Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heroic (or at least decent) Syndicate characters

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    I mean, is that not an entirely plausible destination for the Syndicate? For all the talk about competition, the Syndicate are presented as incredibly complacent.

    The Syndicate having failed is always a metaplot option. This would mean that there would be way fewer Heroic or at least Descent Syndics.


    Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

    Comment


    • #17
      I'm just saying if the Invisible Hand concept actually works the way it's supposed to in the World of Darkness, then that blows a big hole into the whole "the WoD is a darker, scarier, world than our own."
      Last edited by Father Enoch; 06-12-2022, 08:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post
        The Syndicate having failed is always a metaplot option. This would mean that there would be way fewer Heroic or at least Descent Syndics.
        I don't think that necessarily follows. Like, the Syndicate come across as complacent, but that's different from their immediate rivals, the NWO. I think I'd take the dodgy but somewhat-stable Syndicate over the violent paranoia of the NWO.


        Comment


        • #19
          Look at Wall Street or Thread Needle Street in the late 1920s. The stock brokers were ferociously competitive with each other but utterly complacent about the world around them. If you had told the young fresh out of college stock brokers of 1928 that before they were of retirement age that the great European colonial empires would fade like dew, that Jim Crow would be broken in America, that an African American would sit on the Supreme Court, and men would walk on the moon, they would have seen you as a fool. Landing on the moon would have been by far the most credible thing you would have said.

          Complacency and competition can coexist with no issues.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
            I think this is indeed the default and more intuitive vision on them, but there's one problem with this reasoning: this is true for every Mage.

            Every Mage is surrounded by temptations, including wealth and power, and most are in some way encouraged to see themselves as above the Sleepers and entitled to a huge level of "do what I want because I can", being the only judge of their own actions instead of deferring to Sleeper morals or laws. How is Syndicate disposition on those matters fundamentally different from that of the Order of Hermes, the Sons of Ether, or the New World Order?

            My impression is that while yes, the Syndicate is definitely above average on exposing members to corruption, it isn't by that far. What gives us the impression of exposure to corruption is actually the similarity to IRL power and corruption, the fact that they control reality through a means that we see actually happening in our daily lives, while the others are through too abstract or just fictional means that do not resonate so strongly.

            Seeing the Syndicate as deeply corrupted and corrupting is intuitive. But not realistic.

            Of course, for the exact same reason it isn't necessarily a bad thing, it all depends on what you want to do in your game.
            I fully agree on that. I would say that you could point at the Hermetic Order at the top of their pride before the Order of Reason forced them to face reality, they too were in the same position of "better then thou", looking at the peasant masses as unworthy of notice at best, or as "sorce material" for experimentation at worse. The only reason why the Traditions may be considered slightly better today is because they are fighting a losing war, so that forces them to take things into perspective instead of commanding from up high from their ivory towers.

            Power is a dangerous thing: it attracts the worse, it corrupts the best.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Astromancer View Post
              Look at Wall Street or Thread Needle Street in the late 1920s. The stock brokers were ferociously competitive with each other but utterly complacent about the world around them. If you had told the young fresh out of college stock brokers of 1928 that before they were of retirement age that the great European colonial empires would fade like dew, that Jim Crow would be broken in America, that an African American would sit on the Supreme Court, and men would walk on the moon, they would have seen you as a fool. Landing on the moon would have been by far the most credible thing you would have said.

              Complacency and competition can coexist with no issues.
              Well, that's irl. The Syndicate is a fantasy for a fantasy world. That changes things a lot.

              Also, the Syndicate is not just a bunch of individuals competing among themselves. They are a hidden conspiracy with a clear agenda, and they compete with internal forces amongst themselves, amongst the Technocracy - primarily the paranoid and dangerous NWO and with their enemies outside the Union. The NWO in particular just seek an excuse to bury them in the sands of history, like they did with masons and gabrielites in the past (and the Thermodynamical and Differential Engineers).

              I dont believe the Syndicate has the luxury of being complacente. If they were, they would've been demolished a long time ago from external forces.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                Making a moral Syndicate character is easy, as being a member of the Syndicate is about money, not about being criminally greedy (something you can be in any Convention or Tradition, for money, power, knowledge or whatever). What's hard for most is to make a moral Syndicate Paradigm.

