Bay 12 Games Forum

Mm... one of the other discussions I found on th'net recommended boosting your starting gem income with astral, if you're going mage. Other than that and prioritizing gem producing provinces for exploration/growth boosting, there's not much you can do, yeah. I guess later you get access to markets or somethin' and might be able to do some gold->gem conversion, but I haven't hit that point yet. S'also the occasional building you can pick up from exploring locations you can stick in various provinces... no clue yet if you get something you can just build, ala a library or whatev'.

But yeah, the higher tier undead are kinda' amazing. Like I'd mentioned, had one of my dudes lucked on to a raise ghost spell (and a thousand curses for the necromancer (mage->scout) class not working as the text implies), which was pretty darn expensive but the buggers could solo entire armies of first or second rank creatures.

I occasionally pull out cheat engine and just give myself infinite gems and go wild >_>

Wouldn't that be more along the lines of speciesist? I guess vegetarianism would be, hrm. Kingdomist? Looks like that's about right.

Eesh, things have gone harsh the last handful of posts.

Yeah, own $0.02 is that I don't think humans are morally superior, at all. We're the world's top superpredators, and because of that have achieved dominance, but there's no prescriptive nature to that -- no "should" in relation to our ability to (functionally) value ourselves more than other species. Frankly, they can't stop us, and that's the absolute core of the difference between humanity and the rest of the animals -- most attempts I've seen to find justification otherwise is just an attempt to rationalize what amounts to atrocity. Most of our population isn't noticeably different from "lesser" species, behaviorally; there's not really a hard factual line to draw between homo sapiens and the rest of the fleshy things roaming around the planet.

We've got somewhat more impressive communication abilities, our tool-use has managed an interesting sort of generational development that's done some really neat things, and we've got some neat physical tricks that let us leverage that to the point we took over, but that's not really a moral or objective superiority, imo. More of a "victor writing history" sort of thing.

Which... I don't try to justify it. It's a horrible thing, but, y'know, we're the group-enabled superpredator, and the non-human world is our victim. Until a majority of our species actually groks that what we're doing is morally bankrupt and basically nothing but dominance play (no better than a dog, y'ken?) or a better predator comes along, nothing is going to stop us. What we do to other species is far from the greatest moral atrocity we commit with regularity, heh.

So: Mandatory treatment for suicidal people!

We's gon' need some hella' better methodology, then. And a way to fix society, or at least the individual's local environment. Lot of cases when we as a people have gone in and tried to "fix" someone that's "psychologically damaged" our... neither the methods nor the results have been what I'd call the most palatable, y'know? It's a really damned tricky subject, and mandatory treatment is a really dangerous thing to attempt to actually implement.

Just so long as you realize all that, I guess.

... even if you don't make the attempt?

I have a feeling that you might be blaming yourself for your actions too much Frumple, all you need to do is consider the outcomes of your own actions, which is killing and not killing. That's where the idea of a net good comes in, from your own actions. The situation is still fucked yes, and it is a net loss for society no matter what happens, but that is past already.

Likely to a degree, yeah. But I'd rejoinder -- if it's not a net good for society, how is it a net good at all? If it's good for me but bad for society, or vise versa, at best you have cancellation -- a positive and a negative canceling (how can society be genuinely improved if I am lessened, how can I genuinely be improved if society is lessened? Either way, both are lesser than they could have been.) out, unless you start weighting virtues or whathaveyou -- and I tend to start this kind of ethical reasoning with the base precept that human life is infinitely valuable. I don't even particularly believe that (personally, I lean toward nihilistic equality -- all things value is equal because all things have no value), but that's the party line just about everyone seems to spout. And by the nonexistent gods, if that's what they're going to say I'm damn well going to hold 'em to that standard, y'know?

Slight tangent aside, I won't say this as a descriptive thing, but a prescriptive statement for myself: Moral action involving other people must consider the consequences of the action beyond the self and the immediate consequences if it is to be considered moral. If it is not a net benefit to all involved and casually connected (and remember, death means an infinite negative thrown into the equation), then it is an best amoral -- not moral. Not necessarily immoral. Just not moral.

I'm actually fine with amoral action. One of my highest virtues is optimization (greatest effect with least waste and least cost). Amoral action is not fully optimized (Full optimization may be flatly impossible, as that would take nothing but improvement, with no harm and no effort. But I'm okay with an unreachable goal. Means there's room for improvement.), but it may be most optimal (i.e., the act closest to [a sort of Platonic, to be fair] optimal). A most optimal choice is best choice (and thus the one that should be sought), if not a genuinely good or beneficial one. Sometimes you just have to do what you can to keep things from being worse than they could be. But I don't count making a bad situation not as bad as good. Just... least bad. Or less bad. Which is, well. Better than the alternative.

"And lo', we put on our troll masks and sacrifice in the name of QUETZALROFL, god of rain and lulz! Truly this day, though it is our last on this plane of existence, we have rolled some n00bs. M@y@n5 pwn j00."

Well, child labor is obviously counter-productive.
I could have little Johnny here making teapots for his entire life, or he could study for his degree in some helpful science field.
Children are just like... seeds. Plant them, and they'll grow. Eat them, and, well, that was a short lived victory.

Kids have a lot of time they're not studying or doing something useful. Might as well make 'em work! There's plenty who we know early on will likely never be able to make it in a science field. Should go ahead and set those ones on teacups, right?

And what about higher education? No collage unless you're also working a full time job? Or maybe just a complete dissolving of any grants/loans/public schooling/etc. Sounds about what you were aiming for, yes? No handouts, only get what you work for! Meh, maybe I should stop snarking while I'm ahead, I'unno.

And... going down the line of "fixing" non-neurotypical individuals is walking a delightfully slippery ledge we probably should just pre-emptively avoid.