GF2-I: Shapers and Common

[alhoon]

So, in GF2-I there are more than a few signs that the common don't have it that well under the Shapers either.

We are shown evidence the Shapers do cultural genocide (lost languages, lost traditions). It is also clearly said that the Common can do their factions and politics and businesses and as long as they don't violate Shaper Law they are mostly left to do their thing BUT that all goes away if a Shaper deems something they do as bad. I.e. according to what we're told in GF2, a political dynasty of the Common may collapse if a cranky Shaper deems it as antithetical to his or her goals. Or an entire religion banned if an agent with a sore tooth considers it rubbish. 

 

The Magus Complex, with the dialogue explaining the Character's own bias and disdain on foreign languages drives it home.

I know there are Solai in the game, and I would love my character to meet them. I don't want my char to be xenophobic, but apparently he is.

[earanhart]

Part of this you can explain as Shapers are trained, not born. It's a totalitarian, fascist, academic meritocracy in many ways. You might consider yourself elitist rather than xenophobic. 

 

And, of course, individual variations will apply. Just as much as one Guardian with a chip on his shoulder can start the death of a language, an Agent fascinated by a newly found magical discipline might preserve it and absorb several of its facets into Shaper culture. They'd just need to display its merits to the Council.

[alhoon]

35 minutes ago, earanhart said:

They'd just need to display its merits to the Council.

Hey... I try to remain Awakened. It is an uphill battle. You are not helping that struggle. You are pushing me to the Takers. I want the council to burn and the Awakened don't. I talked to several ex-obeyers that watched in horror as their worshipped masters brought death to them ... just because they didn't care enough to figure which servile was loyal and which was pretending. 

Edited April 11 by alhoon

[alhoon]

 

Thank you, Twini, for reminding me why I strongly dislike the Shapers to start with. 

And now, I also feel guilty for using pyroroamers in GF1-M. They were... convenient. Exactly as Twini says. They were to be made in suffering and swiftly die because the Sholai held a bridge and it was convenient to send pyroroamers. I was not aware they were in pain, to be honest. I thought they were not. But I knew very well that I was Shaping them, giving them life, only for the few minutes they needed to rush to the bridge and suicide-bomb the turrets. 

 

To my defense, I don't buy Overload for my Creations. Well, if I go back to Rots I will, cause I don't care about Rots. If the Shapers were killing Rots I would find it questionable bit not a reason to go to war. I don't know why. 

 

At the time, in the Awakened lands, watching what the Awakened have suffered and what they are willing to accept from the Shapers, I am of half-a-mind to jump ship and join the Takers.

Back in GF2, what stopped me from joining the Takers was, of course, the Takers. I need to clear my mind and steel my Awakened conviction. 

I need to find Takers that will insult me and talk of genocide and work against completely innocent Serviles of the Awakened for their lack of "ideological purity." 

 

Frankly, GF2 is "The best argument against a faction is talking to members of that faction and seeing their lands." 

After the shock of Tuldaric's madness and callousness, after the pacificist naivety of Pinner when my blood boils seeking Shaper heads... I need to find Takers to remind me why I prefer the Awakened. 

Edited April 15 by alhoon

[oceanes]

You know, I was actually surprised by how relatively reasonable the Takers are to you in GF2I. Sure, they hate you, and at least one outright calls you a traitor if you join them, which was interesting, but Syros in particular was actually very persuasive and intelligent regarding allowing cooperative Shapers to live and work in peace. He even says, at one point, regarding the end goal of their Shaping research, "maybe one day we can even become strong enough to afford to show mercy!" as though such an idea was a sort of fond dream for him. Granted, he is the only one to say this, but it highlights something I've noticed about the takers; I think a good deal of their uncompromising ruthlessness is stoked by the fact that the servile Takers are more aware of just how screwed they are than their Awakened cousins, and the drayks/drakons have a predator species' psychology regarding not showing or allowing for weakness. That's why they see the Awakened as such a danger; they are a crack in creation unity that the Shapers will exploit, and that lever is one their cause cannot afford, at least in the drayks' view. This is also shown somewhat in a bit of dialogue with a cryodrayk whose job it apparently is to manage subordinate drayks and keep them on task, When you question him why the drayks are managed that much, he just responds that their minds need the guidance in order to be productive, and without such, they'd all be doomed. The takers are filled with this sort of survival mode pragmatism, and really it's hard to blame them.

[alhoon]

Indeed, but as I said, the previous time they were convincing that my place was with the Awakened... XD 

 

Anyway, some Takers are moderate Takers. But the greatest danger to a fanatic is not the enemy, it is the moderates. The moderates are eaten up first in such disputes. Also, the moderates in a civil war are the ones that least expect to be brutally attacked. 

 

From what I have seen, when there is a civil war or ideological war between fanatics A and B, with AB moderates somewhere in between, the A will see AB and B as enemies while the B will see AB and A as enemies. For A, AB are 90% guilty. For B AB are also 90% guilty. And for many of those, the AB are traitors not just enemies. For the rest... AB are often easier targets! Either because AB have to defend against both sides or because AB have some faith in A and B and the peaceful solution or a combination of both. I.e. AB are ideologically weaker so the enemies easier to take out. 

Edited April 15 by alhoon

[oceanes]

This is a bit of a digression, but I can't help but ask, have you ever read Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "Those who walk away from Omelas"? It presents a moral quandary that has bearing on the discussions here, and is one of the things that convinced me not to be a utilitarian ethicist. If not, I can't recommend it enough. 

[alhoon]

47 minutes ago, oceanes said:

This is a bit of a digression, but I can't help but ask, have you ever read Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "Those who walk away from Omelas"? It presents a moral quandary that has bearing on the discussions here, and is one of the things that convinced me not to be a utilitarian ethicist. If not, I can't recommend it enough. 

Sounds good, I will look it up. 

[Aoslare]

Syros was pretty rational in G1 too.  As was Gnorrel.  As will be Greta, and as, even, will be Ghaldring.  The Takers/Rebels do seem to include a lot of mob-violence types but rarely in leadership positions, which I guess speaks to relatively good management on the part of the Syros-types.  (Witness recruiting you to deal with Akkat in G2.)

[Randomizer]

GF2 shows the split in the Takers to eliminated the crazed cultists driven mad in order to use magic. Tuldaric's research has ended the need to keep them around, You basically see the start of a more centrist approach to everyone but the 
Shaper and those that act like Shapers that don't respect creations. So you are tolerated, but will have limited power in the new Taker order.

[oceanes]

Speaking to the original topic of this thread, I find it hilarious that the only leader who seems to explicitly support indigenous nationhood is Barzahl of all people, even if he's only using it as a lever for war support. The more I look at his characterization, the more I'm reminded of Count Dooku, perhaps crossed with Saruman. Does anyone know if this whole utopian strain to Barzhite thought is new to the remake? I've also noticed that the Takers are quick to say that they sympathize with the commons, and Jeff seems to take care to prevent them from being characterized as anti-human. I wonder if that will last?

[alhoon]

6 hours ago, oceanes said:

Speaking to the original topic of this thread, I find it hilarious that the only leader who seems to explicitly support indigenous nationhood is Barzahl of all people, even if he's only using it as a lever for war support. The more I look at his characterization, the more I'm reminded of Count Dooku, perhaps crossed with Saruman. Does anyone know if this whole utopian strain to Barzhite thought is new to the remake? I've also noticed that the Takers are quick to say that they sympathize with the commons, and Jeff seems to take care to prevent them from being characterized as anti-human. I wonder if that will last?

 

I think the Barzhites talked about their Utopia in O-GF2 too. And they walk the walk on that. It was not Lying Zackary the Deceiver that made the valley lush. And for all my love for Awakened, without the Barzhites, they don't do well as evident when you go out of Medhab in that bridge and you are told the fields are weak, or when you go closer to the Taker lands and you are told the valley is not well transformed there. 

