I'd switch Yang and Santiago (Yang purity, Santiago supremacy). Santiago's got free prototypes. Yang will happily do the job with a mass of (highly trained, if you've got Command Nexus) AK-47's if he can pull it off, and he's got the whole fortress thing going. Shang Yang emphasizes force even over organization. Successful blunt effort today is better than refinement tomorrow. Supremacy emphasizes tools, which Chinese terrain was never suited for (at least with regards agriculture).
You have Marr and H'minee mixed up.
I haven't the faintest idea why you've made Morgan a green...
That's an interesting take, but I think that ;yang;'s focus on "mind over matter" and "Learn to overcome the crass demands of flesh and bone" very much lend themselves to a Supremacy way of thinking, even if his tactics are more reminiscent of purity.So what your are saying is that he is purity in practice. You're arguing bloody viewpoints for christ sake. Yes, in ideological propoganda Bill Gates is a humanist. In practice he's a lunatic. Sure, Yang would like to end up in Supremacy, but he's not got Zhak's free network nodes and he's more focused on immediately building up a low-grade purity-style infrastructure than making Santiago's top-line weaponry or tinkering with tools. You take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll get there before you.
;santi;, on the other hand, is a survivalist, very much focused on the survival of humanity, and so fits Purity much better in outlook.
Not at all. ;marr; is all about Transcendence (either getting it himself with a Transcendence victory, or calling in superiors who will do it with a Progenitor victory, or clearing obstacles and then figuring out what to do with a Conquest victory). Transcendence is fundamentally harmony-based (especially the Progenitor take on it).He get's -planet. He's only interested in using planet as a technological invention for godhood. That's supremacy. He doesn't care about harmony with anything, his title is Marr the Conqueror.
No, BE Harmony is just Green
and Morgan's mainline propoganda was just that he would provide purity-style creature comforts to his followers.
Admittedly I'm not the biggest BE expert, but I understand Harmony to be more about adapting to the new world than about not polluting it.That's green.... Deidre even mentions adapting to the environment and not running off old earth models in contrasting herself with Morgan. and Harmony would rather avoid even replacing native plants with home plants, an option I saw in one of the few videos I bothered watching. The bloody theme is green. This isn't hard.
and Morgan's mainline propoganda was just that he would provide purity-style creature comforts to his followers.
No, it was that he would provide comfort and wealth.
That's green.... Deidre even mentions adapting to the environment and not running off old earth models in contrasting herself with Morgan.
and Harmony would rather avoid even replacing native plants with home plants, an option I saw in one of the few videos I bothered watching.
I was quoting the material. Morgan's propoganda is creature comforts.
No, ;deidre; mentions not polluting the environmentShe talks about adapting to it in the fiction "Journey to Centauri." Gaians get extra fungus food. Re: weather paradigm gaian religion about adaptation and all that. This is really a weak argument, I don't know why you're splitting hairs to try to find a difference between harmony and green.
Green, which is about not damaging the world. The "green path" has a minor Harmony element, but it is not at all the same.Greens with a genetic modification shtick. wow, big difference. And you have the nerve to suggest that Harmony doesn't care about not polluting.
And "creature comforts" is compatible with any of the affinities, so that proves nothing.A supremacy robot isn't even a creature.
She talks about adapting to it in the fiction "Journey to Centauri." Gaians get extra fungus food. Re: weather paradigm gaian religion about adaptation and all that.
This is really a weak argument, I don't know why you're splitting hairs to try to find a difference between harmony and green.
Greens with a genetic modification shtick. wow, big difference. And you have the nerve to suggest that Harmony doesn't care about not polluting.
A supremacy robot isn't even a creature.
You could argue that the corporations are supremacist, but most of his faction is wealthy couch potatoes.
Which has no connected affinity, and therefore isn't really relevant to the discussion.I bet many the purity people are purity because they want to be couch potatoes instead or robots of agronomists. They can't all be Amish. I still can't believe you try to argue that Morgan the capitalist is a green. Might adopt it late game, though. Eventually it makes good money.
Which has no connected affinity, and therefore isn't really relevant to the discussion.I bet many the purity people are purity because they want to be couch potatoes instead or robots of agronomists.
I still can't believe you try to argue that Morgan the capitalist is a green.
I think that it's because they want to be humans instead of cyborgs or aliens.Humans are couch potatoes. I only excercise, meditate, study dead religions, translate Chinese text on top of the unocassional anime/korean drama and starcraft murder because of my sublime will. I assume that everyone else is a couch potato... or an artist.
I argue that Harmony and Green have some correlation but are far from identical.You're wrong.
Humans are couch potatoes. I only excercise, meditate, study dead religions, translate Chinese text on top of the unocassional anime/korean drama and starcraft murder because of my sublime will. I assume that everyone else is a couch potato... or an artist.
I argue that Harmony and Green have some correlation but are far from identical.You're wrong.
If you were correct, then neither ;caretake; nor ;marr; would be Harmony, as they both prefer Planned. Is that what you're claiming?Caretaker gets a planet bonus so I would say she is harmony (or rather, a caretaker); Planned is the model the species uses universally, the species doesn't typically live on Planet; Nee wants to kick everyone off of it. And uh... Marr gets a planet malus. Marr isn't harmony. He wants transcendence for supremacy purposes.
