G3 Dialog options and plot line

[Mike Montgomery]

There are some plot and dialog options that do not make any sense to me in G3.

 

I think Lankan is the worst case, though there are several others.

 

1. Why is Lankan unaffected by the knowledge that Litalia was the actual source of the problems he was so angry that Diwaniya could not fix. Why did this not make him angry with Litalia? I can see that her charisma might have won him over while she was there. But afterwards, I would think him furious to be her dupe after he finds out that she was the source of all his problems. Instead, he is still enamored with her. This makes no sense.

 

2. After you have killed the generators and cleared the island of all rogues, why is Lankan still so insistant on getting the canaster? All of his original grievances have been answered. The island is now safe. There is no reason for his people not to go back to their homes. He has already been told he will only receive a light punishment from Diwaniya, maybe one month imprisonment. There should be an option, at least with high leadership, to persuade him to think of his people, and do the right thing by them and send them home.

 

I realize that he might be power hungry and that is why he did not turn on Litalia. You should also have the option to tell him that you have examined the canaster, and that something did not seem right about it. It looked dangerous to you. Can he really trust a "gift" from the person who caused all of these problems to begin with?

 

As for other plot and dialog options: Why don't you ever get a chance to tell rebels that you admire their cause, but you hate their methods? You get plenty of options to denounce shaper actions, but you do not once get a chance to denounce rebel actions.

 

I can't believe for one second that Jeff did not realize the moral conflict he set up with the outrageous rebel tactics, but he never gives any dialog options to express your outrage. You only get to be outraged that they dared rebel against the shapers, not that they use such attrocities as rogue generators. I especially wanted to discuss this with Learned Darian. She seemed like a reasonable person. Was she not outraged with the rogue generators that were killing fellow serviles indiscriminately?

 

And what's with Greta? I can see her facination with the power of the Creator, but doesn't she have any disgust with something designed to intentionally create powerful out-of-control rogues??? And her reason for leaving, that we are helping the shaper cause too much? I have personally expressed pro-servile viewpoints at every opportunity. (But I also agree with disposing of rogues.) We have not done anything explictly to help the shapers at this point. All we have done is protect innocents, mostly serviles, from the ravages of rogues. Does she have a problem with that???

[MagmaDragoon]

I totally agree with you. Expecially with Lankan. My first game was deleted because I bringed him the canister (before talking with him), then when I saw what will happen if you gave him I decided to not give it, but soon I discovered that I have to kill him or give the canister.

I didn't like both opinion, so I restarted. And the next time, the magic-canister was destroyed.

[Student of Trinity]

Yeah, Lankan is frustrating. That situation is one that it looks as though you should be able to resolve peacefully, after killing all the rogues. But the dialogue options never let you do so, nor do they ever provide a good reason for things not working out even after the rogues are gone.

 

It could be plausible that Lankan is power-mad or that Litalia put some longer-lasting charm on him. But somebody should mention this, at some point.

 

One difference between the Shapers and the Rebels is that the Rebel leaders are all either canister-mad or inhuman. So it might make sense that your conversations with them are more limited. But I agree that you should at least be able to state your case, even if this then brought irrational responses.

 

On the other hand, what is so wrong with the Rebel means? They make spawners to attack Shaper settlements, but Shaper settlements do seem to support the Shaper regime fairly directly. What should they be doing instead?

[Delicious Vlish]

Brings to mind the current conflict of Western Values vs Arab values and the Religion of Peace. Both sides are extremists, and boy howdy, how so.

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
On the other hand, what is so wrong with the Rebel means? They make spawners to attack Shaper settlements, but Shaper settlements do seem to support the Shaper regime fairly directly. What should they be doing instead?

Like the Awanaked do, diplomancy. I don't like rebel methods because the starting idea is to kill every Shaper. This would be the last solution. So, before make spawners everywhere, I would try to talk.