 

  

7 hours ago, Slarzahl said:

Syros was pretty rational in G1 too.  As was Gnorrel.  As will be Greta, and as, even, will be Ghaldring.  The Takers/Rebels do seem to include a lot of mob-violence types but rarely in leadership positions, which I guess speaks to relatively good management on the part of the Syros-types.  (Witness recruiting you to deal with Akkat in G2.)

 

He was still an arrogant butthole in GF1-M, as far as I recall. Greta is limited in her role as leader because she is moderate;  Litalia leads the human faction of the Rebellion in GF4 and in GF5, the humans are mostly sidelined. Ghaldring appears rational but he tries to bring the Drakon Lifecrafter Empire after the fall of the Shaper Empire. Well, that's not irrational, but it is backstabbing all of us except his buddies. 

 

The Takers/Rebels seem to include at least a Drakon in each game that wants you to kill the competition inside their own faction. 

 

Edited April 15 by alhoon

[Val Ritz]

The remakes do an excellent job refining and expanding on areas of the speculative fiction that the originals didn't, which is awesome.

 

The switch to "common" from "outsiders," and exploring the perspectives of "common" cultures, is one of those great changes. When I look at how the Shapers are portrayed in the original 1 and 2, I think a lot of the details about their scope and influence were still in flux. In G1, describing them as "one of the oldest and most powerful of the magical sects" created this image of the Shapers as more like nation among many. G2 expanded on that somewhat, but it wasn't until G3 and beyond that we really started to see the geopolitics of Terrestia crystallize.

 

Now, with a lot of those details set down and iterated on, the addition of the "old cultures" through the Turabi feels like a whole new worldspace to explore. If nothing else, it feels like writing experience from Avadon that's paying dividends for these remakes.

[alhoon]

14 minutes ago, Val Ritz said:

Now, with a lot of those details set down and iterated on, the addition of the "old cultures" through the Turabi feels like a whole new worldspace to explore. If nothing else, it feels like writing experience from Avadon that's paying dividends for these remakes.

 

We hear about the old cultures here and there in the games, and there are different cultures that play a significant role in GF5. 

[Val Ritz]

Oh definitely, it's just nice to have that detail included in the earlier games to provide depth to the experience right out of the gate.

[Mechalibur]

It's absolutely a great addition. I want to hear about cultures native to the Ashen Isles in the 3 remake and what their perspective on the war is.

[alhoon]

5 hours ago, Mechalibur said:

It's absolutely a great addition. I want to hear about cultures native to the Ashen Isles in the 3 remake and what their perspective on the war is.

I am pretty sure those islands were not inhabited, or were inhabited by a few fishermen. They are crap even after centuries of Shaper control. 

[oceanes]

On 4/15/2024 at 7:03 PM, alhoon said:

I am pretty sure those islands were not inhabited, or were inhabited by a few fishermen. They are crap even after centuries of Shaper control. 

You know, Barzahl was right about one thing, crazy as he was; traditional Shaping methods are extremely slow, crude, and haphazard. It's a pity they discovered a way to actually see what they were doing, only to immediately jump to self-gene-editing. Simply using the microscopes to improve research times and outcomes for otherwise traditional Shaping research would have served their society far better in the long run, and Sucia might never have been Barred. Of course, it's likely that they did that already, as evidenced by the gazer design originally being Sucian, before Barzahl worked out the bugs, and it's perhaps inevitable that a group like the Shapers would gravitate towards personal power rather than general societal advancement, even if they would benefit too. Also, it's likely that they didn't realize the mental effects of Self-Shaping until after they'd already done it, as it's implied that attempts to Shape a human using the traditional methods always ended in messy deaths, for obvious reasons. After the change of course, Danette and the others were incapable of seeing the drawback of what they'd done.

[alhoon]

17 minutes ago, oceanes said:

Also, it's likely that they didn't realize the mental effects of Self-Shaping until after they'd already done it, as it's implied that attempts to Shape a human using the traditional methods always ended in messy deaths, for obvious reasons. After the change of course, Danette and the others were incapable of seeing the drawback of what they'd done.

The reason self-shaping is banned is not the accident rates - which is not that bad. It is you become a madman with too much power. The Shapers are big on learning slowly and being evaluated before you learn more. We see that with the Servants, where Lying Zackary the Deceiver has you learn the magic for a few Creations before you join, at which point he clears you for more training. 

The Awakened do not attempt to bar you; Carnelian can't teach you much because she's not that powerful. Tuldaric on the other hand goes the ... ??? way and teaches you everything for average price.

If I remember the other sects correct, the Barzhites are actually pushing you to go fast in your training (canisters). The Takers are more reserved towards a Shaper from what I remember but it is clear they also share knowledge very freely. 

To go back to Tuldaric, his way of teaching is bizarre; I had a drakon in the party from level 9. He just goes "OK" and teaches you everything without any quest. That you are Awakened seems good enough to him. Quite irresponsible, if you ask me.

[Aoslare]

That's not just Tuldaric; every sect head trainer operates that way.  Tyallea, Tuldaric, Burham, Salgurdar.  They just need you to be modified.

[earanhart]

Phariton does the same after a fetch quest for the unaligned, and he doesn't need you to be modified. 

Proof that traditional methods are best? Possibly. 

[alhoon]

1 hour ago, Slawbug said:

That's not just Tuldaric; every sect head trainer operates that way.  Tyallea, Tuldaric, Burham, Salgurdar.  They just need you to be modified.

Tyallea requires orders from Lying Zackary the Deceiver before she opens up to teach you everything on the menu. I haven't met the other too. 

[Randomizer]

10 hours ago, Slawbug said:

That's not just Tuldaric; every sect head trainer operates that way.  Tyallea, Tuldaric, Burham, Salgurdar.  They just need you to be modified.

Only the factions require being modified. Phariton (advancd creation), KLayos in Hermit's Crossing (Leadership 5) (high level spells), and Gaas (Outer Gaza-Uss) (highest creations and spells) all will do unmodified character. 

[JDubkins]

On 4/10/2024 at 6:27 PM, alhoon said:

So, in GF2-I there are more than a few signs that the common don't have it that well under the Shapers either.

We are shown evidence the Shapers do cultural genocide (lost languages, lost traditions). It is also clearly said that the Common can do their factions and politics and businesses and as long as they don't violate Shaper Law they are mostly left to do their thing BUT that all goes away if a Shaper deems something they do as bad. I.e. according to what we're told in GF2, a political dynasty of the Common may collapse if a cranky Shaper deems it as antithetical to his or her goals. Or an entire religion banned if an agent with a sore tooth considers it rubbish. 

 

This seems like a hyperbolic misinterpretation of both Shaper ideology and societal structure. If you don't mind, I'd love to play the part of Shaper apologist... or propagandist. You can decide.

 

I believe the original GF5 was the first time Jeff introduced the idea of past cultures in Terrestia, right? My understanding (generally, and with admittedly some conjecture) of the assimilation or eradication of cultures under the Shaper Empire is as follows:

1. What is the purpose of the Shaper Empire? 
   • The evidence points to the Shapers actually believing that the presence of the Empire is the greatest good for the greatest number of (human) people. You can argue with the outcome of that statement however much you'd like, but I don't think you can argue that they don't legitimately believe that. 
   • So what, then, is the greatest good? In the Shaper worldview, the greatest good is the antithesis to the greatest evil.
     • The greatest good: Magic, and most specifically Shaping, is a gift too valuable to not use to better the world. The Shaper Empire is, at its essence, idealistic. A world without war, without hunger, without disease (until we accidentally make one. Oops!)
     • The greatest evil: Magic, and most specifically Shaping, is too dangerous a tool to allow anywhere not under absolute control. (I know, you're going to argue that it's obvious the Shapers can't control it based on what you see in the games. But keep in mind the games are only a sliver of a snapshot, both chronologically and geographically. It is clear throughout the series that for the vast history of the Empire and across a broad swath of land, Shaping has remained under better control than it has any right to have been. Drypeak, especially, is shown to be an exception to the rule, where Shapers made their mistakes, learned from them, and established rules that would prevent those sort of mishaps in the future. Let's be real: with a power like Shaping, it's nothing short of miraculous that the whole of Terrestia isn't a barren wasteland.)
     • The Empire, then, is a balancing act between these two notions. The power to Shape must be used everywhere, but it must be controlled everywhere. And if there is any land not under Shaper control, they are either deprived of the benefits of this power, or are subject to the atrocities of it. This, at its core, is why I can never wholly support the Rebellion in the later games. There's absolutely no solution to this problem, except the entry of another oligarchical controlling agency. (I'd actually love a solution where Shapers are relegated to what they really should be: scientists in the employ of a responsible government.)
   • So with the purpose (although not the necessity) of Shaper Rule established, we need to be clear on something. It's fairly demonstrable that the Shapers don't have that much interest in ruling with an iron fist. Never once in my recollection have I heard an outsider complain of heavy taxation or moral legalism. This is a historic achievement, by any real-world standard. In fact, in many cities, the bureaucratic and especially financial details of governing are left to outsiders. There is ample evidence that, apart from learning to perform uncontrolled magic, the common are left to the pursuit of happiness as they see fit. And if they want to pursue magic, even Shaping, there are non-exclusive avenues for that, until your own (lack of) skill or (in)competence disqualifies you.
2. So having established and justified the Shapers as a (mostly benevolent) Empire, let's hold them to the standard of an Empire.
   • When an Empire conquers a land, the subdued peoples have the choice to assimilate or to keep fighting into non-existence. This is neither good nor evil from a historical perspective; it simply is. The only cultures you could even argue that Shapers have 'eradicated' are those first cultures who were suicidally militant at the very origins of the Shaper Empire (i.e. would not be conquered and ruled over). 
   • You said "We are shown evidence the Shapers do [sic] cultural genocide (lost languages, lost traditions)," but there's no such evidence that they do any such thing. Languages and traditions may be lost after generations of assimilation, but there's no moral culpability for the Shaper Empire for that loss.
   • You could make an assumption that cultural practices that were at odds with Shaper law would have been eradicated, but the culture itself would be allowed to persist aside from that practice. We know that necromancy, for example, is a banned practice, so if that had been a religious element of a culture, it follows that the Shapers would demand an end to that aspect of their culture. That's perfectly in line with the express purpose of the Shaper Empire: to control dangerous magic.
   • What we actually do see in the game, now, is that some of these cultures were extra-valued within their assimilation for what they brought to the table... Like a skill for providing the crystals that are needed for high-level Shaping research. This can only be viewed as a good thing.

So let's compare it to the Roman Empire, Pax Romana era, or roundabouts, yeah? Whatever atrocities were committed by the early empire during its establishment, the world objectively has more peace and better resources than anywhere in history. Okay, so there's a little slavery, and that's bad (and yes, I'm being ironically flippant on an important issue to make this point). But grand scheme, an Empire is Utilitarianism at its finest: the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Now the differences: Rome was constantly having to deal with people who didn't like being heavily taxed (1 point for Shapers). Rome still couldn't solve world hunger (1 point for Shapers). In the Roman Empire, you were born a Roman citizen or you were an outsider for life; in the Shaper Empire, anyone can become a Shaper, and everyone is an equally protected citizen (2 points for Shapers). Rome made slaves of actual humans; at least Shapers can make a philosophical argument that a creator has absolute rights over his creation—anyone who is deeply familiar with religion is familiar with this argument—and that serviles are a lower form of life—which, as far as most people on Terrestia are aware, seems to be true. (Okay, so not a point for Shapers, but at least not as many negative points as actual historical human slavery). 

 

Okay, one more similarity, while I'm here. Certain Roman governors may have been jerks, and might have been a little rude when they were interrupted from doing their work by someone who amounts to, basically, a student. But just because a Guardian—or, sorry, governor—was a little rude to you once and wouldn't let you enter a building and disturb his boss during a historic uprising, doesn't really justify burning down an Empire and ending the Pax Romana for the sake of your ego.

 

Disclaimer: I think there are plenty of valid complaints against the Shapers by modern standards of morality. But to be fair in how we evaluate them: If we judge them against nearly any governing agency throughout history, especially other empires, I'm afraid they actually come out looking pretty darn decent. Now, on that front, every government that wants to survive modernity and it's oh-so-heavy burden of ethics and morals must also adapt to fit these ethics. This is where the Shaper Empire fails. I suppose it depends on whether you view the Shaper Empire as pre- or post-Age of Enlightenment.

 

I'm a little tired, so let's hope this is mostly coherent. If you made it this far, thanks for reading!

 

[oceanes]

The above from JDubkins is why I expressed some sympathy for Alwan's position in G5, despite ultimately being a rebel. Of course, the Shapers, in having to deal with "modernity and the Enlightenment" as you put it runs into something of a different situation as regards the serviles, because they were literally designed to be what they are, and to be happy about it, and it seems like most of them actually are, given that it took a situation like Sucia to create the Takers, and outside influence and the creation of drakons to kickstart the rebellion. It reminds me of an alternate history where the 16th century European explorers discover the New World, only to find it populated not by the Native Americans, but rather Homo Erectus. Now obviously, the serviles are fully sapient, and much more intertwined with their creators than in that example, but it does present a slightly different challenge to an alternate Enlightenment when the ethics can't use universal human brotherhood as a basis, and have to skip straight to universal sapient brotherhood instead, especially when one of the brothers is carnivorous, and may possibly be convinced to eat you if he gets mad enough. (See Barzahl Buffet in Taker ending)

 

I would also add, that in terms of a creation's duty to obey its creator, IRL religious examples from the Abrahamic faiths depend of the idea of God's omniscience and omnibenevolence, both things that the Shapers both manifestly are not, and have never claimed to be, even to themselves.

Edited April 18 by oceanes

[Hyperion703]

JDubkins, so the ol' Hegemonic Stability Theory. Amiright?

[l33tmaan]

14 minutes ago, oceanes said:

Of course, the Shapers, in having to deal with "modernity and the Enlightenment" as you put it runs into something of a different situation as regards the serviles, because they were literally designed to be what they are, and to be happy about it, and it seems like most of them actually are, given that it took a situation like Sucia to create the Takers, and outside influence and the creation of drakons to kickstart the rebellion. 

I was thinking about this when replaying G1. As far as I can tell, the only reason the Sucian serviles went rogue is because they were left to their own devices for generations. I know they were in a rush to leave after the place was Barred, but that was just irresponsible of them. Even then, if it wasn't for the freak occurrence of organic servile ideologies AND the GENEFORGE being made, I don't think the rebellion ever could have happened. 

Ironically, if the shapers had been as iron-fisted as they're stereotyped to be, the entire series would have been avoided. Of course, you can't maintain that level of vigilance  all the time, so I guess it was inevitable that one of the intelligent, self-sustaining creations would learn magic & shaping. 

[oceanes]

2 hours ago, l33tmaan said:

I was thinking about this when replaying G1. As far as I can tell, the only reason the Sucian serviles went rogue is because they were left to their own devices for generations. I know they were in a rush to leave after the place was Barred, but that was just irresponsible of them. Even then, if it wasn't for the freak occurrence of organic servile ideologies AND the GENEFORGE being made, I don't think the rebellion ever could have happened. 

Ironically, if the shapers had been as iron-fisted as they're stereotyped to be, the entire series would have been avoided. Of course, you can't maintain that level of vigilance  all the time, so I guess it was inevitable that one of the intelligent, self-sustaining creations would learn magic & shaping. 

There are journal entries from Danette, the leader of the Shapers on Sucia, that indicate that the Barring was sudden and completely unexpected, and also that most of the Shapers there expected the island to be unbarred within a year or so, after they'd had a chance to politick and convince the Council of the merits of their work. Obviously this didn't happen, but it does explain why the island wasn't razed. They didn't want to destroy their work when they all thought they'd be back.

[earanhart]

1 hour ago, l33tmaan said:

As far as I can tell, the only reason the Sucian serviles went rogue is because they were left to their own devices for generations. I know they were in a rush to leave after the place was Barred, but that was just irresponsible of them.