                The Syndicate is about economy, and how fiat money gives us unprecedented power to unfetter value from the limits of concrete goods and the constraints of time.

                It isn't even just about Capitalism, which is a common misconception. Instead it's the basis for all modern economic systems and theory for a long time. Whenever you talk about someone being paid, about financing a project, about donation and salary, social security, retirement funds, insurance, risk hedge and so many other concepts, in whatever form and for any goal, you're talking about economy and the social power of money, you're talking about the purview of the Syndicate.

                Value is already everything that has worth for someone for whatever reason, and that's why money can buy anything. It is not that money is power, or happiness, or the end itself, but that money translates value. This is why the faithful donate to the church, why the patrons finance the artist, why you transfer your hard earnings of hours of work to the company that gives you a beloved game, and why we think those who work hard and help others deserve to be recognized not only with praise, but with an adequate sum for their labor.

                So take that and go wild. The Mage that understands Value and wants to hoard it is certainly a member of the Syndicate, but the Mage that understands Value and wants to lessen its accumulation to keep the system healthy is also a member of the Syndicate, as is the Mage that wants to properly codify the environment as value that must be properly protected, seeing environmental recovery as an investment, or the one that seeks to create a Goodwill economy based in the Value of doing good for others as a way to improve the economical growth of the group. A member of the Syndicate may even see wealth redistribution as a means to improve general wealth in the long run in such a way that he'll see a greater increase of their personal wealth in their Enlightened lifetime, doing good for greed.

                At the end of the day, while the Syndicate was born just as an avatar of the Gnomes of Zurich and other conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the financial system, at the light of actual economic theory they're maybe the most philosophically sound Convention, whose theories can be based on a lot of real world ideas and concerns, both for the worst or for the best.
                I'd be careful about this; it's far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that “financial wizard”=Syndicate. With that in mind, let's look at what The Rich Bastard's Guide to Magick has to say about the Syndicate:
                Progenitors and Void Engineers hold grants. Ivory Tower chairs and directors managed budgets. Some mystics are even intelligent enough, or subversively influenced enough, to recognize the worth of investing. They want to feed their family after all, keep a roof over their head, by that third yacht they've been drooling over. I'm like their peers, Syndicate agents don't merely possess capital; they cultivate it. Even Enforcers recognize that they're part of a network of resources facilitating the reconfiguration of Consensual Reality at its most fundamental level.

                Enlightened Financiers understand debt is a bet made with the market. They gamble on their ability to extract profit using a loan's capital more quickly than the loan's interest can chip away at it. It takes a particular alchemy to transform such a liability into an asset. The intersection of risk, primal capital, will, execution, and often any sense of self outside the bounds of a committed venture not only proves a recruit worthy of membership in the Syndicate, being able to manipulate those things is an Enlightened working. Other Conventions might attribute this to a heightened understanding of statistics, probability, and the markets, but Hermetics, Children of Knowledge, and members of the Ngoma performed similar operations and call it what it is: magick.

                The Syndicate influences every corner of the economy. No asset class is too risky for investment. Where others build businesses, purchase land, or just by their way up the social ladder, a true Syndicate master believes desire is a trap that entangles capital in a singular goal. The Enlightened aren't subject to that trap; they set it. The savviest Financiers are always trading one primal venture for another, never content with the current portfolio. Every investor seeks opportunities to buy out an enemy, or fund and unexpected strategic opportunity.

                This flexibility drives the cross-Convention ventures springing up across the Union. Operatives from the applied Conventions are no longer content to request funding and hope their proposals are chosen. They demand direct ownership in their projects, sometimes with Syndicate partnership and sometimes without. A diverse portfolio is the best defense against unexpected market correction.
                As well:
                Not Very Mutual Are We?
                The history of money in the Technocratic Union is a history of conflict. The Syndicate believes that only through the carefully guided, but ultimately open market can humanity discover their best selves. The New World Order believes in the absolute management of every aspect of human life, including how the unenson spend their money. The most extreme Mirror Shades believe the common citizen can barely be trusted to decide the fate of their paychecks, let alone that of reality.