[ex post slarto]

Yes, as you mention, the Awakened tried that. They died. Not a better solution at all.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
...On the other hand, what is so wrong with the Rebel means? They make spawners to attack Shaper settlements, but Shaper settlements do seem to support the Shaper regime fairly directly. What should they be doing instead?

The problem with the spawners is that the rogues spawned are mindless engines of destruction that attack indiscriminately. Supposedly the rebels are trying to liberate the serviles. Guess who bears the majority of the damage from the spawners? Serviles. A random group of rogues is no threat to a shaper, but can kill serviles and humans.

This is why I said the spawners were a form of terrorism. Instead of directly attacking enemy forces or leaders, both methods focus on killing innocent non-combatants.

As for what to do instead. Diplomacy is a useful tool, as well as propoganda. Publish about the gross mistreatment of serviles. This is how many countries got animal rights laws in place, to deal with abuse. Appeal to the better nature of the shapers, like India did with Great Britian. Then assess.

Are many shapers sympathetic with the servile plight? Are there some hard liners in power that are keeping down the more moderate voice? Use agents or small tactical teams to eliminate the hard-liners.

If you are finding the shapers as a whole are not sympathetic, then war may be the only means of change, but focus the war on the leaders and combat forces of the shapers, and don't let the helpless serviles take the brunt of it.

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Come On Pilgrim: Track 4:
Yes, as you mention, the Awakened tried that. They died.

What? In GF2 AWK ending they don't die...

[Mr.Bookworm]

But in the accepted canon, the Awakened die.

[Delicious Vlish]

In all reality, the Awakened are just Takers with sweeter words and empty promises... With very strong Shaper tendencies to enslave other creatures. Thinking long and hard about it, they are the worst of both worlds. The Barrier of Winds employs slavery for their own benefit. They speak a great deal of peace and bartering, but are preparing an army to take what they need by force.

 

At least the Rebels are more open about what they want and don't try to hide their real agenda under a thin veil of pretty words.

[ex post slarto]

I don't buy it. As a political entity that may be what the Awakened turned into, but there was more to them than that. The typical Awakened servile, from all the evidence we saw in the games, was much more like Ellhrah than Tuldaric. Compare to random peasants among the Loyalists and Takers; both sects have some examples of extremely reasonable followers, and also examples of nasty and hateful ones. The Awakened have fewer of those.

 

The Awakened leaders did fall from their high standards, and eventually the Awakened failed; perhaps both of those things were inevitable. But that's a bit like condemning Christians wholesale based on the despicable actions some Christians in powerful places have taken in the name of their religion. Except that it's easier to be sympathetic to the Awakened, since they have pretty much always been on the defensive.

 

Also, since when have the Takers/Rebels had any qualms about enslaving other creatures?

[Spidweb]

A lot of these objections are based on the assumption that regular people are happy with Shaper rule. In fact, the secretiveness, high-handedness, and power hoarding the Shapers practice are a source of enormous resentment. Lankan's hatred of the Shapers began long before the events in Geneforge 3.

 

The rebels provide a way besides Shaper rule. Most people will reject it. Some won't. This is a major factor in what happens in Geneforge 4.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Zeviz]

Quote:

Originally written by Delicious Vlish:
In all reality, the Awakened are just Takers with sweeter words and empty promises... With very strong Shaper tendencies to enslave other creatures.
...

Awakened are a group of serviles supported by a single Shaper, who is mainly conserned by his own experiments. (Tuldarik even abandons Barrier of Wind, requiring your help to complete it.) How would they manage to "enslave" a single Drakon, when even Dryaks were deemed to independent for skilled Shapers to control? And how do they "enslave" a whole army of creatures each of whom could destroy a significant portion of their army and is at least as intelligent as they are?

Quote:

... They speak a great deal of peace and bartering, but are preparing an army to take what they need by force.

At least the Rebels are more open about what they want and don't try to hide their real agenda under a thin veil of pretty words.