There is some evidence (as early as the Ruined School, actually) that many of the powers of Sucia expected to return. It's possible some of them expected to return as fast as a year or two. "Just gotta go explain this whole thing to the Council. Once they see what we are looking at, they'll not just let us but ORDER us to come back and continue our work." That kind of thinking. 

And I assume whoever reported the Geneforge and the other illegal Sucia research to the Council expected that after an investigation they'd go and burn everything to the ground. For the people wanting to continue, it makes sense to leave the Serviles so it won't take as long to get back up and running when you come back. For the ones wanting or even just expecting the Council to delete the island itself, it didn't matter if any Creations were left behind because after the investigation is done they'll all be destroyed anyways. Even if they were brought back to Shaper lands, they'd most likely be destroyed for having been associated with the illegal knowledge.

 

The failing here is on the Council for not having gone to destroy everything on Sucia the decade after they Banned it. But once that decade passes, a Council seat or two change over, people stop wondering why a location is Banned. They assume some Shaper experiment went horribly wrong and it's simply not safe. Maybe someone accidentally shaped a pyromosquito there, or something. It's not worth asking "why is this place Banned?" unless and until someone has a use for the land. And by all accounts Sucia doesn't look like a very valuable island. Nowhere to put a big port, not in a militarily useful location, no reason to want it unless you wanted isolation. But even then it's not far ENOUGH away to let you have the sense of escape from Council oversight. A shipwreck, someone intentionally going there to violate the Ban, or the Sholai are really the only ways someone ends up there, so what does it matter?

And after 2 decades, even if one of the original Council members pushes to send a force to kill everything, the new ones will ask "but why? Anything left there has already gone Rogue and killed or destroyed anything of value. What Rogues don't tear up, weather will."

[JDubkins]

2 hours ago, oceanes said:

I would also add, that in terms of a creation's duty to obey its creator, IRL religious examples from the Abrahamic faiths depend of the idea of God's omniscience and omnibenevolence, both things that the Shapers both manifestly are not, and have never claimed to be, even to themselves.

 

I appreciate this point! Thank you for your engagement! While I agree with you, I'm not sure whether the strongest proponents of the theory fully would. In my not altogether insignificant experience with religious doctrine, it is the very essence of the creator that so far transcends the essence of the creation that gives the creator supreme rights over his creation. By so fully and eternally separating the creator from his creation (both in essence and in understanding), there is no action the creator can do that is evil. He can send a worldwide flood, command genocide, or burn the world in fire; all of these actions may be defined as good when the creation is stripped of the possibility of understanding what 'good' ultimately means.

 

Now, granted, in the Abrahamic faiths, part of this Creator's "transcending essence" is His omniscience, omnipotence, and... well, I've not heard it put this way, but omnibenevolence. So it's impossible to extricate whether the essential difference between a creation and a creator alone is enough for the theory to still hold water; and if it does, to what degree does the creator have to transcend his creation before the theory is valid?

 

It's impossible argue that there isn't a difference in essence between a Shaper and his creation. Whether there is a transcendence of any degree is on the table, but the canonical worldview (at the very least to the knowledge of contemporary Shaperdom and commoners) supports that there is a distinct superiority of the human being to the servile being.

 

2 hours ago, Hyperion703 said:

JDubkins, so the ol' Hegemonic Stability Theory. Amiright?

 

Yes, amazing. Thank you! I couldn't think of the name of this for the life of me.

[alhoon]

5 hours ago, JDubkins said:

 

This seems like a hyperbolic misinterpretation of both Shaper ideology and societal structure. If you don't mind, I'd love to play the part of Shaper apologist... or propagandist. You can decide.

 

 

Oh, I did! [Assume an emoticon of an angry looking drayk carrying a torch]

 

1. I mostly disagree with some of your points. First, I do agree the Shapers delude themselves by thinking themselves the Greatest good. I also agree on their non-desire to rule. In fact, we meet an Agent in GF4 (or is it GF5) that is very annoyed that she has to hear complains from people and actually rule. 
Then I partially (and not completely) disagree with other parts of this thesis. 
I disagree on the taxation part; we do see that, especially in Drypeak. People are effectively serfs, tied to the land to support a colony that is on purpose doing bad. Geneforge 3 also has the swamp farmers that were getting sick in the swamp gathering things for Shapers to do their research. Geneforge 4 has the wartime production that is taking its toll on the Common. Etc. 

"And if they want to pursue magic, even Shaping, there are non-exclusive avenues for that, until your own (lack of) skill or (in)competence disqualifies you." This is also wrong. There is a miniscule chance you would be allowed to be a Shaper and the reason to be disqualified is lack of Loyalty. The common pursue magic - to the point the Shapers allow them. We see that in later games where a loyal mage is refused further magic knowledge. 

I do agree that Shapers are not materialistic; they do have bigger homes and luxuries but they are not like the nobility of the renaissance with the huge castles and tons of servants. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is not unique for a ruling caste. Theocratic leaders very often are like that. 
The ambition of the Shapers is not to have a huge house and live in obscene luxury. Simply put there is less "income inequality" than you saw in feudalism or oligarchies but that doesn't apply just to the Shapers. 

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand... I need to go. But I plan to return to the later parts. 

[JDubkins]

26 minutes ago, alhoon said:

Oh, I did! [Assume an emoticon of an angry looking drayk carrying a torch]

 

I love the assumed emoticon. I'd be properly put in my place if it weren't so presumably darn cute.

 

27 minutes ago, alhoon said:

I disagree on the taxation part; we do see that, especially in Drypeak. People are effectively serfs, tied to the land to support a colony that is on purpose doing bad. Geneforge 3 also has the swamp farmers that were getting sick in the swamp gathering things for Shapers to do their research. Geneforge 4 has the wartime production that is taking its toll on the Common. Etc.

 

-I don't think anyone is in Drypeak by force, at least until the gates are closed and quarantined due to individuals who acted in violation of Shaper law.

-Geneforge 3 is my favorite game. It was the only game I owned for probably 5 years straight as a kid, and I completed the game over 25 times, so this is gonna be my biggest beef with the above quotation: Lankan and his lackeys weren't getting sick in the swamp, period. The herbs being gathered had nothing to do with Shaper research. The Harmony Isle Rebellion progresses as follows: rogues, created by the rebellion, overrun the island; herb gatherers (literally just herbs, for seasoning food) were forbidden by Shaper Diwaniya to leave the city until he could solve the problem; the problem isn't as simple as he thought, and he realizes he can't solve it himself; Lankan takes this personally, confronts Diwaniya about his "unwillingness" to solve the problem, loses his temper, and punches Diwaniya; Lankan, the charismatic idiot that he is, convinces a handful of other gatherers to flee with him, because he's afraid to face the consequences of his actions and misery loves company. Oh, and by the way, Diwaniya, after being punched, doesn't even plan on Lankan's punishment being anything more than jail time. Should you decide to take the punch personally on his behalf, and dispense corporal punishment, Diwaniya is actually horrified at your actions.

-Wartime production, eh? A war caused by who, exactly? (What is that expression? Don't throw stones in glass houses, or something, right?) In Geneforge 4, especially, most of the commons you meet are objectively pro-Shaper, and view the Rebellion as, if not objectively evil, then at least the primary aggressors.

 

50 minutes ago, alhoon said:

"And if they want to pursue magic, even Shaping, there are non-exclusive avenues for that, until your own (lack of) skill or (in)competence disqualifies you." This is also wrong. There is a miniscule chance you would be allowed to be a Shaper and the reason to be disqualified is lack of Loyalty. The common pursue magic - to the point the Shapers allow them. We see that in later games where a loyal mage is refused further magic knowledge. 

 

 

-The "miniscule chance" of becoming a Shaper is, at best, advocacy for my original point that Shaping necessitates strict control. Don't try to make me more pro-Shaper. What's more important (and impressive) is that said "miniscule chance" applies equally to all applicants.

