Middle of the road viewpoint

[Mike Montgomery]

I started playing without reading anything, and I find that if I answer questions in a way that I think is reasonable, I am not accepted by either side.

 

For example, I don't think it is reasonable to use serviles as cannon fodder; the shapers have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their serviles.

 

But if a creature has gone rogue, yes, of course it should be killed. It would be quite hypocritical to say otherwise, since most of the game is spent killing rogue creations.

 

With GF1 and GF2, there was always the awakened, a middle of the road faction for servile rights without all out war on the shapers. And it was possible to play pure, independent of the 3 factiions and not using any canisters, will enough books and people who would train to make it possible to not join any faction or use any canister, and still be able to win. I miss this in GF3.

 

I prefer to play games that appeal to my sense of ethics. Since both sides are unethical in GF3, I find the game far less satisfying than GF1 or GF2. Does anyone else feel the same way?

[Masked Man of Inscrutability]

Interesting point, but I think it is actually more realistic that the more extreme elements of each faction are entrenching. Usually, the liberalization of ideas occurs during a peaceful time when disagreements can be explored with little fear of violent consequences. During times of war, a line in the sand tends to get drawn - you're either with us or against us.

 

The world of Geneforge is now literally at war - and serviles and shapers have to choose their sides and be very clear about where their loyalties lie. Remember, the Takers always seemed to hate the Awakened as much (if not more) than the Obeyers. This was because if they, fundamentally, believed that the Takers were correct to be pissed at being abandoned to die by the Shapers, then they should agree with their views.

 

I'm not sure who said that truth is a war's first casualty - perhaps rational inquiry and agreement to disagree and the second and third casualties

 

Z

[Milu]

Realism or not, I also miss the Awakened faction and "not joining" possibility. I usually don't want to play on the evil side.

[Student of Trinity]

I have the same feelings - as both Mike and Zorro.

 

I believe that in a time of crisis moderation can sometimes be very immoral. GF3 seems to portray such a situation, where the only available choice is a choice between evils. I don't feel that the game loses its ethical standards, though: to me the least of evils is always an entirely right choice. The question is, which one really is the least of evils?

 

It isn't easy to tell. But I submit that it should not really have been so easy to tell in the earlier games, either. There were serious problems with the Awakened, in my opinion. And the nonaligned option was really a Loyalist path.

[Drew]

Given that the player is such a hot shot, it's a shame he/she can't create his/her own faction - it seems many of the poeple in the game you can help would gladly join with your saner choices.

[Dolphin]

Typically I prefer not to join any faction, but I side with the Awakened most of all. It makes sense they would not appear in G3. Everyone was against them, and they were not very strong.

 

I finished playing for each side to see the different outcomes. The first time I played as a rebel, but honestly that was because I wanted to see if I could use the Geneforge. I didn't like fixing the Creator. Knowing it would make more rouges that would kill innocent people who aren't even Shapers. The rebels are too extreme for me; I would prefer a slightly more peaceful method of liberation.

 

The Shapers feel themselves to be all-powerful creators, and I suppose they are. They have no compassion for their creations, so I don't like helping them very much. It is pretty much impossible to remain neutral in G3; I also miss that.

[Aoslare]

I agree. I particularly miss the nonaligned option. That said...

 

It's interesting to see how the sects (and, accordingly, the ethical axes) have shifted. In GF1 the Obeyers refused to think for themselves. This is hard to justify without having a Shaper upbringing, which of course, none of us players have. So the rebelling sects were the obvious moral winners -- the Takers, too, had a position it's easy to sympathize with, even if their methods were questionable. In GF2 we did see more problems with the Awakened, yet the other sects got even worse -- Zakary was not just hypocritical and manipulative, but also incompetent; and Barzahl and the Takers were not just violent, but also pretty much insane. Again, each viewpoint had justification, but the Awakened remained way way more reasonable than their peers.

 

In GF3, axes have shifted. The early forced choice questions, instead of focusing on the difference between absolutist control, idealistic peace, and violent rebellion, instead simply contrast strict order and control vs. chaotic freedom. Answering them honestly, I actually had to think about many of them, which NEVER happened in the earlier games.

 

It also seems to me that the ethical balance is different from earlier games. In these questions, the loyalists are presented in a very different light -- not as tyrants who torture intelligent beings, but as humans who made some mistakes but are just trying to keep everything from going to hell. Perhaps my view is colored by my own feelings, but that's really different from what we've seen before.