You assume wrong, then.So you do a little coding.
Caretaker gets a planet bonus so I would say she is harmony (or rather, a caretaker); Planned is the model the species uses universally, the species doesn't typically live on Planet; Nee wants to kick everyone off of it. And uh... Marr gets a planet malus. Marr isn't harmony. He wants transcendence for supremacy purposes.
I see transcendence of any sort as harmony-aligned.That's because you're an... uh.... well, your brains are... anyway, Marr wants to subjugate planet-mind, become a "god", conquer the galaxy. At best, that's a domestication attitude toward planet-mind, bearing little resemblance to the Gaian attitude.
And if ;caretake; wants to kick everyone (including herself) off Planet, that doesn't really fit with Harmony at all.Not even living on earth would be plenty harmonious towards it, at least from an environmentalist standpoint. Though you could say they are less harmony-based than the Gaians, since she's got a domestication attitude like Marr, just in a paternal sense. In a sense, a lot environmentalism is just another variety of paternalism. The Gaians and Harmony are a little bit more radical than this, as as many environmentalists who criticize environmentalism-paternalism, but you couldn't argue that the caretakers aren't at least a bit green or environmentally harmonious; moreso than Yang.
Now it's in good humor.
I see transcendence of any sort as harmony-aligned.That's because you're an... uh.... well, your brains are... anyway, Marr wants to subjugate planet-mind, become a "god", conquer the galaxy. At best, that's a domestication attitude toward planet-mind, bearing little resemblance to the Gaian attitude.
Not even living on earth would be plenty harmonious towards it, at least from an environmentalist standpoint.
Though you could say they are less harmony-based than the Gaians, since she's got a domestication attitude like Marr, just in a paternal sense.
Alien Domestication is one of the techs that gives Harmony points.It's a bit greener than outright replacing alien life, so this should come as no surprise.
;yang; could be supremacy with its focus on organization and mind-uploading.As a goal, yes. As a practicality, no. Similarly. Morgan might use supremacist methods by mid-game, but most the domestic citizens probably have little more than purity goals. But then it's hard to imagine a civilization whose common people have supremacist goals except in adverse conditions.
For example I think ;santi;'s survivalism-based view-points fit Harmony really well, especially with their guerilla type fighting styles. Being able to forage, alien life as weaponry, hindering the enemy if you can't survive, being able to fight on your own without needing support...
;morgan; also strikes me as a supremacy type with its zero-maintenance roads and mag-rails, generator increasing energy techs and other economic based buildings.
I would agree, except that she seems to be very focused on "survival of humanity" concepts, which fit Purity even better.She does it with a supremacist military.
I would agree, except that she seems to be very focused on "survival of humanity" concepts, which fit Purity even better.She does it with a supremacist military.
I would assign her to Purity anyway because the affinities are primarily philosophical and response-to-the-new-world approaches, rather than military ones.what the hell is a philosophical response? do they preach Marxism and hope someone makes revolution? All of my spiritual "philosophy" is practice. All of my political "philosophy" is based on practice.
I would assign her to Purity anyway because the affinities are primarily philosophical and response-to-the-new-world approaches, rather than military ones.what the hell is a philosophical response? do they preach Marxism and hope someone makes revolution? All of my spiritual "philosophy" is practice. All of my political "philosophy" is based on practice.
A philosophical response is one based on philosophical ideals; in this case, the importance of humanity.Ideals aren't necessarily even corroborated by actions. It's fantasy.
A philosophical response is one based on philosophical ideals; in this case, the importance of humanity.Ideals aren't necessarily even corroborated by actions.
The people who host philosophy meetings practice nothing, neither spiritual nor political.
There are more ways of having relevant philosophical thoughts than formal philosophy meetings, you know.Are you referring to Stalin?
There are more ways of having relevant philosophical thoughts than formal philosophy meetings, you know.Are you referring to Stalin?
Not in particular; there are a huge number of people that acted based on philosophically-based ideals.who? Zoroaster?
Not in particular; there are a huge number of people that acted based on philosophically-based ideals.who? Zoroaster?
Not sure if he counts...but let's take all the people who hid Jews from the Nazis at risk to their own lives. That was based on morality, which is a type of philosophical ideal.we all die eventually anyway
Not sure if he counts...but let's take all the people who hid Jews from the Nazis at risk to their own lives. That was based on morality, which is a type of philosophical ideal.we all die eventually anyway
we all die eventually anywayand how hard is it, really, to hide a man
we all die eventually anywayand how hard is it, really, to hide a man
In a police state? Fairly risky.I assure you that I could hide a man. The Nazis would not even come into my room.
Although now that I look at it, supremacy seems to include a lot of "high tech to improve living conditions as humans" as well, which definitely is his thing, so I'm changing it to ;morgan; would probably be supremacy, albeit one without uploading. So then we have:This seems to have been solved since here. ;caretake; is not trying to do the Harmony thing, she's trying to kill the others then leave Planet. Her entire philosophy and the point of her faction is _avoiding_ transcendence, and transcendence is the closest parallel to Harmony.
Harmony: ;deidre; ;cha; ;marr;
Supremacy: ;yang; ;zak; ;morgan; ;aki; ;roze;
Purity: ;santi; ;miriam; ;lal; ;domai; ;ulrik;
None: ;caretake;
Morgan as Purity fits reasonably well early on, but I find it very hard to imagine him turning down economically beneficial human modifications, uploads, or robots late game. He's all about doing whatever it takes to win in a free market, and that's kind of in opposition to staying purely human once you get to a certain point of technological advancement.
And Yang may be into biological improvements as well as technical ones, but he's not interested in native life. It's very much a make humans better thing, which seems more fitting to supremacy.
Santiago as Supremacy has some sense to it, I'm on the fence about this now. Definitely early on she's more purity focused, but does end up using enhancement tech. Still, she's heavily into *human* survival.. could go either way.
;marr; on the other hand is specifically trying to transcend. You could argue he'd pass for Supremacy since he does not use natives in warfare and is keen on advanced tech, but given his ultimate goals...Harmony is means, not ends. You people are mentally blind. Satan is also transcendent, but most do not argue that devils are harmonious.
Purity wants to simply advance/use technology to change/adapt to the environment and advance without modifying ourselves rather than changing ourselves to adapt to the environment. I'd put Morgan in this category since he is so fervent about anti-environmentalism
I'd put lal and miriam in this category also. The reason I wouldn't put Santiago in this category is because of the in-game quotes referring to her as the perpetrator of a lot of cybernetic advancements.
While her ideology is arguably human orientated, the willingness of her to use technological modification to 'strengthen' the human race would put her in the supremacy category for me.
Yang to me is a wildcard. I would put him in both those categories. He finds self-modification completely acceptable, obviously. Whether he is more leaning towards technological or biological modification is not really known. His quotes ingame put him more in biological area, but he does not care about biological 'harmony' and more just about how to improve the human race without care for the environment.
tbh when discussing civilizations/technology 'survival' doesn't really play in all that much, especially when talking about these affinities, since this is what route we take once we have 'survival' down, it's more about adaptation. so I dunno if santiago's survivalism applies as much.
I agree with your assessment of yang, but I still see him as more pro-biological enhancement than technological, but yet, less planet-friendly.
I dunno about morgan. He is an economist and relies on human economic behavior for his ideology to function. If he changes the definition of human, then we kinda get to a point where his ideology is irrelevant/muddled, and then it gets down to his personality whether or not he would do such things.
I supposed their ideologies and alignments/'affinities' change as time goes on.
At start:
Purity: ;morgan; ;miriam; ;santi; ;lal;
Harmony: ;deidre;
Supremacy: ;yang; ;zak;
In the end though, it might look more like this:
Purity: ;miriam; ;lal;
Harmony: ;deidre;
Supremacy: ;zak; ;morgan; ;santi; ;yang;
Harmony is means, not ends.
You people are mentally blind. Satan is also transcendent, but most do not argue that devils are harmonious.
Yang does not have the technology for supremacy. He couldn't do it at the beginning of the game.
The quote I was referring to was the quote for Mind/Machine interface tech. I think it's Lal implying santiagos use of technology. or "The warrior's" Which I suppose isn't necessarily santiago but I've always taken it that way. There's also the cloning vats, which, while not necessarily breaking purity it still implies some technological use/abuse of the human form.
The way I see ;morgan; is resource and consumption at all costs due to his many quotes on not caring about long term sustainability (forgotten future, let us chew and eat our fill, etc.) and that generally doesn't mean good things for the environment. Renewables tend not to produce as much as fast.
But isn't an affinity something you grow into?In the real world purity would be lower tech.
But isn't an affinity something you grow into?In the real world purity would be lower tech.
There are some fairly late techs that give Purity bonuses...which you apparently don't know anything about.
But isn't an affinity something you grow into?In the real world purity would be lower tech.
A purity civilization would have to have high man power, like Asia, since they'd be relying on it. Power suits are of limited capability.
Considering a purity civilization would need powersuits/habitats to survive outside, well, manpower would just screw them over.They'd live underground.
There are some fairly late techs that give Purity bonuses...which you apparently don't know anything about.
I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names. Did you have a point?Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.
I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names. Did you have a point?Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.
I know (or rather, know where to look up) their names. Did you have a point?Go on and try to expand upon a standpoint.
I'm not sure how you "expand upon" a standpoint.For instance, you are running on the standpoint of judging things by ideals. I judge them by practices. You (don't) develop structures out of fantastical standpoints, I develop structures out of practical standpoints. I point out that Yang is low-tech, but might eventually catch up and be able to act from a supremacist standpoint, you start in mid air from the pure fantasy of the ultimate eventuality or even based simply upon aims or statements, and make an ad-hoc statement without further reflection.
I'm not sure how you "expand upon" a standpoint.For instance, you are running on the standpoint of judging things by ideals. I judge them by practices.
In order to expand upon a standpoint, or really anything, and operate in reality, one has to address things rather than just ideas or intentions. Otherwise we get the unthinking nonsense of judging all things by their form and not essence, i.e. their practice, their reality.
For instance, we often get people calling a religion bad based upon the actions of adherents without comparing their practice to the book. It may happen that there are only a few Christians in the world, but an unthinking person will simply accept anyone with a stated aim or identification as a Christian. This is idealism, i.e. judging everything based upon the subjective rather than the objective.
In reality, a person is not a doctor simply by intending to become a doctor, or having the end goal of being a doctor in mind.
But an eventuality or a goal is not a reality. Practice is reality.
\Again, to eventually achieve is not the same thing as to posses already.
Zhakarov already possess superior research, Santiago already possesses a superior military. Thus they operate from a supremacist standpoint.
Neither do their goals matter. If your goal is to be a doctor but all you do is fix cars, then you are going to be a mechanic.
Because SMAC and affinities are both ideal-focused.That's merely how it's presented. The reality of the factions is their gameplay. Otherwise one uses the term "in the lore or "in the book."
You've got it backward; the ideals are the essence, the practice is the mere form.An ideal alone is unmanifest. Are you insane? If anything, ignorance is a bigger definer of action than ideals. One goes through years of training to become a [poopy] western pharmacist who prescribes harmful statins; one wishes to be a doctor, the reality is, one is pill-pusher unless one puts in significant effort to be otherwise. You are arguing literally that reality is not reality, imagination is reality. Reality takes significantly more effort than your mere fantasizing.
Depends what you mean by "reality"; certainly the eventuality or goal is relevant to reality, which I would argue means it itself must be real (as eventuality or goal).It is the very end of the process, if you get there. If you are a doctor one percent of the time, then generally speaking, you are not a doctor. Usually one takes it as a life-long profession. Then one is a doctor. But this takes real effort, and not merely an ideal. If one puts in the effort and carries out the work without the ideal, even blindly, then one still becomes and is a doctor.
Again, to eventually achieve is not the same thing as to posses already.
It is not the same, but it does determine character.The reality is, you are not a doctor.
No, because Supremacy has very little to do with superior research.BE supremacy is technological. Zhakarov and Santiago use the superior tools, provided they put out the industrial capacity to use them.
Profession and affinity are two very different things.So you say.
Its more about alien integration then it is about alien preservation. Its more about living as part of the world than minimizing your impact on it.So? Deirdre would agree with that explicitly.
;zak; could easily be Harmony if he had the chance to play with alien DNA to the level of Beyond Earth Harmony.Genetics are only one aspect of science. Zhakarov is not limited in this manner.
The alien domestication quest has the Harmonite keeping the aliens as pets, while the Supremest keeps them as beasts of burden. What would our leaders choose I wonder?Dogs been both, chickens and cows just don't make as good pets. Realisticly, they would be both.
Let me ask you all this, since affinity is clearly tied to technology, which techs in SMAC/X would be associated with each of the affinities while keeping in mind a counterpoint in Beyond Earth?They wouldn't, it's cacamine. Ultimately a glass dome is just an easier to implement, lower-level technological solution, not an ideological commitment. The faction that doesn't implement safety-tested genetic modification is just amish and goes into the waste-basket of history. It would take an amish majority to prevent it's implementation. In the book, Yang has focused on implementing thoroughly the low tech he possesses, to make himself a fortress and political system he believes he will be safe in, but he still wants to obtain the genetic modification technology. He even considers it vital.
Because SMAC and affinities are both ideal-focused.That's merely how it's presented. The reality of the factions is their gameplay. Otherwise one uses the term "in the lore or "in the book."
An ideal alone is unmanifest.
If anything, ignorance is a bigger definer of action than ideals. One goes through years of training to become a [poopy] western pharmacist who prescribes harmful statins; one wishes to be a doctor, the reality is, one is pill-pusher unless one puts in significant effort to be otherwise. You are arguing literally that reality is not reality, imagination is reality.
It is the very end of the process, if you get there. If you are a doctor one percent of the time, then generally speaking, you are not a doctor. Usually one takes it as a life-long profession. Then one is a doctor. But this takes real effort, and not merely an ideal. If one puts in the effort and carries out the work without the ideal, even blindly, then one still becomes and is a doctor.
BE supremacy is technological.
[/quote]QuoteProfession and affinity are two very different things.So you say.
You guys are all forgetting one factor here that makes a literal world of difference. The character of Planet is not present in BE, and the nature of the wildlife are not as hostile as they are in Alpha Centauri. The wildlife in Beyond Earth shows intelligence, but they aren't of psychic level. This opens up wider opportunities for adaption to the three affinities. The leaders would be presented with different avenues of adaptation here. ;santi; took to cybernetics to give her an advantage against mind worms, but she may domesticate a wolf-beetle as a hunting dog this time around. Harmony on Beyond Earth is different from the Green of ;deidre;. Its more about alien integration then it is about alien preservation. Its more about living as part of the world than minimizing your impact on it.
Another way of looking at the affinities may help; Supremacy believes the answer to humanity lies in human ingenuity, Harmony believes that the answer lies in Human Adaptation, and Purity believes the answer lies in Human Resilence. From a supremacy perspective it sees itself looking to the future for answers while Harmony looks to the present and Purity looks to the Past.
Genetics are only one aspect of science.
Let me ask you all this, since affinity is clearly tied to technology, which techs in SMAC/X would be associated with each of the affinities while keeping in mind a counterpoint in Beyond Earth?They wouldn't, it's cacamine. Ultimately a glass dome is just an easier to implement, lower-level technological solution, not an ideological commitment. The faction that doesn't implement safety-tested genetic modification is just amish and goes into the waste-basket of history. It would take an amish majority to prevent it's implementation. In the book, Yang has focused on implementing thoroughly the low tech he possesses, to make himself a fortress and political system he believes he will be safe in, but he still wants to obtain the genetic modification technology. He even considers it vital.
No, the core reality of the factions is their ideology; the gameplay reflects that.Ideology without a practical element is only present in the diplomacy. Otherwise the factions are most well expressed in their gameplay.
But it still exists, and once manifested is relevant.An idea only exists in your head.
No, I am arguing that the imagination of real people is a very important part of reality.It's a part of their head.
As I said before, professions are different than the topics explored in SMAC and by affinities.It was an example. You're being very childish. If anything professions can much more exactly "manifest" ideas than ideology. But is the same process, provided that the ideology has any practical element and is not the mere distant utopianism you seem to prefer. An ideology without practical elements is a dead utopia. An ideology that favours practical elements is more similar to a manual, and thus has likely been practised.
And everything we know about affinity supports it.So you say.
So basically, you're denying the basic assumption behind the affinities. In which case, I have to ask: What are you doing in this thread?Representing reality.
No, the core reality of the factions is their ideology; the gameplay reflects that.Ideology without a practical element is only present in the diplomacy. Otherwise the factions are most well expressed in their gameplay.
An idea only exists in your head.
It's a part of their head.
It was an example.
If anything professions can much more exactly "manifest" ideas than ideology.
But is the same process, provided that the ideology has any practical element and is not the mere distant utopianism you seem to prefer. An ideology without practical elements is a dead utopia. An ideology that favours practical elements is more similar to a manual, and thus has likely been practised.
So you say.
So basically, you're denying the basic assumption behind the affinities. In which case, I have to ask: What are you doing in this thread?Representing reality instead of imagination.
No; it's the ideology as expressed by the quotations, stories, and to some extent the gameplay, that gives SMAC its unique character.The former only supplement the latter. Even fiction, especially good fiction, is written in the context of a reality. SMAC in particural is very political and based upon political realities, like religion vs. science.
And is my head not part of reality?In fact, most actions are only reflected upon by the head after they occur.
Can you provide an example that is a good analogy and supports your point? I think not.An ideology, for instance, related to taxation, that is intended to deal with a reality, is written as a manual. Usually, these actually deal with professions. Your attempt to differentiate the two is absurd. An ideology either deals in realities or it does not. The latter are generally irrelevant and are restricted to desert confines where they gradually decay.
And an ideology that favours elements that are not yet practical, but will be?This is mere idealism.
Please, provide anything from BE (or SMAC, for that matter) that supports your position on these matters.The fact that affinity deals in gameplay and is not mere lore.
Well, this thread is about introducing a system from one imaginary world.Systems have reality.
The former only supplement the latter.
Even fiction, especially good fiction, is written in the context of a reality. SMAC in particural is very political and based upon political realities, like religion vs. science.
In fact, most actions are only reflected upon by the head after they occur.
An ideology, for instance, related to taxation, that is intended to deal with a reality, is written as a manual.
An ideology either deals in realities or it does not.
This is mere idealism.
The fact that affinity deals in gameplay and is not mere lore.
QuoteWell, this thread is about introducing a system from one imaginary world.Systems have reality.
Perhaps (it is primarily a game after all), but they are a very important supplement, and more important than the gameplay for the topic of this thread.I don't see how.
And are those political realities not essentially ideology by another name?Political practice is quite a bit more developed than most common mere ideology. It is more exact.
But ideologies are reflected on before they are put into practice.The ideological material most people are connected with is disconnected from practice - and thus reality. But this is to be expected, they are not acting from a position of power.
Really? Please tell me where to find the written-as-a-manual text that explains the "taxes are theft" ideology.I was referring to tax administration and practice.
There are middle grounds (which of course will fall into one side of the divide, but which one depends on exactly how you define "deals in realities").Actions. Practices.
And despite that, such "mere idealism" can have an important consequence on the world.Only when acted upon. It won't last without development into practical channels.
Perhaps (it is primarily a game after all), but they are a very important supplement, and more important than the gameplay for the topic of this thread.I don't see how.
Political practice is quite a bit more developed than most common mere ideology. It is more exact.
QuoteBut ideologies are reflected on before they are put into practice.The ideological material most people are connected with is disconnected from practice - and thus reality. But this is to be expected, they are not acting from a position of power.
QuoteReally? Please tell me where to find the written-as-a-manual text that explains the "taxes are theft" ideology.I was referring to tax administration and practice.
