So, to be clear on this, the ultimates are not going away, they're included in the book. We simply chose not to list them in the abbreviated section on choosing a faction in chargen. If you really wanted to still play an ultimate (hopefully a non-fascist one!), you still can, and it's as easy as choosing the Ultimate Faction motivation in that step -- just as you could with any of the other (mostly smaller) factions we don't include in the list. We just chose not to push them as a primary choice.

RobBoyle wrote:

So, to be clear on this, the ultimates are not going away, they're included in the book. We simply chose not to list them in the abbreviated section on choosing a faction in chargen...

I'm glad that Ultimates are still playable. I was worried there for a bit. Edit: I hope they don't make it too hard to play them.

RobBoyle wrote:

So, to be clear on this, the ultimates are not going away, they're included in the book. We simply chose not to list them in the abbreviated section on choosing a faction in chargen. If you really wanted to still play an ultimate (hopefully a non-fascist one!), you still can, and it's as easy as choosing the Ultimate Faction motivation in that step -- just as you could with any of the other (mostly smaller) factions we don't include in the list. We just chose not to push them as a primary choice.

Would fascism even exist in a future where race is as interchangeable as clothing? Maybe on Luna or in the Jovian Republic, but in my head canon most people see race as an adjective rather than an identity. For example, the "N" word would be used to describe anyone who does something violent and without thought (see that one episode of the Boondocks), and considering how Judaism exists on one obscure habitat, it's much more likely that "Jew" would be a Barsoomian word for corporate types who are greedy and pushing an agenda of corruption.

Yes fascism can exist in the future. Its an us verses them attitude. Visibly different races is an easy target, but not the only targets. It could be Americans verses Soviet Union. It could be Republicans vs Democrats. It could be Ultimates vs genetrash, or even "humanity" vs soulless transhuman monsters.

I figured fascism wasn't just about race (thought it's the only thing us unenlightened think about). Still, removing Ultimates from the faction list (as unimportant as it is) seems like a bit much. I mean, if fascism is an "us vs them" thing (minus the authoritarian part), then you can argue that anyone with an ideology is a fascist who doesn't get violent over their views.

Yeah, I'm opposed to their removal as a playable faction. The Ultimates are an interesting faction; one of the few that engage in maximal morphological freedom and self-improvement. They should be a source of X-Risks, but so should every faction; that's a part of the point of them even being in the game. The Ultimates, as a general rule, are probably going to come across as chauvinistic bullies (because many, perhaps almost all of them, will be; you don't get healthy mindsets by telling people "You are the best and can do whatever you want to other people in your pursuit of transcendance"), but they represent an interesting set of ideas that can and should be available for players and GMs to address. I also don't really get the suggestion that the Ultimates are fascists. Fascism is only similar to the Ultimates on a superficial level, because both groups are chauvinists who believe that certain people are superior to others. Fascists, though, believe in the subsumation of the individual to the greater whole; into the volk, the state, the faith, whatever. Ultimates are radical individualists and egoists, who see the pursuit of self-improvement and immortality as the only worthwhile pursuit, with all those who refuse to pursue such things as essentially being fodder. They're viciously amoral and worship Der Wille Zur Macht, but they don't believe might makes right, as there is no "right" to be had. An Ultimate simply acknowledges that someone else had the power to take something; there is no moral argument to be made beyond that. The Jovian Republic is textbook fascist, in the classic military dictator style; the individual subsumed into the whole, with a general practice of autarky and a worship of the faceless, servile citizen as the ideal.

DivineWrath wrote:

Well, fascism is more of a hostile, violent, and fearful thing. You don't think that the other should be allowed to exist. You don't care about the means... I need to check my facts to make sure I'm getting this right.

Hmmm, when you put it that way, fascism starts to remind me of some other ideological movements I've heard of...

I don't really get how the Ultimates are fascists though. My understanding is the fascism is characterized by authoritarian nationalism and statism, and, by my understanding, the Ultimates are somewhere between a PMC and a warrior brotherhood. The ultimates as written in Rimward and X Risks don't seem to have a strong central leader (The Demiurge Manu Bhattacharya doesn't appear to be a real dictator, and seems pretty hands off). They just seem to individualistic to fit my understanding of fascism. I am definitely not an expert here though, so maybe this kind of hardline superiority thing still fits without the social organization aspects.

Grim G wrote:

TheGrue wrote:

DivineWrath wrote:

Well, fascism is more of a hostile, violent, and fearful thing. You don't think that the other should be allowed to exist. You don't care about the means... I need to check my facts to make sure I'm getting this right.

Hmmm, when you put it that way, fascism starts to remind me of some other ideological movements I've heard of...