 

Oh, and while I'm commenting on game differences... the boats. The boats! Does having to spend 10 minutes walking to get back to the earlier islands, should you happen to want to, annoy anyone else?

[Squiggus]

I think that this is GF3's biggest flaw. It may be a deliberate flaw and something which makes sense from the world's internal logic (the sides are now more polarized and extreme, the moderating influence of the Awakened has vanished, etc), but it leads to some very unsatisfying outcomes - especially when the Drakons are seen to be just as tyrannical rulers as the Shapers.

 

I particularly wish that there was a moderate Shaper faction - along the lines of Khyryk's views.

 

With characters like Khyryk and Diwaniya, Jeff has done a good job of making the Shaper NPCs more attractive and multi-dimensional than the caricatures (a la Zachary) which we saw in GF2, but this subtlety hasn't been extended to the factions and the dialogue options.

 

I play each of the factions because they each offer a quite distinct game (which is a good thing). But that's a choice based purely on exploring the game - not about "this time I'm going to play the good/bad guys." They're both the bad guys.

[Student of Trinity]

I kind of hate the boats, too, and yet I think they are right. The slight annoyance I have as a player in getting between islands makes me actually think of them as islands separated by difficult waters, and I think this contributes to the atmosphere of the game.

[shell]

I have a feeling we haven't seen the end of the Awakened, it would not make much sense to bring them into the plot of GF3. As the Awakened would have no reason to be anywhere near the Ashen Isles. Nevertheless, I feel confidant that they still have a role to play in the future world of the shapers. It was too bad that neither side this time was around was all that appealing. All things considered, I think the Loyalists path is the best of the two; justifications aside, I just couldn't forgive Latalia for what she had done!

[bogus standard candidate]

Boats: true, they give you an idea how treacherous it is to navigate between the islands. It was a okay the first few times. Then it became an sufferable annoyance (I postpone any inter-island traveling as much as possible). I do wonder: most, if not all, games have points where the reality of the game and opur reality compromise (saved games, for instance), so I wonder if having the choice of which island to travel would not have been such a compromise.

 

Am I remembering this right: I believe this happened in Gull island (yeah. . . 99.999% certain it was there). I was approached by a lone servile in one of the regions (It was a cave/lab place). This servile had the Learned title. He told me that she could try to talk on my behalf so that I would join the side of the rebels. He struck me as an Awakened. Do you guys know whom I'm talking about?

 

With the war raging so strongly, I actually think it makes some sort of sense that there are no Awakened since they might have been swallowed by the rebel factions (they might have existed as a small settlement, if that. I'm sure (sure?) that they wouldn't have lasted in such a situation. The Shapers would want to see them gone, and the rebels would probably have given them an ultimatum: with us or against us. Period.

 

What I ended up liking more and tied the whole game for me was the end text. For some reason when I read that I felt more excited than I had at any other time (almost) throughout the game. The realization of the war finally sunk in (probably because throughout the game I was thinking other things or thinking about the different fights so I had just taken for granted we were at war (yeah, yeah, war. but how the heck do I kill these two annoying Servant Minds, stop healing each other damn you, kind of distractions). I think (I'll have to wait until I play GF2 again and play GF3 again) that this text ending was the one I've liked the most.

 

Well. He promised that bad things were going to hit the fan, and they have.

 

I also tried to play this game Middle of the Road at first (well, I lie. I was playing a Shaper who simply thought we, as Shapers had been too rough on certain rights of the Creations), but as the gam progressed, I found my answer were more and more geared against the rebels and servile rights (almost 3/5 in favor, instead of 5/5 as they had used to be)

 

It seems that in GF4 we might start as a non-Shaper, which is mighty interesting. It also seems the plot will be rather different, I wonder what that will be (fast forward a year or so while we kill time as we anxiously await for GF4 and discuss such things. Heh)

[archangel_14]

i didnt like the boats either.

[Aoslare]

Let me add that I'm thrilled to hear about the non-shaper in GF4. The shaper apprentice thing was really smart and fitting in GF1; in GF2, it was okay; in GF3... well... old hat, and not really very fitting.

 

Boats: I understand that the hassle is somewhat realistic, but GIVEN that you don't have to actually walk through all the areas you are passing through, if you decide to, say, trek all across Dhonal's isle, it doesn't make any sense. The voyage from island to island can't possibly take as long as that does, and it's likely less eventful. But you are forced to walk through the docks. *shakes head*

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Interestingly enough, I never liked the Awakened in GF1 and GF2. In GF1 I saw them as harmless, confused weaklings, much less pragmatic and intelligent than the Obeyers or the Takers. In GF2 there were hints of danger to the survival of the Awakened philosophy, with Tuldaric's crazed experimentation growing at odds with the genteel moderation of the Awakened servile leaders.

 

With the Awakened becoming weaker and more hypocritical in GF2, what has happened in GF3 is entirely plausible. I always thought the painfully naive Awakened philosopy would be overcome by the brutally realistic Taker doctrine, and in GF3 that seems to be what has happened.

 

In terms of moral balance, GF3 is an ultimate failure. GF1 succeeded in portraying the three factions with at least a bit of moral parity, and even Trajkov was almost a sympathetic character. GF2 managed only to balance out the Awakened and Loyalists, with the Loyalists being cast as likeably incompetent restorers of order and the Awakened falling somewhat from their white knight status.

 

GF3 portrays the Loyalists in much the same way as in GF2, although with the greater number of major shaper characters the incompetence gets spread around a bit more. Rahul is the only effective Shaper commander, but he's also close-minded and unimaginative, though oddly likeable. Even the arrogant, patently incompetent Diwaniya is a fairly sympathetic character. That he's hopelessly in over his head makes his conservatism in governing Harmony eminently reasonable, as he could hardly hope to eliminate the rogues on Harmony by creating an army of creations that would undoubtedly go rogue themselves. His humanity comes out in his horrified response to the slaughter of Lankan and his supporters.

 

Agatha is power-hungry, corrupted and has no real redeeming qualities, but the fact that the rogue serviles are responsible for the corruption, as well as the knowledge that Agatha is deposed and executed once the Shapers regain control of the isles negates this. And Khyryk is the Sharon of GF3, a closet rebel shaper with the moderation and sense not to join the brutal rebels.

 

On the other hand, the rebels are more morally bankrupt in GF3 than they ever have been. Litalia is heartless and inhuman and kills with abandon, while Akhari is nothing more then another in an endless line of power-hungry, amoral drakon lords. Lankan on Harmony is a sympathetic character, but his willingness to throw his lot in with the woman who is responsible for his troubles in the first place is downright idiotic. And although he might desire the canister out of purely altruistic motives, his loss of basic humanity as a result of the transformation is troubling, to say the least.

 

I suppose that was an extremely long-winded way of saying that the Loyalists are the only morally supportable faction in GF3. Feel free to disagree.

[Student of Trinity]

I'd agree completely, except:

 

Vast slaughter still happens if you support the Shapers. The Shapers are powerless to prevent the periodic emergence of Litalias, and indeed their recurrently reckless research spawns them. Hence as far as pragmatism goes, Shaper Loyalism still brings massive violence, but makes it be all for nothing.

 

That is, you can't only count the cost of rebellion against the Rebels. By failing to be supremely competent, the Loyalists enable this and future rebellions, and should bear some of the shame, in a pragmatic morality.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by This Glass Is Half Stugie:
... Khyryk is the Sharon of GF3, a closet rebel shaper with the moderation and sense not to join the brutal rebels ...

I guess this summarizes my position quite well. I just started the game again, this time closing all position dialogs. I never state my opinion. I just let my actions do the talking. We will see where this takes me.

Personally, I think the position questions about rogue creations make no sense. Even rebels slaughter rogue creations on sight because they are mindless and dangerous.

Those were some great well-reasoned posts. Gives me some food for thought.

[Aoslare]

The Khyryk/Sharon point is a good one. I'm especially fond of the opinion question you get from Khyryk, where you have 3 options to answer: the standard two, plus one that agrees but points out that his isolation hasn't accomplished anything, either. GF3 basically says there is no perfect way to handle things.

 

Interestingly, I can't really think of a major NPC from any of Jeff's games that doesn't have some kind of flaw like this. At best you get competent administrators like Rahul or Micah, but in terms of people who have the clarity of vision to potentially change the world for the better, they are either recluses like Khyryk or Solberg, or they go way overboard, like Erika. The only exception I can think of is Bon-Ihrno, and look what happened to him!

[Suspicious Vlish]

I thought that only two factions was a huge improvement. I think that the Awakened in the the two past Geneforge's were placed there by Jeff to give the player a morally correct choice (not that I ever joined them. LOL!)

 

GF3 is far more realistic in its portrayal of an all out war, with no holds barred, no prisoners taken. When fighting against a superior force such as the Shapers, it comes as no surprise that the rebels would use underhanded tactics. The killing of innocents, while immoral, is good military tactic during war (eg. Vietnam War).

 

To be honest, I felt more sympathetic for the Shapers. Despite their glaring flaws, they are more morally redeemable than the rebels. They resist canister abuse, they create new environments out of swamps and deserts and repopulate it with life. And they constructed a great civilization.

 

The only thing which disappointed me was the plain incompetence of many loyalists. I guess when you are faced with 50 foot drakkons, you are going to be a bit rattled, but you'd expect them to have a little more discipline.

[Student of Trinity]

I always liked the Awakened, because they sounded humane and decent. But the more I thought about them, the more problematic they began to seem.

 

When they started getting some real power in G2, they were also clearly losing their original moral compass, and I found myself missing the noble days of old Ellrah back on Sucia. But now I compare Dhonal's Keep to Ellrah's Fort, and Ellrah's dream just seems ludicrous -- something that could only ever seem plausible to ignorant serviles, or apprentices, in the isolation of a place like Sucia Island, where the reality of Shaper power was a fading memory.

 

Dhonal's Keep is a cultural backwater, but it still makes the Awakened ideal look ridiculous. Serviles are something the Shapers make, the way they make wands and crystals. They are not going to negotiate with them as equals, at least not without such a fundamental change in outlook as to be tantamount to ceasing to be Shapers.

 

Quixotic folly is not moral high ground, especially when it gets a lot of people killed. The Awakened are an understandably attractive sect for serviles, but should not seem any more moral to a disillusioned Shaper than any of the other sects.

[JadeWolf]

I really miss the non-aligned path. Like that, you could be good or evil, or anything.

[Student of Trinity]

But the non-aligned path was Loyalist, just bypassing Zakary.

[Claymore]

What I like in GF3 is that even though you have only two factions, rebels and loyalists, you have many different opinions within those factions.

 

Before you get to Litalia and the drakons you get the story of lankan and the normal townsfolk, who are disgruntled with the shaper's Ironhanded rule. The serviles on gull were obviously mistreated, which made them understandable in rebelling. When Greta leaves you on Dhonal (If you followed the loyalist path, I have not yet played as a rebel), she simply says that she doesn't believe in the shaper ideals; she doesn't rebel and attack you.

 

With the loyalists you have Khyryk, not exactly the Iron-fisted loyalist that Alwan becomes, and Diwanyia is horrified by your slaughter of the rebels.

 

Consistently you see many people, whether townsfolk or shapers, not agreeing with the shaper orthodoxy, but not reblling out of fear or loyalty.

 

What I would like to see in GF4 would be some sort of reform movement/faction. Instead of having the shapers combat their problems with brutal execution, have some of them respond with parity. That would make a good middle ground viewpoint similar to the awakend.

 

I like how you have to choose which side to help, like on harmony when both sides are moderate, which then affects how the story turns out. As the rebels get more fanatical and the shapers get more brutal, then you have the option of switching sides.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
... Serviles are something the Shapers make, the way they make wands and crystals. They are not going to negotiate with them as equals, at least not without such a fundamental change in outlook as to be tantamount to ceasing to be Shapers...

This reminds me very much of the Bicentennial Man, where a robot seeks and finally gains freedom. At the end, the reasoning went something like, "For any sentient being that understands and desires freedom, freedom should not be withheld." Serviles are created, just like robots, but if they progress to the point of desiring freedom, freedom should not be withheld. I don't think one would have to cease to be a shaper to have this viewpoint. In fact, I think one would feel pride that your creation has grown and matured to this point, just as when one of your children becomes a mature adult.

As for the issue of full-scale war, it is very foolish to take extreme action that pushes people to support the other side. With enough atrocities, even those who would have remained neutral will side against you. Shapers could have strongly bolstered their forces (or at least have reduced the strength of their opponent) by taken an enlightened position toward serviles, thus enlisting smart serviles to their position. For example, I thought it was absurd for serviles to remain in rebellion against the shapers once they realized that their rogue problems were actually being caused by the other side. But I think that the shaper’s hard-line position was somewhat responsible. Even if the shapers were not responsible for the rogues, they were responsible for callously sending serviles into dangerous situations. A moderated shaper position would have increased their strength during the war, not reduced it, in my opinion.

[Student of Trinity]

I don't think it would be really be possible for the Shapers to just lighten up a bit. Their whole advanced civilization runs on servile labor, and many of their projects would cease to be viable if serviles had to be treated as human beings.