-I remember the mage you are speaking about. She was one of the defenders at Alwan's wall defense. And she's throwing around magic that only two in-game Shapers have the ability to use (the powerful lightning blast spell), and both of those Shapers are Councilors. She's also not shown to be an emotionally stable individual, so I'd be reluctant to trust her even with that much magic. I also wonder canonically, when the Shaper Order began to impose more strict controls on battle magic. GF1-Mutagen actually seems to imply that Shapers don't have any qualms with outsider mages, so I'd like to hypothesize that these restrictions arose as a result of the newly developed über-spells invented in the Drypeak mountains. Like I said, the mage you mentioned was throwing around one of the most powerful spells in the game short of Kill and Purifying Rain. What more does she want? And who in their right mind would give her what she wants? Okay, so Barzahl would...

 

[oceanes]

1 hour ago, JDubkins said:

appreciate this point! Thank you for your engagement! While I agree with you, I'm not sure whether the strongest proponents of the theory fully would. In my not altogether insignificant experience with religious doctrine, it is the very essence of the creator that so far transcends the essence of the creation that gives the creator supreme rights over his creation. By so fully and eternally separating the creator from his creation (both in essence and in understanding), there is no action the creator can do that is evil. He can send a worldwide flood, command genocide, or burn the world in fire; all of these actions may be defined as good when the creation is stripped of the possibility of understanding what 'good' ultimately means.

 

Now, granted, in the Abrahamic faiths, part of this Creator's "transcending essence" is His omniscience, omnipotence, and... well, I've not heard it put this way, but omnibenevolence. So it's impossible to extricate whether the essential difference between a creation and a creator alone is enough for the theory to still hold water; and if it does, to what degree does the creator have to transcend his creation before the theory is valid?

 

It's impossible argue that there isn't a difference in essence between a Shaper and his creation. Whether there is a transcendence of any degree is on the table, but the canonical worldview (at the very least to the knowledge of contemporary Shaperdom and commoners) supports that there is a distinct superiority of the human being to the servile being.

Ah, the old "Does God command things because they are good, or are things good because God commands them?" question. You seem to be referring to the second view, while I was referring to the first. To prevent this from spiraling into an off-topic theological discussion, (though I would be amenable to one if you so wish in a separate thread), I will say this. In most Christian theologies I have studied, the fundamental rights of God to be sovereign over creation are predicated upon His identification with the four O's, particularly omniscience and omnibenevolence, as the concepts themselves personified, led to the perfection of His justice, and thus inability to make mistakes as a human would. Following the directives of such a being would be, from either a deontological or consequentialist perspective, definitionally the correct choice. I am much less confident speaking on behalf of Judaism or Islam, as my study of those is less comprehensive.

 

The Shapers, obviously, do not claim such traits. They seem to base the ethics of their rule on a kind of materialist utilitarian pragmatism. That is, they seek the best outcome for the greatest number as they see it, and the only hands they trust are their own. Their stance on this is actually not surprising for what seems to be an order of magical scientists who accidentally and by degrees walked their way into being technocrats. They initially took power, I think, out of a combination of a desire to be left alone, a need for non-magical expertise to maintain what they had built, commons coming to them to solve problems and subsequently elevating them to power because they succeeded and seemed to know what they were doing, and a peppering of Shapers like Barzahl with actual will to power and ambition to cement the trend. Shapers seem to value property rights highly, likely because many other groups have tried to take theirs, and significant infrastructure is required to use their arts at a high level. Naturally, to them, this applies to their creations, and to the Shaper order and creation of the the Shapers in general respectively. It's also worth noting that many commons seem to have gotten used to the idea of the Shapers being able to solve any problem, and the Shapers have allowed this, as the mindset cements their rule, and likely reduces unrest.

[alhoon]

On 4/19/2024 at 1:07 AM, JDubkins said:

• You said "We are shown evidence the Shapers do [sic] cultural genocide (lost languages, lost traditions)," but there's no such evidence that they do any such thing. Languages and traditions may be lost after generations of assimilation, but there's no moral culpability for the Shaper Empire for that loss.
• You could make an assumption that cultural practices that were at odds with Shaper law would have been eradicated, but the culture itself would be allowed to persist aside from that practice. We know that necromancy, for example, is a banned practice, so if that had been a religious element of a culture, it follows that the Shapers would demand an end to that aspect of their culture. That's perfectly in line with the express purpose of the Shaper Empire: to control dangerous magic.
• What we actually do see in the game, now, is that some of these cultures were extra-valued within their assimilation for what they brought to the table... Like a skill for providing the crystals that are needed for high-level Shaping research. This can only be viewed as a good thing.

 

 

What I see is: 

 

"Were allowed to exist in some minor form."  Those that the Shapers considered to have value for them. 
 

As for Empires and assimilation of conquered people, that's not entirely true. A great many empires did or attempt to do Assimilation or in some cases, cultural genocide. Others did not. The British held India from 1773 to 1947 and while they are far from perfect, they move against the great many and diverse Indian cultures at least not as long as those cultures and their practices were not in open opposition. In the Americas and parts of Australia, the British did do cultural genocide. In Latin America, the Spanish assimilated the locals but many of the local traditions, cultures and even languages remain despite being under the influence of the Spanish Empire for centuries. 

 

What we are shown here and in GF5, is that the Shapers kinda like the USSR, actively try to impose a monoculture and bring assimilation and in some cases (like the evil ghost-king in GF5 or actually in those tombs in GF2) they eradicated the culture by killing everyone.  

And the Assimilation didn't "happen"; it was forced. Those that were not completely absorbed were allowed to exist. Something that may change if a Shaper wakes up cranky one day and decides they had had enough of those weirdo crystal-mages. 

Edited April 20 by alhoon

[JDubkins]

@alhoon Hey, I did say that I was playing the role of propagandist.  

 

As for a fair rebuttal to your (also fair) point, Evidence that they did cultural genocide is distinctly separate from evidence that they do. It's an important difference, but because of it, my initial three points stand. (Not that it justifies any past action, granted, but let's be honest, the statute of limitations is long past. There's a reason it is both incredibly difficult and generally unpopular to hold a nation accountable for actions it took hundreds of years ago, especially when said actions pre-date any social or philosophical movement that condemns it.)

 

On the language used here, "were replaced" is such neutral terminology that it offers more legal wiggle room than you can use to fully support your argument. Your assumption that "they eradicated the culture by killing everyone" (or rather, that they killed everyone as a means of eradicating the culture) necessitates a fair degree of conjecture, based on bias in order that you might further confirm your bias against the Shapers (refer back to argument 2.1 from my original post). 

 

Your repeated assumption that an individual Shaper has the personal agency to eliminate a culture or religion because he or she has a "sore tooth" is an example of allowing bias to propel conjecture past the confines of evidence (the lore). It's clearly seen that the Shapers function within a hierarchy, culminating in the Council. The Council is where Law originates; members of the Order are the Executors of the Law. No individual has the ability to change the law to his or her preferences. To demonstrate how this works, you might point out that a Shaper has relative freedom to put down uprisings without immediate Council approval (for example, if you decide to tackle the Harmony Isle situation yourself), but this is an example of a Shaper carrying out the mandates of Official Shaper Law, not revising or inventing the Law to suit his purposes. Shaper Law, within the timeframe that we encounter it within the game, is repeatedly characterized as "harsh but fair".
 

With all that said, Shapers admittedly do have a lot of agency within the Law in how they decide punishment for breaking the Law; that's not great, but it fits the era Geneforge seems to replicate. I will also admit that the evidence is there that that inception of the Empire was quite brutal, but with the allowance that the modern Empire is shown to be vastly kinder (and always gradually improving) than its earliest iteration.

 

Thanks for engaging Alhoon! You and I approach the world of Geneforge very differently, and I always enjoy hearing your perspective and experiences.

[alhoon]

10 hours ago, JDubkins said:

There's a reason it is both incredibly difficult and generally unpopular to hold a nation accountable for actions it took hundreds of years ago, especially when said actions pre-date any social or philosophical movement that condemns it.)

 

Actually, it is very common and quite popular; parties use it to get votes all the time. The French and the English, the entire Balkan area, the Middle East, the USA and the British Empire, the Natives and the Colonizing nations which is arguably the most relevant here. 