                What unifies these seemingly incompatible groups within the Union is there absolute belief in the Union's mission. The leaders of the NWO and The Syndicate both understand they have a place in the Timeline's completion, and when it's clear their path has given way to statistic inevitability, or uncontrollable market correction they do what is necessary for the Union, even if it means swallowing their pride. What is hypereconomics without a little competition after all?
                I quote from this book because it's the most recent source of information on financial wizardry in Mage, and because it doesn't assume that the Syndicate holds a monopoly on it.

                One thing I take from the above is that the Syndicate, as an organization, is all about capitalism: they believe in “the carefully guided, but ultimately open market”. Other economic paradigms are more the purview of the Hermetic House Fortunae, the Society of Ether's Utopians, the cryptowizards of the Virtual Adepts, the Ngoma's community-based financial engineering, and so on. Unless your heroic Syndic is supposed to be a borderline rebel against the Syndicate's Management (in essence, the Syndic equivalent of John Courage), you probably do want him to be a believer in the (mostly) free market.

                There's also the description of the Syndicate in Technocracy Reloaded, which makes the point that the Syndicate is essentially corporate in nature: it's organized like a corporation, and thinks like one. With that said, it contrasts two views on what the Sydicate is: the traditional view is analogized to a story of feudal system, with the CEO being essentially a “king” who rules by “divine right” (the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules), with a hierarchy of management that serve as a sort of feudal lords who rule over the Masses of peasants at the bottom; and a new, opposing view that sees the Masses as Shareholders, to whom the Syndicate must ultimately be held to account. In this view, a Syndic needs to fund ventures that better the lives of the Masses, or else the dissatisfaction among the Masses will ultimately build into a Market Correction that will destroy the Syndicate.

                The latter concept is referred to as Infinite Shareholder Returns, though I've also seen it termed as a post-scarcity economy: a form of Mass Ascension where everyone's standard of living is elevated to the point meeting one's basic needs is dirt cheap, and Value ends up lying almost entirely in wants — things that won't kill you if you don't get them.



                And then there are the Mammonites, who aren't so much about any particular philosophy about how economics works as they are about how to use economics to corrupt and destroy. (One way to make a heroic Syndic would be to make him aware of Mammonite activity, and make it a personal mission to stop it.)


                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post

                  I'd be careful about this; it's far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that “financial wizard”=Syndicate. With that in mind, let's look at what The Rich Bastard's Guide to Magick has to say about the Syndicate:
                  Progenitors and Void Engineers hold grants. Ivory Tower chairs and directors managed budgets. Some mystics are even intelligent enough, or subversively influenced enough, to recognize the worth of investing. They want to feed their family after all, keep a roof over their head, by that third yacht they've been drooling over. I'm like their peers, Syndicate agents don't merely possess capital; they cultivate it. Even Enforcers recognize that they're part of a network of resources facilitating the reconfiguration of Consensual Reality at its most fundamental level.

                  Enlightened Financiers understand debt is a bet made with the market. They gamble on their ability to extract profit using a loan's capital more quickly than the loan's interest can chip away at it. It takes a particular alchemy to transform such a liability into an asset. The intersection of risk, primal capital, will, execution, and often any sense of self outside the bounds of a committed venture not only proves a recruit worthy of membership in the Syndicate, being able to manipulate those things is an Enlightened working. Other Conventions might attribute this to a heightened understanding of statistics, probability, and the markets, but Hermetics, Children of Knowledge, and members of the Ngoma performed similar operations and call it what it is: magick.

                  The Syndicate influences every corner of the economy. No asset class is too risky for investment. Where others build businesses, purchase land, or just by their way up the social ladder, a true Syndicate master believes desire is a trap that entangles capital in a singular goal. The Enlightened aren't subject to that trap; they set it. The savviest Financiers are always trading one primal venture for another, never content with the current portfolio. Every investor seeks opportunities to buy out an enemy, or fund and unexpected strategic opportunity.

