Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS)
Pages
| Author | Topic: Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, August 1 2006 01:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:To give the devil his due, he can't really be blamed for starting that one. :P And I don't dislike him because I disagree with his arguments; I dislike him because he appears to be a hippie. [ Tuesday, August 01, 2006 01:02: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, August 1 2006 06:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:There's no evidence in the games that Shapers have the degree of control over creations' minds that you've been implying. In fact, there's considerable evidence against it; if Shapers could really fine-tune the personalities of their creations, there wouldn't be a need for all those shackles and discipline wands you see around the place. quote:What you haven't explained is why the process by which their existence came about should have any relevance to their inherent value. Irrespective of creations' instrumental value (that is, their usefulness to others), they also possess value purely by virtue of being sentient beings with their own interests. A creation which won't follow orders may have little or no instrumental value, but it still has inherent value deriving from the fact of its consciousness and ability to experience fulfilment of its interests. Well, that's more or less how my preferred ethical system sees things, anyway. Of course, as we seem to have a fundamental disagreement of principles here, that may not be worth much. Full disclosure time: what moral axioms do you hold? If you can't or won't answer that, then which three moral philosophers do you most admire? [ Tuesday, August 01, 2006 06:20: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 1 2006 09:40
Profile
quote:Asserted, yes; explained, no. If you think you really can explain this, I'd be very interested. Perhaps you could start by defining personality. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Tuesday, August 1 2006 18:50
Profile
quote:You haven't been paying attention to the activities in Geneforge. Humans are being modified all the time and that is part of the reason that there is a rebellion. In GF1 you are introduced to cannisters that can modify a human to increase an ablility, gain a spell, or learn how to shape a creation. You said that you only played the demo so you missed the main part about the Geneforge and how it can do a massive modification of humans to give them god-like abilities. Part of the secret of Sucia Island is that Shapers did human modifications at the very start. In GF2 the cannister usage decides reactions and what endings you can get. The Awaken in the Magus Complex can modify humans and serviles so the can cast spells without undergoing Shaper training. You said you played a lot of GF3 so you should have seen on Harmony Island (the second one) the two cannisters locked up in the lowest level by the island's Shaper. One is a normal cannister that will modify shapers and other humans. The second which you can't use gives magical abilities to the rebel leader. The series has as a main point whether serviles should be treated as better than just creations that the shapers have no responsibility to treat as independent. But Geneforge is also completely about whether you should change yourself and others, both humans and serviles. Necromancers and other magic users are restricted because they don't take the care that Shapers are supposed to practice to avoid unintended consequences. You missed in GF1 the sealed lab where two cannisted addicted shaper researchers tried to go beyond death and modify themselves so they would survive. You are more concerned with the initial origin of serviles and machines and not what they have become. If they exceed their original design then they should be destroyed as defective and replaced. You don't want to accept that perhaps the intelligent serviles and self aware (sentient) machines might develope new purposes that might be better than what they are designed for in the first place. You might not like their choices, but only 170 years ago slaves in the US were treated like Geneforge serviles. If they rebelled against their assigned tasks they they were whipped, shackled and even killed. Some Muslim sects view Jews and other non-Muslims as inferior creatures like pigs and monkeys so they can be treated differently than Muslims. This is why they can justify killing non-Muslims and other practices that are supposed to be contray to the Koran. By using origin as the sole criteria you can define away any arguement. [ Wednesday, August 02, 2006 02:20: Message edited by: Randomizer ] Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 05:51
Profile
Homepage
Thuryl: quote:I just thought I'd chip in and comment on this. It is apparent throughout the series that the level of control a Shaper can exercise over a creation is inversely proportional to the intelligence of that particular creation. Experienced Shapers seem to be able to exercise considerable control over 'simple-minded' creations such as Glaahks and Battle-Alphas. Analogy: A sheep is less likely to act unruly than a dog. I think that the Discipline Wands are more a rare 'contingency plan' in case an experimental creation goes berserk. They musn't be used frequently, given that they are rarely present in the game, and often have full charges. As for the shackles, I always got the impression that they were for unruly serviles. And as I mentioned above, control is inversely proportional to creation intelligence. Serviles are highly intelligent creatures, and hence are prone to 'acting out'. In general, however, Shapers appear to have good control over their less intelligent creations. Thuryl, I'm also curious as to whether you are a vegetarian. You present arguments which are often used by the rational proponents of the animal rights movement, in that all sentient beings have intrinsic value. [ Thursday, August 03, 2006 03:19: Message edited by: Waylander ] -------------------- VIVE LA TAKERS! VIVE LA REBELLION! VIVE LA GHALDRING! Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 06:30
Profile
Homepage
I will fully admit that I haven't read this whole argument, but if one side is arguing that creations are essentially non-individual and replaceable, like ants or bees or something, then that argument seems plainly false. Serviles (and drakons and others) are clearly individual in ways that are not easy to replicate — how would you propose making a copy of Learned Darian? Shaping something with similar traits is not replacing the actual servile; to say so is like asserting that identical twins are, in fact, two of the same person. And if you're claiming that thinking, individualized beings are easy to replicate and therefore have no personal value as living things, then in what way does that not apply to humans? My understanding was that the essence of the GF dilemma is that serviles and people are exactly the same, save that serviles were deliberately created at one point and people just evolved or something. Serviles (and drakons) are no more machines than humans or shapers are. [ Wednesday, August 02, 2006 06:35: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