 

Moreover, even if they were to refrain from abusing serviles arbitrarily, they would need to retain the principle that they would be allowed to abuse serviles if they wanted to. Decency to serviles must remain a Shaper virtue, not a servile right, because freedom is inherently a slippery slope.

 

If I can't make my servile mine for crystals in a rogue-infested arctic waste, how can I even make him blacken my boots and wash my dishes? Only the servile himself could say whether the cold and the rogues were worse than the shoepolish and the dishwater. And if today I accept his assertion that the cold and the rogues are so bad that I may not compel him to them, then what will I be able to say to him tomorrow, when he decides that the dishwater is also too much to bear?

 

As to the Shapers placating waverers with restraint, it is an old political chestnut that the most dangerous time for a repressive government is when it begins to reform. Every concession undermines the government's legitimacy, by admitting that its principles are invalid; and every liberty granted emboldens the people to demand more.

 

Only if the Shapers retained complete control would it be possible for the Shaper regime to liberalize slowly enough for the change to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So pursuing that vision would amount, in the short term, to thorough Loyalism -- crush the rebels, so that the Shapers alone will decide how their society evolve.

 

I'm not saying that an Awakened-style middle road is completely impossible. But I think it is so problematic, so unlikely to deliver more good for less evil, that the middle road ends up being no more morally attractive than the two extremes.

[shell]

Quote:

But the non-aligned path was Loyalist, just bypassing Zakary.

Only in GF2, in GF1 you had the option of making yourself a god and saying "to heck" with the rest of the world, an option that was missing from the two sequels.

[Mike Montgomery]

I was not suggesting a radical reform that invalidates all shaper principles. Just two things: avoid exposing serviles to lethal harm, and grant freedom to those serviles who are intelligent and mature enough to request it. Take the robot analogy. Very few robots would become enlightened enough to understand freedom, much less request it. Granting freedom to serviles who want it will not affect those serviles who are happy to serve.

 

As for abusive situations, people would not callously abuse robots or dogs. They cost money. Dogs take time and money to train. Serviles cost effort and essence. Only a fool puts them into needless danger. There is a big difference between exposing your servile (dog, robot) to potentially lethal harm and the normal rigors of a job.

[Aoslare]

But isn't that too radical to come out of nowhere? The Awakened were only born after many years of isolation from Shapers, many unusual years during which the values of the serviles were free to evolve.

[Student of Trinity]

If some serviles can become entitled to freedom just by becoming uppity enough to request it, then the basis for servile servitude becomes servile incapacity, and not the fact that the Shapers created the serviles. That admission would destabilize Shaper society, so that thereafter it could avoid drastic change only if it avoided stress of any kind.

 

For example, the fact that the Takers and the Awakened have arisen seems to indicate that many serviles, if not most or even all, do have an innate capacity for freedom. Perhaps at first it would be only a few serviles who demanded freedom; but if the Shapers let these go, how many more would follow? Even if servile defections remained small, Shaper society would be hanging by a thread, and Shaper society doesn't seem keen on that.

[shell]

There is more at stake than just the treatment of Serviles that Shapers must contend with. If they are to grant emancipation to the Serviles, how will they maintain their position in the eyes of other humans. We know that other magical sects exist, and when they see the Shapers own creations getting whatever they want, they too will demand freedom from Shaper authority - freedom to pursue whatever foolhardy magical experiments they desire.

[Student of Trinity]

Ha! A good point. The odd illicit necromancer here and there, the high incidence of reckless Shaper eccentrics, and the seemingly wilder mores of the historical Shaper mainstream, all seem to indicate that uncontrolled magic is a very real danger in the Shaper world. The Shapers have some reason to feel that they have a tiger by the tail, and can't let go. Indeed, G2 showed that the Awakened themselves got into dangerous augmentations, and even summoning demons, almost as soon as they got the slightest opportunity, out from under the ruthless Shaper vigilance.

[Aoslare]

That "tiger" business -- the power to summon demons and shape barred creations and yourself, et cetera -- is part and parcel of the shaping business. That's one of the main arguments used by the loyalists, especially in GF3 -- that such power has to be tightly controlled to avoid the chaos we have seen in the GF series.

 

But isn't the real underlying point of GF that such chaos is inevitable, if you are going to play with that kind of power? That's why the ideals of the Awakened seem so spurious... humans exist without shaping; serviles don't. And that, too, is why Sucia island was barred...