                  This flexibility drives the cross-Convention ventures springing up across the Union. Operatives from the applied Conventions are no longer content to request funding and hope their proposals are chosen. They demand direct ownership in their projects, sometimes with Syndicate partnership and sometimes without. A diverse portfolio is the best defense against unexpected market correction.
                  As well:
                  Not Very Mutual Are We?
                  The history of money in the Technocratic Union is a history of conflict. The Syndicate believes that only through the carefully guided, but ultimately open market can humanity discover their best selves. The New World Order believes in the absolute management of every aspect of human life, including how the unenson spend their money. The most extreme Mirror Shades believe the common citizen can barely be trusted to decide the fate of their paychecks, let alone that of reality.

                  What unifies these seemingly incompatible groups within the Union is there absolute belief in the Union's mission. The leaders of the NWO and The Syndicate both understand they have a place in the Timeline's completion, and when it's clear their path has given way to statistic inevitability, or uncontrollable market correction they do what is necessary for the Union, even if it means swallowing their pride. What is hypereconomics without a little competition after all?
                  I quote from this book because it's the most recent source of information on financial wizardry in Mage, and because it doesn't assume that the Syndicate holds a monopoly on it.

                  One thing I take from the above is that the Syndicate, as an organization, is all about capitalism: they believe in “the carefully guided, but ultimately open market”. Other economic paradigms are more the purview of the Hermetic House Fortunae, the Society of Ether's Utopians, the cryptowizards of the Virtual Adepts, the Ngoma's community-based financial engineering, and so on. Unless your heroic Syndic is supposed to be a borderline rebel against the Syndicate's Management (in essence, the Syndic equivalent of John Courage), you probably do want him to be a believer in the (mostly) free market.

                  There's also the description of the Syndicate in Technocracy Reloaded, which makes the point that the Syndicate is essentially corporate in nature: it's organized like a corporation, and thinks like one. With that said, it contrasts two views on what the Sydicate is: the traditional view is analogized to a story of feudal system, with the CEO being essentially a “king” who rules by “divine right” (the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules), with a hierarchy of management that serve as a sort of feudal lords who rule over the Masses of peasants at the bottom; and a new, opposing view that sees the Masses as Shareholders, to whom the Syndicate must ultimately be held to account. In this view, a Syndic needs to fund ventures that better the lives of the Masses, or else the dissatisfaction among the Masses will ultimately build into a Market Correction that will destroy the Syndicate.

                  The latter concept is referred to as Infinite Shareholder Returns, though I've also seen it termed as a post-scarcity economy: a form of Mass Ascension where everyone's standard of living is elevated to the point meeting one's basic needs is dirt cheap, and Value ends up lying almost entirely in wants — things that won't kill you if you don't get them.



                  And then there are the Mammonites, who aren't so much about any particular philosophy about how economics works as they are about how to use economics to corrupt and destroy. (One way to make a heroic Syndic would be to make him aware of Mammonite activity, and make it a personal mission to stop it.)
                  So, basically the Syndics are the good guys already lol

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Kakost View Post

                    So, basically the Syndics are the good guys already lol
                    Just about anyone in Mage is, if you look at them properly.


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                      I'd be careful about this; it's far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that “financial wizard”=Syndicate.
                      There's a key difference here. I'm talking about Paradigm, not about Focus.

                      All those groups can have Financial Magic as Instrument and/or Focus, but a Syndicate Mage has Finances as the whole Paradigm. This is key to see the distinction, and also sufficient. If the player can't distinguish the two for their character, the problem lies within their understanding of Paradigm. Doubly so in M20, where they finally opened things so you can more easily have Mages of distinct groups be more similar due to Foci and Instruments, but they are members of their respective groups because of core aspects of the Paradigm instead of its overt appearance.

                      You can also have Mages that aren't so much regular members of their Convention/Tradition Paradigm-wise, but are loyal to shared goals, and that's frequently more important, and then any Mage whose Paradigm would be better at other groups, but has a financial facade to it, would be welcome to the Syndicate if they're loyal. The same with those who truly believe in the Syndicate Paradigm but chose to be a member of other group and are likewise loyal to them. And a disloyal member won't be welcome no matter their Paradigm.

                      So, all in all, I disagree that too much care with this distinction is necessary to build a character. It may be relevant to a deeper discussion of the Convention and their Paradigm, and I'll dive into this below, but not just to make an interesting character.

