|
|
#1
12-31-2003, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
The Knights Templar (A Synopsis)
Let me start by saying I am impressed by the Dues Ex storyline and by some of the posts made here in the forums from what I have skimmed. Minor quibbles aside, it is apparent that a lot of work and effort went into crafting a believable story that took no sides and there is a small section of the fanbase willing to enjoy that. All you see in Dues Ex are varying shades of gray and I appreciate the dedication to realism there. So, I have decided to work on briefs covering the basics of each side, and how I perceive them. I make no claim to explain it perfectly or even well, only that I try my best to slug through the material and greatly appreciate those who take the time to read what I wrote. The Knights Templar presented the most interesting subtle complexity to me and so will be my first effort. I am very much interested in feedback on these (be it good or bad) and if enough people show interest I hope to finish the others sometime.
Also, yes, I am taking a video game too seriously, and yes I might have too much time on my hands. ------- The Knights Templar represent an interesting parallel that highlights the underlying strength of the Dues Ex storyline. For they simultaneously advocate an appealing principle, while still acting in the role of the quintessential villains. It is a tribute to the people who crafted Invisible War’s storyline that darkness gets a fair treatment in the future. For starters, I will elaborate why I see the Templar as the villains of the Dues Ex story. From the opening bombing of Chicago, to the Templar plot to kill the Tarsus children in Cairo; the Templar solutions to perceived problems are indefensibly immoral to a liberal mindset. But that is not to say their actions are unrealistic, hardly, as one, sadly, only needs to look at 9/11 to see humanity resorting to extremes to solve problems. Secondly, the Templar mindset is disturbing and, as such, is another reason to see them as evil. The TK embody the human tendency towards xenophobia (as evidenced by Lammar attacking you, or the Artic Paladin trapped in the cage) as well zealousness and militant respect for higherarcy (The ceasefire that takes place in Cairo for instance, and their, I assume, toleration of biomodified Billie Adams). They also embody a reason d’ente, RealPolitik, or Machievillian outlook that we find morally disgusting. “The ends justify the means” is an outlook taken by every side, but the TK clearly clutch it to their bosom in a way that, for them, justifies their terrorist actions and the embracing of technology they claim to hate. Multiple references are given to this latter attitude throughout the game (The one that comes to mind for me is the Paladin, during the Cairo cease fire, who defends the use of technology). Yet even as the TK prepare to murder children they argue quite brilliantly for their side once you get past the propaganda. Take the Paladin at the recruiting booth in the Cairo arcology, and Billie Adams as proof of the charisma of the Templar creed (I’m disinclined to acknowledge the Grand Master as I imagine he puts off most players with his grandstanding, arrogant demeanor that alternates between taunting you or treating your as nothing more then a tool). You have to ignore the Paladin’s clever turn of phrase, “blind minions of Thanatos” (It means Death if your wondering), that comes off all wrong, because what he says afterwards is emphatically is right. Inconspicuous advances in technology lead to dramatic changes in human life. Just look at how life has changed in the past hundred years. Things like the telephone, radio, computer, television, mass-produced car, video games, dvd system, and air-conditions have dramatically changed my life from how my grandfather lived his. People find more incentive to see the home as a source of entertainment and consequently become coach potatoes to an extent that today twenty percent of America is obese. Therefore, I find it safe to assume that, in the future, science might be able to alter the genome of the human body and these alternations might be a bad thing. Biomods, as perceived in the game, do not alter the player’s basic human nature but they could. Just look to the Omar, and their forcible, but silent, expansion as credible proof of an effective “non-human” approach that could rule the world and wipe out humanity as we know it. Yet even if such an extreme were not to occur, biomods, as J.C. Denton points out, help the growth of a self-perpetuating aristocracy. This was one of the subjects of the first game and one of the reasons that J.C. argues for his vision of utopia. So while the conceptual image of biomods is cool, the Dues Ex writers clearly take the time to logically analyze the social and moral implications of such advances and they find the results disturbing. The Knights Templar represent the principal opposition to this scientific change and since the Templar see biomods as the result of inevitable weed like