Profile for Hamilton G. Phantamos
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Hamilton G. Phantamos |
| Member number | 7333 |
| Title | Apprentice |
| Postcount | 49 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 11:19
Profile
quote:If you can make it, you can break it. That's the idea in a nutshell. quote:IF such a being existed, we wouldn't be obligated to obey it, but then again it wouldn't be obligated not to wipe us out of existence either. I fail to see how a creator is obligated in any way go out of its way to attend every need and want of its creations. Making creations that can enjoy their own thoughts and have a free existence is a waste of time and energy. It's either make serviles or use children to mine and cut lumber until they're old and infirm. What choice would you make? quote:From a neutral perspective, what makes Osama Bin-Laden so much of a threat? He doesn't make or set up the bombs himself. He doesn't personally do all the research to make weaponized anthrax. He doesn't strap a bomb to his chest and detonate it in a crowded shopping area. So why does the whole free world have such a problem with him? The answer is that he incites other people to perform these actions, and worse, for some reason he can actually convince them to do it. The drakons in Geneforge are the same way, more or less. The average drakon is obviously more involved in the whole maiming/killing/terrorizing humans thing, and based on the Loyalist ending (the only one I've seen so far) they didn't make distinctions between outsiders and Shapers when they wiped out Terrestria. Entire cities were burned to the ground, and I doubt they took in refugees or prisoners. Maybe they did. It's impossible to know for sure when all you find is a charred wasteland. But it seems like they're determined to wipe out the Shapers at all costs, and however many gullible serviles and outsiders they have to sacrifice to acheive that in the process, oh well. [ Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:28: Message edited by: Savage Ed Walcott ] Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 03:29
Profile
quote:Am I the only lurker on this otherwise interesting debate who is increasingly unsettled by Savage Ed? This position is truly untenable -- In essence, he posits that dislikability of many members of a race (disobedient, lack of empathy, difficult to bargain with) justifies mass slaughter. He explicitly states that it is *because* of these characteristics that their personalities and intelligences (and thus, lives) are disposable. You've moved away from flirtation with slavery, and are now dancing with genocide. Edit: typo.[/QB][/quote]If you aren't going to thoroughly read everything I say, I'd prefer you didn't comment on what you think I said. Unless you can give a compelling argument why the creator of a being is obligated to see their own creation as equal to them, I still reject the notion that entities created through human invention are inherently free of human beings. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 19:36
Profile
quote:What I meant was, sufficient software and hardware would allow a thinking, learning, intellectually growing mind that would be artificial only in the sense that it would be produced by a series of ones and zeroes running through a processor rather than DNA and hormones (which may even be components of such a machine). Whatever the case, it would be the result of human ingenuity and research and not natural selection. quote:Again, the machine would use an emulation in the sense that its consciousness is based on a human coded program and complex circuitry. Other than that, it would be a "real" intelligence in the sense that it could analyze the world around it and make its own judgements on how to react. quote:If and when that time comes, I'm sure society will still make some distinction between intelligences that arose from human thought patterns and programmed, independent machines. Or maybe the issue would become entirely academic. We'd have to wait and see, but infortunately I doubt either of us will live long enough to actually see it become common place if it ever becomes technically feasible. I also came to a realization earlier. The main reason most drakon personalities and intelligences are disposable is because they lack obediance, empathy, and are highly morally apathetic. Combine that with the fact that they are extremely hardy, long lived, and have a tendency to exhale searing blasts of heat and their inherent danger becomes readily apparent. Due to their pride, it's almost impossible to make a deal with one, and even if one is reached it's slanted heavily in favor of what the drakon thinks would be appropiate. Most of their memories would be of killing, maiming, eating, and terrorizing humans, meaning you wouldn't want to reshape a creature with the same personality. However, hunting down and exterminating the drakons that are a threat would more than likely upset the ones who were neutral or apathetic to human activities and they'd eventually try to avenge their drakonian brethren. Very few would probably go into hiding peacefully. If you committed yourself to destroying only the ones that were a clear threat, you'd have to be prepared to deal with all of them. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 07:23
Profile
quote:I think that's because for the most part they can't rip a man's arm out the socket or seperate his torso from his legs like snapping a twig. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 07:02
Profile
quote:I don't do AI research nor am I a computer engineer. However, I'm certain that if the breakthrough in both hard and software allowed a sufficiently advanced and complicated series of algorithms to emulate an independent intelligence or personality, then that same program could be copied and stored in a variety of duplicates, databanks, or massive storage disks. I'm not going to spell out all of the technical aspects mainly because the required technology would all be theoretical and I wouldn't be qualified to give explicit step by step instructions regardless. Use your imagination. quote:Randomizer, first of all it's true that the Geneforge and the canisters exist to augment human abilities, and there are entities you can go to to be reshaped to have new abilities. However, these activities and research are forbidden by Shaper code and you will even be arrested at the end of G3 if you used the canisters to increase your strength. They may not do a good job of tracking down every single canister and destroying it, but the Shapers do enforce their rule of "no shaping or augmenting humans" whenever possible, and usually strictly. Second, the reason why your slavery analogy fails is because the Africans that were abducted and sold abroad by Spanish and Portuguese privateers (basically, pirates sanctioned on behalf of the crown) had an existence and a life prior to being sold into bondage. In fact they were as human as those who sold and bought them, who weren't responsible for their creation. And just for the record, if a race of subservient beings could have been artificially created through alchemy to be used as servants, it would have saved a lot of African lives, and I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. This is not the case for serviles. A better analogy would be serviles owning other serviles or drakons owning other drakons and forcing them to do their bidding. Many of the rogue serviles were forced to become rogue by other serviles, and "persuaded" that they deserved their independence for the humans. For me to accept your argument (that your stating a second time), I'd have to accept the premises that creator and creation are both inherently equal, and that despite having been created by human hands, serviles are inherently free beings. The purpose of technology is to improve and ease the lives of humans. It's why we have microwaves, indoor plumbing, vaccination shots, computers, airplanes, and all of the other amenities that we take for granted as merely a part of our lives. All products of technology are consquently a means of making life easier for human beings. It doesn't matter what that technology is, if we can create it, we have a right to use it however we need to. Whether by crafting machines on an assembly line, gene-splicing in a research lab, or magically drawing the very "essence" of life out of the air, if we can create intelligent beings to perform tasks that we can't or won't do, then we have a right to utilize said beings for our own ends, just the same as any other technology. You speak of slavery and the degradation of human beings. It probably shouldn't surprise you that in many parts of the world in some industries, an equivalent system is still in place. Perhaps most dangerous and most well known is the diamond trade, where African workers work in dangerous, unhealthy, and life threatening conditions only to be poked, prodded, and strip searched for resources mined in their own nation of birth to be sold abroad by foreign interests. The diamond industry is one of the most lucrative businesses in the world -- if you happen to be on the selling end and work for the few major distributors that use artificial scarcity to jack up the price of their product. If we could build a machine, or grow a lifeform, or magically pull one from thin air to perform such dangerous tasks and if we could guarantee with at least 90% accuracy that we could program them in some way to enjoy their tasks, thereby allowing the humans that have been forced to do it to find a better life for themselves, I'd study to join the research team responsible tomorrow. Serviles aren't inherently mistreated or forced to do any work that a human wouldn't have to do any way. Shapers may seem callous and uncaring but they do what is in their power to improve even the existence and function of serviles. They tried to research a way to make them less deathly afraid of rogue and experimental creations; it failed. They tried to improve them on Gull Island to be better able to resist the cold; it failed, miserably. There are some menial tasks that humans take pride in doing, like the herb gatherers on Harmony Isle, and they usually work side by side with the serviles. You can debate whether or not the serviles can genuinely enjoy the work they do when it's been hard wired into their consciousness to do so, but you can't ignore the fact that except for a small minority, most of them do, and they only perform jobs that humans would have to fill if they weren't doing them. And again, why spend so much time feeling sorry for serviles? They aren't the only creations capable of thought or speech. It seems every creation down the lne with the possible exception of fyoras can verbally communicate in at least broken sentences, so do they deserve their freedom as well? By your logic, they must, because they are capable of independent thought and have their own goals and ideas, no matter how simple they may be. Battle Alphas are pretty dim-witted and are bad tempered in the best of moods. If one goes "rogue," does it deserve any less to be free just because they have a tendency to clobber everything in sight? If serviles deserve to be free from your point of view, the only creations Shapers should be allowed to command are ornks and fyoras, since they'd be seen as livestock and pets respectively. It would be a waste of time to create beings to be free rather than to be used to fulfill some goal. It may seem like a hard choice but it's a lot better than the option of requiring a human to do it in its place. On the possibility that serviles are the descendents of reshaped humans, if that's the case, the only truly just action would be to reshape them to revert them to human beings. They'll never get everything they deserve to experience out of life otherwise. Otherwise, if serviles are a Shaper creation and weren't made by reshaping humans, then it's a neccesary "evil" (from your point of view) to use them to perform the menial tasks a human wouldn't be expected to do for a lifetime. After all, it could be worse. The Shapers could use child labor. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Tuesday, August 1 2006 05:28
Profile
quote:Nope. Because humans aren't allowed to be created or modified by Shaping. It's the one thing in the Shaper world that retains the value of human life. I've already explained the difference between shaped creations with an intended purpose and genuine human beings. Also, I've explained multiple ways a machine's "personality" could easily be stored, saved, or replaced. The same can't be said for a human, hence the frailty and uniqueness of human life. Also, I've said that humans are exempt from the same considerations because creations have some primary utility, and perceivable intelligence is a byproduct of shaping them for more and more advanced purposes. Obviously a fyora ranks pretty low on utility. A Thaad or Battle Alpha has a rudimentary level of intelligence, even comparable to some serviles. But for the most part they're just cannon fodder so Guardians don't have to risk the lives of themselves or their troops. A drayk or drakon probably has some use as a research aid or military applications, but its personal memories and experiences aren't its primary function, and if one dies a new one can be shaped to replace it, possibly even with the same memories. But under no circumstance is any human allowed to be "resurrected" through shaping for any reason. It might seem unfair. But then again, it's the Shapers' rule, and a very important one at that. Hence, "maybe, maybe not" it is possible to replace a human life with a shaped creation, but it would be a severe violation of Shaper beliefs and practices. The people who try to do that tend to get hunted down and executed for you know, being necromancers and things like that. It might seem hypocritical of Shapers (from your perspective) to create beings to use as cannon fodder and disposable commodities, but taking steps to prevent the same practices being applied to human life is the one thing that gives them a teeny tiny modicum of restraint from all out abuse of their abilities. quote:You're free to believe that if you want. But it's wildly inaccurate in describing my perspective. quote:Wow, you're deadset on trying to make this into something personal, aren't you? I already told you I'm not going down that road with you. If you really feel the need, feel free to send me any hate mail you have to my private message box. You're cluttering up the topic with personal attacks against me that I'm really not even fazed by. Also I have a hard time understanding what "smear campaign" your talking about, but that too is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Explain it in my private message box or let it go. quote:Again, way off. Probably not as much, since I do have environmental concerns. But I'm definitely not a "hippie." Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Monday, July 31 2006 08:56
Profile
quote:I don't think that's a realistic perspective depending on the application. The neccesity of its construction supercedes any unintentional individualism that may arise. Unless a fully independent entity was the point of the research, it's more of a bug or glitch than an emerging personality with its own right to existence. It had been properly designe dto begin with, it would enjoy performing its task without question. If not, it's a failed model. The same applies to serviles that don't enjoy performing their tasks. If they remained hidden in isolated communities away from populated areas, that'd be one thing and the Shapers wouldn't neccesarily have to hunt them down. But the small minority who want to be free and the even smaller minority that actually have full intelligence always try to recruit or persuade the obedient serviles, which is disruptive to the function of the rest of society. That and they do tend to violently oppose the Shapers as well as outsiders that are anything less than abhorred by them. Humans who are neutral or borderline tend to get coerced into seeing things from their point of view, and those who were supportive are left to live in fear, if they get to live at all. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 22:31
Profile
