to go out and start killing Shapers and Barzhites. I have had it with their ways. Every zone is a horrible reminder that they should be torn to pieces and we should wage a serious war against them. I swear if I had the option, I would throw an Unbound on Gerth and let it eat everything. 

...

Perhaps I need to rethink my faction affiliation. I strongly dislike the Takers for how they treat those that disagree with them - and I am pretty much the same when it comes to Shapers / Barzhites. I dislike the Takers but I hate the Shapers / Barzhites. 

I will have to hear what Syros has to say... I am conflicted. 

You know, there are really only two arguments against the Takers; one is how many eggs they are willing to break to make their Omelet of Liberation, and the other is whether they have it in them to do the job the Shapers did, or an equivalent, once their revolution succeeds. The first complaint is the one the Awakened have, and obviously, the fear that the Takers will lose if they start their apparently suicidal war. Of course, we know that they ultimately aren't collectively suicidal, but the characters in-situ don't. Eass and his chain of drakons are the Taker solution to the second complaint; of course, we see in G5 how drakons do in Shaper shoes in Ghaldring's ending, if briefly. Also, it's worth noting that, given how the Shapers have constructed their society, the commons of the Shaper lands would not easily be able to fill a void of Shaper leadership without someone there to step in and keep Shaping; their entire techbase is dependent on it. This is why the Trakovite goal is kind of idiotic; forget the Shapers, the commons aren't going to want to live without Shaping, as soon as they have a problem that they can't solve without it.

 

I assume, in the full rebel ending in G5, Greta and the humans kept many of the drakons alive to function as Shapers under supervision, or perhaps the serviles have learned to Shape well enough to do the job. It's never been clear to me how many human lifecrafters the rebellion had; likely not many, if participation in historical rebel movements is any guide, most people just turtle up and wait to see who wins.

 

Turning back to G2I for a second, it's worth mentioning that even in the Awakened ending, they still have to break many of the same eggs the Takers do, just because of who the Shapers are, and what an existential threat free creations are, not just to Shaper power, but to their philosophy, worldview, and most importantly, to the order of things they've sold as natural to the commons. Here, the Awakened decision to stay in the mountains aids the Shapers because Drypeak is remote, and by keeping them boxed in, the Shapers are likely running information control. The public likely doesn't know the Awakened exist.

[alhoon]

5 minutes ago, oceanes said:

one is how many eggs they are willing to break to make their Omelet of Liberation, and the other is whether they have it in them to do the job the Shapers did,

And those are very big issues, because: 

- They are willing to break too many eggs

- Geneforge. In fact we know from GF4 and GF5 that the Drakons don't bring total obliteration, that there are more moderate voices in there and that those voices can eventually win. 

We do not know that in GF2. We don't know what the factions that survive the coming war will believe and how their beliefs would morph.

We don't know yet whether 10 years down the road the Drakons, mad from the Geneforge, would decide humans (common or shaper) should not exist. 

 

And it is a chance I am increasingly willing to Take. It is just that I like the Awakened much much more, although I don't think they have a real shot to win. Sure, they may get their stalemate and they may (although I really doubt it) eventually become free from the Shapers albeit in a cold war, rogue nation kind of state, freeing a few serviles here and there from the Shaper lands.

But that is not the victory I want; that leaves the Shaper Empire as it is, with just a few mountains less. It leaves Millions of serviles as slaves. It leaves the crimes of the Shapers unpunished. 

 

In our world, if a computer scientist trying to make a new antivirus releases a bugged program that burns the company's main-frame and a few dozen terminals, he would be brought to justice for his mistake, paying fines and losing his job. 

A doctor that does a serious error and kills a patience will lose his license and may go to jail.

Shapers would simply board up the facility, put a "do not enter" outside and send a guardian every 10 years to clean whatever mess escapes from there. 

Edited April 20 by alhoon

[l33tmaan]

To be fair, most governments don't want to be creating cool dungeons full of awesome loot for random people to stumble into. Apparently shapers are totally into that.

[oceanes]

We do however, know that such drakons likely are not powerful enough to fight the entire rest of the Rebellion/Takers, as in G5, a group of drakons already in power essentially tried to do that in the Rebellion ending, and it failed miserably for them. Now, the Takers are somewhat more dependent on the drakons than the later rebellion, but they are also more dependent on the drayks, and as we see with Akkat, many drayks somewhat resent drakon arrogance. If Rhakkus or Eass snapped, they would likely band together to fix the problem. 

[alhoon]

3 minutes ago, l33tmaan said:

To be fair, most governments don't want to be creating cool dungeons full of awesome loot for random people to stumble into. Apparently shapers are totally into that.

Awesome loot and dangerous monsters and/or gases and substances and if the Shapers catch you with some of that loot, they kill you. 

  

Just now, oceanes said:

If Rhakkus or Eass snapped, they would likely band together to fix the problem. 

 

Haven't reached that part of the endings yet, but ... doesn't one of them snap at the end? 

Edited April 20 by alhoon

[l33tmaan]

1 minute ago, alhoon said:

Awesome loot and dangerous monsters and/or gases and substances and if the Shapers catch you with some of that loot, they kill you. 

 

They can take the Feisty Slap Glove from my guardian's cold, well-used hands!

[oceanes]

2 minutes ago, alhoon said:

Haven't reached that part of the endings yet, but ... doesn't one of them snap at the end? 

Akkat, yes. He's the one I mentioned as resenting the drakons.

[oceanes]

29 minutes ago, alhoon said:

And those are very big issues, because: 

- They are willing to break too many eggs

- Geneforge. In fact we know from GF4 and GF5 that the Drakons don't bring total obliteration, that there are more moderate voices in there and that those voices can eventually win. 

We do not know that in GF2. We don't know what the factions that survive the coming war will believe and how their beliefs would morph.

We don't know yet whether 10 years down the road the Drakons, mad from the Geneforge, would decide humans (common or shaper) should not exist. 

 

And it is a chance I am increasingly willing to Take. It is just that I like the Awakened much much more, although I don't think they have a real shot to win. Sure, they may get their stalemate and they may (although I really doubt it) eventually become free from the Shapers albeit in a cold war, rogue nation kind of state, freeing a few serviles here and there from the Shaper lands.

But that is not the victory I want; that leaves the Shaper Empire as it is, with just a few mountains less. It leaves Millions of serviles as slaves. It leaves the crimes of the Shapers unpunished. 

 

In our world, if a computer scientist trying to make a new antivirus releases a bugged program that burns the company's main-frame and a few dozen terminals, he would be brought to justice for his mistake, paying fines and losing his job. 

A doctor that does a serious error and kills a patience will lose his license and may go to jail.

Shapers would simply board up the facility, put a "do not enter" outside and send a guardian every 10 years to clean whatever mess escapes from there. 

Relevant song for the Awakened/Taker debate: Leslie Fish's "The Sun Is Also A Warrior"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEAz1TDm1c

Edited April 20 by oceanes