 

10 hours ago, JDubkins said:

"they eradicated the culture by killing everyone"

I didn't mean that; I meant they burned the books of magic they didn't like, forbid the practices, dismantled the social structures that propagated those practices, executed or defeated in battle leaders that didn't bend the knee and severely punished those that tried to continue them. 
You know... cultural genocide. To avoid rubbing salt on wounds as I don't know where everyone is from, and despite what you said blaming nations for what they did long ago is very easy and very popular, I will go with the Roman Empire and the Carthaginians. 

The Romans forbid the speaking of the Carthaginian language, burned the city to the ground and poisoned the wells, destroyed records and books in their language, and more or less did everything they could to eradicate the Phoenician heritage. The did go way further than the Shapers, considering that "forbade speaking the language" included cutting off the tongues of every Carthaginian they captured before turning them to slaves. But you can find more recent examples that are much closer to what the Shapers did, which I am not willing to bring up as some such practices were continued till 50 years ago. 

 

10 hours ago, JDubkins said:

Your repeated assumption that an individual Shaper has the personal agency to eliminate a culture or religion because he or she has a "sore tooth" is an example of allowing bias to propel conjecture past the confines of evidence (the lore).

We are told that at least twice in GF2-I alone. Next time I see it I will put it here again. And yes, I understand that is probably a hyperbole and it is probably more complex... as far as GF2 goes.   

Because in GF3, in the 3rd island, Lord Rhaul's island, I forget the name, we have an entire school of Common magic - similar to the Magus complex but legal, where the headmaster is sweating and near-panic because you, an apprentice that have not yet been officially out of school, can turn down the entire school with a word. And the wording of that sentence is very similar to what I just said; I do remember the "with a word" part. 

 

But to get back to GF2-I, we are told that in a couple of cases. I'll grab it from the codex. 

 

Everything they do, is subject to approval. The rule is light but firm; that means, if Shapers do not approve, that something vanishes - whether it is a hierarchy, a guild, a company or, if we believe the wording, a city. I admit I don't think that Shapers would simply allow one of their own with a sore tooth to say "I need the land of City813 for my lab. Clear the grounds from houses and people within 2 weeks." but the local Shaper lord (not the Province boss, even a lower one) could very well say "We decided to put a fort / lab in the place where town1741 is because it is close to resources we need but distant enough in case things go bad; half the buildings would be commandeered by the Shapers and repurposed. The Common will be given reimbursement for their loss of property elsewhere, but they have to go elsewhere. Oh, I heard there is a nice guy called Shaper Zackary that promises his Drypeak Colony will succeed and is looking for people, in case you are interested. " 

 

10 hours ago, JDubkins said:

No individual has the ability to change the law to his or her preferences.

You said it: They have a lot of agency. Not in how to punish people, but in what to do within the law. Including research. 

A Shaper has extreme leeway into what to research despite very constant reminders that their mistakes cause severe problems. The Shaper Law includes things like "Make your research facility underground." and "Be ready to seal it and run." and "If you mess up, you will be punished!!!!" 

What it very evidently and pointedly does not have is oversight.

 

Zackary and Barzhal were allowed to do whatever the heck they pleased up there without oversight, and it was 10+ years till the Council decided to send one Agent to check. There are a ton of security laws and procedures to deal with the problems, but not an oversight committee to avoid the problems. 

In our research programs, we are sending reports every six months, but we also have deliverables and some oversight and if we fall behind there is an inspection. And our research is in mathematics not bioengineering. I bet you all the money in my pockets that big Pharma companies and the governments have inspectors, they don't just trust their research teams to follow the procedures. And a Pharma can do a lot of damage with a defective product but less than a Shaper. And I mean a mid-rank Shaper with a couple of assistants and an apprentice. 
 

The Shapers, in their arrogance fail in one of the most basic things of research: OVERSIGHT. A Shaper can put up a lab and start any research project within the Shaper Law and nobody would bother him or her. "I am making peaches with higher self life! And I take great care so that they won't be released till they are ready. " is perfectly acceptable as a "research project" and we are shown evidence that the Council won't even bother to look into what the guy is doing with the resources he commandeers from nearby farms and mines.
Did he really took all necessary safety precautions and does he follow all necessary safety procedures so that warped peaches won't become an invasive species? Nobody cares to check. 
Is he making peaches with higher self life, or is he making Drakons? Nobody cares to check.

If his mutated peaches escape his lab and become an invasive species, he will be severely punished. If he makes Drakons, he will be executed. There are very clear and well practiced and rehearsed safety procedures for the peaches to not escape. There are very strict laws to prohibit making of Drakons and controls and regulations so that the equipment necessary to make Drakons is controlled. 
But there is no oversight they are followed. 

 

The Shapers place too much faith on other Shapers. They place too much effort to make sure that the tiny few that become Shapers are loyal and too little in ensuring those that are Shapers don't make mistakes. 

 

A committee of 4-8 Shapers that periodically checks and evaluates a region's projects and the safety of their labs is not that hard. The Big Pharma companies manage. The various governments manage. The Shapers could manage too. 
And since Shapers are very loyal, those inspectors would be very hard to bribe. And since those inspectors are like Shanti, they are hard to kill too. 
 

 

10 hours ago, JDubkins said:

Shaper Law, within the timeframe that we encounter it within the game, is repeatedly characterized as "harsh but fair".

BY SHAPERS!

I doubt you will find many Drayks, Drakons or Gazers that would say that.  

 

 

[JDubkins]

Ooh, I like a lot of your points in that last post. Particularly on the notion of oversight. More on that in a minute.

 

First, though, on the topic of holding a modern culture accountable for actions of a long-past culture:

-You may well be more studied on this than I am, and I'm very open to that possibility. But... I don't think I'm seeing what you are, beyond nominal slaps on the wrist or (especially) empty tokenism. Notably, you specify that "parties use it to get votes all the time," but that only works in a system where there are parties to play that political game (which there clearly aren't in Geneforge); and even then, I wouldn't argue that the end result is truly holding accountable the government that committed the crime to the extent that the crime dictates. On the 'popularity' issue, progressives like the tokenism and slaps on the wrist, because it soothes our consciences; but truly holding the aggressor (the government and its citizens) accountable to the same standard as it would/should be had the action been committed in modern times against modern ethics doesn't seem to jive with even the average leftist, let alone most moderates or conservatives. To completely destabilize the government and economy for the absolution of the sins of the past would be a sin against the present... That is the kind of reparation that is entirely unpopular, and for good reason.

-You're probably saying, "but no one is saying we should take it that far." But that is what you are saying in application to the Shaper Empire: that the actions of the early Empire justify overthrowing a stable economy and (historically speaking) relatively free way of life for the human citizen, without any remote plan for ensuring any measure of peace, prosperity, security, or well-being for anyone. And this is where it boils down for me as a Loyalist in Geneforge, and I suspect for a great many others who end up supporting the Shapers. My point isn't that you should support the Shapers; my point is that you should understand why others do. There's a realistic pragmatism to the Loyalist path that, for me, tends to overcome the naive idealism of the Awakened, or the unfettered anarchy of the Takers.

 

Now, onward... a significant part of our disagreement is based on the fact that Jeff is (purposefully, I think) a very unreliable narrator. The text box you captured confirms both of our viewpoints equally well, depending on how your bias chooses to interpret it. I've found this to be incredibly common in his writing. You mention, at the very end of the previous post, that the Shapers are the only ones who say that Shaper Law is harsh but fair, but that discounts that the narration itself says it just as often. (And I discount when it says otherwise! Oops.)

 

(On a slight disagreement point: you have said a few times that Shaper Zachary lured in a bunch of outsiders with a promise of progress, but—correct me if I'm wrong—wasn't that Barzahl? I only recall hearing that from individuals you meet beyond the hidden tunnel, and by definition, whichever of them promised that wasn't wrong: there was progress and opportunity to be had.)