QuoteThere are middle grounds (which of course will fall into one side of the divide, but which one depends on exactly how you define "deals in realities").Actions. Practices.
And despite that, such "mere idealism" can have an important consequence on the world.Only when acted upon. It won't last without development into practical channels.
Perhaps (it is primarily a game after all), but they are a very important supplement, and more important than the gameplay for the topic of this thread.
"Religion vs. science" (your example) doesn't seem very developed or exact...
The ideological material most people are connected with is disconnected from practice - and thus reality. But this is to be expected, they are not acting from a position of power.
So what? It's still potentially relevant (as it might spread to people who are in a position of power, or people who subscribe to it might come to positions of power), and is still part of those people, meaning that it is real.
And yet "taxes are theft" is an ideology that deals with practical matters (taxes), so if you were correct, there would be such a written-as-a-manual text.
So? That still means that ideology that is not yet developed into practical channels, but will be, is relevant.
Blaneck, your manners suck.My manners are probably fine, I just use them selectively.
Universally is a much better idea here, I assure you.Believe me, Othniel is an intelligent enough guy, and I wanted to discuss affinities with him, but affinities just don't have enough substance to do so. Purity is low-tech, and supremacy just represents high-tech. Him and I get along fine.
Perhaps (it is primarily a game after all), but they are a very important supplement, and more important than the gameplay for the topic of this thread.
Fiction doesn't describe the reality of a thing. Gameplay is a better determination. A sufficiently developed game can even be called a model. But even the fiction corresponds with a depiction of Yang as living in a low-tech hovel.
It's in reference to AC, and it's not, it's only manifest in AC's diplomacy.
No. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy)
Please stop. You're being really absurd. I'm serious. Even the French don't much influence their government, they tried to elect a socialist and look what they got, the man is constantly warmongering.. I'm not even going to talk about Obama.
It is not an ideology with reality outside of rich corporations.
Only in your dreams.
Agreed that Yang is fairly low-tech. It's your characterization of purity as low-tech and supremacy as high-tech and harmony as +PLANET that's horribly flawed.Even their aim is low-tech. They want to live in bubbles. That's lower tech than either cybernetics or genetic modification. we ourselves could carry out a purity colonization in the arctic. BUncle would serve as the narrator and say "some plants have escaped and are colonizing the area," and I'd say "what luck, that means I don't have to eat tree bark." And then you would suggest that we modify ourselves to eat bark and insist this to be of the same tech level. the project would be completed.... eventually.
I did not say that every individual has major impact. I said that an ideology may very well end up in the hands of one of the few people who do.Nah, most politicians only care about money and the like. The few that don't are smarted than your average voter anyway. The only knowledge that most voters have that a ruler might benefit from is: "my water is black."
Really? Then why is it that a large number of voters support low-taxes policies due to such an ideology?Because they like to keep themselves occupied, it makes them feel like they have purpose.
Even their aim is low-tech. They want to live in bubbles. That's lower tech than either cybernetics or genetic modification.
Deirdre is pretty flat out Harmony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPvK2p28Pho (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPvK2p28Pho)
Nah, most politicians only care about money and the like.
Really? Then why is it that a large number of voters support low-taxes policies due to such an ideology?Because they like to keep themselves occupied, it makes them feel like they have purpose.
Really? In SMAC, cybernetics tend to range from tech level 4 (Neural Grafting) to 8 (Homo Superior), and genetic modification from tech level 3 (gene splicing) to 6 (retroviral engineering) whereas hab domes are at tech level 10 (Super Tensile Solids).That's jut for balance reasons. Really colonists could just dig underground like Yang for more space.
And can a rich person not subscribe to an ideology?Only if they're unenlightened. The way to rule is with law and political method. Even a cooperative should use as much.
Even if so, that still disproves your assertion that it is only held by rich corporations.It doesn't count if you can't practice it.
;deidre; definitely fits Harmony (unless going by Othniel's approach), but that doesn't mean that her approach is the only thing that can fall under Harmony.You have to be at least environmentalist to be harmonious.
That's jut for balance reasons. Really colonists could just dig underground like Yang for more space.
QuoteAnd can a rich person not subscribe to an ideology?Only if they're unenlightened. The way to rule is with law and political method. Even a cooperative should use as much.
[/quote]Even if so, that still disproves your assertion that it is only held by rich corporations.It doesn't count if you can't practice it.
;deidre; definitely fits Harmony (unless going by Othniel's approach), but that doesn't mean that her approach is the only thing that can fall under Harmony.You have to be at least environmentalist to be harmonious.
Laws and political methods often grow out of ideologies.It is wrong to do so. It transfers powers out of your hands. Then the state is susceptible to corruption. It also basis law on fantasy rather than circumstance.
You might be able to persuade someone else who can.This is only relevant in an autocracy. Only the true king will give an ear to useful subordinates in spite of their low station.
What in the affinity of Harmony (not the meaning of the word normally, but the affinity itself) requires being environmentalist?Uh, the gameplay. If you let the earth plants overtake the native plants, you lose harmony points
But that isn't the Purity approach...Purity is not low-tech.Flying fortresses are still low tech compared with cybernetics and genetics.
Laws and political methods often grow out of ideologies.It is wrong to do so.
This is only relevant in an autocracy. Only the true king will give an ear to useful subordinates in spite of their low station.
What in the affinity of Harmony (not the meaning of the word normally, but the affinity itself) requires being environmentalist?Uh, the gameplay. If you let the earth plants overtake the native plants, you lose harmony points
That position is an ideology. Do you think laws and political methods should be based on it?No, practicalities should.
Not true; some elected officials do as well, and of course there's the possibility of someone first subscribing to the ideology and then getting power.That would make them fools.
That position is an ideology. Do you think laws and political methods should be based on it?No, practicalities should.
QuoteNot true; some elected officials do as well, and of course there's the possibility of someone first subscribing to the ideology and then getting power.That would make them fools.
Laws and political methods are practicalities.Yes, and they should not be polluted with ideological fantasies.
I disagree, but even if so, it would still make that ideology relevant, which was the question at hand.It's relevant as a delusion.
Blaneck, you can do better.I don't know what you are referring to.
Laws and political methods are practicalities.Yes, and they should not be polluted with ideological fantasies.
I disagree, but even if so, it would still make that ideology relevant, which was the question at hand.It's relevant as a delusion.
Should laws and political methods be "polluted with" (i.e. based on) it?No, they should be based on circumstances.
So you think Purity/Harmony/Supremacy (which are also ideologies, much as are the ones under discussion) are delusions?That much is obvious. You should do whatever is best at the moment.
Gosh, chances are you guys have put more thought into arguing about the affinities than the devs ever even put into the affinities.It would be hard not to, even just in passing. That's all I did before the psichi declared she needed instruction on how things and ideas become differentiated, which I assented to give. I have great pity for the unitarian peoples and help if I can.
Gosh, chances are you guys have put more thought into arguing about the affinities than the devs ever even put into the affinities.
Should laws and political methods be "polluted with" (i.e. based on) it?No, they should be based on circumstances.
QuoteSo you think Purity/Harmony/Supremacy (which are also ideologies, much as are the ones under discussion) are delusions?That much is obvious. You should do whatever is best at the moment.
That is also an ideology. Should it influence laws and political methods?You are asking if circumstances, i.e. reality should influence law? If so, Yang and I agree with you.
That is also an ideology. Should it influence laws and political methods?You are asking if circumstances, i.e. reality should influence law?
No, I am asking whether the belief "reality should influence law" should influence law by allowing reality to influence law.You are asking whether reality should influence law. Keep repeating it, maybe it will bestow sanity.
Also, by what basis do you speak for ;yang;?
Also, by what basis do you speak for ;yang;?
I read his book.
http://ctext.org/shang-jun-shu/reform-of-the-law (http://ctext.org/shang-jun-shu/reform-of-the-law)
Gong sun Yang said: "There is more than one way to govern the world and there is no necessity to imitate antiquity, in order to take appropriate measures for the state.' Tang and Wu succeeded in attaining supremacy without following antiquity, and as for the downfall of Yin and Xia - they were ruined without rites having been altered. Consequently, those who acted counter to antiquity do not necessarily deserve blame, nor do those who followed established rites merit much praise. Let Your Highness not hesitate."
Duke Xiao said: "Excellent ! I have heard it said that in poor country districts, much is thought strange, and that in village schools there are many debates. What the foolish laugh about, the wise are sad about; the joy of a madman is the sorrow of a man of talent. One should, in one's plans, be directed by the needs of the times - I have no doubts about it."
That's not exactly the same person as ;yang;...Legalist Sheng-Ji Yang is based on Legalist Shang Yang.
That's not exactly the same person as ;yang;...Legalist Sheng-Ji Yang is based on Legalist Shang Yang.
But that doesn't mean he's identical in all ways...and even the one you quoted doesn't show the "anything not immediately practical is worthless" approach that you are claiming.I'm alright with long-term practicalities.
But that doesn't mean he's identical in all ways...and even the one you quoted doesn't show the "anything not immediately practical is worthless" approach that you are claiming.I'm alright with long-term practicalities.
Okay, in that case, ;yang; is Supremacy because his long-term practical focus is to ditch the weakness of flesh, even if it takes him a while to get the necessary tech.He wants to end up supremacy in the end, he's just doesn't have the tech for it at the beginning. He'll definitely focus on more immediately practical implementations. But he would make investment in supremacy when there isn't said immediate practicality. This is different from Zhakarov or Santiago.
Okay, in that case, ;yang; is Supremacy because his long-term practical focus is to ditch the weakness of flesh, even if it takes him a while to get the necessary tech.He wants to end up supremacy in the end, he's just doesn't have the tech for it at the beginning. He'll definitely focus on more immediately practical implementations. But he would make investment in supremacy when there isn't said immediate practicality. This is different from Zhakarov or Santiago.
;zak; would also invest in supremacy even without immediate practical benefit.That's what distinguishes the two. Yang invests in more immediate things like industry. He only gets around to advanced tech eventually. Santiago focuses on cutting-edge weaponry.