                      Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                      The Syndicate influences every corner of the economy. No asset class is too risky for investment. Where others build businesses, purchase land, or just by their way up the social ladder, a true Syndicate master believes desire is a trap that entangles capital in a singular goal. The Enlightened aren't subject to that trap; they set it. The savviest Financiers are always trading one primal venture for another, never content with the current portfolio. Every investor seeks opportunities to buy out an enemy, or fund and unexpected strategic opportunity.
                      All my examples can be people working precisely through this view. As the paragraph directly states, it is about every corner of the economy. Those Mages aren't just using Financial Magic, they're translating issues, goals, ideas, into economic factor, value, assets, markets, shareholders, interest, and other things they may work through Primal Ventures not because they think this is an outlet for their Magic, but because this is the true nature of Reality.

                      Sure, you can also do all of that just because it is your Instrument, but that's just the nature of the game and besides the point of the thread.

                      Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                      Other economic paradigms are more the purview of the Hermetic House Fortunae, the Society of Ether's Utopians, the cryptowizards of the Virtual Adepts, the Ngoma's community-based financial engineering, and so on. Unless your heroic Syndic is supposed to be a borderline rebel against the Syndicate's Management (in essence, the Syndic equivalent of John Courage), you probably do want him to be a believer in the (mostly) free market.
                      The problem is to think that Capitalism is just that, or that other economic structures can't also have it.

                      Most past economic structures had relatively free markets. Even in Feudalism, which the original Liberalism criticized, while there was a lot of control, most of the "Market" was ultimately free. What it didn't had was the Capital. And Capitalism isn't necessarily about Free Market either, and indeed it frequently didn't had a lot of free market.

                      Capitalism is a state of things, not the ideologies that exist within that state, a state that is defined by the role of Capital, which is the ability to organize production around money. To make an example of what it means, in Feudalism most of Production comes from land, so Production is mostly organized around Land Ownership. A landlord isn't necessarily rich, and it wasn't all that uncommon to find both rich villains and poor landlords. Yet the villain couldn't just use money to open a new business, get relevant resources, solve logistic problems or anything, no matter how rich or how savvy they were in the relevant area. The logistics of it weren't tied to costs, but to the land, and that's why land was power. Capitalism exists when technology is sufficiently advanced and resources are transported easily enough to let money be the simplest facilitator of production logistics.

                      Liberalism isn't the only ideology that proposes a "carefully guided, but ultimately open market" either. Social Democracy, some other forms of socialism/communism, some nationalistic ideas, the truth is that most ideologies are based, on the economic side, on a balance between market guidance and freedom without either setting it completely free or binding it completely. Only the most strict (and I'm not denying that they existed) totalitarian states tried to control the market completely, and only Ancap want a completely free market, neither being aligned with the Syndicate.

                      Now, does that mean that any Syndicate would understand any balance as properly within their Paradigm? Of course not. Many may consider that any direct state ownership in the market is against their Paradigm. But then we're talking differences in understanding that by all means should exist within the setting. They are Mages still, and will ultimately be too Willful to completely agree on every intricacy. The Union is far more about not letting your individuality get in the way of the whole than really expecting Enlightened people to be true conformists.

                      Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                      There's also the description of the Syndicate in Technocracy Reloaded, which makes the point that the Syndicate is essentially corporate in nature
                      Which isn't against the example I gave, either. They can all be understood from the perspective of a corporation, on working within it and in its benefit, or the benefit of its shareholders however you define them. Especially when you consider that corporations also have non-monetary assets (that may be described in financial terms and have monetary value attached), including things like public trust, reputation and efficient human resources (modern research clearly demonstrate the importance of welfare and other quality of life aspects of the work as means to keep human resources more productive for a lesser long term cost), that must be taken care to maximize long-term returns.

                      Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                      The latter concept is referred to as Infinite Shareholder Returns, though I've also seen it termed as a post-scarcity economy: a form of Mass Ascension where everyone's standard of living is elevated to the point meeting one's basic needs is dirt cheap, and Value ends up lying almost entirely in wants — things that won't kill you if you don't get them.
                      I would avoid the term post-scarcity here when describing it in terms of economic theory, because when going through the lenses of scarcity you're describing a situation where most needs are met without scarcity, but what you call wants are still met with scarce resources.