 

I love practically everything you say on oversight, and I appreciate the background you have brought to the topic. I really enjoyed reading that. Sure you don't want to join the "let's reform the Shapers for a more peaceful and secure future" camp??

I also think you meant to say "peaches with a higher shelf life" rather than "self life," but now I'm intrigued by the notion of sentient peaches. There's our new kickstarter creation, huh?

So hypothetically, what's keeping the Shapers from having that kind of oversight? Is it that they have too many Shapers and not enough Guardians and Agents? Or is it that the exclusivity (the "miniscule percentage" you mentioned a few posts ago) of the Order itself backfires on the Shapers, because there aren't enough members of the Order to fulfill proper oversight. Given how they feel about security and order, you'd certainly think that they would value severe oversight; especially since they clearly don't value their members' privacy. In the absence of modern communication methods and transportation, the geographic difficulty, of course, would have something to do with that, but it doesn't completely answer it.

-I do have one question to verify though: I wasn't under the impression, as you are, that Drypeak hadn't received an agent in 10+ years. Zachary and Barzahl received their posting in Drypeak 10 years prior, yes. But Barzahl didn't disappear until about a year before the events of the game, right? So it has been at least a year since they've been checked in on, but the implication is that Barzahl was still at least sometimes present and capable of putting on a face for visiting envoys only a little more than a year prior. Rogues in Drypeak is a fairly new development, spilling out from the hidden vale only once Barzahl fully gave into his madness and disappeared permanently. So the impression, at least to me, is that there have been once-yearly visits from the Council, and until now, the chaos behind the hidden tunnel was easily contained and hidden from view. But I could be wrong on that. (Geneforge 2 is the installment I'm least familiar with by a large margin. I played the original once, over a decade ago, and I haven't had much time to dig into the remake yet.)

 

One tiny last little point: The notion of whether Drakons, Eyebeast, and Gazers should be allowed to exist under a governing agency whose goal it is to control Shaping and keep the public safe from atrocities is arguable at best. Drakons can shape, which we've demonstrated thoroughly in this post and in others is a danger to humanity on the highest level. And Eyebeasts and Gazers are certifiably insane, malicious, and ridiculously powerful... Let's just say this is a moral complication I'm glad we don't have to face in the real world.

 

I really enjoyed your engagement in this post. I know I'll never convince you to join the Shapers, but if I can demonstrate why others may feel the need to, I'll take that as a win.

[oceanes]

14 minutes ago, JDubkins said:

(On a slight disagreement point: you have said a few times that Shaper Zachary lured in a bunch of outsiders with a promise of progress, but—correct me if I'm wrong—wasn't that Barzahl? I only recall hearing that from individuals you meet beyond the hidden tunnel, and by definition, whichever of them promised that wasn't wrong: there was progress and opportunity to be had.)

The alchemist in Drypeak, as well as a few other people, complain of Zackary being deceptive in describing the settlement and the place's growth potential, and now most of Drypeak's population are stuck there, faced with either sneaking away to join Barzahl, like Ajax the miner did, or trying to make the journey back to Shaper lands with no supplies, assuming Zackary would let them, for fear of news getting out. Remember, Drypeak was explicitly set up to be a front to fool the council, and the majority of Drypeak's population know that, but now that the factions are at war, they aren't getting any of the benefit, while having been suckered into being accomplices to a major breach of Shaper law.

[JDubkins]

Oooh, I gotcha. Thank you for the clarification @oceanes. I stand corrected then, @alhoon, that Zachary did indeed draw them to a purposefully failing colony. Not that we expected much better from thy guy, but that's particularly crumby.

 

 

[oceanes]

14 hours ago, JDubkins said:

Oooh, I gotcha. Thank you for the clarification @oceanes. I stand corrected then, @alhoon, that Zachary did indeed draw them to a purposefully failing colony. Not that we expected much better from thy guy, but that's particularly crumby.

 

 

There's a couple of different ways to take Zackary, almost none of them good, even from a Shaper standpoint. His few virtues seem to be that he doesn't delude himself, and that, for a Shaper, he is not cruel. He responds favorably when you speak of allowing Emily to live, and that he had hoped you would be kind to her, that that was important to him. It was an odd piece of dialogue, that I didn't expect from him. There is also a very timid servile in Medab who mentions that Zackary was the only Shaper who was ever kind to him, that he treated him gently. I think Zackary has a soft spot for children, or those he thinks of as children. He's also very blunt about his failures as a Shaper and general mediocrity, if a bit bitter about it. Barzahl regards him as being a coward who lost his nerve, which I think is probably fair, given he went as far as he did under the nose of the council, only to balk at actually making war, which you have to admit is probably the logical next step from the initial idea, even if Zackary might have wished otherwise. Zackary of course frames this as an attack of conscience after Barzahl got power-drunk, which is also fair, but only up to a point. It's easy enough to also say that he just got scared of Barzahl, or squeamish at the potential cost of war, but he doesn't really attempt to flee his death either, and is always upfront about being doomed, but gaining dignity cleaning up his mess anyway. Most in his position wouldn't do that, and the council doesn't seem to care either. I do wonder why he never seemed to use any canisters before the split. As the more mediocre of the two, they should have been more attractive to him than even Barzahl. Has anyone played the Servant path to know if he ever mentions why?

[alhoon]

2 hours ago, oceanes said:

There is also a very timid servile in Medab who mentions that Zackary was the only Shaper who was ever kind to him, that he treated him gently. I think Zackary has a soft spot for children, or those he thinks of as children.

It is a kid Servile girl, an orphan and Lying Zackary the Deceiver was not just "kind to her", he was the Shaper that protected her and saved her and put her under his protection. Most Serviles that survived was useful in some way or another; not that girl. She was spared because Zackary saved her. And its not that her parents were useful so he wanted to warm up to them. No. She is an orphan. I cannot see any benefit from saving what's-her-name for Zackary aside of basic human decency. 

 

Lying Zackary the Deceiver has a couple of redeeming qualities, that in no way overshadow or even compare to the vast net of deception he set up or how pathetic and sniveling he is. 

He is not that far from the Awakened, which is understandable because Lying Zackary the deceiver is still the same Zackary that walked in Sucia all those years ago- he hasn't Shaped himself, so he is not mad. He had come to understand, in his horror, how much happened behind his back. He was too slow "to be afraid" and he had lost control of the mountains long before he realizes that he was not in control of the mountains, that the Awakened were not Common under the Shaper Empire but independent from him and his wishes. 

 

Regardless, I will kill him for the tons of lies he told me and for backtracking and throwing his lot with the Shapers. If Zackary was willing to join the Awakened against Barzhal and the Shaper Council, I would be willing to look the other way; he is not very useful for research himself but the tons of Shapers he has under his control are better.  

Edited April 23 by alhoon

[oceanes]

13 minutes ago, alhoon said:

It is a kid Servile girl, an orphan and Lying Zackary the Deceiver was not just "kind to her", he was the Shaper that protected her and saved her and put her under his protection. Most Serviles that survived was useful in some way or another; not that girl. She was spared because Zackary saved her. And its not that her parents were useful so he wanted to warm up to them. No. She is an orphan. I cannot see any benefit from saving what's-her-name for Zackary aside of basic human decency. 

 

Lying Zackary the Deceiver has a couple of redeeming qualities, that in no way overshadow or even compare to the vast net of deception he set up or how pathetic and sniveling he is. 

He is not that far from the Awakened, which is understandable because Lying Zackary the deceiver is still the same Zackary that walked in Sucia all those years ago- he hasn't Shaped himself, so he is not mad. He had come to understand, in his horror, how much happened behind his back. He was too slow "to be afraid" and he had lost control of the mountains long before he realizes that he was not in control of the mountains, that the Awakened were not Common under the Shaper Empire but independent from him and his wishes. 

 

Regardless, I will kill him for the tons of lies he told me and for backtracking and throwing his lot with the Shapers. If Zackary was willing to join the Awakened against Barzhal and the Shaper Council, I would be willing to look the other way; he is not very useful for research himself but the tons of Shapers he has under his control are better.  