;zak; would also invest in supremacy even without immediate practical benefit.That's what distinguishes the two. Yang invests in more immediate things like industry. He only gets around to advanced tech eventually. Santiago focuses on cutting-edge weaponry.
That picture is Zak, not Santiago.was talking about Zak, only mentioned Santiago at the end.
But you are right about the immediate emphases, but I don't see that as a Supremacy/Purity distinction.Purity isn't as immediately high-tech as Supremacy. Purity focuses on fortresses and internal solutions. In real life (well, not real life, but you get the idea), purity would be the immediate-solutions group, putting up fortresses, doing immediate farm-work with more human labour, greenhouses, while Zak is busy working on robots and Santiago who is better at applying advanced weaponry but has poor industry.
That picture is Zak, not Santiago.was talking about Zak, only mentioned Santiago at the end.
Purity isn't as immediately high-tech as Supremacy.
I don't think that's really true. I think that Purity is not about low-tech (low-tech is represented by not having any affinity), but rather about using your technology to maintain the human form rather than replacing it.Replacing the human form and using robots instead of power-suits is a high-tech pursuit that needs high-tech solutions.
I don't think that's really true. I think that Purity is not about low-tech (low-tech is represented by not having any affinity), but rather about using your technology to maintain the human form rather than replacing it.Replacing the human form and using robots instead of power-suits is a high-tech pursuit that needs high-tech solutions.
And Purity is about having that option and choosing not to do it, not about not having that option.Doing it dogmaticly simply makes them insane. Yang emphasizes the low-tech immediate solutions for advantageous purposes. But of the three I would designate the starting practice as purity by circumstance.
And Purity is about having that option and choosing not to do it, not about not having that option.Doing it dogmaticly simply makes them insane.
Yang emphasizes the low-tech immediate solutions for advantageous purposes. But of the three I would designate the starting practice as purity by circumstance.
Except that that doesn't fit how the concept is used in BE.It fits the practice, just not the amish intention.
Except that that doesn't fit how the concept is used in BE.It fits the practice, just not the amish intention.
No, your understanding (where low tech is purity by default) doesn't fit the practice (of how Purity is used in BE) either.I don't see you offering an alternative.
No, your understanding (where low tech is purity by default) doesn't fit the practice (of how Purity is used in BE) either.I don't see you offering an alternative.
Of course I did: Purity is explicitly deciding "even though we can change the human form to better adapt to the new environment, we won't".Low-tech is low-tech, regardless of the intentions.
Of course I did: Purity is explicitly deciding "even though we can change the human form to better adapt to the new environment, we won't".Low-tech is low-tech, regardless of the intentions.
True, but affinity depends on the intentions.The amish are low-tech regardless of their intentions.
True, but affinity depends on the intentions.The amish are low-tech regardless of their intentions.
You're the one who decided to bring the Amish into this; I'm perfectly fine with them being irrelevant to the discussion.Space amish are also low-tech.
You're the one who decided to bring the Amish into this; I'm perfectly fine with them being irrelevant to the discussion.Space amish are also low-tech.
;deidre; Harmony, tendency to go green, concious of planet life, hints of desire for adaptation (the gaian acolyte prayer) which translated into research about planetlife (assuming the Pholus mutagen quote is planetvoice answer to the implementation of said discovery) and transcendece (assuming that deirdre given the AoT and Transcendent thought means she canonically won)
;yang; Supremacy. People have brought up he seems to be kinda low tech but he is all about the inmortality of the mind, the control of the input and the gradual improvement process. On top of that the Self-Aware Colony seems to be his which is pretty supremacy.
;zak; he is complicated. His focus on research means he could be equally either supremcy or harmony (given all the genetic tech he is related, VoP and the fact that harmony does need a crapton of technologies too) but his intentions were probably more akin to those of supremacy (survival through research and science). Given his manner of speaking in the late game quotes it wouldnt be that weird to see him eventually calling robots angels and prophets, and on top of that he does have some distaste for mind worms.
;morgan; purity. materialistic, non caring of planet and loving that life (longevity vaccine). the Centauri Monopoly probably wouldnt work with robots or a hivemind either
;santi; I think she would accidently end up going supremacy. While ideologically she would probably be more Purity-like, if you agree with my interpretation of her wonder quotes, she ended up with the cloning vats, nano factories and cyborg factories...which is pretty supremacy.
;miriam; purity. i wont even bother explaining lol
;lal; i feel like ideologically he was purity, as he was all about the sancticity of humankind and the UN mission
;cha; harmony is the closest
;aki; straight up supremacy
;domai; no love for tech but a lot of love for handmade work and careless about planet so purity.
;roze; ;ulrik; i got no clue
I'm new btw :D
Welcome to the forum.
BUncle already made the perfect "Beyond Chiron" avatar for you. ;)
New or not, that's a pretty decent analysis. (I'm guessing you're new to the forum but not to the game.)
It's like we have 3 ideologies only in civBE and really not much place for new ones.
In SMACX you can create a faction with ideology that you create. In civBE, is there anything like that?
I haven't played the game yet.