 

Among fantasy stories, video games included, one of the most common motifs is of some great evil power which should have been destroyed, but instead was sealed; and after many years it unleashes destruction on the world. In the case of shaping/augmenting, "destroying the evil power" doesn't really mean destroying the geneforge (or whatever) so much as putting safeguards in place, and improving capacity for judgment in society... because the power can always be recreated from scratch.

[shell]

Quote:

In the case of shaping/augmenting, "destroying the evil power" doesn't really mean destroying the geneforge (or whatever) so much as putting safeguards in place, and improving capacity for judgment in society... because the power can always be recreated from scratch.

A good point. One of the prime motifs of the game is the corrupting influence of power. The Shapers have discovered a god-like power; to make and control life itself. The Drakons have also discovered that power but on a greater scale, as they have knowledge of genetics. So if the Shapers are corrupt, the Drakons are doubly so! Only those with little power, such as the Awakened in GF1, can hold to altruistic ideals.

[JadeWolf]

To Zorro:

The phrase "Truth is war's first casualty" comes from the game Marathon Rubicon; it is the text on the entrance screen.

 

PS. I think Rubicon can be downloaded free somewhere

 

EDIT: here

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by JadeWolf:
To Zorro:
The phrase "Truth is war's first casualty" comes from the game Marathon Rubicon; it is the text on the entrance screen.

Actually, I think you'll find that was first said by the Greek dramatist Aeschylus, way back in the fifth century BC.

[Student of Trinity]

Ah, but 'putting safeguards in place' seems easier said than done. The power seems so tempting, and even if the knowledge itself could be concealed, the fact that it exists to be rediscovered is now common knowledge to a continent full of magicians. Apparently, you cannot unring a bell.

[Mah Al Ibara]

I have to admit that, though I've been buying Jeff's games since Exile, I am finding G3 to be not very enjoyable, for the reasons everyone has pointed out. If I simply follow my conscience (as I have in earlier games), I talk like a rebel and (for the most part) act like a loyalist, with the results that have been noted here. I actually felt lousy when Greta--whom I liked--left my broup because she disagreed with what I was doing, and I was left with Alwan, whom I can't stand. The game has become a chore, frankly, and judging from what others have said, I don't think I would enjoy it any more if I started again and played as either a straight loyalist or a straight rebel. I'm curious to know what Jeff was thinking when he scripted this one.

[wary wanderer]

I'm similarly a bit uneasy with the stance I've taken. I recognize that there's value in seeing how polarizing debates of freedom and free will can be, but the lack of a middle ground leaves me (and my Agent) making decisions that I can't say I'm proud of. I've decided that, as I've been compelled to take a stand, I'm playing as a rebel this time through, hoping that the Drakons have a long-term vision that I lack the creativity to appreciate. But I'm already looking forward to my next game as a purely loyal Shaper -- not that I expect that moral pole to any more accurately reflect my beliefs...

[shell]

Quote:

I'm curious to know what Jeff was thinking when he scripted this one

That is just the moral ambiguity that Jeff has done a good job putting into his games. The fact that neither side is 100% "right" makes it possibe to go either way. Otherwise you would be forced to play either a "good guy" or a "bad guy" with nothing in between.

[Masked Man of Inscrutability]

I read one of Jeff's articles on Irony Central in which he talks about common RPGs, and mentions that you know the evil guys because they're different from you - and usually at is enough. He clearly thinks this crude standard for violence is inappropriate.

 

I have to say, I had to stop playing Geneforge 3 recently. I was playing a Shaper, and really following my conscience (trying VERY hard to answer all the questions as I would myself), and I began to have regrets for my own Creations. I know this sounds totally weird, but I stopped being okay with creating sentient creations which then often were sent into suicidal missions so I could get some essence pods or something equally trivial. Has anyone else had that kind of unease?

 

Z

[shell]

Well, I do get attached to some of my creations and will go to extreme lengths to keep them alive .... but actually feeling guilty about the destruction of a few bytes of HD space....not exactly.

[JadeWolf]

To Thuryl:

Really? I didn't know. I thought Rubicon's makers made it up. Cliché's and sayings like that should be copyrighted.

Well, not serious, really.

[Dolphin]

I don't like using “meatshields.” I have for certain parts of the game where it was necessary. I tend to make one or two creations that I keep with me until it is time to upgrade to a stronger being. I kept my Cryoa until I got to Dhonal's Keep where I got the Drayk canister. I kept my Drayk until I was able to make a Cryodrayk, and kept it for the rest of the game. I heal them a lot in battle and try to keep them out of harms way.

[Student of Trinity]

I've always been able to bury my qualms about the moral status of my own creations under the ambiguity of their physical status. My theory is that my own creations are different from the rogues I meet, and are really just mindless robots made of essence. Here is my reasoning.

 

It is clear that in the GF world there are creations of a wide range of durabilities. There are the 'fading creations' you meet on Harmony Isle in G3, and the fading Drakons that spring out of the crystals Barzahl gives you to assassinate Zakary in G2. There are the spawned creations, which form every few seconds while you are around the Spawner, but which must apparently dissolve spontaneously in your absence, because if you leave a Spawner and return, you don't find that it has filled the region with creations while you were gone. And there are the creations you make yourself, in a crackle and a flash, out of thin air.

 

On the other extreme, there are Drayks that live for ages and beget new generations of Drayks, and Serviles that acquire wisdom and knowledge greater than those of most Shapers.

 

Here is my theory for why there is this range of durabilities. There are a lot of vats in the Shaper world. Any kind of creation can apparently be grown in a vat. Why bother, if Spawners and shapers can make creations out of essence alone? I conjecture that vat-grown creations are permanent, potentially independent beings, but spawned creations are really just essence robots, which will fade away within hours or days if separated from their creator.

 

Thus, I can let my own creations die, or reabsorb them, without guilt; and yet the moral issues of the games, concerning the treatment of permanent creations like Serviles, remain undiminished. Hooray!

[Dolphin]

One observation is that when you absorb your creations they dissolve into essence, but creations that come from anywhere else leave blood on the ground after they die. The Spawners on the other hand seem to made of jewls.

[Lilith]

Even if they're physically unstable, though, your creations obviously aren't completely mindless. After all, they run away if hurt.

[bogus standard candidate]

Hi. Sorry to ask a question that is slightly off topic:

 

How about the "lower" creations such as "living tools," "traps," "mines," etc. (Pylons too, they also leave gemstones like Spawners. . . a coincidence? Why are gemstones important in the making of those two creations?) These creations are all alive at a certain level. I suppose they don't have intelligence, as such, but. . . are they like trees, for instance? If such is the case, in our world there are those who adore trees to a fantatical level. Are there those in the Shaper world who adore and respect the rights of the "lower" creations to the same fanatical extent?

 

Also, the funky plants (the one who throw acid splashes and the one that "cast?" inferno) leave behind them regular thorns. Both of them. Is that because they are essentially the same, the only difference being, perhaps, the incantation that is cast (shaped?) at some point during the creation?

 

I wonder, thinking about the possibilities of GF4 and the fact that we may not begin as a Shaper, if that would mean that the Scholai (to name the only non-Shaper group I know of, other than the Drakons and their ilk) are going to become involve in this war.

 

One thing I wish could change about these games is that I'd like to have a better idea of how this world is, geopolitically speaking. How much of the world is reigned by the Shapers? What are the other societies/nations/groups that exist? Are the Shaper lands exclusively theirs? (what I'm trying to say is something like this: Are the Shapers surpreme over all of the American continent or are there other groups of people?) Because as this War gets worse and worse, it seems to me that some other groups will take the advantage to join one side or other or simply use the power struggle to their advantage in another way.

 

A very stupid question: are there birds in these worlds? (I can almost want to say that I remember a description or two mentioning them.) Also, are there any domestic animals? Or for that matter cattle and such. The only cattle like animal I can think of are the Ornk.

 

What is the role of Shades in all these? What are their rights? Necromancy is frowned upon, or so we have been told in the games. Are we doing them a favor by killing them (like for instance those three ghosts who ask you to kill them in the Pit of the Bound in GF2) or not?

 

Salud!

[Dolphin]

To BSC:

Just as we use wood to build our home the Shapers use living tools to work. Just as we have guard dogs the Shapers have pylons. I have not see a reference to the more simplistic creations having consciousness. I do remember reading somewhere that the spore boxes have feeling, or at least they are aware of being touched.

 

My guess about the plants being capable of different defenses, and the mines being different levels of explosives is just that. Maybe they are different breeds.

 

In GF1 the Shapers said they did not know about the Scholai. That implies that the Shapers have not explored the entire world. It seems they go place to place destroying than barring locations. Maybe they discover new lands when they close old ones.

 

I don't remember hearing about birds. I certainly haven't seen any if they do exist. The only livestock seems to be Ornks. I guess they live on pork, green, fruit, and bread.

 

Shades are simply spirits. What rights do the dead hold? If they attack you they are angry spirits, but I never attacked a shade that left me alone. The shades in GF2 in the pit of the bound one were prisoners. They were contained spirits that wanted to be free. It seems to not exist would be preferable to being an eternal slave.

[shell]

Quote:

A very stupid question: are there birds in these worlds?

You never see them, but I would say a definite yes, as you can hear them quite often in the soundtrack.

The whole shade issue is a little confusing. At times it seems that a shade is the ghost of someone who once was alive, yet at other times shades are presented as just another type of creation, such as in the crystal caves of GF2. Yet elsewhare we are told that the Spapers do not know if there is a life after death, which seems a bit odd if ghosts were actually known to exist! So which is it? Could it be either one?

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Dolphin:
To BSC:
Just as we use wood to build our home the Shapers use living tools to work. Just as we have guard dogs the Shapers have pylons. I have not see a reference to the more simplistic creations having consciousness. I do remember reading somewhere that the spore boxes have feeling, or at least they are aware of being touched.

If you try to talk to a turret in GF1 (a non-hostile one, obviously), you get the message "It's basically just a big fungus. It can't talk to you." Since they're apparently plant-based, their awareness of their surroundings is probably very primitive.

[bogus standard candidate]

Dolphin et al.

 

Re: Shaper movement through the world. It's interesting what you say (Dolphin) about their m.o. Do you think there are other Sucia Islands out there? It's a good point that the Shapers knew nothing about the Scholai (or at least our character didn't) because I wonder if that can be seen as a contradiction: they seem to be a group that is hellbent on controlling information (specially their own) yet they haven't explored the world enough to know who else populates it. Wouldn't they enforce a stronger observation of their world? That's why I wish the games would give us a little more information about that world.

 

From GF1 we learned that the Scholai were a nation of sailors/merchants, yet they had not met the Shapers before (apparently, or I'm remembering wrong). Is it because it's very treacherous to navigate in that world? Also. . . again with the memory problem, but I think the Capo di tutti drakoni (sp?) has a pool that works as a scrying device. Is he the only one that posseses such a thing?

 

If he can scry other places, has he been able to scry other portions of the world? Because in such an all out war as the one that is scourging the Shaper's right now, I'd imagine that the Drakons would use as much help as possible and so would the Shapers. Now, we've been told the bad stuff has been happening in Terrestria which is a more or less isolated part of the world. Fine. But how isolated is it?

 

What do you guys think?

 

As for animal life in general: the Shapers way of establishing their colonies might also explain why we see no other life form other than their creations and some non-intrussive life forms such as birds, since as Shell pointed out we hear their chirps on the soundtrack (at least, I hope they are birds. maybe something else? although that's probably reaching). A rather practical way of life (?) in a way since they have even reduced their lifestock to ornks.

 

However: what did the Shapers use as lifestock before they learned to create ornks? Perhaps there was lifestock and the Shapers in their obsession to create and control their environment did away with it? And while we're at it, what about game? These guys are a mystery.

 

When I play these games I always get these very strong Falloutesque feeling. I have this feeling that there was some kind of holocaust in the world. That the proto-Shapers survived this holocaust and learned the art of Shaping as a form of survival as well as controlling their environment. But, then again, sometimes I get the feeling that this is a Dying Earth (or wolf's Dying Sun) and this world is actually the Earth (the fact that the continent is called Terrestria just messed with my mind even more, though it more than likely has nothing to do with anything Earth related (not to mention the Scholai with their name that reminds me of Scholars (though they are merchants and sailors) and Kievians (Kievans?) and Vikings))

 

And the name of the darned Island means Dirty in Spanish! But in Maritine Spanish it means Rocky!!! And then I find this thanks to google.

 

(Sucia Island is a rocky island.)

 

(and there's also an Archeological site in El Salvador called Cara Sucia, but maybe this is reaching)

 

All I know is that this is one funky, interesting world and I hope we can learn more about it in future games.

 

One more.

 

Turrets and Mines: The former has an awareness of its surroundings and the latter has a level of feelings, albeit a primitive one. I can't wait until a crazy Shaper decides to enhance these basic tenets and next thing you know we have chatty turrets and mines who waste their live away philosophizing and plotting (no pun intended) world domination.