research, they argue for its complete destruction; and, later, for the elimination of innovative thought. Clearly a fundamentalist viewpoint and one I find myself at odds with, but a viewpoint that sets the stage for people like Billie Adams. Billie Adams represents the practical side of the Templar. Though she is, apparently, the only visible one in the TK, I would assume that there are others like her who did not join because of the Knight’s religious trappings or militant nature, but rather because of a genuine fear of change. It is an understandable and justifiable feeling (and the reason a lot of people vote Republican every year) that often leads to people to see a side as the “lesser of evils” as Adams put it. Now a sidestep is necessary to elaborate how this “lesser evil” viewpoint is vital. These are assumptions, but it seems clear that none of the game’s ending were intended to be ideal. The writers crafted a story that had people gravitate towards Apostlecorp and the Dentons only to be disturbed at the ending. We were warned in advance what the world J.C., or really John Stuart Mill furtera, conceived would look like but few were supposed to be prepared. I found it, frankly, scary, ugly, devoid of surface personality and emphatically not how I would want humanity to turn out. So those in quest of a “good ending” reloaded their games to discover which one was “it” only to be disappointed. There is no ring to drop into lava, no Emperor to throw off a railing, or even stylized lengthy martyrdom for an ideal; there are only choices and the player must decide which one espouses a principle he agrees with the most. And then Billie’s position made sense to me, she was right to a certain extent, in J.C.’s Sanctuary, that the Templars are the lesser evil. They are bigots certainly with a deep hatred of those who do not see the world their way, but they are opposed to fundamental changes in human life and I cannot agree more. When I choose the Templar ending (last because I really I can’t stand them) I discovered, much to my surprise, that one of Alex’s final monologues fitted my own position more perfectly than anything else: “There is nothing wrong with being human,” Hell, I came as close as I ever have, with regards to deep thinking in a game, to cheering. The line was perfect, as I regarded all other sides’ efforts to change humanity immoral and wrong (because they sought to change fundamental human nature and enforce it regardless of popular opinion). The Templar, in that regard, weren’t looking for that. They wanted a status quo genome and I agreed. Course, their ending is a return to the Dark Ages and Inquisition (which didn’t surprise me) and reinforced why I didn’t choose the TK until last as taking a step backwards is pointless to me. But for one brief shining moment I understood why the designers allowed you to side with the Templar and why Billie choose them. She was willing to see a return to the Dark Ages of Thought rather then have a crazy Utopia, Big Brother World, or Human Borg and though I’m not sure I agree, I can understand. In summary, I would honestly be surprised if anyone choose the Templar ending as his, or her, first choice, because there can be no doubt that TK are the Klu Klux Klan of the future. Compare the evidence: The average Paladin is a white (are there any black Paladins, seriously?) bigot. The TK are shrouded in religious symbolism and militancy the same way the KKK are, and heck both their respective leaders are called Grand Masters! But the KKK oppose racial groups because of a perceived sense of inferiority as well as using them as scapegoats for other failures. The TK oppose those who advocate a dramatic change in the basic laws of human life as well as change itself, and I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with their former opinion. But I did not choose the Templar because I knew, in the end, they, and groups like them fall victim to the pettiness and bigotry inherent in their system; but I’ll be damned if I don’t admit that the Templars embraced, among other more unpleasant things, a basic concept that I agreed with one hundred percent. 
|
|
#2
12-31-2003, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greys?
The beliefs of the knights templar came out straight forward and didn't contain the mass amount multiplicity you describe. I think your adding more complexity than what is presented. No offence but I could wipe up a potent philosophical argument about any sci-fi story if I felt passionate about it.
I look at DX:IW as grayer than the original. DX had clear good and evil; you just had to choose which fraction of the good whether it was tong, illuminati, or Helios. All good endings with good intentions that opposed bob page the total evil. With IW there was no ultimate even only choices of "grays". There was no ONE evil to fill in for Bob Page. That’s what I felt IW was missing in its storyline but thats besides you post...
|
|
#3
12-31-2003, 02:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great post, Rommel.