The Awakened ending of G2 makes it very clear that they fight only as much as necessary to defend their home. They never attempt to conquer any territory outside their valley and accept all cease-fire offers.

Rebels and Takers are explicitly trying to destroy all Shapers. I don't think finding a remote valley to live in and defending it is as bad as trying to wipe out all Shapers and everybody who supports them.

[Student of Trinity]

Hmm, I could certainly buy that Lankan found that he actually had a lot more to rebel over than just the latest batch of rogues. He could well argue that a jumped-up apprentice clearing out the spawners was a fluke, and that the unworthiness of the Shapers to rule remained proven. I don't remember the dialog exactly now, and the files are on another machine, but I think they must not have made these kinds of points explicitly, or even hinted at them, or I wouldn't have felt disappointed.

 

As to spawners being terrorist: how much do we actually see of their rogues killing serviles? I don't remember finding any big heaps of servile corpses around. Some servile casualties would of course be inevitable, since the Shapers surround themselves with serviles. And serviles are frightened of rogues, so the rogue incursions do traumatize them. But it never occurred to me that the Rebels' spawners were targeting serviles. I assumed that the serviles fled when rogues took over a zone.

[Spidweb]

"I don't remember the dialog exactly now, and the files are on another machine, but I think they must not have made these kinds of points explicitly, or even hinted at them, or I wouldn't have felt disappointed."

 

I made an effort to convey the anger at the Shapers in general. Whether I succeeded is up for debate.

 

There are MANY cases in these games where I have not included dialog choices which would be reasonable. There are two reasons for this. First, I am defeated by my lack of time and foresight. My reach does often exceed my grasp.

 

Second, I only want there to be so much dialogue in any one location, because I don't want the ratio of reading to adventuring to be too high. I, personally, get irritated when a game makes me wade through too much text. This preference makes itself felt when I design.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Delicious Vlish]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
"I don't remember the dialog exactly now, and the files are on another machine, but I think they must not have made these kinds of points explicitly, or even hinted at them, or I wouldn't have felt disappointed."

I made an effort to convey the anger at the Shapers in general. Whether I succeeded is up for debate.

There are MANY cases in these games where I have not included dialog choices which would be reasonable. There are two reasons for this. First, I am defeated by my lack of time and foresight. My reach does often exceed my grasp.

Second, I only want there to be so much dialogue in any one location, because I don't want the ratio of reading to adventuring to be too high. I, personally, get irritated when a game makes me wade through too much text. This preference makes itself felt when I design.

- Jeff Vogel

You do very well on the averages. Some places there is a lot of dialog and text, and other places, not so much.

I find Jeff, with your conversations and where they happen, and I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I started noticing it in Exile III... That often there is a lot of combat. Especially areas of heavy combat, and in the middle of it all is some kind of cool down dialog that allows the jittery nerves and jangled emotions to cool down a bit. Either that, or just when you are growing weary of constant unending combat, somebody taunts you to get you fired up and make you pissed. A good example is Rentar and how she taunts you, and your feeling a bit worn down from the unending combat in her fortress. (Exile III)

In short, all of your dialog tends to happen right when the game really needs it. And it's not that dreadful Final Fantasy type dialog either... HAHAHA! I kill you now blah blah blah.

Dialog is probably the one reason I keep playing these games.

I love the suprise dialogs, like the one I sent the screen shot to you of during beta testing AVIV, about the lizard when you talk to it.

[ex post slarto]

The spawners, I'd like to point out, don't just kill serviles, or even many of them. The spawners on Dhonal's Isle, which are the ones that particularly annoyed Mike I think, those are malfunctioning and yet they seem to mostly take out loyalists. Various members of Greiner's army die, including at least one Shaper, whereas we only see a few servile corpses.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
Hmm, I could certainly buy that Lankan found that he actually had a lot more to rebel over than just the latest batch of rogues. He could well argue that a jumped-up apprentice clearing out the spawners was a fluke, and that the unworthiness of the Shapers to rule remained proven. I don't remember the dialog exactly now, and the files are on another machine, but I think they must not have made these kinds of points explicitly, or even hinted at them, or I wouldn't have felt disappointed.

Regardless of what Lankan thought of shaper rule in general, he owed it to his people to guide them home. They were starving out there, and for no real reason, since their original problem had been solved.

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
As to spawners being terrorist: how much do we actually see of their rogues killing serviles? I don't remember finding any big heaps of servile corpses around. Some servile casualties would of course be inevitable, since the Shapers surround themselves with serviles. And serviles are frightened of rogues, so the rogue incursions do traumatize them. But it never occurred to me that the Rebels' spawners were targeting serviles. I assumed that the serviles fled when rogues took over a zone.

There were maybe a dozen dialogs talking about serviles being killed while trying to do their jobs, and the remaining serviles fleeing and hiding out, and starving to death. Several times you see groups of serviles hiding out on the brink of starvation that don't know how to get to safety. You see plenty of bodies laying around. Most zones have 4-6 bodies or skeletons. But I think these were mostly human fighters. As for serviles bodies, for the most part they are not shown I believe. Otherwise, most zones would be littered with bodies.

The rogues kill indiscriminately. They do not spare serviles. Even those serviles who are not killed are often deprived of any means of getting food or making a living. Some of them risk death to try to gather anyway, and many get killed in the attempt. This is what the dialogs say, anyway.

If some people set up hidden generators that spawn monstors of this sort near your town, would you consider it anything short of terrorism? Even if the police and army tried to protect, there would still be a lot of civilian casualties. And if the problem were widespread as it indicated on G3, armed civilians (militia) would need to help, since the police and army would be spread too thin.

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
Second, I only want there to be so much dialogue in any one location, because I don't want the ratio of reading to adventuring to be too high. I, personally, get irritated when a game makes me wade through too much text. This preference makes itself felt when I design.

- Jeff Vogel

I agree, but this is why I like SW games much.
If I want only combat (with better graphic plus ) I would play something else. I think the plot is more important than the graphic/combat.

Quote:

Originally written by Mike Montgomery:

If some people set up hidden generators that spawn monstors of this sort near your town, would you consider it anything short of terrorism? Even if the police and army tried to protect, there would still be a lot of civilian casualties.

I agree. I remember a statement of General Gregnier: "A mad Glaak, in an unprepared town, can be a big trouble." (Something like this)

The spawners, IMHO, are too hard to control. At least, they need to be shaped more like a Servant Mind, not a mad-but-intelligent creation.

[Student of Trinity]

Hmm, maybe I've just been too brutalized to notice these details. I'll have to pay more attention next time I do G3.

 

The Servant Mind analogy is a good point, MagmaDragoon. The technology for less deranged creators would seem to exist.

[ex post slarto]

I think it's safe to assume that Servant Minds require far more skill, effort, and resources to create than Spawners do. You know... that whole "mind" part.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Come On Pilgrim: Track 4:
The spawners, I'd like to point out, don't just kill serviles, or even many of them. The spawners on Dhonal's Isle, which are the ones that particularly annoyed Mike I think, those are malfunctioning and yet they seem to mostly take out loyalists. Various members of Greiner's army die, including at least one Shaper, whereas we only see a few servile corpses.

The spawners kill anything, serviles or otherwise. The dialogs indicate a lot more servile deaths than the servile corpses you see. The reason for army casualties is that the army is trying to make the area safe again and protect the serviles. The army confronts the rogues, while the serviles run and hide.

Look at what a rebel victory means using these tactics: the shaper army is defeated by the rogues, and the rogues rampage everywhere. I get the impression on the mainland that the rogues are too plentiful, the army is too few, the rogues are destroying everything, and there is no place safe to hide.

I am much happier with the rebel tactics used on Gull Island. Unhappy serviles are coordinated to take action together for their freedom. No rogue generators. Very quick victory, with minimal need to rebuild, since rogues were not destroying everything.

[ex post slarto]

I really don't remember dialogs talking about lots of servile deaths. I just played through Dhonal's, and there were lots of confused, scared, and miserable serviles, but I can't think of much of anything about serviles being killed by rogues, aside from the random bodies you find, which there aren't tons of. Were there any dialogs that stuck in your mind, maybe, that you can point me to?

[Major]

Quote:

I think it's safe to assume that Servant Minds require far more skill, effort, and resources to create than Spawners do. You know... that whole "mind" part.

And yet, if the rebels were really trying to save the world from shaper tyrranny, wouldn't they go out of their way to prtect the people who are innocent?

[Grain of Salt]

I like the tactic described in the rebel no-canister ending. Go to each and every village and give them the choice of surrendering all their shapers to your army and surviving, or being obliterated. All loyalists are killed with minimal innocent life loss.

[I_am_a_Minotaur]

Most of those people probably just thought that the Shapers would obliterate the army and therefore didn't side with them.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Axem Ranger Six:
I really don't remember dialogs talking about lots of servile deaths. ... Were there any dialogs that stuck in your mind, maybe, that you can point me to?

I remember when I talked to some gatherers on the first island, in the area where the gatherer is that complains about how Lankin stole her notes on the best gathering points. This has been awhile back, but I recall them talking about how many of them were killed by rogues. And even now, they had to risk their lives to continue gathering or starve, and gatherers were being killed in the attempt.

There are other dialogs where you find groups of serviles cut off and starving, and they talk about how they were all that were left of their group, that the rest were killed by the rogues.

Even those serviles and gathers the rogues don't kill directly, if you were not there to intervene, you get the impression that they would gradually starve to death.

Sorry I don't recall the dialogs exactly. Maybe sometime I will start a new game and journal these dialogs.

[ex post slarto]

Yeah, but the thing is, people mention lots of random human deaths, too -- and the gatherer camp is a case in point. People dying was one of the reasons Lankan rebelled, no?

 

We do hear about some dead serviles, but it seemed like we heard about more dead humans. IMH memory.

[Dikiyoba]

Well, in theory, the rebels are helping out the non-Shaper humans as well by overthrowing the Shapers, so massive non-Shaper casualties aren't good for their cause either.

 

But the rebels sound a lot like Takers under a different name, and the Takers have always been mad and bloodthirsty. Plus, the rebels have all the canisters, which drives people who use them mad and bloodthirsty as well. It's unlikely that the rebels would go too far out of their way to prevent needless deaths, especially since that would make their goals more difficult to complete.

 

Besides, if the rebels did go out of their way to prevent needless deaths and just killed the loyal Shapers, then the rebel path would be the justified and moral path to take, and there wouldn't be a good enough reason to side with the Loyalists. G3 would loose some of its replayability. Some people would be happier with a decent choice to take, but G3 really isn't that sort of game. It's a "Choose the lesser of two evils" game.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Dmknoiygba:
... Besides, if the rebels did go out of their way to prevent needless deaths and just killed the loyal Shapers, then the rebel path would be the justified and moral path to take, and there wouldn't be a good enough reason to side with the Loyalists. G3 would loose some of its replayability. Some people would be happier with a decent choice to take, but G3 really isn't that sort of game. It's a "Choose the lesser of two evils" game.

I resumed G3 and finished a game as a Loyalist. Even if the rebel path had prevented needless deaths of innocents, there would definitely be moral conflict. I get the impression as a rebel there is no option to destroy the Geneforge, and the Geneforge we saw from the previous two installments is an utterly dehumanizing device. The rebels also manufacture and use canisters, which have a more gradual dehumanizing effect. So there would still be plenty of moral conflict, if this is what is desired.

Does anyone know for sure as a rebel if one gets the option to destroy the Geneforge?