quote:I have a right to express and defend my opinion and give supporting arguments for how I came to that conclusion. Other than someone saying they were starting to personally dislike me because they didn't agree with me (like I care), I haven't accused anyone of slinging insults nor am I "paranoid." I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, or what it even has to do with the issue at hand. quote:That wasn't directed at you. And the concept of shouting doesn't apply, since they're words typed on a keyboard, not words spoken verbally. I wouldn't call it shouting; I was only trying to emphasize how much of a mistaken the individual that would misconstrue that from my stance. quote:They may or may not have been made by altering humans who opposed the Shapers to silence them. However, if this is not the case, they ARE the equivalent of machines as far as the technology of our world and Geneforge allows the analogy to be applied. Most devices in Geneforge are made by growing or breeding them for a specific purpose, such as the acid pods, control panels, living tools, etc. Machines aren't built in factories with blueprints and prototypes the way they are in our world, they're made in shaping halls with notes written onto scrolls containing magic information. Prototypes are usually deformed or deranged monstrosities where the only humane option is to put them out of their misery. Comparing them to machines as we know them requires you to think about this dilemma: If human beings one day built machines with limited but functional intelligence to perform tasks under dangerous situations with little to no input and supervision, would we give one of them freedom because it decided it no longer wanted to perform its given tasks? What if it was made to be smarter to handle a more important task that required a mind that could handle information faster than a human but maintain or emulate a human's ability to create unique and spontaneous solutions? If serviles were the product into pure research to create an intelligent beings to serve as companions to humans, their right to be fully independent would be a different issue. But they were built to perform the dangerous dirty work that humans don't want to do. As a result, the need to fulfill that function supercedes any considerations on what they deserve based on the merits of their intelligence. In fact, they're designed to enjoy their work and not question the tasks they perform, and the vast majority fit that criteria. The small exceptions have to be destroyed because they are defective. They don't match their design specification and there's always a chance they could damage the minds of the obedient serviles. If a domestic android began showing the same symptoms in our world, would people honor their androids desire to be respected as a genuine being with their own personality, or would factories issue recalls seeing the potential danger that could arise from the situtaion? The problem is compounded by the fact that all of the intelligent serviles encountered in-game are rebllious, which means they're at least distantly in league with the drakons, which leads to even more problems. In the end, you can't please all of the people all of the time. If serviles didn't do their job or exist it'd only mean there'd be more menial and dangerous labor for humans to do and you'd replace an underclass of artifical beings with an underclass of downtrodden humans. happiness is worth more? Also, why reserve sympathy for serviles? Why not extend the same right to freedom to thaads and battle alphas? Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 16:22
Profile
quote:Why not? Destroying rogue or contaminated serviles and creating new ones to replace them is the only humane option with no long term consequences, since a freed servile would never be able to find its niche in society. You could try giving them their own island to live but that's only delaying the issue. And how a designer couldn't be above a mass producible, readily replaceable construct of their own design is still beyond me. You haven't given me a single convincing explanation to support the belief that serviles are inherently equal to humans, other than obvious things like they both bleed and they both die. quote:Or maybe the individuals they accuse of being brainwashed have misplaced sympathy for man made creations rather than natural living beings, and such a misplaced association to value the life of a machine as equivalent or greater than that of natural beings hints at a loose grip on reality. Of course, that's if someone wanted to make it a personal issue, which would be counter productive to the actual discussion at hand. quote:Maybe, maybe not. But it is still possible and relatively easy to shape a new one with a similar personality if you wanted to. Also, the fact that they were designed for a specific purpose supercedes any individual rights they may deserve were they not an artificially created life form. However, as far as serviles, they are an artificial life form designed for some specific purpose to fulfill some objective; an "intelligent" robot crafted magically into flesh and blood. As for drakons, they never should have been made in the first place and have serious issues with compassion and obedience. They're inherently a threat with every human they'll potentially come across. The only compromise they'd accept is to live at their mercy or die. quote:I've actually read the I Robot book but the key issue is that all androids, except for those with very specific, very extenuating purposes, have it ingrained in their programming to obey and protect humans, and preserve their own existence as long as it doesn't conflict with the other two objectives. As far as I can tell, drakons and eyebeasts don't have anything like that written into their minds, and that makes them inherently dangerous. This is also why I cite The Matrix as an example. The machines weren't programmed according to the three laws of robotics or a similar concept, so they felt no obligation to obey the "lesser" beings that created them. They were smarter. Stronger. Nearly immortal. Why listen to this short lived, fleshy, emotional, fragile being when it can make decisions it sees as more logical by leaps and bounds? Drakons are similar in that they lack both empathy (at least for "lesser" beings) and any kind of control that obligates them to obey humans. Combined, that makes a dangerous combination. And to be honest, in all my examples I'm referring to the popularized movie version but the point remains the same. Reckless pursuit of scientific advancement is inherently dangerous. Perhaps it's because Shapers have placed themselves above the law in regards to outsiders that they ignore the consequences of the bulk of their creations on society. To be honest, I only played the demo for Geneforge 1 and 2. I only really got into the series with Geneforge 3. But based on what I've heard, Barzahl is exemplary of what I'm talking about: a short sighted, mealomaniac mad scientist that invents without thinking about the consequences. I agree that technology isn't inherently evil, but its use or development without conscience can be and is potentially dangerous as well. And if you think I'm saying this based on any religious perspective, you have NO IDEA how far off base you are. Trust me. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 12:08
Profile
If you don't like me because I don't sympathize with machines and artificial life forms, I think that's a pretty pathetic reason to write somebody off. Maybe you've been brainwashed by movies like I, Robot or for some reason think humans have a right to try to outdo nature, but my point is technological advancement without regard to the consequences is dangerous. Denying that we could create something "as great as ourselves" doesn't deny our humanity, it accepts it and recognizes the inherent flaws in our personalities and pyches that would inevitably influence and inspire our work. Progress in that work without humility and the acceptance that whatever we create isn't capable of comparison with the wonders of the universe is dangerous. Have you ever seen the clear night sky in an area far removed from civilization? Our lives are an imperceptible flicker in time on a remote world orbiting an average star near the outer fringes of our galaxy, seperated from the nearest galaxy by an infathomable stretch of cold emptiness. Maybe you missed the point of stories like Frankenstein, or The Matrix, Terminator, or Blade Runner, but the lesson is that to create out of hubris -- to believe that humans can create something greater than themselves or reshape creation to their whim -- is a dangerous and ultimately tragic line of reasoning. The question isn't if humans could create something better than themselves; it's if it would a wise or safe choice to attempt to do so. The end result would be a creation that dwarfs the ability of its maker and would lack any real obligation to remain under their control. If the Shapers had thought about this before recklessly creating drakons, they wouldn't be facing their own impending doom. In reality, it isn't the drakons that willlead to the Shapers destruction. It's their foolishness and short-sightedness in attempting to make something better than themselves. And don't worry about hurting my feelings over the internet. I didn't come specifically to be well liked, or make internet friends with strangers hundreds of miles away. I came to discuss the moral and plot of Geneforge and share my views and opinions on the story, and exchange ideas on what other people thought. How you personally feel about me and my ideas outside of an intelligent philosophical debate ins't going to cost me any sleep at night. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| What do you think of A4 in Avernum 4 | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 00:48