 I viewed the Templar ending last, but I also found myself agreeing with their ideas. The great thing about DX:IW's story is that it asks questions like 'does the end justify the means?', as the Templars argued. And that's a very relevant question right now.I hope you take the time to look at the other groups too. 
|
|
#5
12-31-2003, 09:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The templars are no different then the Nazis. Both wanted to purify the world. I also think the devs tried to paint the templars as the bad guy, mostly because you are against them the whole game up untill the end, when you have the choice.
|
|
#6
12-31-2003, 09:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IRT Don
I have no problem with improving the human condition, but I do have a probalem with forcing what one would preceive as improvements on others as well as allowing an Ai construct to moniter my thoughts.
|
|
#7
12-31-2003, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is the world that the Illuminati and JC Denton wanted to create, and that is the world that the Knights Templar wanted to destroy. Are the Knights Templar racist, evil, and bigoted? Yes, but surprise, surprise, they offer the only GOOD path for humanity. The only path that even LEADS to humanity. The Illuminati want to eliminate individuality by propaganda and constant surveillance of every citizen. There is no doubt in my mind that they represent George Orwell's 1984, where citizens are so stupid that they can say, "Well, the Ministry of Plenty is doing very well today," and then ask if anyone has a razor blade without realizing the irony in that because they've been so effectively disciplined in doublethink. Has ANYBODY here read ANY dystopian novels? I mean seriously, this surprises me, as CLEARLY Deus Ex Invisible War takes MANY themes from George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. I can't believe that nobody else has brought this up. The Illuminati want power for the SAKE of power. This is *EXACTLY* what the Party wanted to do. Here is an excerpt from the novel to prove my point. "He came closer to the bed. ‘For ever!’ he repeated. ‘And now let us get back to the question of “how” and “why”. You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,’ he added as Winston remained silent. Nevertheless Winston did not speak for another moment or two. A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad gleam of enthusiasm had come back into O’Brien’s face. He knew in advance what O’Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. The terrible thing, thought Winston, the terrible thing was that when O’Brien said this he would believe it. You could see it in his face. O’Brien knew everything. A thousand times better than Winston he knew what the world was really like, in what degradation the mass of human beings lived and by what lies and barbarities the Party kept them there. He had understood it all, weighed it all, and it made no difference: all was justified by the ultimate purpose. What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? ‘You are ruling over us for our own good,’ he said feebly. ‘You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore—’ He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O’Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five. ‘That was stupid, Winston, stupid!’ he said. ‘You should know better than to say a thing like that.’ He pulled the lever back and continued: ‘Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’ Winston was struck, as he had been struck before, by the tiredness of O’Brien’s face. It was strong and fleshy and brutal, it was full of intelligence and a sort of controlled passion before which he felt himself helpless; but it was tired. There were pouches under the eyes, the skin sagged from the cheekbones. O’Brien leaned over him, deliberately bringing the worn face nearer. ‘You are thinking,’ he said, ‘that my face is old and tired. You are thinking that I talk of power, and yet I am not even able to prevent the decay of my own body. Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell? The weariness of the cell is the vigour of the organism. Do you die when you cut your fingernails?’ He turned away from the bed and began strolling up and down again, one hand in his pocket. ‘We are the priests of power,’ he said. ‘God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: “Freedom is Slavery”. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone — free — the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter — external reality, as you would call it — is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute.’" This is EXACTLY like the Illuminati. They don't want power for the good of the majority, but for the sake of power itself. Clearly the Illuminati ending is very bleak. Now look at JC Denton's ending. Everybody is happy, there is no suffering, people are unified, there is no war, and the economy prospers. Hm.... Let me see here... Yes... I do believe that every one of those items can also be applied to Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. Indeed, everybody is happy...how could they not be happy? They've been completely and utterly brainwashed into thinking their world is flawless, and the government supports constant sex and drugs (Soma) to get rid of any lingering doubts. Very few people in A Brave New World could be bothered to stop to think how shallow and meaningless their lives are when they are too busy having constant sex and popping soma tablets to get high whenever they feel depressed. Everybody is happy NOT because the world is good, but because they've been CONDITIONED to be happy. This is even a theme in 1984-even the most MISERABLE citizens of Oceania fully support the government-they can't help it, they're mere shadows of humanity. There is no suffering in JC Denton's world, therefore every good thing is without meaning. People in JC Denton's world are like insects. Their lives are shallow and pointless. No accomplishment is worth a  when there is absolutely nothing bad in the world to compare it to.Think a world without conflict would be nice? Think again. Think about reading a book that had zero conflict in it. Would it not repulse you? Would you not throw it in the trash? ART DEPENDS ON SUFFERING AND CONFLICT Books depend on conflict to appeal to people. Without conflict, there is no appeal. In JC Denton's world, there are no books worth reading. There will be no movies worth watching and all of the music and the paintings will be empty of meaning. I've heard the argument before, "Oh, in JC Denton's ending, there is still emotion!" No there isn't, for crying out loud. Emotion CAN NOT SURVIVE in JC Denton's world. All art has been destroyed for the sake of "happiness." This is EXACTLY like A Brave New World. Let me illustrate this with an excerpt from the Savage's debate with Mustapha Mond. "But the new ones are so stupid and horrible. Those plays, where there's nothing but helicopters flying about and you feel the people kissing." He made a grimace. "Goats and monkeys!" Only in Othello's word could he find an adequate vehicle for his contempt and hatred. "Nice tame animals, anyhow," the controller murmured parenthetically. "Why don't you let them see Othello instead?" "I've told you;it's old. Besides, they couldn't understand it." THAT IS RIGHT. In JC Denton's world, THERE IS NO SHAKESPEARE. THERE IS NO OTHELLO. THERE IS NO MACBETH, NO ROMEO AND JULIET, NO HAMLET. People can not understand art in a utopian world because ART DEPENDS ON CONFLICT. "Why not?" [Why not make a new version of Othello for the new world utopia] "Because our world is not the same as Othello's world. You can't make flivvers without steel--and you can't make tragedies without social instability." "What?" questioned the Savage, uncomprehending. "It's one of the conditions of perfect health. That's why we've made the V.P.S. treatements compulsory." "V.P.S.?" "Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenin. It's the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences." "But I like the inconveniences." "We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably." "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy." "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy." "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence. "I claim them all," said the Savage at last. Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said. As you can see, DX2 has a lot of themes from Orwell and Huxley. If you really want to enjoy the storyline of Deus Ex Invisible War then I would have to say that you HAVE to read these books. And then there is the abolition of individuality. Remember when Helios said, "Yes...share...your mind...with everyone."? Well, that points to there being no individuality in JC Denton's world. Which isn't surprising, seeing as we've already established that art cannot exist in such an environment. Indeed, the citizens of JC Denton's utopia aren't really human beings. They're CELLS. Cells of a larger organism. This theme is explained in both 1984 and A Brave New World. In 1984, O'Brien cooly explains (as he tortures Winston) that the Party can never be overthrown, because every "individual" is just a cell of a larger organism-The Party. In A Brave New World, someone comments that murder is the least of all crimes, because murder only eliminates one cell. The real crime in A Brave New World is disagreeing with the World State's utopian agenda-that affects multiple cells, and could (theoretically) bring down the whole organism-The World State. Now let's move on to the Renegade ending. This was the first ending that I picked, because I thought the resulting anarchy would end with the formation of stable countries that through the course of years would develop from despotisms to monarchies to democracies. However, that was not the case. Instead, rather than having what I call the "volcano effect" the anarchy in the Renegade ending had a "nuclear bomb" effect on the world. Now, let's look at the Knights Templar. When they take over, they plunge the world back into the Dark Ages. This is a GOOD thing. Humanity was so close to completely transforming itself that it NEEDED to be pushed back a few centuries. I call upon all historian and science personalities here to consider this from a historical and scientific perspective. Pushing man back to the Dark Ages would be like a volcano destroying a forest. Everything is destroyed. All progress is undone. Complete devastation of the ecosystem. And guess what happens? The burnt trees and organic matter form a rich soil base that within a century will begin to support an even more impressive ecosystem than the one before it. THE DESTRUCTION WAS IN THE END A GOOD THING And guess what is going to happen with the Knights Templar ending? The people will suffer greatly for many centuries, until a middle class emerges. This middle class will overthrow the feudal system (for it will likely be a feudal system) and lead humanity to a RENAISSANCE! That is right! A RENAISSANCE. The world will be better off in the end for being pushed back into the Dark Ages. Surely those of you who studied population growth in Science back in high school will understand where I am coming from. POPULATION GROWTH HAS UPS AND DOWNS-FLUCTUATIONS. THESE ARE NECESSARY, HEALTHY, NATURAL. YOU THINK THAT BEING PUSHED BACK TO THE DARK AGES IS BAD, BUT IT IS ONLY A FLUCTUATION IN POPULATION GROWTH...THE POPULATION GOES DOWN, THEN IT COMES BACK UP. IT IS NATURAL, HEALTHY, AND NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE SPECIES. And by the way, while I didn't choose the Knights Templar the first time, I did choose it the second time. And because I am a historically-minded person, I can look past the present of the ending and look towards a brighter future. Which, sadly, some people can't do.
|
|
#8
12-31-2003, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In regards to Hotlead's comments, my post is an attempt at explaining, in greater detail, the fundamental Templar beliefs along with a character analysis based on the Paladins you meet in the game. I do not in any way attempt to put words in their mouth; my comments are elaborations of what you are told in game. And yes, you could argue passionately about anything, that's a given, what’s more important is that say your piece and move on with life.
In regards to Don, I never once claimed that the Templar will bring about a "prosperous society", in fact I argued quite the opposite. My concession to the Templar was a basic agreement with one of their tenants. Secondly, I am not sure biomods are a good thing or that they will "better the human condition". If you’re still confused please reread my post as I think you misunderstood it. I also think that Haethurn is very correct when he says the Illuminati are a symbolic extension of George Orwell's "Big Brother", however I would disagree with their intentions. The Illuminati truly believe in paternalism, that is humanity should be lead like sheep, not in power for the sake of personal gain. I'll cover that in more detail if I get around to writing the others. Finally I would like to say that reading some of these posts has been very interesting intellectually (I honestly couldn't conceive of anyone arguing passionately in support of the Templar side but it's here in electronic glory). It seems apparent that Dues Ex video game is a platform not only to showcase what a new graphics engine can do, but also to point out that an intelligent storyline can be conducive for, and not hinder, first person shooters. Here's hoping this becomes a trend.
|
|
#9
12-31-2003, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look at the Jews, they are abomonations! They deny the loving teachings of christ, teaching of compation, and mercy, certainly people like these infedels can only harm society! Destroy their dispicipal kind, and society can only prosper!
I think i made my point. This is exacaly the kind of propagnda that Saman spewed out to monopolize power and profit. Hateful attitudes like those are the root of evil. "if the human body is wholly scripture, none have burned more then the Templars."
|
|
#10
12-31-2003, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sure, they're racist. But they're the only hope for humanity. Every other ending is pretty much final. Mankind has achieved a certain condition and it will likely remain in that condition for eternity. With the Knights Templar ending, man gets pushed into the Dark Ages, but there isn't any indication that this would be static and would never change. In fact, it is very likely that a middle class would arise that would overthrow the feudal system and lead humanity into a Renaissance-just like what happened with our own dark ages, which has already happened.
|
|
#11
12-31-2003, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What can I say? Haethurn is right. The Templars are hateful idiots but the other endings are final and highly likely to be permanent. That was the whole concept of why the Party operated the way it did in 1984. The idea was to construct a society in which those leading could never be removed from power because nobody would have ability to do so. The Party was forever and so was the JC ending and the Illuminati ending. The Templars were hateful, yes, but their ending was not final. It was a new begining. Soon enough people would rise against them and change would begin. It's inevitable. It's the only ending of the 3 major ones that offered any kind of hope (though it would certainly start out rocky).
|
|
#12
12-31-2003, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perhaps I should have covered this more clearly, but even though choosing the Templar MAY result in future uprisings there is no guarantee (Same goes for the Illumanti, Denton, or the Omar). The crux of Invisible War is that humanity is not only to reach an understanding with technology but also for a unified sociology that encompasses the entire human race. In Dues Ex, people are moving towards a single international order and the player gets to decide WHO will lead humans into the future. The first game dodged the issue, choosing the Helios-merger and then having J.C. hibernate in order to allow a "normal" balance of power system to emerge (which I am quite comfortable with and it seems a number of other people are too). The sequel goes back to tackling the issue and does not provide an "out" for the player to utilize; we have to make a choice.
Therefore, consider the reach of current centralized governments and the fact that in Dues Ex there will be only one government; it is not a good idea to assume that just because you side with one group things will turn out "O.K." in the end.
|
|
#13
12-31-2003, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But the Templar ending is the only one that doesn't create a single government ruling over all. I fail to see how anyone living in the dark ages could effectively rule the whole world. It would not be possible. The Templars would be overthrown in time and humanity would begin anew. It's inevitable. The other endings are final and destructive.
|
|
#14
12-31-2003, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the problem with the templar ending is it would do nothing but create a vicious cycle. it's obvious that if man were to be put back into the dark ages, that man would eventually break away and make another advancement into the next "age".
ok, so another renaissance. but would it be needed? very unlikely. the notion of destroying technology, knowledge (even though it's not mentioned, knowledge would be lost through de-evolution, which is what the templar plan would create), and putting a barrier on human evolution is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen for the species. since it would be nothing more than a step or two backwards, when stepping backwards isn't what's needed. especially since it'll leave humanity at an extremely vulnerable point in it's existence in a system (not political, but natural) that has been significantly degraded. now, i haven't read 1984 or a brave new world, but from what i've read from your posts haethurn is that these writings have instilled within ya such a fear that ya can't clearly think for yourself. art comes from many things being used as inspiration. and is not only created from pain. the jc ending does'nt strike me as the grand finale at all. so i don't believe it would end suffering nor would everyone be happy. as for war ending...doubtful. these are products of human nature. and in no way did a bunch of nanotech molecules becoming apart of humans come off as being a method of eliminating human nature. all it struck me as was a means of doing just what the ending suggested, giving everyone a more equal chance. equal chance to resisting diseases, scoring 1600 on the SATs, getting jobs, having kids, etc etc. this DOES NOT mean life would be plain. as long as choice is still available (something else the ending didn't suggest eliminating), the populace would still have many a chance to be individuals.
|
|
#15
01-01-2004, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Winston you misunderstand the Templar ending I'm afraid. It takes place in a Templar cathedral similar to the one in Trier which indicates visually that the Templar are in power. Additionally, check your goals in game for confirmation, as it states in the "Templar Flood" that supporting them "will cleanse the world of nanotechnology and bring the Templar to power".
As for the chances of the Templar imposed Dark Ages ending I'll cut and past what I posted in another forum: "Haethurn you seem to imply that the Dark Age is a good thing. In the very least respect because humanity has endured it before and will emerge from it again. If I am correct on your assessment, it is very dangerous to make that assumption. There are key differences separating the Dark Age following the collapse of the Roman Empire and one that would hypothetically be enforced on humanity by the Templar. Namely that the historical age happened only in Europe and it was brought about unknowingly by Germanic tribes who sensed a realpolitik weakness on the part of the Western Roman Empire. The Templar accomplish the exact opposite: they enforce their system on the entire world (meaning a deft of outside knowledge that could influence change in the current system (Take "1984", or the fact that America's Independence was brought about from influence by the teachings of Europeans, John Locke, etc., for example)) and do so willingly with full understanding of the consequences. People who not only support but enforce a system of stupidity will be much more difficult to dislodge than a literal gap of knowledge that only needs filling." Additionally, it might be best not to regard what the Templar impose as another "Dark Age" but rather as a state system that enforces narrow-mindedness.
|
|
#16
01-01-2004, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But without the technology the Templars couldn't hold everyone forever. It's only a matter of time. The other endings leave humanity forever shackled to computers with privacy and liberty forever destroyed and no hope of it ever returning. The Templar ending is a bummer, no doubt, but I don't care if they effectively ruled the entire planet because without technology they wouldn't last long. They don't have the proper means to totally enslave everyone they way the other endings do. Were this game real I'd take the stupid Templars any day. At least I could actually rebel against them.
|
|
#17
01-01-2004, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
While we're on the topic, I thought I'd bring up a question thats bugging me: Who exactly WAS being hanged on that last noose, after the grey? Are we see are a pair of white pants.
I assume it was a scientist, but perhaps I missed something. Anyone else have any thoughts?
|
|
#18
01-01-2004, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You're living in a dream world. I can't believe you had the nerve to add that. I've read several of your posts and each strengthens my resolve to develop the technology to its fullest potential. Not out of hate or spite, but rather because it will allow those with open minds and the will to lead a better existence need a way to set themselves clearly above the rest. I don't want to spread this technology throughout the world, let alone impose it on people, there is no reason to. It is unlikely that you will ever be in a position of power, and this is fortunate for two main reasons. First, people with your ignorant attitude have brought about some of the greatest tragedies in human history. And second, you will never be able to stop us. These false intentions you keep labelling us with are only reality in your warped mind. Never had I thought that a computer game could possibly give me such a good opportunity to gauge the opposition to this coming revolution in technology.
|
|
#19
01-01-2004, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Winston, the Templar only want to destroy nanotechnology and prevent changes to the fundamental human genome; they never ask people to return to an agrarian society. Also, at the end of the game you are asked to give control of the Aquinas network to the Templar. It is doubtful that an egoist like Saman would simply use it to destroy nanotechnology and then let it go. So, I'm fairly convinced siding with the Templar would bring about a fundamentalist world-wide government with the ruthless will to maintain control. If you disagree, that's fine; this is all fun hypothetical conjecture.
Shroom, they never say who was hanged I think. I'm guessing, like you, it was a scientist; as a symbolic way of showing the Templar resolve to remove anything or anyone linked to nanotechnology. Don, lighten up. Posts like that only start a flame war and this is a video game. I could understand such animosity towards a real issue but this is a literary discussion. Also, though you may feel that technology is continually an uplifting source for humankind, but I think one of the tenants of the Dues Ex is that technology is not. For example, nanotechnology, while bringing about advances that turn people into superheroes, allows for a self-perpetuating aristocracy (Hardly an ideal scenario). Things like the N.G. Resonance sim allow for coporate or government monitoring of citizen's (Big Brother knows about that poor sod who tell N.G. about his love life in the game) and the Gray Death was a corporate induced disease. I believe Dues Ex people would argue that while technology is a good thing, HOW people would use it is another issue entirely.
|
|
#20
01-01-2004, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rommel, I understand what you are saying but just because it is slightly off-topic doesn't mean you have to shoot it down. Why can't we discuss something seriously? I wasn't talking about the game after all. What's wrong with defending an ideal?
|
|
#21
01-01-2004, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
01-01-2004, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Humans have had a hierarchy since the very beginning. It's natural. People should have to work to be equal to others. The government shouldn't make them equal. The Dark Ages would only simulate a fluctuation in population size. It's natural. Do you really think that humanity can progress forever and ever, without stopping? How asinine, when nature has proven that every species, *EVERY SPECIES*, has a rise in population growth, then it has a steep decline in population growth. It goes through an establishment stage, and then it goes through a rapid population growth stage. After that, the species expands to its limits and there is a decline. Currently humanity is in rapid population growth and it is only a matter of time before some disaster happens that will wipe out a large number of people, causing a decline. It is only natural! Nature WILL NOT let us expand unheeded. We will reach our limit, just like every species before us, and we will decline. Why do you seek to defeat nature? What folly is this? Accept that we are going to take steps forward, and take steps back, and forward, and back. Up and down. Fluctuations on a line graph. Population growth cannot continue forever. You have all learned this already in school. By trying to construct a utopian world you are ignoring the facts of life, the facts of science-yes, that thing which you so zealously defend. You have heard them say that the glass is half empty, and that the glass is half full. I say to you that the glass exists in both conditions simultaneously. Ups and downs on a line graph. Last edited by Haethurn; 01-01-2004 at 12:44 PM.
|
|
#23
01-01-2004, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow Haethurn. I'm surprised you haven't burned your computer already because it's "an affront to the Gods". Have you any idea what technology is? It's the process of using our knowledge to better mankind. While our growth may be flucuations on a line grapgh, technology can easily remedy that. Running out of food for people to eat? Simple. Construct hypodronic facilities and stimulate the agricultural economy while researching new methods of boosting food production. Running out of space for people to live? Easy. Research new methods of architecture and construction. Mass-produce skyscraper appartments. Create underground/underwater living facilities. Running out of water to drink? Air to breathe? Piece of cake. Produce more. Use electrolysis on the ocean. Plant trees. Research new methods of purifying the air and water. Discover new ways to convert carbon dioxide back to oxygen. We are humans you sanctimonious fool. It is our nature to use technology to overcome these problems. Not accept the end simply because we are fated to be a flucuation on a line grapgh. Humans can easily defeat nature. We have for thousands of years. When humans reach their limits, they don't crawl off and die, they expand their limits. Go back to hugging your trees you druid.
__________________
Genocide...a viable solution, to any problem. "Ok, this is how it's gonna work. I'm gonna leave, and I'm gonna come back in a few minutes. And if you're still there, I'm gonna break your skull. And I'm gonna get arrested, and I'm gonna go to jail. And you know what? I don't care. And when I get out of jail, roughly around the same time you get out of your coma, I'm gonna hunt you down, and I'm gonna break your skull again. And I'll get arrested again and I'll go back to jail. And you know what? I still don't care." "How'd ya like to taste Bolt-1 at full-auto?" -Black Mage
|
|
#24
01-01-2004, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When the population reaches a certain point, there will be unrest and war will break out. People will get tired of living in their skyscraper apartments, their underground cities and underwater settlements. There will be a nagging little voice in their heads, a remnant of humanity, telling them that life was not meant to be so claustrophobic, that the tempo of life is too fast. People will direct this uncomfortable feeling towards other people, war will break out, institutions will be destroyed, there will be a decline in population. The world can't support an infinite number of people. You say accept the end. I say there is no end. The decline on the line graph does not mean the end. It is merely a fluctuation. It will go back up in time. Unless we are driven to extinction (an unlikely possibility, to say the least), then it will be a cycle. An endless cycle of ups and downs. You can expand your limits, but you are only stretching them. They will be broken and then there will be a decline. It is as simple as that.
|
|
#25
01-01-2004, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2) agreed. but not once did the game suggest that with the jc ending that there will be no more need for business, political, or even social structures. heirarchy will continue to exist. 3) of course not. way too many factors that can put an end to population growth. just cause the nanotech biology could greatly increase disease resistence, doesn't mean it's putting an end to disease. 4) correct again. what you're suggesting though is lets force it upon the world with the templar ending. and somehow fail to see the evil of it. a truly insipid and wanton choice. 5) no one is seeking to defeat nature. nature has the ability to run its course with or without intervention. with a technological age, or without. adaption is the key. and it doesn't require the forced limitation of the populace in order to acheive this. you still think that every possibility other than forced destruction is a means towards an utopian society. what i want to know is, how dense can you be? you're quite knowledgable haethurn, and i respect that. but ya seem to be confining yourself in this belief that only destruction can be good. granted, the evils this world has seen in the past, present, and most likely future have sped up human knowledge in various fields to astronomical levels. but it's not the only way for us to advance. utopian societies cannot exist. there will always be a rebel. its...natural. but your belief that forcing the bad is good is truly a leap in logic. history has, and always will repeat itself. regardless of which direction the world turns. so would it be necessary to force repetition? absolutely not.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