You know, I can forgive him for treating them like commons, because the Awakened explicitly state that that's what they want to be considered as legally in their own writings. That stance is the reason they refuse to Shape. To learn to do so would undermine their argument to the Shapers, not that that argument has much of a chance of working, at least on its own merits. I could see a future where the Awakened have prosecuted most of a war against the council, only for an Astoria figure to publicly concede to the Awakened's terms as a sort of face-saving measure to end the war before war fatigue causes internal civil unrest and ends their regime. The Shapers involved wouldn't really believe it of course, but having a new sort of common is less of a blow to their narrative than free Shaping drayks and drakons like the Takers.

[alhoon]

I don't mind him at all treating them like Commons. I mind that he changed his mind and wants to purge them all. 

[oceanes]

True. I wonder if we have a Kim Dynasty situation here. Do you think Tyallea would kill him if he tried to evacuate to Medab and merge with the Awakened? Would Drypeak revolt if he did have sympathies and showed them? Not that he does, by the time we meet him, but a calculus like that may have influenced what side he fell on and subsequently convinced himself of. Zackary is also the sort to view any sort of conflict with the Shapers as hopeless, even more than Pinner, and unlike her, has the option of not resisting. If Zackary dies, he knows most under him like Nora will be spared, as long as he preaches loyalism.

[alhoon]

31 minutes ago, oceanes said:

True. I wonder if we have a Kim Dynasty situation here. Do you think Tyallea would kill him if he tried to evacuate to Medab and merge with the Awakened? Would Drypeak revolt if he did have sympathies and showed them? Not that he does, by the time we meet him, but a calculus like that may have influenced what side he fell on and subsequently convinced himself of. Zackary is also the sort to view any sort of conflict with the Shapers as hopeless, even more than Pinner, and unlike her, has the option of not resisting. If Zackary dies, he knows most under him like Nora will be spared, as long as he preaches loyalism.

 

No, but I don't think Tyallea would follow him. 
I do believe Nora or how the Guardian Lying Zackary the Deceiver saved would follow him to the end, if he bolted. She is a father-figure for her.  Which seems to lead more credit to the "soft spot for those he sees as Children" narrative - that  is not enough to save him. I will kill him. 

I actually do think he still has sympathies towards the Serviles! He is just thinking that sympathies or not, he should have stopped showing mercy OR that he should stop showing mercy to rogue serviles at this point. Zackary doesn't push hard against Medhab, he is afraid of Barzhal, terrified of the Council and the Takers but in the end, he throws his lot with the Shapers knowing he will be killed for his crimes. 

As for his view against war with the Shapers as hopeless... I think he doesn't want war with the Shapers! He -is- a Shaper. A bad Shaper, a criminal Shaper, but he views himself as part of the Shaper Empire (and thus, he is irredeemable in my eyes and must die - and yes, I still consider myself an Awakened! I am not a Taker!)

 Regardless, if Zackary was that true to his convictions, he would not have waited for you to clean his mess. He could have send Nora to the Council or one of the 12 Shapers he has locked behind his throne. I saw at least an Agent there and a bunch of Guardians. All of them Shapers. He could have told one of them to go inform the Council. But he doesn't. He tries to have you clean up first. Last I saw, Shaper was a fully trained, albeit old, Shaper. He has a bunch of Guardians. I didn't see an offer to put me under Guardian813 or Shaping a battle Beta to put under my control, essence free. Nooope. He wants me to clean up his mess for him, giving me a few trinkets here and there for my work. 

 

Those words make him appear far more sympathetic than he is in game! He is a pathetic worm that DESPITE KNOWING what he does is morally wrong, he lied for decades, perpetuated the slavery of Serviles in his lands, crimes against other Creations, didn't reign in Barzhal, on purpose kept his colony a failure perpetuating the poverty of the Common he deceived to follow him and the Serviles that he brought there. While he did have his conscience and is not insane, he is responsible for a lot of suffering. 
I cannot stress that enough: We are talking about the few redeeming qualities of Zackary, in a way that paints him in a far better light than he should be viewed at.

Barzhal has the "I am mad" benefit of the doubt for his crimes. Zackary has not. For a decade Zackary was lying, deceiving and enabling the suffering of Creations under Barzhal and he did that first out of ambition and as years passed out of fear.

[Aoslare]

...except listen to how he talks about the Awakened.  He ridicules them, he ridicules their openness and kindness.

 

Was Zakary (that is how his name is spelled) probably always a shaper who was relatively decent to creations?  Sure.  So, by all indications, is Shanti.  I don't think he's a failed Awakened, I think he's a failed Shanti.  He's not cruel, but he also doesn't care about how creations are treated by the Shaper world in general.  He accepted the free serviles earlier in his life not because he agreed with them but because he is unprincipled, and it was useful to his power and prestige-seeking to accept them.  He's just an unprincipled and self-centered Shaper.

[alhoon]

3 hours ago, Slawbug said:

...except listen to how he talks about the Awakened.  He ridicules them, he ridicules their openness and kindness.

 

Was Zakary (that is how his name is spelled) probably always a shaper who was relatively decent to creations?  Sure.  So, by all indications, is Shanti.  I don't think he's a failed Awakened, I think he's a failed Shanti.  He's not cruel, but he also doesn't care about how creations are treated by the Shaper world in general.  He accepted the free serviles earlier in his life not because he agreed with them but because he is unprincipled, and it was useful to his power and prestige-seeking to accept them.  He's just an unprincipled and self-centered Shaper.

I didn't say he was a failed Awakened. I said he has shown sympathies for the Serviles. Not enough to call him Awakened, certainly. 

Would Shanti have saved any Servile from Sucia? Probably not, to be honest. 

 

On the rest, we agree. I didn't mean to imply that he did what he did because of his Servile Sympathies and he is quick to throw them away. 

 

PS. Pinner's stance is open to ridicule, to be honest. Trying to convince the Shapers to treat them like Common is a bad-cannister dream. The way to acceptance and for the Shapers to change their entire world-view is through brutal war and tearing down the Shaper Empire, and to do that, one has to kill about 80% or so of the Shapers. 

[Aoslare]

Shanti would have killed them all.  She'd have been sad about it.  She'd also have prevented all the devastation and war that followed.

 

> Pinner's stance is open to ridicule, to be honest

 

And yet, in the Awakened ending, that stance works out for the best.

 

The G1 and G2 endings both offered multiple ways out of the utter devastation of what we might as well call the drakon wars.  Even the rosiest and most idealistic way to wrap up G5 seems like a worse outcome to me.

[alhoon]

27 minutes ago, Slawbug said:

Even the rosiest and most idealistic way to wrap up G5 seems like a worse outcome to me.

 

Because we don't agree on how important it was to take down the Shapers.

The war and devastation that follows the Drakon wars are what is needed to dismantle the Shaper Empire and bring justice (or revenge if you want) to the Shapers for their crimes. 

 

"in the Awakened ending, that stance works out for the best."

A perpetual stalemate the sees the Shaper Empire smaller by a mountain range and weaker by a few thousand Serviles? 
No, I do not consider that something to be proud about. 

 

If I could, I would simply force the Awakened and the Takers to make peace - or at least a Truce. Awakened would guard Drypeak and the Takers could go wild outside - and bring in Serviles and willing Shapers to the Awakened. 
The Awakened supporting all out war is not something they want, and the Takers giving anything to the Awakened or looking for Shapers to Spare is certainly something they don't want. 

Thus, it would be very hard to accomplish. Perhaps if beating the Takers hard enough and eliminating their extremists could work. But on the other hand, a moderate Taker that sees his or her leaders killed over ideological differences is unlikely to remain moderate... 

Edited April 23 by alhoon

[Aoslare]

That's fair.  I do think taking down the Shapers is important.  But I don't think it trumps all other considerations.

 

In the Trajkov G1 ending, the Shapers are taken down, and creations are given equality right out of the gate.  That's basically a better outcome for everybody.

 

Trajkov could do that because he wasn't bent on vengeance -- he just wanted to win.  Okay, lots of other reasons too.  But there are better options than the drakon plans.