                      Scarcity in Economy isn't about how much you need something, but the fact that it is at all scarce enough for there to be people with the disposition to give up something else scarce in exchange for it. That is, as long as something isn't common and widespread enough for everyone to just grab and use it with minimum or no effort, it is Scarce. Without Scarcity you have no trade in any form and no economy.


                      #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                      #AutismPride
                      She/her pronouns

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                        There's a key difference here. I'm talking about Paradigm, not about Focus.
                        I'll get to the rest later. But this? This isn't a difference; this is a misunderstanding. I was using “Focus” in the sense that M20 uses Focus, which is how earlier editions used Paradigm. For clarity, M20 uses Paradigm the way earlier editions used Philosophy or Theory, and uses Instrument where earlier editions used Focus.
                        Last edited by Dataweaver; 06-19-2022, 08:01 PM.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
                          I'll get to the rest later. But this? This isn't a difference; this is a misunderstanding. I was using “Focus” in the sense that M20 uses Focus, which is how reality editions used Paradigm.
                          I was using the M20 terms, too, there was no misunderstanding. You may or may not disagree with my post, but read this part with the M20 concepts in mind.


                          #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs
                          #AutismPride
                          She/her pronouns

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                            I was using the M20 terms, too, there was no misunderstanding. You may or may not disagree with my post, but read this part with the M20 concepts in mind.
                            I'm not so sure about that, because M20 doesn't use Paradigm in a sense that's larger than Focus. In M20, Paradigm (e.g., “Might Makes Right”) is a component of Focus, and Practice is another component of Focus. Focus is the overall “how mages see the world, and how they think magic works”. And Focus and Instrument are not even remotely the same thing; they're literally as far apart as two concepts relating to how magic works can be. M20 juggled the terminology around, like so:

                            M1/2/Rev → M20
                            Paradigm → Focus
                            Philosophy/Theory→Paradigm
                            Style/Practice→Practice
                            Focus→Instrument

                            I never said, or even implied, that financial wizardry is an Instrument. In truth, it's a Practice — specifically, it's another name for Hypereconomics or Art of Desire. The Focus of a Syndic (what earlier editions would call “his whole Paradigm”) includes not just the Practice of Hypereconomics, but also the Paradigm (formerly Philosophy/Theory) of “Might is Right”:
                            Technocracy Reloaded p.157

                            That's the core of all other paradigms among this Convention. The might in question could be cleverness, not violence, but the will to use whatever it takes to win remains a constant in each Enlightened Syndicate op. No one gets in that door without the absolute conviction that they have a right to be there.
                            Last edited by Dataweaver; 06-21-2022, 02:06 AM.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by monteparnas View Post
                              "...considerations about Capitalism..."
                              I would have to disagree. Capitalism is free market. Actually, the only REAL Capitalism would be Anarcho-Capitalism, which only happened for brief periods in Ireland and Iceland.

                              Anything else, and everything we have today, is mixed economies. Basically Corporativism, which is the big capital being given virtual or real monopolies by the cohercitive use of force by the State. That runs contrary to ALL the ideas of Capitalism.

                              What changes from country to country is the amount of State interference in the economy - the more interference, the less liberty the country has and the less economic prosperity.

                              That going all the way up to Socialism/Fascism, which is basically State interference at terminal stage; it's the final metastasis of the tyranny of the State.
                              Last edited by Kakost; 06-20-2022, 02:30 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The Syndicate strikes me as the odd child of the Union. They believe in the Free Markets as the keys of reality; such thought pattern can only flourish under an Individualist ideology.

                                The Technocracy however is the terrible culmination of Colectivism at its worst, and not only that, but also absolutely Utilitarian. "For the greater good". Which is why in my view the Technocracy should be a bunch of commies - and real world technocratic ideas share a lot with socialist thought, about an "enlighntened" elite guiding the masses of inferior (or "ignorant") "mere mortals" with centralized control (as if we were a bunch of dumb children that need a "firm adult" to control).

                                That condescending worldview of the Union doesnt fit with the Syndicate worldview of having the common people seeking their own desires (as opposed to the "superior gods" of the union, like any would be "small tyrant" in real life that believes to know what's better for everybody else) dictating those to them).
                                Last edited by Kakost; 06-20-2022, 02:31 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X