Profile
I had an idea for the sequel where anything (and I mean ANYTHING, including objects in the scenery) could be picked up and thrown at enemies in a moment of desperation or just for fun if you had an adequate corresponding strength level. Like you could throw obvious "get" items like the bucket, shovels, pick axes (which I think should have been useable weapons anyway, with low damage and penalties to hit, but useable regardless) and books, as well as tables, cauldrons, bookshelves, or anything else a character had enough strength to lift and throw. Strength would determine the heaviest object liftable as well as the distance it could be chucked. You could also pick up and throw most enemies using a new battle skill called "Grapple" that would allow characters with a high enough level to either put an enemy in a painful submission hold, effectively reducing its AP for an increasing number of turns or retaliate against a missed attack by stunning the attacker, moving them back a few squares, and causing them increasing damage, the odds of occuring increasing with skill level. Bring back dual sword wielding, but add a new combat skill called martial arts that greatly improves a units ability to fight and defend barehanded, but is seperate from melee or pole weapons. Grapple would be to martial arts what quick strike is to quick action or magery is to spell craft. That, and bring back maces and flails. It just feels like something is missing without them. Storywise, I thought it might be fun to actually see the actual formation and rise of the Empire, where you could fight either as forces on behalf of the burgeoning dictatorship or as a nation opposing it's rule. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Sunday, July 30 2006 00:24
Profile
quote:Ethical systems are based on avoiding doing unneccesary harm and performing those actions that leave us with a sense of guilt -- the feeling that we personally have done something wrong or immoral. Personal feelings are intertwined and bound to ethical systems. Otherwise no one would ever have the empathy to think about how their actions affect others and relate those emotions to themselves in the same situation. You can have an ethical system but if you don't have any personal feelings invested in it and you just don't care, what obligates you to live by that system rather than another one? quote:If drakons and golems aren't naturally occuring fauna in the Geneforge universe produced by evolution and natural selection, I think that's a pretty big tip off. We build assembly lines, plastics, and coal generators with smoke stacks to exhaust tremendous amounts of combustion byproducts into the atmosphere. I don't think anyone would consider them natural, for a) being the products of human ingenuity and engineering b)imbalancing nature in damaging ways by producing pollution. quote:It isn't neccesary to reproduce or replace something "down to the atom." It's more along the lines of crush an android's arm in a press, you can detach the remaining limb and replace it with another arm made for that model. Lop off a man's arm with an axe, and it's near impossible to repair the nerve and bone damage and it's better to simply leave it amputated. This also applies to animals, since even if you could synthesize the DNA in a lab, getting it to actually develop into a viable lifeform would be a tedious trial and error process with no guarantee of success. Breeding them naturally with living specimens will always be more fool proof and actually better since it wouldn't produce copies of the same genetic code. If one synthesized animal is susceptible to some disease than all the other specimens of that species would be wiped out as well. You could shape a battle alpha or drayk and reabsorb it indefinitely, there'd be subtle variations each time depending on fluctuating fatigue and concentration, but they wouldn't have any intelligence and personality beyond what you will into them as you're shaping them. [ Sunday, July 30, 2006 01:02: Message edited by: Savage Ed Walcott ] Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Saturday, July 29 2006 09:35
Profile
quote:Of course not. Like I said earlier, from a real world perspective, we don't have the power to create and destroy life at a whim. We can barely save someone who's been gravely injured by a gunshot or stab wound, let alone revive stillborn infants or the very recently deceased. We've come a long way in medicine since the dark ages but when it comes down to it we really aren't that much closer to understanding what makes living tissue behave differently than a lump of dirt. What is life? What causes it? We know even the most rudimentary borderline "living" things such as viruses have DNA or at least RNA to allow them to replicate even combine the information of two members of their species to create a third with similar traits as the parents as well as unique ones all their own. But why does it do that? How does it really work, at it's most fundamental level? What drives it to behave that way in the first place? How did the process start to begin with? Whatever the answer is to those questions, we don't have a fundamental enough understanding of the driving force of life to be able to recreate it in it's entirety in a lab or based on or on sheer willpower. In short, we don't have the power to play god. We know what DNA is, but we don't know exactly why the combination of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, and other elements makes DNA behave the way it does. Crystals also have amazing growth properties, but as far as we can tell it's only an interesting oddity. They aren't truly "alive" in the same sense we or even a blade of grass are. In the world of the shapers, even though it is theoretically possible to shape humans into existence it's more likely to create a deformed abomination than a viable man or woman, and is strictly forbidden. I think the reason is because although the have a disdainful and condescending view towards outsiders, barring themselves from altering and shaping humans is the ONE thing they can do to force themselves to have self control. Use of the ability would inevitably lead to abuse and human life would become nothing more than a replaceable commodity. Human is NOT, nor never should be, a replaceable commodity. I personally feel all natural life is inherently superior to any imitation that could be produced by man aided by technology or magic. That's not to say that for specific purposes, imitations couldn't be built to perform tasks that are hazardous to the natural beings that created them. However, those artificial beings inherently can't be equal in value to the beings that created them because they are a replaceable, inherently disposable imitation of the natural world. To say that by any means man could replicate and replace what took billions of years to develop through his own ingenuity is dangerously arrogant and it's this arrogance that led the Shapers down the path they are on now, barely restraining themselves from human experimentation and on the verge of being annihilated by a creation that has outdone them. That's why I personally think creations shouldn't have been given any intelligence beyond the bare minimum they needed to function. At least for the vast majority of serviles, this was the case. But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch, and if even only one servile begins to develop higher intelligence whether by chance or the intervention of a misguided, sympathetic Shaper, then it could potentially "infect" any other servile it meets with its burgeoning intelligence. The majority of the serviles it encounters will only become confused and reject what the "enlightened" servile is offering it. The only rogue serviles I remember seeing where the ones who were made rogue and intelligent by magical symbols mages put on their bodies, or were raised isolated from humans so they wouldn't imprint an attachment to them. Who do you really think was responsible for that? Based on my deductions, there is only one real culprit. People are arguing about the right of drakons to exist now that they've been created but you have look past the handful of occasionally helpful or "benign" (in the sense that they don't try to eat you immediately and are content with only selling you items at jacked up prices) drakons and realize what the majority of them are. Manipulative. Sneaky. Cunning. Deceptive. The drakons and the rebellion are two seperate parties with one mutual aim (at least for now): the destruction of the Shapers. Nobody in the Geneforge world really cares about the rights of the serviles. The rogue serviles were forced to be rogue power hungry mages that were offered increased power for cooperation or were bred by drakons to have never seen humans as anything other than a threat in the first place. Akhari and Ghaldring don't care about the freedom of the creations as a whole. All they want is drakonian revenge of the Shapers and by extension the entire human race. In fact, they're probably even worse than the Shapers because they see ALL life as an interchangeable commodity, even their own kind's, and chalk up a reshaped drakon with no head as an experimental loss. They represent what the Shaper order would become if it weren't for it's self imposed restraints that barely hold them in check. They'll shape and reshape anything, even themselves, without regard to any consequence. It's almost explicit in their successive shaping more and more powerful drakons that they're hunting for godhood, and any other lifeform is simply a pawn to help them achieve that goal. No knights. No bishops. No rooks. Only pawns. The rebellious Shapers might sympathize with the serviles or experimental creations that need to be put down for their own good, but the drakons don't. They're only manipulating this concern until they can eliminate their sworn enemy, no matter the cost in whatever life may be lost in the process. With those goals and power hungry ambitions in mind, do you still think they should be allowed to exist in freedom based on a handful that choose to live in peace and seclusion? Or are you beginning to see the real threat they represent? ***EDIT*** quote:It is self-evident why human life is more important than the life of a machine, no matter how sentient. Machines can be rebuilt and replaced. They are simulacrums of life; man-made imitations that represent human arrogance and short sightedness in thinking it can outdo or replace the miracle of natural creation. You can't just replace a child with one with exactly the same hopes, ideas, and memories. A summoned dragon can be given whatever thoughts and ideas its creator wants it to have, creating and reabsorbing it over and over again indefinitely. If you kill a child, how will you replace THAT child? You could conceive and raise another infant, but it's life experiences and memories would make it inherently distinct from the original, even it was a spitting image. A machine can be disassembled to its very core components and rebuilt to its original state on into infinity. It's memory can be wiped clean and rebuilt from scratch, or saved and stored in a backup file and recalled when neccesary. A machine created by human hands, whether technological or magical can not come close to the irreplaceability and uniqueness of a single human life. Machines can have personas encoded and embedded into them, and even if they could learn, those memories could be reset to a default on a whim and no hidden record would linger in its circuitry of past events. Could you do the same to a human mind? Could you accurately reproduce or even significantly emulate the individuality inherent and ingrained into a human mind? It is a testament to the power of the mind itself that it we DON'T have sentient machines and that we CAN'T through our current resources succesfully make even a proper imitation of a human mind. We can't think about as many things all at once. We can't work on numbers on a large scale in our heads within a matter of seconds. We can't store and recall seeming infinite stores of data at a moments notice. But we can each form unique thoughts and ideas with personalities shaped and influenced by the lives we have lived. A sentient machine need not have a sense of morality. Right and wrong. The ability to see that just because a conclusion can be reached by a logically valid path doesn't mean it's sound or reasonable to follow it. I don't know about you but I personally feel that I and the humans I'm surrounded by, despite any of our flaws or shortcomings, have more inherent worth than a robot with a retrievable programmed mind or a magical creature grown in a vat meant to serve its master's will. A human being can not be remade or replaced. Even if through advances in medical science and computer engineering allowed clones to be grown and imprinted with the memories of the original, human morality, both instinctual and learned would prevent the devaluing of human life and intellect to be a disposable, easily replaced commodity. [ Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:03: Message edited by: Savage Ed Walcott ] Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 23:45
Profile
quote:My point was more the concept of "purging" life in contaminated areas or to make way for the Shapers think would be a more ideal environment. Just because the Shapers could replicate the native organisms, it wouldn't neccesarily create a 100% faithful recreation. My beef is more with the arrogance of Shapers and their obsession and recklessness in playing god with their creations, or even thinking that it doesn't matter if they wipe out any of the native, natural wildlife, they can just reshape them later if they want to. Something about the concept just seems a little gross, considering you'd have to eat some magically created beast held together by somebody else's "essence." quote:My argument isn't against treating intelligent self aware beings as equals. It's against the concept of regarding an invention of your own design as one. By the very fact that through YOUR own work and effort, YOU inherently have something that places you above your creation. I don't see the correlation at all between the enslavement of human beings by other humans and the ownership of a creator over his own work, but if that's the impression you've got, then there's a GROSS understanding of my perspective on the issue. Just take my word and trust me on this, I have personal reasons to find slavery abhorrent. The difference is all humans have birth mother and a birth father; they are the result of some natural process that through the culmination of billions of years of evolution and natural selection, has led to the development of a species in the Geneforge universe at least that is capable of magically emulating that process almost instantly. That is the difference between a human, whether Shaper or outsider, and a rotgrhoth, battle alpha, servile, drakon, gazer, or ornk. In theory, a Shaper could shape and create new humans, but it's expressly forbidden under SEVERE penalty and probably no where near as people like to assume. And even if humans could be shaped, it would severely undercut and devalue life. what would it matter if you killed a man if you could gather his clone out of the air through your own will and essence? What would any human life be worth? As for the drakons, they're inherently dangerous. Equal or not, they definitely have little to no esteem for humans