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.

Seconding this. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't a shoe-in possibility in the new books.

I kinda like the Ultimates, but I think I understand the decision to make them more X-Threat-y. The way I see it, the Ultimates suffer from being a fairly complex concept that's difficult to properly present in-game. On the CharGen thread, CordialUltimate2 said:

CordialUltimate2 wrote:

Remember that Ultimates are a full fledged faction. That means they are not a loose confederation of wandering samurai (bleh), but a nation of its own with researchers, engineers, teachers, scholars, children, entertainers and much more. In the X-risk there is a sidebar about them having a possibility of running away through the gates into the galaxy to build human civilization of their own. Could a Evil Mercenary Company #145, consisting of fascist bushido jerk-offs do that? So I currently play an Ultimate/ex-Ultimate (hard to say) Nanotech Researcher who has only passable combat skills, but was considered a fully fledged member of the Ultimates for his competence in other skills. Rimward states that Ultimates consider almost any sort of competence usefull. So you could be a Habitat Worker Ultimate. A freaking just poet-poet Ultimate. A xenoinsectology Ultimate, whatever suits you. It's a harmful stereotype that they are all MRDR-jacked overhumanists.

(Quick side note - Wandering Samurai because they have the combination of Martial Skill and Appreciation For Culture which is often found in Asian Cinema. Ever seen the Spear-Duel and Arrow/Calligraphy scenes in "Hero"?) Agree with a good chunk of this (Kids? Entertainers?), but actually giving this screen time in a campaign that isn't focused on the faction is very difficult. If they're NPCs, then their martial traits tend to overshadow their other aspects, if those other aspects show up at all: even if they're a HabTech, they're a HabTech who is also a BadAss - or the GM (AKA Me) has to stop the game to explain why. PCs have more potential, but again the tendency is towards SuperHuman GunBunny - and for many players, that's where things stop: they see the Ultimate faction and start quoting Aliens. The Jovians aren't necessarilly any 'nicer', but they're a hell of a lot easier to use. So I like that the Ultimates aren't an explicit option any more - they're a more advanced character concept better suited for players who have some experience with the game and interest in the faction, rather than being the go-to for new players who want to be space marines. To use D&D terminology - they used to be Drow, now they're a Prestige Class.

Yeah I was aware of both of these issues when I created my character. I even wasted almost 100 CP for Networking: Ultimates and Allies: Ultimates trait which I didn't even got to use once. So I taxed myself for this character concept pretty hard. And now I also noticed that I lack skills to roleplay nuances of the "Ultimate with a heart of gold". So I was going to defend the Ultimates as a faction but for most people that means I'm a Nazi lover. I have no heart to discuss​ that. So I will abstain from input on the topic from now on.

CordialUltimate2 wrote:

Yeah I was aware of both of these issues when I created my character. I even wasted almost 100 CP for Networking: Ultimates and Allies: Ultimates trait which I didn't even got to use once. So I taxed myself for this character concept pretty hard. And now I also noticed that I lack skills to roleplay nuances of the "Ultimate with a heart of gold". So I was going to defend the Ultimates as a faction but for most people that means I'm a Nazi lover. I have no heart to discuss​ that. So I will abstain from input on the topic from now on.

Right? Thanks to the material in Firewall and X-Risks, you either want to topple the faction or you're as bad as the overhumanists. Even an Iconic that wants reform is still a fascist.... What I think is a shame is that worse societies exist in other settings. Shadowrun has countries where human sacrifice and slavery is still legal. Exalted's Realm has a rigid caste system based around bloodline. The Clans in Battletech have a literal eugenics program, and are exactly as fascist (as was the Draconis Combine, thank you Kojak). This feels like a family-friendly decision. I don't want my transhuman horror to be family-friendly.

Kojak wrote:

I actually want to delineate one thing here: the devs' issue with the Ultimates is not because they're evil, so I don't think comparisons to things like the Drow or Aztlan are apt. Those are fantastical entities to a degree that is staggeringly obvious, whereas there really is an issue of neo-fascists with ideas uncomfortably close to the Overhumanists' becoming a major political force in the West. It's just that I think that your average intermediate-to-advanced EP player is mature enough to handle the nuance involved without internalizing the actual ideology.

I know, and I wish I could just accept that. But I think of all the times in the past that games and shows I liked and series I followed were altered or even abruptly ended due to events at the time. This feels like that, like we'd be getting a different and better game if we were in a different society, but we must just accept because it is. This is Heroes season 2 all over again.