Commies? Or the Antifa idiots that make anarchists like myself want to promote an old and dried up meme of a frog holding a Jude star out of spite?

Old memes never die, they just fade away.

I think I was mixing fascism with authoritarianism. Fascism has many things about it that authoritarians would back. So fascism tends to have some flavors of authoritarianism. However, authoritarians are their own thing and will back other systems of government or political ideologies. Fascism seems to view violence as a tool of purity. In Italy before WW2, they used force to remove communism. This was before Jews became a target. Many Jews in Italy at that time did well before Mussolini decided to become better friends with the Nazi party in Germany. We're all authoritarian to some extent, some more than others. We can all fall into traps that bring out our authoritarian side. Authoritarians are more fearful and vindictive. The are more easily convinced that any problem you pick is the greatest problem we face, and they are more forgiving of their leaders. For instance, many Nazis did not believe that Hitler had any knowledge of the genocide of the Jews. Generally, a good counter for authoritarians is education and new experiences. Colleges are good places for that to happen.

I get the impression the removal of the Ultimates as a playable faction has less to do with them fitting a dictionary definition of fascism and more to do with the way people seem to uncritically embrace them and selectively ignore what the Ultimates are actually consequentially about for the sake of a romanticized vision of them. I get how that might make them uncomfortable. The game does a rather good job of being harsh on illusions that the Planetary Consortium or the Jovian Republic are uncritical good guys. It is not so good about doing that with Anarchist groups, but anarchist groups are sufficiently broad that there isn't really a huge amount of harm done there. But people seem to really buy into the Ultimates in an uncritical fashion which is deeply unsettling, so I get where the discomfort is coming from. Again, it's mostly a non-issue because factions are not what they were in 1e.

Given the world's actual history with anarchism, I wouldn't say that uncritical embracing of it can be said to be harmless. The setting itself features a fairly significant number of anarchist terrorist groups, yet never actually addresses this any time anarchist politics are brought up or discussed. Even the Jovian section of Rimward, written from the perspective of a Jovian loyalist, calls anarchist suicide bombers detonating themselves around civilians (who lack back-ups in many cases, I might add) "freedom fighters". I also don't know where the books ever paint the hypercorps or the Jovian Republic as being the "good guys". They're pretty unambiguous in painting these groups as villainous, with the PC outright contemplating using mind-controlling drugs in the water supply, and the Jovian Republic naming one of its major habs after friggin' Pinochet. Eclipse Phase needs its moral greys. It needs diversity of politics and factions, warts and all. The Planetary Consortium comes closest to getting this just right; just at the right edge of cynical, where your average person's quality of life is reasonable but, ultimately, there's a systemic blight and unfairness that perpetuates oligarchic hegemony and allows what amounts to outright slavery. At the same time, the PC has also managed to provide the most good (and goods) for the most people; caring for more souls than all the rest of the system combined. We need the same sorts of critical glances at other habs and polities; to highlight the good AND the bad. The Ultimates are just one more faction on the list. They're the voice for nihilism in the system; reminding everyone that they exist in a cold, uncaring universe, and that humanistic assumptions of morality aren't actually universal constants. They represent a breaking of the mould and giving the question of self-definition to us. Turns out most of them chose to be assholes, but such is life.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

Given the world's actual history with anarchism, I wouldn't say that uncritical embracing of it can be said to be harmless.

I suppose I agree, but my point was really that people are sufficiently skeptical going into the books that they don't uncritically embrace anarchism because of their positionality.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

The setting itself features a fairly significant number of anarchist terrorist groups, yet never actually addresses this any time anarchist politics are brought up or discussed. Even the Jovian section of Rimward, written from the perspective of a Jovian loyalist, calls anarchist suicide bombers detonating themselves around civilians (who lack back-ups in many cases, I might add) "freedom fighters".

More discussion of this should happen!

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

I also don't know where the books ever paint the hypercorps or the Jovian Republic as being the "good guys". They're pretty unambiguous in painting these groups as villainous, with the PC outright contemplating using mind-controlling drugs in the water supply, and the Jovian Republic naming one of its major habs after friggin' Pinochet.

I... Don't know if you got this from my post, because my point was that the books do not paint the PC or the Jovians in a positive light, so it's much harder for people to 'drink the kool aid' from their sections. They feel comfortable that people who are reading them are doing so from a critical position rather than an uncritical one. The method by which they do so is heavy-handed, but you're never going to walk away from an eclipse phase book with a textual reading that suggests that the PC or the JR are unvarnished good guys.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

Eclipse Phase needs its moral greys. It needs diversity of politics and factions, warts and all. The Planetary Consortium comes closest to getting this just right; just at the right edge of cynical, where your average person's quality of life is reasonable but, ultimately, there's a systemic blight and unfairness that perpetuates oligarchic hegemony and allows what amounts to outright slavery. At the same time, the PC has also managed to provide the most good (and goods) for the most people; caring for more souls than all the rest of the system combined.

Yes.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

We need the same sorts of critical glances at other habs and polities; to highlight the good AND the bad.

I think separating things into a dichotomous good or bad is part of the problem, but critical glances at the polities are good.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

The Ultimates are just one more faction on the list. They're the voice for nihilism in the system; reminding everyone that they exist in a cold, uncaring universe, and that humanistic assumptions of morality aren't actually universal constants. They represent a breaking of the mould and giving the question of self-definition to us. Turns out most of them chose to be assholes, but such is life.

Sure! So it's a good thing that the books might trend towards being more self-aware about that fact, so as to prevent people from drinking the kool-aid and thinking that the Ultimates are all that, because that isn't actually a moral grey, and it seemed like in practice too many people were coming at them and thinking they're right without exploring the consequences of what that kind of acceptance might mean... ... Which leads rather nicely into exploring those consequences when you get the opportunity to discuss what the Ultimates as a faction look like in action. Accordingly, it might be what some in the Firewall community call an existential threat.

Leetsepeak wrote:

Sure! So it's a good thing that the books might trend towards being more self-aware about that fact, so as to prevent people from drinking the kool-aid and thinking that the Ultimates are all that, because that isn't actually a moral grey, and it seemed like in practice too many people were coming at them and thinking they're right without exploring the consequences of what that kind of acceptance might mean...

By that logic, the presence of the Drow in D&D raises the possibility of people "drinking the Kool-Aid" and worshipping Lolth the Spider God. That's bananas. I don't think anyone read the Ultimates sections in 1st Edition and thought they were good guys. Anti-heroes of an interesting kind, sure... but doubtful that anyone thinks they're a morally-kind faction. That said, it's a pretty hypocritical judgment to not want to "encourage" their portrayal as potential protagonists within a campaign setting where the PCs are expected to act as criminals and terrorists in support of a secret conspiracy hellbent on protecting the human race from threats at ANY cost. Imagine if the Gene Roddenberry estate demanded that Star Trek fans stop wearing, speaking or celebrating Klingon because they're a violent tribal race? Should Star Trek fans just accept that? Because that's what's happening here.

I see the Ultimates as being related to the Clans from Battletech, but without the requirement of being born into the movement and without the strict caste hierarchy. They're kind of like an incarnation of Plato's utopia; a place where the best X does the thing that an X does. If you're not the best X, you try to make yourself the best X, or you don't have a place in the Ultimates. That's not necessarily a place that you want to be forced to live in, but the Ultimates are very far non-authoritarian (despite the fact that they have clear command structures; the difference is that they do not seek maximum control of individuals' lives; individuals take maximum control of their lives). Of course, they do tend to pursue similar interest and methods, but that's more of a consequence of the sampling size we see in terms of material regarding the Ultimates and their warrior-philosopher schtick. Of course, the Overhumanists are bad, but I'd argue that they're not even real Ultimates.

Decivre wrote:

By that logic, the presence of the Drow in D&D raises the possibility of people "drinking the Kool-Aid" and worshipping Lolth the Spider God.

Whuh?

Decivre wrote:

That's bananas.

I agree that's bananas, but that's not what I was talking about, the Drow are the same as the Jovians or the PC in this situation thaT I outlined above. I think an important consideration here is to consider what has actually been done. That Rob and company are not putting the Ultimates in the list of playable factions is a decision that's been made. If you want to ignore that decision, it is very easy to do so. If you want to understand why they did that, you need to try to look at it from their perspective. This is not about a logical argument being made for or against the Ultimates, but a matter of personal comfort based on their personal perspective as the people making the game.

Decivre wrote:

I don't think anyone read the Ultimates sections in 1st Edition and thought they were good guys. Anti-heroes of an interesting kind, sure... but doubtful that anyone thinks they're a morally-kind faction.

I think that posts in this thread are suggestive of a far more romantic view of them, and that the concerns that might play a part in the decision to change them are rooted in that and real world situations.

Decivre wrote:

That said, it's a pretty hypocritical judgment to not want to "encourage" their portrayal as potential protagonists within a campaign setting where the PCs are expected to act as criminals and terrorists in support of a secret conspiracy hellbent on protecting the human race from threats at ANY cost.

Sure! I think that there's room for contradiction here, if you look at it from some kind of situation of abstract principle rather than practice. I'm pretty sure that in the framework of the books and of the fanbase that the devs believe people are fully aware of the morally questionable nature of Firewall. I think they are much less confident in the same position being taken by the fanbase with regards to the Ultimates.

Decivre wrote:

Imagine if the Gene Roddenberry estate demanded that Star Trek fans stop wearing, speaking or celebrating Klingon because they're a violent tribal race? Should Star Trek fans just accept that? Because that's what's happening here.

Man, that would be crazy. I don't really know how useful the comparison is, because I don't think there's concern in the contemporary political situation informing a personal decision to not allow people to act like Klingons because they feel uncomfortable abetting what they perceive as a problematic ideology. It's the Drow thing again, where you're kind of missing the forest for the trees. What's the actual objection that might fuel the decision to remove the Ultimates? Because I don't think the examples you're providing even remotely attempt to interrogate that question. Like, I think it's totally fine to disagree on whether the Ultimates are a 'problematic ideology' but if you approach this by trying to make these comparisons which ignore the particulars which are material for the actual decision, that just seems self-defeating if you want to do something besides stew in your displeasure. EDIT: To be clear, I'd play an Ultimate again! I think they are interesting. I'm not surprised by this decision really, and I think that given the ease with which you can play an Ultimate anyway, I don't think protesting the decision on the basis of a real marginalization of the group actually makes sense. I think the best way to get a point across to the developers if you would prefer that they not remove the Ultimates as a playable faction would be to understand why they removed them in the first place. I promise you the answer to that question does not lie in abstract comparisons with Klingons and Drow.

Decivre wrote:

The similarity I see is in the context of the society portrayed. The Drow are portrayed as a matriarchal race of slavers who worship a demon goddess. There's literally nothing ambiguous about the malice and evil of the [i]entire race's culture[/i], and yet they are set as a playable core race for the new edition (and have arguably been one of the more popular playable races since 2nd Edition thanks to Drizzt).

I have no insight into the reasoning for their inclusion, but if I had to guess, I suspect that putting Posthuman in the situation of running D&D, they would not remove the Drow either, because like the PC or the Jovians they don't feel like people are buying into their ideology as correct or in an uncritical fashion.

Decivre wrote:

If anything, the Drow example is a more absurd example of what is here. Eclipse Phase is a setting of muddy morality, whereas D&D has objective good and evil as forces.

Yeah, I really don't know why you keep making these comparisons. It furnishes the point that the Drow are not representative of the same issue that Posthuman might have with the Ultimates. They're objectively evil in game, there is no kool-aid to drink there because there isn't really a way to rationalize it textually.

Decivre wrote:

Which is exactly why this bothers me. I'm already bothered by how much the president is screwing my country up. I hate that he's screwing one of my favorite games up as well.

Blaming him might be a bit too simplistic.

Decivre wrote:

And I disagree with the assumption of romanticism. Firewall is the central focus of the setting, and yet I don't even think that they are romanticized. The setting isn't very romantic or idealized by any margin. It's a pretty horrific system, and the unknowing civilians are portrayed as cattle for the slaughter of horrors hiding in wait without their knowledge. Groups like the Jovians and Ultimates highlight interesting strategies against these horrors at great cost (loss of liberty, hostile ideology).

I think you should re-read what I said carefully.

Decivre wrote:

And I disagree with the assumption of romanticism. Firewall is the central focus of the setting, and yet I don't even think that they are romanticized.

Presumably that plays a part in why they feel comfortable letting people play Firewall, unlike the Ultimates.

Decivre wrote:

The setting isn't very romantic or idealized by any margin.

I think so too! It's a pity that in spite of including that ambiguity that people romanticize the Ultimates in the fashion that they do rather than critically interrogate them. That people are throwing out No True Scotsman and the like is a testament to that.

Decivre wrote:

It's a pretty horrific system, and the unknowing civilians are portrayed as cattle for the slaughter of horrors hiding in wait without their knowledge. Groups like the Jovians and Ultimates highlight interesting strategies against these horrors at great cost (loss of liberty, hostile ideology).

I'm glad you can see that.

Decivre wrote:

Again, you're making this a discussion about whether people like the ideology of the Ultimates, rather than about whether people like them as a faction. There's a distinction between these two things that you're missing, and this is the issue.

Okay, let me frame it for you another way. If you critically analyze what the developers have said, why do you think they removed the Ultimates? If you make a serious effort to answer that question, I think you'll get where I'm coming from. I also think that the faction is probably not the hill to die on because even if the ideology is perfect or pure or good, the faction is the place where the Overhumanists exist and the Ultimates are what they are in practice, which is what we've seen in Firewall and presumably will see in the 2e books.

Decivre wrote:

There are countless factions, races, groups throughout fiction that can be seen as definitively antagonistic... Klingons, Borg, Tieflings, Drow, Ultimates, Zerg... many of which have horrific social orders which we all likely loath, whether they be violent, hive minded, or worse. But people still come to like them, without needing to buy into their views and values. Even villains can have fanbases.

I don't think the problem is that people are obligated to buy into their views and values to like them. More factions than the Ultimates would have been removed if that were the case. I suspect the decision to remove them is rooted in the problem of people buying into their views and values and not wanting to feel complicit in that. The practice of romanticizing the Ultimates and simply declaring the Overhumanists to be bad at being Ultimates. Again, it isn't about the theory, but a reaction to the practice. You can theoretically compare this to the Drow until the cows come home, but I don't think anyone has ever been concerned about people actually buying into the shit that the Drow say or do as being good. The EP fandom and the Ultimates on the other hand... Yeah, yikes. And obviously, not every fan of the Ultimates is uncritical! But obviously, the developers feel that enough of them have not been critical that they feel uncomfortable continuing to make them available. Whether you think that's right or wrong is up to you. I find myself caught between the feeling that I would rather they be available and continue the line they've been following for them being x-risks because I think that's interesting, but I'm capable of seeing why they are uncomfortable and sympathizing with that as well.

Decivre wrote:

But to that end, rebellion against the norm is a staple of fiction. This decision locks out interesting character choices... defiant civilian who grew up in the slums of Aspis, Iconic Ducti working in resistance to the Overhumanists, liberated Ultimate indenture seeking revenge on his owner through climbing the ranks....

I think these are all compelling ideas! I think it's a shame that people feel like they can't play them, but I don't think I would stop someone if they wanted to play them in my games. But, my sensibilities are not the developers, and they have concerns about the game that have to incorporate a broader point of view than what I like at my table, and I respect the difference between those two things.

Decivre wrote:

And please don't exaggerate the reactions of people in this thread.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was doing that.

Decivre wrote:

I think they just dislike the shift in how they are portrayed. I personally liked how they used to be portrayed as an insular society slowly being overtaken by zealots with each later release. Now it seems that Posthuman would rather portray them as an organization solely made up of zealots already hellbent on destruction, and that feels downright one-dimensional.

I think this viewpoint is a tragedy, because fans of the Ultimates should've been clamoring for the potential conflict that helps turn the Ultimates from a romanticized warrior-poet group into one which has to navigate their identity in a complex fashion. If you want to explore the fractures of Ultimate identity, there has never been a better time than in an Eclipse Phase which shows the faction in action and allows you to ask tough questions about what the ideology and the faction mean in the face of all that. Plus, it capitalizes on what makes the Ultimates different from everybody else! It's the best thing that could've possibly happened, making them unique from the other polities in terms of their relationships in a way that puts their ideology and their faction members to the test. Playing an Ultimate just got more interesting than it ever has before. If there's a reason to lament the loss of the Ultimates as a playable faction, it's because the books won't explicitly support this incredible new opportunity to try to explore just how complicated it really is.

Leetsepeak wrote:

I have no insight into the reasoning for their inclusion, but if I had to guess, I suspect that putting Posthuman in the situation of running D&D, they would not remove the Drow either, because like the PC or the Jovians they don't feel like people are buying into their ideology as correct or in an uncritical fashion.

Judging from other EP communities, the Jovians also have encouraged a number of people that seem to like their political views and ideologies. So-called "Joveposts" have been a staple of the chan threads for a long while.

Leetsepeak wrote:

Yeah, I really don't know why you keep making these comparisons. It furnishes the point that the Drow are not representative of the same issue that Posthuman might have with the Ultimates. They're objectively evil in game, there is no kool-aid to drink there because there isn't really a way to rationalize it textually.

You very much underestimate the potential for people to rationalize things. If vampire subculture has taught me anything, it's that not even fiction is a limitation on lifestyle.

Leetsepeak wrote:

Blaming him might be a bit too simplistic.

It's like the whole Slavery and Civil War debate. Sure there are other reasons for the Civil War... but it's really hard to ignore the big one. The same is true in recent days, but that's a discussion for another board.

Leetsepeak wrote:

I think you should re-read what I said carefully.

I read it quite carefully, and I think this is exactly where the division in the discussion lies. You see any portrayal of them other than totally negative and despotic as "romantic". Romanticism is about treating them in a positive light. There's a wide berth between positive and usable.

Leetsepeak wrote:

Presumably that plays a part in why they feel comfortable letting people play Firewall, unlike the Ultimates.

So a group of unabashed criminals and terrorists treated in a better light than the Ultimates is fine because it isn't romanticized, but a group explicitly stated to be fascistic since day 1 is too romanticized for use by characters? That makes absolutely no sense.

Leetsepeak wrote:

I think so too! It's a pity that in spite of including that ambiguity that people romanticize the Ultimates in the fashion that they do rather than critically interrogate them. That people are throwing out No True Scotsman and the like is a testament to that.

Which brings us back to square one: why are the Jovians still in the core book?

Leetsepeak wrote:

Okay, let me frame it for you another way. If you critically analyze what the developers have said, why do you think they removed the Ultimates? If you make a serious effort to answer that question, I think you'll get where I'm coming from. I also think that the faction is probably not the hill to die on because even if the ideology is perfect or pure or good, the faction is the place where the Overhumanists exist and the Ultimates are what they are in practice, which is what we've seen in Firewall and presumably will see in the 2e books.

Your point? OZMA exists in the PC, yet the PC is still a usable faction. Did OZMA become heroes in this edition, because last I checked they were treated as the biggest human antagonists to Firewall. This is incongruous. If evil subfactions should make factions unplayable, that should exclude a multitude of groups still present... Hypercorps (OZMA), Criminals (Nine Lives), Mercurials (Purists), Luna (ol' fashioned Nationalism).... As for your other remark, note that unless you're actually going to spell out your point, I'm probably not going to figure it out. People don't see the world the same, so apparently there is something obvious to you that is not obvious to me. Perhaps detailing that could further the conversation.

Leetsepeak wrote:

The EP fandom and the Ultimates on the other hand... Yeah, yikes.

Again, I see this as overblown. People do Klingon weddings and Shakespearean plays. If enough of a fanbase opens up that people start doing Ultimate-themed stuff, I don't see a problem with it. Obviously so long as it's not people murdered by someone screaming "gene-trash" at them... but that's equally true about people actually making real bladed Klingon weapons to murder people. To be frank, I only know a few other Ultimates fans, and I've yet to hear of any of them actually declare honest support for the fascist elements of the ideology. Mostly it's adoration for the self-perfection aspects of their views. Shouldn't the devs be happy that the playerbase has clung to the only good part of their views? I think this is a bad reaction to a problem not present.

Leetsepeak wrote:

And obviously, not every fan of the Ultimates is uncritical! But obviously, the developers feel that enough of them have not been critical that they feel uncomfortable continuing to make them available. Whether you think that's right or wrong is up to you. I find myself caught between the feeling that I would rather they be available and continue the line they've been following for them being x-risks because I think that's interesting, but I'm capable of seeing why they are uncomfortable and sympathizing with that as well.

I wouldn't have accepted the decision if I didn't sympathize, but that doesn't mean I think it a wise decision.

Leetsepeak wrote:

I think these are all compelling ideas! I think it's a shame that people feel like they can't play them, but I don't think I would stop someone if they wanted to play them in my games. But, my sensibilities are not the developers, and they have concerns about the game that have to incorporate a broader point of view than what I like at my table, and I respect the difference between those two things.

How does narrowing down the points of view portrayed in the game help incorporate a broader point of view?

Leetsepeak wrote:

I think this viewpoint is a tragedy, because fans of the Ultimates should've been clamoring for the potential conflict that helps turn the Ultimates from a romanticized warrior-poet group into one which has to navigate their identity in a complex fashion.

We didn't clamour because we were okay with the way things were going. I personally have no problem with the faction being portrayed as having problems. Never have. But now the problems are the only thing being portrayed. What happened to the in-depth look in Rimward, or even the semi-dismissive-yet-playable portrayal in the core book? It's like the devs have decided only the material from Firewall/X-Risks matters. That's what I don't like.

Leetsepeak wrote:

If you want to explore the fractures of Ultimate identity, there has never been a better time than in an Eclipse Phase which shows the faction in action and allows you to ask tough questions about what the ideology and the faction mean in the face of all that.

If it's never been a better time, then why aren't they playable?

Leetsepeak wrote:

Plus, it capitalizes on what makes the Ultimates different from everybody else! It's the best thing that could've possibly happened, making them unique from the other polities in terms of their relationships in a way that puts their ideology and their faction members to the test. Playing an Ultimate just got more interesting than it ever has before. If there's a reason to lament the loss of the Ultimates as a playable faction, it's because the books won't explicitly support this incredible new opportunity to try to explore just how complicated it really is.

In what way is it better that the Ultimates are now solely represented by their largest subfaction?

Decivre wrote:

Judging from other EP communities, the Jovians also have encouraged a number of people that seem to like their political views and ideologies. So-called "Joveposts" have been a staple of the chan threads for a long while.

I don't think the devs are looking at 4chan shitposting for this sort of thing. I suspect if there's 'fault' for their apprehension about the Ultimates, the blame for that lies at the feet of people that you'd find on here more than people you'd find on there.

Decivre wrote:

You very much underestimate the potential for people to rationalize things. If vampire subculture has taught me anything, it's that not even fiction is a limitation on lifestyle.

I think people are capable of rationalizing almost anything. That enough people didn't in this case to make the developers uncomfortable is not really related to that potential.

Decivre wrote:

It's like the whole Slavery and Civil War debate. Sure there are other reasons for the Civil War... but it's really hard to ignore the big one. The same is true in recent days, but that's a discussion for another board.

I think you misunderstood. Blaming him is too simplistic because it minimizes the culpability of other elements of society for enabling things by turning him into a wicker man for the issue. The Civil War was about Slavery. More specifically, it was about slavery as an element of white supremacy, and white supremacy is something that more than just slave owners were complicit in. That was my point.

Decivre wrote:

I read it quite carefully, and I think this is exactly where the division in the discussion lies. You see any portrayal of them other than totally negative and despotic as "romantic". Romanticism is about treating them in a positive light. There's a wide berth between positive and usable.

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't see the portrayal of them in 1e as necessarily romanticized. I see the reception of 1e's ambiguity by enough members of the community as romanticized that the developers are personally uncomfortable with listing them as a primary playable faction. My point of view in this is rooted in what happened rather than what could have happened. But as an added complication, it might be that the way the corebook talked about them or the fact that they were not actually doing anything to act on their unique position that helped to create the problem that leads to the developers specifically being uncomfortable with the Ultimates as playable in 2e.

Decivre wrote:

So a group of unabashed criminals and terrorists treated in a better light than the Ultimates is fine because it isn't romanticized, but a group explicitly stated to be fascistic since day 1 is too romanticized for use by characters? That makes absolutely no sense.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The reason why they might be comfortable with the Jovians or with Firewall being playable is because they don't feel like their fanbase has been seduced by Firewall or the Jovians to actually buy into their ideology. They appear to believe otherwise about the Ultimates. I would hazard a guess that these feelings have to do with how they've been received in the community.

Decivre wrote:

Which brings us back to square one: why are the Jovians still in the core book?

Who knows the actual reason? Rob Boyle and Adam Jury, I'm sure. For my part, I think it's because they do not feel that people are drinking the kool aid when it comes to them, that people are self-aware when they make Jovian characters. That would be completely consistent with the decision they made about the Ultimates, because it isn't based on a hard litmus test of fascism. It seems pretty clear to me that it's a holistic choice made based upon personal comfort. If you keep interrogating it in other frameworks, you're just gonna come up empty. If nothing else, I really hope you understand that point. If you try to approach the removal of the Ultimates as a choice made according to a hard rule or theory as opposed to a practice/observation/feeling, you are gonna keep hitting a wall where it doesn't make sense and you're mad.

Decivre wrote:

Your point? OZMA exists in the PC, yet the PC is still a usable faction. Did OZMA become heroes in this edition, because last I checked they were treated as the biggest human antagonists to Firewall. This is incongruous. If evil subfactions should make factions unplayable, that should exclude a multitude of groups still present... Hypercorps (OZMA), Criminals (Nine Lives), Mercurials (Purists), Luna (ol' fashioned Nationalism)....

That's a fair cop.

Decivre wrote:

As for your other remark, note that unless you're actually going to spell out your point, I'm probably not going to figure it out. People don't see the world the same, so apparently there is something obvious to you that is not obvious to me. Perhaps detailing that could further the conversation.

Well, I guess I can point out that I keep using words like "feel" and "received" deliberately. Like I just said above, if you approach the removal of the Ultimates like there's some kind of hard rule about fascism at play here, I don't think you're actually going to understand why the developers felt uncomfortable about them.

Decivre wrote:

Again, I see this as overblown. People do Klingon weddings and Shakespearean plays.

If you can't see the obvious problem with comparing these things, I don't know if I can help you with that. A Shakespeare Play and a Klingon Wedding to my knowledge do not reflect an internalization of ideology at any stage, and that is presumably the thing that is making the developers feel uncomfortable.

Decivre wrote:

If enough of a fanbase opens up that people start doing Ultimate-themed stuff, I don't see a problem with it.

That you don't see the potential problem from the perspective of the developers is part of the problem.

Decivre wrote:

Obviously so long as it's not people murdered by someone screaming "gene-trash" at them... but that's equally true about people actually making real bladed Klingon weapons to murder people.

I think their discomfort doesn't stem from the belief that people will literally go out and murder people, but that their work has served as an ideological reinforcement for a kind of worldview which they feel is deeply abhorrent and seductive. Hence the whole 'drinking the koolaid' thing. If Jovian Shitposts are the best we can come up with for people internalizing the Jovian Republic, then I'm sure they're patting themselves on the back for their success. That people are so eager to just ignore the 'extremists' of the Ultimates, the complicity that the more moderate members of the faction have in cooperating with them and the implications of their willful association with one another is a distasteful thing and I can imagine that plays a big role in their discomfort with the Ultimates.

Decivre wrote:

To be frank, I only know a few other Ultimates fans, and I've yet to hear of any of them actually declare honest support for the fascist elements of the ideology. Mostly it's adoration for the self-perfection aspects of their views. Shouldn't the devs be happy that the playerbase has clung to the only good part of their views?

... Speak of the devil! The problem, I suspect, isn't that people declare honest support for the fascist elements of their ideology, but rather they fail to acknowledge the ways in which the ideology facilitates that way of thinking and the complicity of those moderate members, especially because the Ultimates are actually a cohesive faction. If I had to guess, they are deeply horrified that people aren't thinking more about the 'good parts of their views' and how those might facilitate the bad parts, which is part of the whole problem.

Decivre wrote:

I think this is a bad reaction to a problem not present.

That you think its absent strikes me as symptomatic of the same issue.

Decivre wrote:

How does narrowing down the points of view portrayed in the game help incorporate a broader point of view?

Adds a lot more flavor. Who are the Ultimates? If the text tells you their philosophy and then tells you what the faction is actually doing, the conflict or theoretical dissonance between those things creates entire new dimensions for the portrayal of the Ultimates as characters. How does an Ultimate navigate a Solar System which is hostile to their ideology on the basis of their faction's actions? How do they relate to the faction in light of what they're doing? How do they square away a continuous relationship with the faction knowing about those tendencies? Do they separate from them and form their own faction? Do they try to reform them from within? What personal responsibility do they have in that conflict, if any, and how does their perspective change when they have to square it away with these actions? Putting the Ultimates in a state of conflict with the rest of the system helps make them distinct from everyone else, builds on the tendencies already described in existing material (i.e. it's a natural outgrowth of existing behaviors) that puts Ultimate characters in a really interesting position vis-a-vis the rest of the Solar System.

Decivre wrote:

We didn't clamour because we were okay with the way things were going. I personally have no problem with the faction being portrayed as having problems. Never have.

Then I don't see why you aren't excited. This is the way things were going. This is where the Ultimates were building towards.

Decivre wrote:

But now the problems are the only thing being portrayed. What happened to the in-depth look in Rimward, or even the semi-dismissive-yet-playable portrayal in the core book? It's like the devs have decided only the material from Firewall/X-Risks matters. That's what I don't like.

I think the material in Firewall and X-Risks gives the material from the 1e corebook and Rimward a new depth. Maybe put another way, do you think the overhumanists being in charge makes the other factions stop existing? How are they handling these changes? Are they cooperating or resisting? Those are interesting question, way more interesting than the mere fact of their existence.

Decivre wrote:

If it's never been a better time, then why aren't they playable?

I've provided my guesses. Like I said, I think it's actually a shame, because it would be interesting.

Decivre wrote:

In what way is it better that the Ultimates are now solely represented by their largest subfaction?

I love this question. From the perspective of a writer, it means that the Ultimates are obligated to define themselves in the context of the actions of that subfaction as rendered by the faction they control. This is adversity. This is difficulty. This is the heart and soul of good storytelling. The Ultimates finally have some of the promise conflict in Rimward catalyzed into an interesting situation to explore that makes their polities and the relationships they have with their neighbors utterly unique from everyone else. Like I said, part of the shame of this is that it has never been a more interesting time to play an Ultimate than what 2e heralds. Separate from that, I sympathize with the anxieties which must have impelled the personal choice not to list them in the corebook. People are capable of having complex opinions.

So I have a wild idea on this; now hear me out: Maybe we could not convert the faction into a bunch of Nazis? Doesn't that fix all the issues?

Yeah I've got lost somewhere in the middle with so much chopped up citations. But they made few fair points. I guess it will have to wait for the editing wars on Official EP Wiki ;-)

Baribal wrote:

Even if the Powers That Be decide to go ahead with the fascistization of the Ultimates despite the rather universal outcry that I've seen on here (has actually *anybody* argued for it?), we are still free to make up Homebrew stuff about those guys who embody what we liked about the Ultimates, and not that stuff that we don't. Or vice-versa, for that matter; we can homebrew whatever we want.

I think everyone is aware of that, as homebrewing factions is easy. But this thread was made for voicing an opinion on the topic. When in Rome....

Kojak wrote:

Honestly, I feel like the obvious solution here is to figuratively split the baby: have the Ultimates undergo a literal civil war, ending in them splitting into two factions, the Overhumanist-equivalent and the Iconic-equivalent. Seems like everyone gets what they want, that way.

I like the idea of the schism happening sometime after 10 AF, as part of the plot. That said, maybe it would be a compromise to discuss the Iconics as a separate group. One on the verge of being ousted, rather than already separate from the Ultimates.