and are the result of some researcher's short-sighted arrogance. The Shapers very may well be unjust tyrants, but I'd trust them before I left myself at the mercy of a 16 ft. tall, 3 ton, fire breathing lizard that shouldn't have been brought into existence in the first place. quote:I see a difference between a "slave" and an automaton designed to perform some task. See, usually, a "slave" is a being that exists independently of the creative energy of its enslaver and had a state of freedom before entering that forced servitude. A piece of machinery that malfunctions and decides it doesn't want to perform it's designed task anymore needs to either be recalled and dismantled or replaced with more reliable units. Think about it this way: if you made a creation in game and after a gaining a few levels, it decided it didn't want to fight with you anymore and wanted to run away, would you destroy it and replace it with a more reliable creation, or let it go free and suffer a permanent essence cost? Those rogue serviles are costing somebody somewhere essence, and they can't produce a replacement until they're found and destroyed. quote:I find this attitude towards the value of life disturbing and honestly don't see what it has to do with the subject at hand. I assume this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum, but I can't be completely sure. quote:This is a gross misinterpretation of my words and a gleeful contortion into something I never said. I find it personally insulting that you would try to twist my words into something so ridiculous to try to prove your point, but I'll use both real world and Shaper logic to refute what I assume is an intentionally fallacious proposition: Real world: Of course not. First of all, the child will potentially develop into an intelligent, independent being. Second the purpose of childbirth, regardless of whether the parents intentionally made the choice or not, is continuance of the species. We as human beings aren't bound to fulfill a designated purpose, or function, or value, or utility. Whether you become a hobo or a billionaire is irrelevant since you owe no obligation to contribute to society. As long as you don't pose an immediate threat to those around you you're free to do whatever you please with your life within the bounds of the law. That and the only killing other humans things tends to be disruptive to society. Shaper: Of course not. Human lives cannnot be replaced and are not expendable commodities. A human child cannot be replaced as easily as the life of a servile, and even if so, the shaping and altering of humans is a severe violation of Shaper Code. It is the duty of Shapers to protect and defend the lives of humans and improve that quality of life to the farthest extent within the resident Shaper's power. quote:The difference, once again, lies in what you have the power to create and whether you can do and undo actions indefinitely. A Shaper could repeatedly create and reabsorb their creation until they get the desired effect they originally wanted. There is no consequence other than fatigue, and that is only dependent on the skill of the Shaper in question. An actual child requires an average nine month gestation period during which a strong psychological and emotional bond develops between mother and child. People stopped having children so they could raise their own relatively cheap farmhands about 60 years ago. For the most part, people have children because they become intimately involved with another, intelligent, independent being and decide that the bound between them is so great the only logical way to fully express it is by producing a third intelligent, independent being based on a union of their genetic material that will one day do the same with a fourth intelligent, independent being to produce a fifth and so on so their living legacy will continue onward into posterity. Nobody breeds human babies for a specific goal. Nobody uses eugenics and research to breed stronger, faster, smarter humans or humans who don't object to performing tasks most humans normally would. Nobody can claim dominion over a human child because by being human we are all on some basic level inherently equal. And nobody can take that existence away without consequence because it is irreplaceable. Even a still born infant will fill the mother with grief at the loss of a child she's never seen and has only known within her womb for nine months. However intensive, or difficult, or demanding it is to produce a servile, I doubt it takes nine months and I doubt it requires a female Shaper personally giving birth and going through the labor pains to have it. I doubt it suckles from her breasts, or she consoles it when it cries in the night. It will never be able to grow to reach her level of intelligence, or a comparable level. The only intelligent serviles are magically augmented, and I've already gone over why gazers and drakons are a threat to mankind in general. You can stop trying to use killing babies or grown humans as an analogy. I've already explained the inherent difference between a genuine human and a magical (or technological) creation designed in lab by a human intelligence, especially if it was designed for some specific labor-intensive purpose. Machine, golem, servile, drakon, android, sentient program, I'm sorry but if it didn't pop out of a woman's legs and was crafted by human intelligence and design, it has some function in mind and was built to fit said function. If it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board to design a new one. I personally think it would be dangerous and irresponsible to allow an uncontrolled man made creation to roam free, and it's definitely a drain on resources. ***EDIT*** Trinity, my premise is more that an uncontrolled sentient creation is inherently dangerous, because there's no telling what it would do in the course of trying to fight for it's own freedom. My perspective is more grounded in the practical real world concern of engineering things for a specific purpose. You don't want a bridge to fall apart after the first truck drives over it, or an airplane to explode after coming out of the air onto the runway for a landing. If you wanted to build machines (flesh and blood or metal and oil) for some specific task, then YOU have a specific design objective that for reasons perhaps beyon your control, you are under deadline, contract, and obligation to fulfill. How would you explain to your contractors "Umm....Well I built that unit you wanted, but after I made it, it designed it would rather be a ballerina, so I let it join a dance troupe." It's an interesting novelty if an intelligent creation becomes aware of its own existence, consciousness, and even its own mortality however it may apply. But what happens if a Battle Alpha decides to become a pacifist? Or a ghlaak becomes overcome by the concept of dying in battle? Or, what if a creation decides it's odds of survival would be better if it didn't rush headlong into battle with a horde of monsters, but joined them in trying to kill you? That's the purpose it's decided it wants for itself. What would give you the right to say otherwise? [ Friday, July 28, 2006 23:57: Message edited by: Savage Ed Walcott ] Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 18:31
Profile
Well...if they shouldn't, then why should a magically crafted organic machine? Intelligence is intelligence and free will is free will. Serviles are intentionally designed so they have only enough intelligence to perform the tasks they're made to perform (much like a machine or robot in our world) and to be as humane as possible they aren't given the free will or intelligence to decide later they don't enjoy what they were built (shaped) to do. However, despite this, some serviles develop that ability either on their own or through the intervention of misguided, sympathetic human mages. How is that really any different than building androids to do mining or hazardous waste disposal and programming them so they never think about or question the tasks they perform? And, if one day, significant numbers of them DO become self-aware and realize how much they hate the jobs that humans hate to do, what would be our responsibilites as their designers? disassemble them and build new, less intelligent and more agreeable machines? Or allow thme to go free and found their own society of robots? I guarantee you if humans keep designing AI and researching ways to make more and more "intelligent" instead of "artificial," this WILL arise as an issue in the future. Or maybe robots will always be designed to not ask questions and work mindlessly. Fortunately for me if robots do decide to revolt one day, I'll be long dead anyway. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 17:57