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 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 07:12
Profile
Homepage
You know, it's not a pure dichotomy between "serviles as slaves doing work for the shapers" and "serviles doing nothing for the shapers." People do work because they get paid (or, more generally, get some reward). Also, I was under the impression that employing the death penalty on the mentally retarded is even more controversial than the death penalty itself is. Human beings with the intelligence of a battle alpha "go rogue" sometimes, and we have serious moral qualms about just killing them. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
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 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 08:49
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Savage Ed Walcott: quote:But if you're only talking about an emulation, then that's not the same as actual personality or intelligence. Imitation of personality or intelligence is different than really having personality and intelligence. Something that resembles sentience is very different from something that actually has sentience. An emulation could be easily backed up. Real intelligence couldn't, because it would always be learning, developing, and changing. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 2 2006 11:22
Profile
quote:Hmmm; I guess that's a reasonable response. But if a really sentient computer program can be made, then I expect human personalities could also be copied. Reading the brain might be a bit tough now, but mapping it non-destructively to the cellular level, or close to it, might actually be possible in the foreseeable future. And then if we really understood sentience, enough to program it, perhaps we could recognize it in brain structure, and thus copy it from people. As you can see here, I pretty much have the 'hard AI' attitude that sentience is some kind of formal property of patterns. Humans, robots, serviles ... that doesn't matter. We're all dust in the wind. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 01:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm not a vegetarian, but I probably ought to be; I don't regard my lifestyle as a good moral example. (Those of you who follow General may remember my little "become an aid worker or shut up" speech about morality: I have, by and large, chosen to shut up, but as evidenced by this thread I sometimes fail even at that.) [ Thursday, August 03, 2006 01:05: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 1668
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 15:26
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. [ Thursday, August 03, 2006 15:28: Message edited by: wary wanderer ] -------------------- "Mongo only pawn in game of life" -- Mongo Posts: 75 | Registered: Monday, August 5 2002 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 19:15
Profile
Homepage
No wanderer, you are not the only person disturbed with others disregard for intelligent life. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 20:47
Profile
Homepage
Drakons do pose a different — and interesting — dilemma: what do you do with a group of sentient beings of whom a sizable number (the majority? a large majority, even?) are powerful, dangerous, and violent to the point that they represent a threat to society? Killing all of them seems too extreme, because some of them may not be a threat individually. Leaving them alone isn't an option, because they'll go on rampages and kill people. Targeting individuals is hard, because so many of them are problems. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 21:07
Profile
Homepage
I suppose you would just have to make peace with the ones that are capable and willing to be peaceful, and then start the long, slow, messy process of hunting down the ones that cause problems. It's probable that fewer drakons would be dangerous if they were treated as equals to Shapers and not as banned creations, but that would be difficult to convince them of (and even harder to maintain once troublesome drakons started getting hunted down). Of course, that's not taking the possible treachery and arrogant attitude of some Shapers towards drakons into account. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Thursday, August 3 2006 22:36
Profile
Homepage
Kelandanon: quote:Since when does a Drakkon go on a 'rampage'? -------------------- VIVE LA TAKERS! VIVE LA REBELLION! VIVE LA GHALDRING! Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Friday, August 4 2006 07:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:A dilemma indeed. Now where have I seen this before? Guantanamo, perhaps? Edit: Waylander: what do you call GF3, if not a Drakon rampage? [ Friday, August 04, 2006 08:05: Message edited by: Micawber ] -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
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 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 05:12
Profile
Homepage
I would think that the onus is on you to explain why a thinking, feeling being should be completely at someone else's disposal, creation or no. This is, by the way, analogous to another question: if there is a god like the Christian God, and if He did create us, are we by the very act of creation therefore obligated to serve Him, or must there be some other justification in addition? Ultimately, the answer to that question, I feel, is that there would have to be an additional reason, namely that God's commands are inherently good, since gratitude for creation (or whatever) is not by itself sufficient to make us slaves. [ Saturday, August 05, 2006 05:47: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 06:17
Profile
Homepage
Aw, dammit, Kel. Didja have to release the elephant? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 07:08
Profile
Homepage
Mica: quote:1. I wouldn't call a resistance effort a 'rampage', exactly. 2. The Drakon's aren't really doing the 'rampaging'. They are just pulling the strings. The question here is why Drakon's should be restrained (from a neutral perspective, of course). They are powerful. So what? They are dangerous. So what? They have a tendency to react to violence with violence. So what? -------------------- VIVE LA TAKERS! VIVE LA REBELLION! VIVE LA GHALDRING! Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Saturday, August 5 2006 07:21
Profile
Homepage
They're not just reacting - they're actively seeking violence. How was the academy of Greenwood Isle a threat to them? The people of Terrestria (we are told "the whole of Terrestria is in flames") weren't violent towards drakons, they never even knew they existed. As for point 2, sending others to rampage on one's behalf does not exonerate one from a charge of murder. -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |