Best Syndicates for Moon, Sun or Eclipse Tenno

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

Without getting too much into the alignment discussion - Moon (detached +Logical), Eclipse (Balanced decision making), Sun (Emotional + Involved).

What Syndicate do you think is best for each alignment? I have always been Red Veil (primary) since I started, because I loved the Edge Lords vibes. However my Tenno has developed into a Moon Tenno, and I was now thinking that RV is better suited for a Sun Tenno (emotion and aggression). My Moon Tenno maybe better suited with the AoH or CS.

What are your thoughts on reconciling your Tenno's 'character' with the Syndicates?

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by (XB1)Clockwork Geoff
Mistake

[Loza03]

I reconcile my Tenno's characterisation as an Arbiter with their tendency to go on rampages of vengeful destruction and occasional lusting for power by going with a 'they're not in the Arbiters for themselves but for any Tenno who may wish for a peaceful life after this is all over' kind of deal.

[Falconer777]

Before the introduction of Arbitrage, my choice was the Arbiters of Hexis. Because they are seen Tenno as more than just killing machines, and they believe that they have much more potential. After the introduction of Arbitration, I lost this thread, because the Arbitrators gave Tenno ... another test strip for teaching mass genocide) Contrary to his own ideas.
The remaining syndicates simply pursue their own goals.

 

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

6 minutes ago, Falconer777 said:

Before the introduction of Arbitrage, my choice was the Arbiters of Hexis. Because they are seen Tenno as more than just killing machines, and they believe that they have much more potential. After the introduction of Arbitration, I lost this thread, because the Arbitrators gave Tenno ... another test strip for teaching mass genocide) Contrary to his own ideas.
The remaining syndicates simply pursue their own goals.

 

Do you think it maybe doesn't matter what we choose? I.e. My Moon Tenno may just (logically?) see the RV as the cure for the systems ills?

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

10 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I reconcile my Tenno's characterisation as an Arbiter with their tendency to go on rampages of vengeful destruction and occasional lusting for power by going with a 'they're not in the Arbiters for themselves but for any Tenno who may wish for a peaceful life after this is all over' kind of deal.

True - the arbiters are also a tough one to reconcile. I guess your Tenno could be all three alignments with them.

[Makunogo]

i didnt really care much to be honest. i chose the 3 on the left cus they all have their own level of crazy. i didnt like the left side as much. too methodical for my taste haha

[Marvelous_A]

Red Veil all the way.

Sun - Red Veil kills for balance.

Moon - Red Veil is a bunch of merciless murderers.

Eclipse - Red Veil seeks balance since they kill everyone with the same murderous intent.

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

Just now, Marvelous_A said:

Red Veil all the way.

Sun - Red Veil kills for balance.

Moon - Red Veil is a bunch of merciless murderers.

Eclipse - Red Veil seeks balance since they kill everyone with the same murderous intent.

Thank you - I am seeking a way to stay with my red boys that makes sense in my head haha.

[Falconer777]

4 минуты назад, (XB1)Clockwork Geoff сказал:

Do you think it maybe doesn't matter what we choose? I.e. My Moon Tenno may just (logically?) see the RV as the cure for the systems ills?

I never paid attention to the Moon-Sun system - it doesn't affect anything in the game. In addition, the criteria by which a choice relates to the Moon or the Sun are not clear.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, (XB1)Clockwork Geoff said:

Without getting too much into the alignment discussion - Moon (detached +Logical), Eclipse (Balanced decision making), Sun (Emotional + Involved).

Moon- Simaris 

Eclipse- Quills

Sun- Ostron

👍

[PurrrningBoop]

It was already mentioned in this thread that Syndicates do not have a 100% allignment, yet...
If, I'd try to go the System wide involvement/ambitions route, I think, It'll look something like this (would be cool to see other ideas/corrections).

Moon (least involved): 

• Arbiters of Hexis - Other syndicates see Tenno as a means to reaching their goals, while AoH are more focused on Tenno themselves and not on what happens in the System. AoH are trying to prove that Tenno are more than simply tools of war and are seeking to unlock their true potential, whatever that is. (Lawful Neutral?) 
• Cephalon Suda - Focused on information collection disregarding the means by which it has been collected, has little interest in what is going on in the System. (Neutral?)

Sun (most involved): 

• Red Veil - Unlike SM, they aren't placed in their position by external conditions, rather choose a proactive role due to their doctrine of System wide cleansing. Although the means are debatable, I'd guess that's because of the number difference between RV and the Enemies that they have to face (which is almost everyone, (ambitions, ambitions)).(Neutral evil?) 
• Steel Meridian  - Their doctrine is: to protect the colonies and those who cannot protect themselves. Due to a genetic defect they are targeted by Grineer for extermination. Also, although motivation is debatable, they seek to undermine their former kin/masters. This, in my opinion, requires them to be involved on a system wide scale unlike, say, Cephalon Suda. Simply put: they fight, or they die. (Lawful Good?)

Eclipse (well, they are doing something): 

• New Loka - Main interest is to rid Earth from effects of Orokin technology (including Grineer, Corpus as well?) and repopulate it. Since they are in it for themselvesand they don't have a system wide interest, their involvement in the current conflict can be moderated/limited. (Lawfull Evil?) 
• Perrin Seqence - Trying to establish peace through diplomacy and trade, they frown upon physical confrontation, but can use it if necessary. (Neutral Good?) 

This post was written due to a series of consecutive brainfarts induced by severe boredom and I am sorry.

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

8 minutes ago, PurrrningBoop said:

It was already mentioned in this thread that Syndicates do not have a 100% allignment, yet...
If, I'd try to go the System wide involvement/ambitions route, I think, It'll look something like this (would be cool to see other ideas/corrections).

Moon (least involved): 

• Arbiters of Hexis - Other syndicates see Tenno as a means to reaching their goals, while AoH are more focused on Tenno themselves and not on what happens in the System. AoH are trying to prove that Tenno are more than simply tools of war and are seeking to unlock their true potential, whatever that is. (Lawful Neutral?) 
• Cephalon Suda - Focused on information collection disregarding the means by which it has been collected, has little interest in what is going on in the System. (Neutral?)

Sun (most involved): 

• Red Veil - Unlike SM, they aren't placed in their position by external conditions, rather choose a proactive role due to their doctrine of System wide cleansing. Although the means are debatable, I'd guess that's because of the number difference between RV and the Enemies that they have to face (which is almost everyone, (ambitions, ambitions)).(Neutral evil?) 
• Steel Meridian  - Their doctrine is: to protect the colonies and those who cannot protect themselves. Due to a genetic defect they are targeted by Grineer for extermination. Also, although motivation is debatable, they seek to undermine their former kin/masters. This, in my opinion, requires them to be involved on a system wide scale unlike, say, Cephalon Suda. Simply put: they fight, or they die. (Lawful Good?)

Eclipse (well, they are doing something): 

• New Loka - Main interest is to rid Earth from effects of Orokin technology (including Grineer, Corpus as well?) and repopulate it. Since they are in it for themselvesand they don't have a system wide interest, their involvement in the current conflict can be moderated/limited. (Lawfull Evil?) 
• Perrin Seqence - Trying to establish peace through diplomacy and trade, they frown upon physical confrontation, but can use it if necessary. (Neutral Good?) 

This post was written due to a series of consecutive brainfarts induced by severe boredom and I am sorry.

Yeah this was more or less where I was thinking. Now that my Tenno is Moon, he may see the Arbiters as more in line with his thinking, than his previous rash allies - RV.

That being said, he may also, logically see the need for action and the AoH are nothing but a Think tank.

I may be overthinking this....

[kgabor]

I don't see logic and emotion as counterparts or opposites of each other.

Emotions are instincts, logical thoughts instinctualised throughout evolution but society has a false concept of emotions.

There are simply deluded people who misinterpret their instincts which makes it seem like they're illogical which they're  really not.

[Xgomme]

I'm moon, and a syndicate leecher. Just here for the goods and I change when someone have something new and cool. In the end I'll burn them all

[Loza03]

1 hour ago, kgabor said:

I don't see logic and emotion as counterparts or opposites of each other.

Emotions are instincts, logical thoughts instinctualised throughout evolution but society has a false concept of emotions.

There are simply deluded people who misinterpret their instincts which makes it seem like they're illogical which they're  really not.

I disagree

My main case is Phobias, AKA irrational fears. Your body enters an instinctual reaction to an irrational stimulus. In other words, this is indicating that fear and from there other emotions, are illogical. Other indications are things like getting pleasure from tasks that don't directly contribute to survival, such as collecting souvenirs and the like. Emotions are frequently triggered by irrational, illogical sources, indicating that they are themselves irrational or illogical.

Not to mention that frequently emotional responses prevent people from coming to the logically-best conclusion. For example: Appeasement. Several important individuals, notably Chamberlin, continued being lenient to an increasingly-aggressive Hitler despite several chances to nip the war in the bud before it could become as bloody as it did was because they just couldn't take the idea of another war. Was that the logical decision? No, it was emotionally-driven.

[kgabor]

1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

I disagree

My main case is Phobias, AKA irrational fears. Your body enters an instinctual reaction to an irrational stimulus. In other words, this is indicating that fear and from there other emotions, are illogical. Other indications are things like getting pleasure from tasks that don't directly contribute to survival, such as collecting souvenirs and the like. Emotions are frequently triggered by irrational, illogical sources, indicating that they are themselves irrational or illogical.

Not to mention that frequently emotional responses prevent people from coming to the logically-best conclusion. For example: Appeasement. Several important individuals, notably Chamberlin, continued being lenient to an increasingly-aggressive Hitler despite several chances to nip the war in the bud before it could become as bloody as it did was because they just couldn't take the idea of another war. Was that the logical decision? No, it was emotionally-driven.

We should probably avoid this topic from now on as political discussions are not well received on these forums, but from what i know Chamberlain didn't entirely reject Hitler's ideology as a whole(he probably wouldn't have approved of how certain things went down behind the scenes though to put it mildly) or the idea of allying the germans, that's not necessarily a purely emotion driven decision as there is a reason for everything that happens in this world, some are just less straigthforward than others, some illogical but not always emotion driven.

Emotions are also not always straightforward but usually connected to something logical, like f.ex. Nyctophobia by itself might seem illogical in a sense as darkness can't hurt anyone directly, but there is reason behind it as it lowers human senses and one might not know what's happening in that person's surroundings, the feeling of that uncertanty is a logical sign to get that person to avoid it for their safety.

I almost drowned once back in my childhood which made me develop a panic reaction whenever i'm underwater, i don't breath even when using scuba gear, i instantly release all oxygen when i don't due to heavy breathing during panic attacks and that experience reminds me to never even get into that situation in the first place, the safest way of staying alive as human evolution developed in a way it prioritised self preservation above most if not all things.

I have Avoidant Personality Disorder because i see through people's intentions and a lot of people around me while growing up were untrustworthy, avoiding people is logical but the behavior itself is not always good to have, i also almost got killed a few years ago.

Btw. i never understood people who collects souvenirs, lol, maybe a way to preserve memories?

That could be useful, maybe, sounds like an OCD.

Edited December 4, 2018 by kgabor

[Loza03]

5 minutes ago, kgabor said:

We should probably avoid this topic from now on as political discussions are not well received on these forums, but from what i know Chamberlain didn't entirely reject Hitler's ideology as a whole(he probably wouldn't have approved of how certain things went down behind the scenes though to put it mildly) or the idea of allying the germans, that's not necessarily a purely emotion driven decision as there is a reason for everything that happens in this world, some are just less straigthforward than others, some illogical but not always emotion driven.

Emotions are also not always straightforward but usually connected to something logical, like f.ex. Nyctophobia by itself might seem illogical in a sense as darkness can't hurt anyone directly, but there is reason behind it as it lowers human senses and one might not know what's happening in that person's surroundings, the feeling of that uncertanty is a logical sign to get that person to avoid it for their safety.

I almost drowned once back in my childhood which made me develop a panic reaction whenever i'm underwater, i don't breath and that experience reminds me to never even get into that situation in the first place, the safest way of staying alive as human evolution developed in a way it prioritised self preservation above most if not all things.

Btw. i never understood people who collects souvenirs, lol, maybe a way to preserve memories?

That could be useful, maybe.

Alright. I still have points regarding the appeasement discussion, but it's probably better to abandon it for the sake of the thread.

They are generally connected to something logical, but still ultimately irrational. Yes, logical ones (as in your case) are more common, but even then, how likely is it that you're going to drown every time you're underwater? Millions, if not billions of people go underwater every day and are fine. Logically, the same should apply to you. Equivalently, I have a phobia for a specific kind of spider - I'm not sure what species but I think of them as Wolf Spiders, even though they're probably not. I'm fine with smaller spiders or even larger spiders, but a particular spider body type absolutely terrifies me. I can't go near it, unless it's under a glass, and even then I give it a wide berth under most circumstances. This is despite spiders being harmless to me for my entire life and having been so for my family for at least two generations, probably a good number more. Logically, it makes no sense, particularly given the absence of fear for other types of spiders. These fears are related to logic, undoubtedly, but are altered by instinct and emotion. Thus, instinct and emotion aren't necessarily logical, and are thus different from logic.

And that's not even considering irrational fears of more abstract things, which are believed by many to be caused by similar circumstances. If the instinctual mind was logical, the phobia behaviours would correct themselves after a short while, but they don't. Sometimes they even resurface after being treated by therapy and removed. Some even run counter to other instincts - Social Anxiety isn't a phobia, but is similar, a mental condition that causes people to avoid social interactions in a species that relies on social interactions, originally to survive back in the stone age. As irrational emotions go, that takes the cake. It's emotions running counter to one of our most basic survival instincts.

Also, as more general point to the suggestion that instinct = logical because it helps us survive. That's evolution, and evolution, and thus evolutionary psychology as you're suggesting, isn't always logical. Our bodies literally produce poison from multiple normal reactions - for example urea or cortisol - and instead of neutralising it, the body skirts the problem. With the former we just get rid of it. With the latter, it just kills vital systems like the immune system slowly until we stop producing it. That's why stress causes so many health problems. It's literally your body destroying parts of itself. Evolution is pretty much just random circumstance producing something that'll make do until something else makes do better. Logic accounts for probability and other factors, producing the best result from considering all possibilities. Evolution is basically jamming random mutations together until something works. 

[kgabor]

1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

Alright. I still have points regarding the appeasement discussion, but it's probably better to abandon it for the sake of the thread.

They are generally connected to something logical, but still ultimately irrational. Yes, logical ones (as in your case) are more common, but even then, how likely is it that you're going to drown every time you're underwater? Millions, if not billions of people go underwater every day and are fine. Logically, the same should apply to you. Equivalently, I have a phobia for a specific kind of spider - I'm not sure what species but I think of them as Wolf Spiders, even though they're probably not. I'm fine with smaller spiders or even larger spiders, but a particular spider body type absolutely terrifies me. I can't go near it, unless it's under a glass, and even then I give it a wide berth under most circumstances. This is despite spiders being harmless to me for my entire life and having been so for my family for at least two generations, probably a good number more. Logically, it makes no sense, particularly given the absence of fear for other types of spiders. These fears are related to logic, undoubtedly, but are altered by instinct and emotion. Thus, instinct and emotion aren't necessarily logical, and are thus different from logic.

And that's not even considering irrational fears of more abstract things, which are believed by many to be caused by similar circumstances. If the instinctual mind was logical, the phobia behaviours would correct themselves after a short while, but they don't. Sometimes they even resurface after being treated by therapy and removed. Some even run counter to other instincts - Social Anxiety isn't a phobia, but is similar, a mental condition that causes people to avoid social interactions in a species that relies on social interactions, originally to survive back in the stone age. As irrational emotions go, that takes the cake. It's emotions running counter to one of our most basic survival instincts.

Also, as more general point to the suggestion that instinct = logical because it helps us survive. That's evolution, and evolution, and thus evolutionary psychology as you're suggesting, isn't always logical. Our bodies literally produce poison from multiple normal reactions - for example urea or cortisol - and instead of neutralising it, the body skirts the problem. With the former we just get rid of it. With the latter, it just kills vital systems like the immune system slowly until we stop producing it. That's why stress causes so many health problems. It's literally your body destroying parts of itself. Evolution is pretty much just random circumstance producing something that'll make do until something else makes do better. Logic accounts for probability and other factors, producing the best result from considering all possibilities. Evolution is basically jamming random mutations together until something works. 

Wolf spiders look like something hard to get rid of if it would clinge onto your skin, also bugs, insects etc. can be pretty nasty, some flies in Africa eat people alive from the inside, Camel spiders grow as large as small household animals and you never know when these species mutate to become more like their dangerous relatives.

Cortisol is harmful just like any hormone in too small or large quantity because human bodies aren't perfect, mostly made of C and maintained by water and they abide to the rules of physics, these hormones are meant to help maintain the body and a healthy body shouldn't produce much more or less than the optimal amount, human bodies are vulnerable to chemical reactions like any other matter.

Phobias would, given the time (millions of years)correct themselves if whatever made them appear would cease to exist.

I'm not saying emotions or instincts always make perfect sense, but they can be very good signs to warn someone if interpreted correctly.

[TARINunit9]

11 hours ago, (XB1)Clockwork Geoff said:

Without getting too much into the alignment discussion - Moon (detached +Logical), Eclipse (Balanced decision making), Sun (Emotional + Involved).

What Syndicate do you think is best for each alignment?

I don't think there's any reason any alignment would be less inclined for any Syndicate. Steel Meridian and Perrin Sequence are both undeniably heroes (who just happen to hate each other), and both Sun and Moon would have reasons to follow them. Suda surely has contracts for you no matter what your sensibilities are. Loka just wants the transhumans off Earth, and don't seem to particularly care who they hire to get that goal. Hexis would be in pretty big trouble with us if they made it public they didn't actually like one entire third of our population. And Red Veil... I still have no idea what their deal is, they've had three backstories now

[Loza03]

1 minute ago, kgabor said:

I'm not saying emotions or instincts always make perfect sense, but they can be very good signs to warn someone if interpreted correctly.

Sorry to cut right to the main point and ignore a lot of what you said, but this bit is pretty much the main part I'd like to address. The other bits would have been explaining the minutia of examples I gave and would ultimately have not really expanded the discussion. I hope you understand if I just go right to the main event.

Anyway, the fact that they don't make perfect sense is basically my point. They're based in something rational, but they're not entirely logical, because logic is a carefully considered series of actions like a computer would make, based on existing information, trends and patterns to make the best possible decision. Which is why computers are so good at chess which is pretty much a logic game - they analyse the available moves and determine the best one based on possible moves in the future by their opponent - what's the most best move I can take here, and does the best move that results from that put me in a worse position? And so on in every conceivable thread of logic, until the best thread is selected. Obviously, human-made logic usually misses a few steps as variables are forgotten or probabilities poorly constructed, but that's the idea. Emotions, generally around survival via social interaction, don't always follow logic because they're have roots in evolution which is illogical due to basically being order built from chaos.

Since evolution is based on random chance, the moves are not considered. Series of future actions are not predicted - it's purely random chance and whatever's the most successful the most often succeeds. But, since chance is such a big player, the best option might not succeed. For example, consider this scenario:

Two mutations are observed in one of the chromosomes of a species. The best option has a 75% chance of producing more offspring and the second best chance has 50% and the third best has a 25% chance. But the best option is a rare mutation that's recessive to the second best, which makes for 1% occurrence rate (I know, maths doesn't check out but for the sake of this example, go with it), the second best is more common with a 39% occurrence rate and the third best is therefore the norm with a 60% occurrence rate. There are far more instances of the second best option surviving to breed far more often than the best option and the third. So the inferior third eventually disappears, but the best option becomes recessive and rarely appears compared to the second best, and possibly then becomes eliminated if the cookie crumbles that way. Which, if that mutation cannot occur from the other mutated gene, could be for good. Given the billions of times this kind of situation has occurred across evolutionary history, it's inevitable that some of our traits came from this. Hence why so many of the details in nature are 'good enough' rather than making perfect sense.

Not to mention that evolution rarely eliminates future disadvantages, as only direct, immediate advantages or loss of disadvantages become prominent. Hence why we don't have a way to deal with the damage caused by Chronic Stress either during the event or afterwards. It would be logical to have such a countermeasure, but that's not how evolution winds up working so we don't have it. The same applies to our emotions. Over time, evolutionary traits were added on, which had the potential to link in unexpected, and often negative ways and since they weren't negative in the moment they were passed over by chance. Other times a better option simply failed to win out by simple pot luck.

This, ultimately, resulted in a series of slightly illogical routes which had instincts and responses that didn't always make sense. Particularly those with social behaviours, since that's a slightly illogical system interacting with other slightly illogical systems and so the succeeding phenotype is even less logical as one illogical system made an illogical choice that satisfied the illogical other systems despite being, well, illogical. And so a good chunk of our decision-making behaviours are built on something fundamentally flawed and illogical. That chunk being our emotions. Flawed, illogical emotions that affect our decisions. The broader strokes are logical, but as you go in deeper and deeper, little things that don't make sense crop up, as you say, which affect decisions made that follow those emotional routes. Which are usually avoided or don't majorly affect the outcome, but sometimes it leads to depression, or social anxiety or an irrational fear of something that might once have been able to hurt you, but isn't able to now. The further apart from the basics it is, the more likely that an option that is far from the logically best is taken.

So, yeah. Emotions are built off an illogical, imperfect basis, and are thus, ultimately, illogical.

[kgabor]

11 hours ago, Loza03 said:

So, yeah. Emotions are built off an illogical, imperfect basis, and are thus, ultimately, illogical.

That really only depends on how you look at it.

The logic you apply on your logically existing for a logical purpose but imperfect emotions and instincts makes them logical.

Even without, they can be inaccurate, but not baseless.

You can count all the emotions you have in a day and if you apply logic, you see neither of them are baseless or useless.

Fundamentally flawed doesn't equal illogical.

Mutations happen based on circumstances, if an evolutional change is favorable, it happens, it's a bit off topic but you can see it in nature. (traits of different animals  based on what's favorable for their survival, skin color on humans based on climate so they don't get skin diseases/can preserve more energy or something imbetween or fur color on animals for similar reasons, a little change wouldn't make much difference in the survival of an individual, these happen through millions of years of evolution and aren't random)

[Loza03]

48 minutes ago, kgabor said:

That really only depends on how you look at it.

The logic you apply on your logically existing for a logical purpose but imperfect emotions and instincts makes them logical.

Even without, they can be inaccurate, but not baseless.

You can count all the emotions you have in a day and if you apply logic, you see neither of them are baseless or useless.

Fundamentally flawed doesn't equal illogical.

Mutations happen based on circumstances, if an evolutional change is favorable, it happens, it's a bit off topic but you can see it in nature. (traits of different animals  based on what's favorable for their survival, skin color on humans based on climate so they don't get skin diseases/can preserve more energy or something imbetween or fur color on animals for similar reasons, a little change wouldn't make much difference in the survival of an individual, these happen through millions of years of evolution and aren't random)

I'd say this is us differing in the definition of logic, which according to the dictionary is: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.". In other words, analysing a situation and following the best course of action determined by that analysis. I'd call what you're doing with emotions rationalising, in that you're determining that emotions can have reason applied to them. However, this does not mean that they are logical, which is something different, requiring that it be something that's applying the principles of logic to determine an optimal course of action. Emotions don't do this, they're pretty much gut reactions. Emotions can have a reason to exist, but that doesn't mean they take the best course of action - because they're the product of so many random variables stacking up something that works over the years even if it's imperfect, that means that the course of action decided isn't always the most valid - consider how fear would lead someone to flee or try to fight a bear, whereas with many species it's usually a more valid option with a greater chance of survival to act unappealing as prey and unthreatening. You can understand why fear triggers the fight-or-flight response, but it's clear that response is illogical.

Emotions don't follow the principles of validity, because neither does Evolution. Although yes, only favourable changes tend to survive, it's not always the most favourable as I discussed, and some favourable changes don't even get filtered since those changes don't have immediate effects - logically future contingencies would be at priority . Consider sloths who use a digestive system that is 'good enough' that they prosper in their environment. Their digestive system heavily relies on bacteria that rely on outside conditions, since the warm-blooded sloth's metabolism is too slow to perform thermal homeostasis, so if it gets too cold then they starve because the bacteria stop digesting. It's a system that can be rationalised: Sloths live in warm climates, so cold temperatures aren't common enough to have made eating that way impossible. And since it was a niche food source, sloths evolved to take advantage of it without competition. It's a rational outcome, but if viewed logically, seeking changes useful for a species long-term survival and species propagation, then it's an illogical one as it is detrimental to both - the species is ill-equipped to deal with changing temperatures which means that leaving their environment is difficult or impossible, which means if forced to by competition, predators or weather changes, then they would perish. But, since evolution is random, not logical, the Sloth has evolved to fill a niche that pretty much locks it to that niche only, limiting it.

So, yes, fundamentally flawed does equal illogical in my mind, because logic means that it's an reasoned course of action that makes the best decisions that can be reached in a given circumstance. Emotions have been shown repeatedly that they do not fit this definition. Therefore, Emotions are not logical.

[XRosenkreuz]

On 2018-12-04 at 3:57 AM, Makunogo said:

i didnt really care much to be honest. i chose the 3 on the left cus they all have their own level of crazy. i didnt like the left side as much. too methodical for my taste haha

...um...

My own self, I'd like a retooling of the alliances. I'd like to be able to run with Perrin Sequence, Cephalon Suda, and Steel Meridian since they're all properly invested in peace in the Origin System. But because Perrin are my favs, I'm stuck with the Red Murderbois and the We're Totally Not Space Nazis, Honest club.

[kgabor]

3 hours ago, Loza03 said:

I'd say this is us differing in the definition of logic, which according to the dictionary is: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.". In other words, analysing a situation and following the best course of action determined by that analysis. I'd call what you're doing with emotions rationalising, in that you're determining that emotions can have reason applied to them.

...

So, yes, fundamentally flawed does equal illogical in my mind

Ok, i can accept that.

Btw. interesting fact: Sloths were pretty unappealing targets for predators not so long ago, due to their gigantic size the Eleutherium (not sure if i wrote it right, i'm speaking purely from memory because if i closed this to search it i would have to relog because of the browser i'm using on mobile :D, Firefox Focus)didn't have any natural predators from my knowledge, maybe if the circumstances would allow for it and given we wouldn't have another ice age for enough time and the Earth had an increased O2 level in its atmosphere, they would grow to be of that size again.

Not sure if sloths are poisonous because of the symbiotic bacteria and that's enough to make them unappealing, but it seems like the most practical yet simple way to increase their survival rates.

Edit.: Ok, now i looked it up, it's called Megatherium.

My memory never fails to disappoint me. :D

Edited December 5, 2018 by kgabor

[(XBOX)Clockwork Geoff]

11 hours ago, XRosenkreuz said:

...um...

My own self, I'd like a retooling of the alliances. I'd like to be able to run with Perrin Sequence, Cephalon Suda, and Steel Meridian since they're all properly invested in peace in the Origin System. But because Perrin are my favs, I'm stuck with the Red Murderbois and the We're Totally Not Space Nazis, Honest club.

Yeh my two faves are Red Veil And New Loka But I was worried about how it meshes with my moon Tenno. However upon review, alignment shouldn’t affect your syndicate. Alignment is your decision making process and they way you see situations. You’re syndicates are the group’s whose vision and objectives you agree with.

Any alignment could ultimately agree with any group’s views