Profile
Cars and robots can't learn or think yet. The way advances in hardware and programming are going it will only be a matter of time before we can create machines and programs that can think and act on their own, and after that, machines that can think in the truest since -- a point where there intelligence is simply intelligence and no longer artificial. That is the point I'm trying to make and you seem to be missing. No one agonizes NOW over abusing their car, computer, or any other piece of machinery, but what happens a century or so from now when you can actually have a conversation with one? If your car could talk and warn you when you're pushing it too hard or when it needs an oil change, at what point would it stop being a programmed machine and start being a being deserving of it's own rights? Of course, it would be bad engineering to program a machine and give it genuine emotion and independent thoughts and expect it to perform a desired function. But what if, by chance and countless random processes and system diagnostics, it became aware of itself? WHat would be the right course of action in that case? Do we give up a $100 billion machine with a very important and critical role in some project to be its own private citizen because it doesn't want to operate a space shuttle's life support systems anymore, or do we shut it down, reprogram it and reboot it so it would no longer be fully aware of what it was doing? My point is organics and origin is not critical or important when determining the rights of an intelligent entity; however, if said entity was created in the first place to serve humankind, then that is the only purpose its existence is meant to fulfill. Otherwise, it needs to be analyzed and destroyed to recreate it in a way where it doesn't mind performing the duties it was built to do. Geneforge could be about magically created mutants or it could be about robots and sentient programs. The same rules apply. If the shapers had built there creations in factories out of plastic, metal, and ceramics, and their humanoid automatons decided to revolt, it'd be the same thing. It would be one group of intelligent entities seeking its independence from the intelligent entities that created it in the first place. It's a lot easier to take a wrench and a screwdriver to something you personally built when it demands its independence than it is to acquiesce and accept it. You built it, so why should you have to listen to it? Just scrap it and build a new one and program it to be more obedient. Creations can think, grow and feel, but my point is, considering where technology could go in the real world, what would make an AI program or sentient machine that much different from a servant mind or battle alpha? Yes, they are programmed to respond to certain stimuli with preset behavior, but then again, so are ALL the creations that the Shapers shape. The only difference is, they're machines are organic, and they're brought to life through magic rather than technology. The fact that they're flesh and blood rather than metal and oil doesn't change the fact that they are "artificial" lifeforms. Sure, they eat. They bleed. They have a compulsion to build nests and form communities. But they are still the product of someone's work and efforts. In that regard, what makes a servile any different than a golem? Do golems deserve intelligence and freedom as well? Why not sympathize with them? So are fyoras and roamers. It's the same as if you could sculpt a statue out of rock and magically bring it to life. If you wanted it to perform some task and because of it's own independent intelligence, it refused, how could it NOT be within in your rights to destroy it? You built it, you gave it life. You and only you are responsible for your own work and if YOU can't control it you definitely can't expect anyone else to be able to. That's why drayks and drakons should be banned because it's too hard too control them and whether or not they tolerate humans (either by dominating them, or living in seclusion) or use them as a source of food is entirely a whim. They're too much of a wild card. The war was started by an army of drakons determined to eliminate the Shapers, regardless of how many eggs they had to break in the process, and at the very best the most cordial among them regard humans as an inferior life form that they don't wipe out because they wouldn't want to waste their time on such a creature. Hardly sounds like a model citizen to me. As for the rights of feral animals, there's something called animal cruelty. It means just because something might be used for livestock doesn't mean it can be butchered or maimed without consequence. A dog can't write you a sonnet or complete a sudoku puzzle but it's intelligent enough to know it's alive and to rcognize kindness. More importantly, it exists whether you decide to make one or not (in the Shaper world, I assume all native species went extinct due to Shaper arrogance and indifference to life, but even so that's besides the real point). As a result, even a feral creation like a fyora or a roamer are alive, but at the same time since they can be remade at will, it's no big loss to reabsorb them and reshape them. It's also the reason why there's no difference between them and servile, since they can be shaped and reshaped (or built and unbuilt) with no real consequence. I know it's hard to see the correlation between shaped creations and intelligent machines NOW with the limitations we have in technology. But just think how you'd feel 200 years from now if you wanted a piece of toast and your fully automated house decided it didn't feel like feeding you that day. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 14:46
Profile
There's an obvious difference between humans and the serviles, and that's humans are naturally existing, independent beings that exist without having to be shaped into existence by anyone (unless you want to bring a belief of god into it, and that's an issue all to itself) The point is, in the world of Geneforge, the only organisms we know of that arose through their own natural selection are the humans. Based on the behavior and nature of the shapers, any other natural flora and fauna went extinct and was shaped and reshaped by shapers changing their environment to fit their will. That I definitely don't agree with. To apply it to a real world environmental problem, if we could bring species back from extinction or magically clean oil spills and reverse global warming overnight, would we have any right to abuse THAT power? I think doing major environmental overhauling at the expense of naturally existing native organisms is wrong, but that isn't the issue that's presented in the games. The issue is the right of "creations." Not animals, or organisms, but "creations." Life produced artificially by magically aided means. If you can create something, you can destroy it or use it to whatever whim you please, as long as you don't abuse that creative power. There are creations that can be shaped to reproduce naturally and set up a habitat for themselves, but how many glhaaks do you think naturally existed before somebody decided to make them? Or battle alphas? Maybe it's because I have a more scientifically based perspective on it, but to me the creations are immediately analogous to robots. You could produce more and more advanced robots and machinery, and even give it an ability to learn, grow, and develop more of its kind, but in the end, it's still an unnatural creation you personally created with some goal in mind. What if bomb disposal robots became self aware and decided they wouldn't want to do their intended function anymore? What do you do when your computer locks up? Do you try to reason with it and console it? Most people think that smacking the tower a few times should make it run better. It shows they have no knowledge of how to repair machinery, but does