RampantRoomba wrote:

I would agree with you except for the parts in 1E involving the clunky views on religion (Judaism didn't survive the fall of Earth but Islam did, despite them both having their holy lands very concretely put on Terra Firma? WTF? By this logic Catholicism should have gone extinct along with Vatican City, but nooooope it's around Jupiter.) Eclipse Phase has many strengths but also weaknesses, and some of those weaknesses have been there from the beginning even during better times.

What are you talking about? Jews are still around in Eclipse Phase, there's literally a hab called Horeb that houses the Israeli government-in-exile. But it's not surprising that there wouldn't be many of us left, given that both Christians and Muslims outnumber us by a couple of orders of magnitude. There are currently (depending on how you count) about 14-18 million Jews worldwide, whereas the Christians and Muslims are clocking in at 2.4 and 1.6 billion, respectively. When 95% of humanity gets wiped out, yeah, probably there wouldn't be a lot of Jews left, it's just a numbers game at that point.

Deleted

I'm not too comfortable with where the thread has gone. At this point, it feels like the conversation is circling. The prevailing statement is "the devs have decided that people who like the Ultimates support fascism", and the response to every person who opposes this view is "you're one of the good ones, but...." I doubt there's a point in continuing on.

Kojak wrote:

RampantRoomba wrote:

I would agree with you except for the parts in 1E involving the clunky views on religion (Judaism didn't survive the fall of Earth but Islam did, despite them both having their holy lands very concretely put on Terra Firma? WTF? By this logic Catholicism should have gone extinct along with Vatican City, but nooooope it's around Jupiter.) Eclipse Phase has many strengths but also weaknesses, and some of those weaknesses have been there from the beginning even during better times.

What are you talking about? Jews are still around in Eclipse Phase, there's literally a hab called Horeb that houses the Israeli government-in-exile. But it's not surprising that there wouldn't be many of us left, given that both Christians and Muslims outnumber us by a couple of orders of magnitude. There are currently (depending on how you count) about 14-18 million Jews worldwide, whereas the Christians and Muslims are clocking in at 2.4 and 1.6 billion, respectively. When 95% of humanity gets wiped out, yeah, probably there wouldn't be a lot of Jews left, it's just a numbers game at that point.

I did indeed remember Horeb, I was just referring to Judaism as a religion rather than Jews as a demographic in terms of prevailance. Horeb doesn't have much sway in the setting, though given your post there (I thought Judaism had more adherents, apologies) it makes more sense now. I concede to your explanation. Sincere apologies for my open ignorance. That much said, this leads me to another problem I have with EP, which is apparently that I don't have the kind of time to devote to EP to pick up little details like this. I can enjoy D&D without knowing volumes of setting info about Eberron or Forgotten Realms or whatever because of the rules-agnostic nature of the system whereas controversial threads like this often wind up hinging on one or more party's encyclopedic knowledge of the setting. I mean, I *imagine* it's possible to make a setting-agnostic version of EP's rules, but Hell if I have the time for it. That's all I have to say for the moment that doesn't involve long, drawn-out arguments with the authors. I have other problems with EP's writing that don't go into Godwin territory. Suffice it to say I applaud them for being swift and responsible businesspeople (as seen with my Singularity char generator order) and for their open-sourced business model, but really find it annoying keeping up with the logic of some of their decisions like this one RE: Ultimates.

RampantRoomba wrote:

I did indeed remember Horeb, I was just referring to Judaism as a religion rather than Jews as a demographic in terms of prevailance. Horeb doesn't have much sway in the setting, though given your post there (I thought Judaism had more adherents, apologies) it makes more sense now. I concede to your explanation. Sincere apologies for my open ignorance.

It's cool, man, as a Jew I've found that people usually assume there are *way* more of us then there actually are just because we always get mentioned in the same breath as the other major religions. But we're actually a very small ethnic group; there are twice as many Sikhs as Jews, for example. We don't proselytize and conversion is rare, plus I don't know if you've heard but we've gotten into a couple of pickles over the years. ;-) So our numbers have always been kept pretty low.

I read this thread last night and was ready to head out bans or at least warnings. But I slept on it and I think that there is a lot of honest conversation from people who have strong feelings about the ultimates and their, incompletely defined, transition from first to second edition. I'd like to take a moment to reinforce that insinuations that playing/liking/enjoying the Ultimates doesn't make someone's personal beliefs match that group. There is a lot to be said about playing characters and telling stories about a group that is different from your real life self. Basically play nice, the Ultimates aren't going away from what I've read of Rob's posts in this thread they will remain a playable faction in the universe, they'll just be different. [color=red] This is a moderator voice post. I will be following this thread intently. I am happy to see so much passion for Eclipse Phase. [/color]

Decimator wrote:

But perhaps the real problem is that I feel "designated villains" cheapen the setting as a whole.

This is my problem. Even in the original game, there were already a ton of designated villains. OZMA, TITANs, Nine Lives, Exhumans and even the Minervan fleet are villains you really can't negotiate with, and have little nuance beyond wanting you dead. Why the Ultimates have to become a new one is beyond me.

Decimator wrote:

But perhaps the real problem is that I feel "designated villains" cheapen the setting as a whole.

Soooo much this. I liked how the Jovians moved from "why the hell would you play these?" to "Ok, I can see why you'd maybe help Firewall." I intensely disliked how exhumans moved from "some factions hate transhumanity" to "eats babies." I get that threats need to be real, and I get that factions at war don't really stop to consider if everyone on the other side is evil, but the whole point of Firewall is supposed to be desperation making for strange bedfellows.

eaton wrote:

Quote:

I intensely disliked how exhumans moved from "some factions hate transhumanity" to "eats babies."

Hey, hey, hey. Enough with the baby-eating-shaming.

Not super relevant, but now I'm reminded of a short story from elsewhere on the internet about baby-eating aliens. It's told as a first contact story between said aliens and humans, to highlight mutually incompatible ethics as a possible result of having to deal with other species.

MagisterCrow wrote:

Ultimates initially were portrayed as people saying they were fascists. Some material presented that as one side of their faction, but also other sub-factions and the highly individualistic nature of each. Now it's handed down as 'yeah, they're fascists.' My worry is that it's going to override the narrative completely and just turn them into exhumans.

Indeed, the Ultimates were in much the same boats the Jovians seemed to be; maligned in anarchist popular opinion, but with some hints of sympathetic aspects hidden in the fluff. This move is a negative one, to my eyes.

Leetsepeak wrote:

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.

What issue?

Leetsepeak wrote:

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 have become [i]less[/i] nuanced in EP2 so far, not more. And now, a list of narrative options that, IMO, are all broadly superior to EP2's take on things:

Decimator wrote:

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?

Decivre wrote:

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.

Decimator wrote:

I'd prefer that the Ultimates retain their internal divisions as described in Rimward. Internal divisions are interesting.

Axel the Chimeric wrote:

Anarchism is diverse. So is a capitalist economic system. So is representative government. So is every political philosophy. We get the political systems of these explored and the conceptual struggles therein, so why not for anarchists? I know this should probably go elsewhere, but it's relevant to how things are portrayed in EP. Moral greys are necessary. Any time we see a setting in the system, we should always be given the answers to the questions of "What is the status quo?", "Who is trying to maintain it?", and "Who is trying to change it?". Ideally, there should be reasons players might want to lean to either side of things. Without the answers to those questions, the setting ends up... Bland. The Ultimates are just one more victim of this trend of smoothing out the complexities of the questions the books themselves hint at asking.

Very well put, I would say. Some of our concerns may also partly stem from how familiar each of us is with the various ancillary material that inspires Eclipse Phase. For instance, my impression of the Hypercorps in the Planetary Alliance is strongly colored by my understanding of Shadowrun's setting, where after 5 editions of work, they've developed complex, and admittedly conflicting portraits of nearly a dozen major mega corporations. Having read a lot of it, the basic setup of the Planetary Alliance makes sense to me, I can easily create new material to show it in both bad and good lights depending what I need for the session. Compare to say, the Titinian Commonwealth. I have a much weaker background of exposure to the technoliberal and somewhat anarchist ideals and styles of Titan, but I've read on alternative election systems and about the modern nordic countries. It's hard, but not impossible for me to wrap my head around what it's like to live there during a major election cycle, or what academic life is like from a students perspective. Then I come and see things like pure Anarchists and the Ultimates, and their whole setup is very new to me. I don't really visualize what the day to day of a typical Anarchist beehive hab is like, for instance, other than my exposure to such through Eclipse Phase. Extropia looks really interesting, but I've recently read forum threads pointing how how 'completely free market" isn't actually the standard setup for the Circle-A. So my understanding of the flaws, their weak points, the attack-able surfaces of their social structure, don't really carry over to the more common Brinker colony. Mostly, I want to read about these different places of the setting, see how they work, and how they [strong]break[/strong] when you have things like enemy spies, or a really clever Exurgent who doesn't go right to smashy-smashy.

Dilf_Pickle wrote:

...are theory, not practice.

While I agree with your overall point (that a fictionalized version of something cannot take into account the unknown real flaws of said something, even in the case of deconstruction), it should be noted that [i]some[/i] anarchist theory has also worked [i]in practice[/i].

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14212/has-there-ever-been-a-... And https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-tha... had some interesting it's to follow up on; it's also worth noting that most of the discrete anarchist communities in EP are very small compared to modern political nation states. Post-fall political structures are also pretty young. Earlier comments got me thinking about about familiarity with certain tropes from other fiction and games. The Jovian, for example, clicked right into my memories of John LeCarre novels. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Splicer, anyone?

GreyBrother wrote:

Kojak wrote:

It's just that I think that your average intermediate-to-advanced EP player is mature enough to handle the nuance involved without internalizing the actual ideology.

Looking at this thread, i have my doubts.

There needs to be a like button.

eaton wrote:

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14212/has-there-ever-been-a-... And https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-tha... had some interesting it's to follow up on; it's also worth noting that most of the discrete anarchist communities in EP are very small compared to modern political nation states. Post-fall political structures are also pretty young. Earlier comments got me thinking about about familiarity with certain tropes from other fiction and games. The Jovian, for example, clicked right into my memories of John LeCarre novels. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Splicer, anyone?

Good reading. I do notice a trend with these societies: they tend to be either overpowered by the nearby "Actual state" in fairly short order, or adopt a system that looks markedly similar to a set of tribal chieftans and elders who have a light touch perhaps, but do seem to provide some sort of heirarchy. Presumably these positions in an EP hab are mediated by the members respective scores within the Circle-A network? Such that the person on the habitat with the highest rep score is "de facto chief of our tribe" ? This seems very much like "anarchy" is a loaded term that is easy to misunderstand. I would view this sort of structure with tags like "Mildly tribal", "Direct Democracy", or alternatively that the High-rep council is really a highly meritocratic form of representative democracy, where the rising and falling approval ratings replace the more traditional system of elections and terms of static length. Of course, as soon as you codify that, and make it official, A) you're sort of drifting from the creed of the autonomous alliance (yes? I'm not sure if I'm correct on this) and B) cheaters and rep-manipulators are going to pop out of the woodwork in any hab of more than two hundred people. Regarding the point of larger polities tending to take over nearby habitats, this is likely why the major 'anarchist' habitats tend to be heavily armed, to discourage being invaded just as much to provide for their own policing. Now, since this is the Ultimate's thread and I should swing back on topic, the above points seem like they influence the goals of any given Ultimate: that you must personally be strong enough to resist the efforts of external people trying to take from you and yours, and that said strength should be a strong component of how to arrange the high-rep councils. Which now pulls us towards a "villainous" possible answer to the problem: find the -best- ultimate of your tribe, and admit that he/she/xe/it has earned the right to be the true chief, by dint of strength and wit. The more sway their words hold, the more your society drifts from being council-run, to be autocrat-run. This also implies that habitats of Ultimate's where the top contenders are very close in power to each other will trend away from the autocrat answer, and back towards the "council of our best" solution. At least, up until someone manages to arrange a sufficiently deniable (or irresistible) coup upon their competitors. Naturally, an autocrat ultimate who is on top, will find it very strongly in their interests to claim first dibs on any and all further improvements to the self, and suppress their underlings from "Catching up" to them by way of better morphs and augments.

o11o1 wrote:

Good reading. I do notice a trend with these societies: they tend to be either overpowered by the nearby "Actual state" in fairly short order, or adopt a system that looks markedly similar to a set of tribal chieftans and elders who have a light touch perhaps, but do seem to provide some sort of heirarchy. Presumably these positions in an EP hab are mediated by the members respective scores within the Circle-A network? Such that the person on the habitat with the highest rep score is "de facto chief of our tribe" ? This seems very much like "anarchy" is a loaded term that is easy to misunderstand. I would view this sort of structure with tags like "Mildly tribal", "Direct Democracy", or alternatively that the High-rep council is really a highly meritocratic form of representative democracy, where the rising and falling approval ratings replace the more traditional system of elections and terms of static length.

For the most part. The biggest difference between an anarchist society and most other legal polities is the lack of formal law. While there will inevitably be people who become leaders of the pack (an inevitability regardless of society), the structure is still much looser and the power provided more fluid. Whereas in a traditional state they have complex impeachment proceedings, in an anarchist society your power goes away when everyone starts saying "shut the fuck up, man. We don't care what you say, anymore." Anarchist schools of thought argue that this is a significant advantage. The fluidity of the shift in power means that consolidation of said power is less likely. Opponents would argue that this fluidity only lasts so long as no one gets the bright idea to utilize unethical force to retain said power. One could also argue that modern society is moving closer toward this, with people in the modern day facing boycotts and job loss when they violate the informal laws of our culture. To some extent, we're already under the effects of a proto-reputation network.

o11o1 wrote:

Of course, as soon as you codify that, and make it official, A) you're sort of drifting from the creed of the autonomous alliance (yes? I'm not sure if I'm correct on this) and B) cheaters and rep-manipulators are going to pop out of the woodwork in any hab of more than two hundred people. Regarding the point of larger polities tending to take over nearby habitats, this is likely why the major 'anarchist' habitats tend to be heavily armed, to discourage being invaded just as much to provide for their own policing.

Nah, most anarchist societies will retain their lack of legal rigidity. Codification will likely not occur, outside of the reputation network's mechanics. In a sense, you can think of Circle-A as the informal legal framework of anarchist societies... Autonomist Alliance nations simply overlay that with a secondary legal frameworks where applicable. But many places will stick to the basics. While cheaters will definitely exist in such a society, I doubt it'll be the same sort of cheating that most people are thinking nowadays. Instead, I think that most reputation "gaming" will be more about controlling the narrative of events to spin things in your favor, and less about playing the math of the system. This will especially become true when these networks are hybridized with ALI systems. Basically, reputation networks will make politicians of all of us.

o11o1 wrote:

Now, since this is the Ultimate's thread and I should swing back on topic, the above points seem like they influence the goals of any given Ultimate: that you must personally be strong enough to resist the efforts of external people trying to take from you and yours, and that said strength should be a strong component of how to arrange the high-rep councils. Which now pulls us towards a "villainous" possible answer to the problem: find the -best- ultimate of your tribe, and admit that he/she/xe/it has earned the right to be the true chief, by dint of strength and wit. The more sway their words hold, the more your society drifts from being council-run, to be autocrat-run. This also implies that habitats of Ultimate's where the top contenders are very close in power to each other will trend away from the autocrat answer, and back towards the "council of our best" solution. At least, up until someone manages to arrange a sufficiently deniable (or irresistible) coup upon their competitors. Naturally, an autocrat ultimate who is on top, will find it very strongly in their interests to claim first dibs on any and all further improvements to the self, and suppress their underlings from "Catching up" to them by way of better morphs and augments.

I originally saw a lot of potential parallels between Ultimate society and gamer culture. The individualism, social competitiveness and obsession with optimal hardware all ring of it.* To me, it made a lot of sense that they would divide into clan-like units, each vying for prestige against the others (and with members competing amongst themselves as well). Later characterization made it more like a traditional militaristic society with transhuman overtones, which isn't bad but felt to me like a downgrade. It became all the more saddening when the Rajput were released in Firewall... Rajput works less like a rank and more like a game achievement, which felt like a throwback to the individualist way they were. *To be honest, I found it very bizarre that Gamergate happened AND the Ultimates decidedly moved away from the similarities to gamer culture.

jackgraham wrote:

. (And Alastair Reynolds' Ultras, who are one of the inspirations for the faction).

Really? In what way? Because other than a vaguely similar name I see very little in common between the Ultimates and Reynolds' Ultras. Insofar as the Ultras even have a unifying culture, the very last thing I would call it is "undemocratic", nor do I recall the Ultras showing a particular interest in the wider affairs of humanity. They've more in common with Brinkers than Ultimates.

I think their appeal was that they came across as space Spartans. Basically a military force (mercenary) that emphasized excellence without much of an agenda. Rereading the core rulebook, there were some warning signs that they are not nice. Maybe the fact the setting information only gave them about a quarter page (see p. 82) works to their advantage. With so little said about them, readers would fill in the blanks.