that make them cruel? Tyrants? Or just bad owners? How many people do you think neglect their cars? Drive them faster then they should for too long, go long periods without oil changes, bump and scrape into obstructions without regard to body or paintwork? Of course, cars aren't programmed with any level of real sentience, and very few computers in the world can actually learn, and even then are highly experimental and learn slowly. So what makes the creations in Geneforge any different than the real world machines we use and abuse everyday? Because they're magically crafted bits of flesh given a rudimentary intelligence to help them operate under limited supervision? Compared to another work of science fiction, what makes a servile that much different than a replicant in Blade Runner, or a droid in Star Wars? There's certainly a level of respect that should be given to a being with a discernible level of intelligence, artificial or otherwise, but if it was designed for a specific function, how is it wrong to use it to that end? We use "slaves" everyday in the real world, although we can't (yet) give them any ability to reliably act and think on their own. There are assembly robots in automobile factories. Automated vacuums that scan for dust return to rest after a set amount of time. The computer sitting right in front of you. If it had the ability to act on its own, do you think it would want to do what you wanted it to when you wanted, all the time, if ever? That's on of the things I appreciate about Geneforge is that it raises the ethical question of what responsibility we have to the things we create. But at the same time we created them, so ultimately they are responsible to us. Any intelligent machine that rejected that responsibility in the real world would be seen as defective electronics and have to be dismantled. A rogue creation made out of magically nourished flesh isn't really that much different. I have mor eto say about this but I have to head out to do something. I'll update this post later. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| What do you think of A4 in Avernum 4 | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 12:10
Profile
My point was that the Rentar plot had to be resolved any way, and she would have the same basic ideas for how to exact her revenge. And to her credit, the shades actually were an original idea because she was trying to destroy Avernum by taking away the only thing that allowed its population to survive in the first place: each other. By creating shades that preyed on and magnified the fear, claustrophobia, and desperation of a people trapped in a sunless, cavernous wasteland for pretty much the rest of their lives, and making escape not an option by shutting down the surface portal (unless that was done by the Loyalists, which is always possible) it would only be a matter of time before Avernum would turn on itself and she would be able to move on to her revenge on the surface. And at any rate, all loose ends and conflicts with the Vahnatai seem pretty much resolved, so I doubt they'll play a major role in upcoming games, if they even make a cameo appearance. I wouldn't mind being able to have Vahnatai warriors in my party, but the prospect seems unlikely since they're pretty much solitary and generally trusted less than Nephils and Slith. Now that I think about it, another minor thing that bugged me was that I wanted to fight a few of the sea monsters, or at least beached ones. They were a big problem in the story too but you don't even see one, all you get is a description based on what your party barely catches out of the corner of its eye. To all of the people who disliked A4's story, what would you have done differently? What would you have rather seen? Jeff is mostly the storyteller and I prefer it that way because sometimes it's more interesting to see the product of someone else's imagination than keep using your own, but maybe with concstructive criticism and some feedback we could input ideas we'd like to see explored storywise. I know the Loyalists issue needs to be resolved, but what else could happen in the world of Avernum? The fall of the Empire? An Industrial Revolution? What ideas do you have for a good starting point for the next sequel? Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Friday, July 28 2006 00:16
Profile
While I see the Shapers as oppressive tyrants, I don't agree that the creations should be given absolute freedom or regarded as independent beings. Once that happens, the entire point of making the creation is lost. I was reluctant to side with the Shapers in Geneforge 3 mostly because of their high and mighty attitude and general disregard for "outsiders." That and the rebels came off more as unjustified terrorists that tired to hide behind thin claim of justice to excuse indiscriminate slaughter. Normal human beings shoulnd't have to live in fear of the Shapers or be treated like second class citizens, but the serviles were created in part to alleviate this. They perform many of the mundane, trivial, or hazardous tasks that most humans would refuse to. I felt the conflict in G3 was between two sects of extremists with opposing viewpoints. No matter how intelligent, or clever, or independent a creation is, it's still only a creation and was created for some specific purpose. However, that doesn't mean the creator has a right to be inhumane or abusive to their creations. Think about Terminator, The Matrix, I Robot, Frankenstein, or any other story where a creation has turned on it's developers. The creations in those stories were created for some purpose but the downfall of their cretors was always hubris and reckless experimentation. Personally I don't see much difference from a few serviles getting bored and deciding to kill their masters and an over-advanced AI becoming self-aware and launching a nuclear warhead to claim it's own independence. Drakons can't be allowed to exist and shouldn't have been made in the first place because they exemplify this the most: a creation that is a product of reckless unchecked research that will invariably turn on it's makers. That dangerous and unchecked research is why the Shapers are so strict about who learns magic and how much, but it deosn't change the fact they go too far too restrict the flow of knowledge and information. The Shapers need reform, but outright rebellion isn't going to solve their problems. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
| What do you think of A4 in Avernum 4 | |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Thursday, July 27 2006 22:14
Profile
I personally enjoyed the features of Avernum 4. I played the demos for all of the other Avernum games but A4 was the only one I ever registered for. I also can't understand the complaints about the interface, which I thought was an improvement over previous Avernum games and more intuitive. Picking up items and giving them to team members was better because you could drop them on a characters portrait regardless of who was currently "getting" the items. I also liked how towns and dungeons were part of the world at large, which makes more sense and made the game play smoother from my perspective. My only real complaints were the lack of unique graphics, since all guards, wizards, sages, and soldiers were basically character graphics with a palette swap. This was especially annoying for Nephils and Slith, since they only got two graphics each, presumably one male and one female. I actually tried creating a new party in BoA and to my surprise, there were multiple Nephil and Slith graphics in the character creator, and it's hard to see why they were removed from this game. To A4 credit though, the actual Nephil/Slith character units in previous Avernum games were just palette swaps. The available graphics weren't bad, but more variety would add to the replay value of the game. The same goes for the monster graphics. It didn't seem like there was enough variety other than variations of the same basic type. As for the story itself, a repeat of the plagues makes sense since Rentar is the returning villain, so she'd have a similar M.O. in how she enacted her revenge. Other than war with the Empire or the various humanoids in Avernum's world, there isn't much that can really be done storywise. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |