Writing: Rob Boyle, Talia Dean contact us: Creative Commons License; Some Rights Reserved.

Editing and Development: info@posthumanstudios.com This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Rob Boyle, Adam Jury or visit eclipsephase.com International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Layout: Adam Jury join our mailing list: In plain English: you are free to copy, share, and remix the text and artwork within
Art: Job Molina welcometoeclipsephase.com this book under the following conditions:
Special Thanks To: Our patrons for
or search your favorite social network • you do so only for noncommercial purposes;
their support and making Multiplicity for: “Eclipse Phase” • you attribute Posthuman Studios;
& Synthesis one of our monthly or “Posthuman Studios” • you share derivatives under the same license.
projects: eclipsephase.com/patreon
Support us directly: posthuman.shop More info: http://eclipsephase.com/cclicense

VFORKING: ONE AMONG MANY 2 Hedonists7

Slavers7
A Divided History 2 Survivalists7
Current Legalities 2 Twins7
Objections3
Arguments In Favor 3 GROUP MINDS: MANY AS ONE 8
FORKING CUSTOMS 4 A History of Coming Together
Fears8
8
Creating Forks 4 Arguments For 8
People or things? 4 The Minds Within 9
Work4 External Relations 9
Physical vs. Virtual 4
Mind Edits
Relationships5
4 SYNTHESIS10
Aggregates10
Forks and Rep 5 Cohorts10
The Dark Side 5 Hives10
Children and Education 5 Multis10
Forks as Muses 5 Neo-Synergists10
Merging and Deletion 5 Soul Eaters 11
Being a Fork 5 Splits11
MULTIPLICITY6 The Swarm 11
Artists6
Ascendants6
GAME INFORMATION 12
Characters as Forks 12
Autocrats6 Characters as Group Minds 12
Conjuncts6 Optional Merging Rules 12
Exes6 New Mental Ware 13
Families7 New Sub-Strain: The Swarm 14
Gen Gaps 7 New Sleights 14

ECLIPSEPHASE 2CREATED2BY
Posthuman Studios is: Rob Boyle, Davidson Cole, Brian Cross, and Adam Jury Rob Boyle and Brian Cross
 FORKING:
ONE AMONG MANY
Posted By: Skinwalker, Firewall Sentinel

Forking is among transhumanity’s last great taboos, chal-

lenging the basic assumption that an ego is unique. For many
transhumans — even those with otherwise extensive physical
or mental modifications — the thought of being a “copy” is
distressing if not terrifying.

MULTIPLICITY
Social and scientific discourse has largely settled on using
the umbrella term “multiplicity” to refer to the wide variety of
practices based around the regular simultaneous instancing of
more than one copy of the same ego.

& SYNTHESIS
A DIVIDED HISTORY
There are many competing and conflicting views and
approaches to forking’s legality and use.
Forking was a relatively new innovation before the Fall, and
its implications were not settled issues before the catastrophe.
During the evacuation of Earth, habitats struggled with a simul-
taneous influx of refugees/infugees and the loss of records that
could establish and verify these people’s identities.
Due to this chaos, thousands of backups were reinstantiated
under the assumption that their primary egos were dead,
when they in fact survived. As identification systems were re-
established and habitats began to share data more reliably,
there were often-dramatic conflicts between these uninten-
tional forks who began to fight over which held the primary
identity. Primary egos were unable to prove who they were
and watched their forks become de facto controllers of their
identity and belongings. Alpha forks who had been instanced
for months or even years were unwilling to be re-integrated
when their primary ego was rediscovered. Survivors of the Fall
suffered horrible mental trauma that made the re-integration of
old forks extremely difficult.
Primaries and forks both brought charges against the
companies that held and managed backup and re-instancing,
sometimes as joint suits, sometimes separately. The social and
judicial fallout from these cases clogged inner-system legal
systems for years. It also resulted in hundreds of cases of forced
merging, forks fleeing capture by ego hunters, and bitter legal
battles that saw forks survive as individual egos on the condi-
tion they create new identities for themselves.

CURRENT LEGALITIES
All these troubles influenced inner-system law-makers to
greatly restrict even voluntary, planned forking with a duration
of more than a few days to avoid widespread repetition of
these legal issues. The major polities require forks to be legally
registered the moment they are instanced; some even require
forking licenses or place software locks on cortical stacks, cyber-
brains, infomorphs, and ego bridges to handle this registration
securely and automatically. Many habitats also require forks to
be tracked for their entire duration; failure to report a lost fork
is a crime. Forks are usually imprinted with a variant of the
primary’s ego ID that designates it as a fork and precludes it
from any locally proscribed activities (often travel and legal/
financial transactions without the primary ego’s authorization).

2¹ Forking: One Among Many • A Divided History–Current Legalities

 Within the inner system, most habitats treat forks as property
and restrict forking to 48 hours; in some jurisdictions, forks
must be equipped with auto-delete apps. However, many habs
instead hew to the 0.1% rule. If an alpha fork of an ego has more
than a 0.1% differentiation in their ego map, they are no longer
considered the same person as the originating ego. Habitats vary
wildly in their response to these time periods or thresholds being
crossed — including requiring immediate forced merger with the
primary ego, desleeving and deleting the forked instance, or treating
the fork as a separate ego. The latter cases are used as excuses to
detain the fork for illegal entry to the habitat, misappropriation or
theft of habitat resources such as atmosphere and power, and a host
of other offenses that accrue heavy fines and legal liability for the
originating ego. Though forks can achieve legal status as distinct
individuals, they remain in a precarious situation as their origina-
tors might appeal to different laws or standards that still treat the
fork as property, an impostor, or a non-person.
Other legalities vary around the system. Morningstar habitats
treat forks much like other inner-system polities, with the exception
of a loophole that allows forks that have been (illegally) instanced
beyond a week to apply for citizenship status with the primary ego’s
approval, after which they legally become a separate person with
no obligations from or to the original. The Titanians take an even
more progressive view, with no restrictions on forking, but treating
forks as dependents of the primary ego with associated civil rights
and protections from abuse. They also allow forks to apply for
emancipation from their primary ego, upon which they are granted
citizenship as separate unique beings. And, of course, the anarchists
and Extropians place no limits on forking, while the Jovians outlaw
it entirely.
Regardless of the laws and intent of the primary egos, not all
forks themselves are willing to play by the rules. Deletion and even
merging are scary and require a certain mindset to simply accept.
For this reason, it is standard practice to psychosurgically modify
forks to accept their fate. Nevertheless, many forks hesitate when
the time comes, pleading with their primaries to let them continue
to exist. Others go on the run, hoping to elude the ego hunters sent
after them. An underground railroad of autonomists is known to
help forks escape to the outer system, where they can live free of
their primary egos’ control. In some cases, forks have been known to
dispose of their primary egos and assume their place.
OBJECTIONS
Now that transhuman society has had time to stabilize, the discus-
sion of forking is more prominent in public discourse. The majority
still view it negatively — or at least with caution. The trauma and
social displacement from the Fall is still a vivid scar, so exposure to
risk and complications is considered frightening and foolish.
There are also bioconservative opinions that oppose forking,
seeing it as the worst sort of transgressive excess and an affront
to the value of an individual human life. The central argument
is that each person has only one unique and irreproducible soul.
Forking is, at best, an exercise in cruelty that creates an awareness
that thinks itself a complete being but can never be anything other
than a deluded copy that is spiritually stillborn. Engaging in such
behavior for convenience or personal interest is viewed as a serious
moral and spiritual hazard. From this point of view, the ease of
forking makes it an existential threat, as we will soon be overrun
by soulless people-impersonating monsters. This has driven some
bioconservatives to attack forks, businesses that facilitate forking,
and politicians that support liberal forking policies.
Forking: One Among Many • Objections–Arguments In Favor
At the opposite end is the argument that forks have personhood
MULTIPLICITY & SYNTHESIS
and so merging or deleting one is murder. Ethical objections focus
on the self-centered intent of people creating forks for specific tasks
or purposes: if an alpha fork is generated, it is a whole and complete
ego, so holding it subject to the dictates and designs of its originator
is slavery by another name. Creating beta forks or lower is even worse,
as it only compounds the previous objections by building in handicaps
and limitations that purposely hobble the forked ego. These arguments
have been part of the social discourse on forking since before the Fall
and have made an impression on the thinking of many transhumans.
Surviving religions take mixed positions on forking. Christians
adhere to bioconservative views, while Hindus, Muslims, and Jews
lean towards the practical attitudes of the inner system. Buddhists,
pagans, and techno-creationists embrace multiplicity in full.
Even in communities without ideological opposition, resource
limitations can make it almost impossible to acquire the morphs,
hardware, or computational resources needed to instance multiple
forks for any length of time. Unless an individual can provide
everything they need for themselves through work or are lucky
enough to be living in an unusually resource-rich habitat, running
multiple instances is seen as self-obsessive, greedy, and anti-social.
Others point to the many transhumans still struggling to secure and
improve their circumstances post-Fall and claim that bodies and
resources used to maintain forks would be better used by others.
Even the wealthiest inner-system elites who cover their forking
expenses out-of-pocket are seen as insensitive and declassé when
so many bodiless infugees and others can barely afford case morphs.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR
Despite the restrictions and difficulties surrounding intentional
forking, it has been a slowly growing trend ever since the tech-
nology became available before the Fall. Most people who run forks
do so regularly, and the most common reasons are utilitarian. Even
with the legal restrictions and social stigma, it is still possible and
practical to run short-term forks that are only active on the mesh or
in simulspaces.
Academic, business, and political leaders are often possessed
of unique knowledge and insights and need to attend to multiple
simultaneous but vitally important affairs. A habitat administrator
forking to manage a crisis, a scientist making rapid progress on
critical research by overseeing several lines of experimentation
simultaneously, or a hypercorp exec steadily raising profits by being
present for literally every major meeting all bring benefits and can
help shift the opinions of many people.
Likewise, anyone working in remote circumstances, from gate-
crashing teams to the staff of far-flung habitats, will encounter
issues that require additional staffing that can’t be obtained any
other way. The significant objective benefit of forking in these
circumstances has helped the practice maintain a widely-recognized
core of legitimacy that has protected it from being totally banned.
That the practice is most available and most beneficial to members
of the social and intellectual elite is helping forking make steady
progress towards broader acceptability.
Of course, some people just don’t give a damn about the broader
opinion or what they see as needless restrictions. To these self-
described visionaries, multiplicity is an area that transhumanity has
neglected to its detriment. Though rare, there are some who want to
explore radically different social models and modes of being that
are based on or take advantage of forking in creative and experi-
mental ways. Forking is not just a useful possibility, it is central to
the way they choose to live.
¾3

FORKING CUSTOMS
Posted By: Skinwalker, Firewall Sentinel
Transhumanity is already carving out new traditions regarding forks.
FORKING CUSTOMS
CREATING FORKS
Spinning up a new alpha fork is a trivial affair, yet people approach
it with caution, given the legal and security ramifications. Creating
a beta is considered safer, but requires more time (neural pruning
takes about an hour). For this reason, many people keep pre-made
but dormant beta forks on hand in encrypted storage, activating
them as necessary.
PEOPLE OR THINGS?
The underlying attitudes fueling the ways people interact with
forks relies on a simple distinction: do you consider them people
or things? The widespread legal opinion in the inner system is to
treat forks as property and therefore undeserving of the rights and
basic respect we’d afford other transhumans, sapient beings, or
even animals. There is certainly a subset of people who are happy
to treat forks this way — it relieves them of the burden of needing to
consider a fork’s needs or feelings, especially when it comes time to
delete or re-integrate them. It also feeds into latent bioconservative
opinions that forks are somehow lesser or not as deserving as “real”
people. Then there are the people who interact with their own forks
and realize they don’t like themselves. Each of these groupings are
more likely to place strict controls on a fork’s activities, verbally or
physically abuse forks over failures or mistakes, and rudely ignore
or look down on forks belonging to others. They also tend to prefer
betas over alphas, as they are easier to manipulate.
Nevertheless, conscientous people within the inner system
cannot help themselves and end up treating forks as real
people — when facing a fork of your own self, who acts with your
voice and mannerisms and shares your memories and personality,
it is difficult to pretend that other instance is somehow inferior.
Holding basic empathy towards forks is not uncommon — even in
the inner system, people will be uncomfortable with abuse directed
towards forks, much as they would someone mistreating a pet.
Across the Solar System, people view betas as less deserving of
protections, given that they are only partial copies. Betas get the
same treatment as ALIs — they are recognized as sentient tools.
However, many people still afford betas the full respect they would
any sapient being, especially in the outer system.
WORK
Predictably, the first thought people have when they consider forks
is: can I use a fork to do my work and other things I don’t want to
do, while I relax and do things I want? The answer depends a lot on
your personality and how you’d handle it with the positions reversed.
Are you comfortable with doing that work so that another version of
you can slack off? A lot of folks would find that unfair, yet have no
problem with effectively enslaving a fork anyway. This is justified on
the grounds that they are “doing it to themselves,” which can only be
argued if you deny that separate instance any personhood or autonomy.
People are often surprised to find that they despise themselves a little
bit when they merge a fork who was assigned an unwanted task — but
that’s nothing a little psychosurgery can’t fix, right?
Twins and groups of forks bypass these issues by rotating respon-
sibility for unwanted tasks. This spreads around the unpleasantness;
4¹ Forking Customs • Creating Forks–Mind Edits
by making a small personal sacrifice, all of the forks can enjoy more
leisure time. It’s a net win.
Others resort to editing their forks to make them more obedient
or willing to shoulder the burden. And of course some don’t mind
oppressing their forks — either because they don’t consider them real
people or they feel it is justified because their primary self holds the
power, and that’s all that matters. Such authoritarian tendencies are
tolerated in the inner system but discouraged among autonomists.
One area where forks are especially valued is hazardous work.
Most people agree that it makes sense to fork yourself (even if it’s
just a backup) before engaging in something life-threatening. The
forks assigned to dangerous work are not always in agreement, but
they at least have an investment in staying alive.
It is no secret that some hypercorps engage in unethical practices
when it comes to forks. These range from requiring employees to
fork to put in extra hours to secretly forknapping employees. Forks
are legally considered to count for non-compete clauses, and some
companies require employees with access to sensitive information
to equip copylock meshware or do not allow them to merge or fork
outside of their own facilities.
PHYSICAL vs. VIRTUAL
The question of whether or not to sleeve a fork is largely dependent
upon available resources. Habitats do not hesitate to restrict the
physical instancing of forks if the local morph supply is limited. In
some areas, forks may only legally inhabit shells such as synthmorphs
or axles. It is widely regarded as rude and selfish to waste bodies on
forks when so many infugees cannot acquire a body. In practice, this
means the underclasses rarely embody their forks while the rich and
privileged do so at will. A common trick is to keep an old synth or bot
on hand for those times when you need to physically instance a fork
for a short period. Nevertheless, it can be quite handy to have another
physical body for certain tasks. This is especially true in remote loca-
tions such as ships, brinker habs, and exoplanet colonies.
Those who are worried that their forks may go independent
tend to avoid sleeving them, especially as they may be liable for
the morph itself if it goes missing. The vast majority of people
employing forks keep them virtual and use them for digital office
work, security, running virtual errands, remote meetings, and so
on. Virtual forks are especially useful for taking care of something
remote — egocast there and back and then re-integrate the memories.
Many people have never physically left their home habitat, but have
traveled extensively via fork.
MIND EDITS
All beta forks are neurally pruned, but it is also extremely common
to psychosurgically edit alpha forks. Muses are equipped to handle
these tasks, but online psychosurgeons are readily available.
Editing forks for obedience, agreeableness, subsequienceness,
and loyalty is partly mandated by legal liabilities, to keep a fork
from going rogue and getting the primary in trouble. People also do
it when they know they otherwise can’t trust themselves (meaning,
their fork) to stick to the plan, usually because they know they are
taking advantage of their fork in some way. However, people some-
times forget or fail to also remove the awareness of the editing from
the fork’s memories. This can lead to situations where a fork knows
their mind has been meddled with, but may not know exactly
why — or, even worse, they do, and yet are forced by the edits to
somehow make peace with that. This has created mental stress, trig-
gered breakdowns or odd behavior, and spurred otherwise obedient
forks to acts of subversion and rebellion.

RELATIONSHIPS
Forking has changed the landscape of romantic relationships. It’s
easier than ever to always be there for your partner(s). Many folks
now enjoy the benefits of sex with more than one partner without
jealousy or fidelity issues. Perhaps most importantly, forks allow
people to circumvent scheduling issues; responsibilities are no
longer an excuse for not accompanying your partner when they
ask you to. On the other hand, this encourages co-dependency and
limits the amount of time people get to themselves; some relation-
ship contracts specifically exclude obligatory forking.
The same issues apply to relationships with friends and
family — forks are a fantastic way to keep up with your besties
when you are otherwise busy or to fulfill family obligations that the
primary would rather avoid.
The relationship between a fork and their primary is dependent
on personality. Most people remain on decent terms with their
forks — they are of the same mindset, after all. People who are
cantankerous, disagreeable, anxiety-ridden, or defiant tend to
find that they have as many issues with their forks as they do with
other people. This can be eye opening and lead to some critical self-
evaluation, or it can prove that multiplicity is simply not your thing.
Primaries and forks do have their falling outs. Depending on
the primary’s attitude and local laws, the fork most likely has little
recourse and can look forward to deletion. Forks are aware of this,
of course, and so bite their tongue or don’t destabilize the orbit to
avoid repercussions. This enhances the echo chamber effect that
already is prevalent between many forks and primaries, especially
among those who don’t often socialize with others.
FORKS AND REP
In polities where forks are treated as property, they are forbidden
from having their own rep scores. Instead, any rep dings or pings
they accrue are applied to their primary’s rep score. More than one
person has had their rep tanked by a fork gone wild. This encour-
ages people to track and keep a close eye on their forks’ activities.
Once a fork acquires its own citizenship as a legally separate
person, it may build its own rep scores. Most rep nets will copy over
the primary’s reputation score in this case as a starting point, up to
the point the fork was instantiated, as long as the primary approves.
After all, the fork shares that history, even if it is now legally separate.
However, there have been a few cases, notably of forks substantiated
from older backups, or ones in which the primary disavowed the
fork, where the fork had to build their rep from scratch.
THE DARK SIDE
Forking enables all sorts of bad behaviors. Relationship infidelity
is most common — there are as many opinions about that as there
are potential scenarios. Some people use forks to live entire second
lives, unknown to their partners or friends. Online trolls use forks
to brigade and harass their target du jour. Even autonomists have to
deal with people using forks to stack meetings and sway collective
decision-making processes. Transhuman society is continually
developing new mechanisms to detect these abuses and keep them
in check .
CHILDREN AND EDUCATION
Prevailing public opinion finds the idea of forking children
distasteful, and many habitats prohibit it. The potential for chaos
alone is unnerving. Nevertheless, parents create forks of their
children as an alternative to birthing new ones, especially given
the costs of genetic licenses and exowomb fees. Others do it to give
their only child “siblings” to play with and keep them occupied. This
practice is criticized as less optimal than socializing with other chil-
dren, but in remote habs not every parent has that option.
FORKING CUSTOMS
A new wave of educators encourages forking as a way for children
to acquire an education without also limiting the amount of creative
and play time time they need each day. Schools in agreement with
this policy handle all daily lessons with online forks, which are
merged at the end of the day with the physical primary who has
spent the day playing.
In the halls of higher education, college students routinely fork
themselves to take on bigger class loads and get through school
more quickly. Aware of these capabilities, professors elevate the
work load for their courses, knowing the students will compensate.
FORKS AS MUSES
It is increasingly common for people to take on a fork as their
muse. In many cases, this is a fork of a family member or loved one.
Parents push this as a way of mentoring and always being there for
their children, though this is also seen as smothering. Children do
not like always being under their parents’ gaze and usually trade out
for a different muse when they get older. People with narcissistic
or introvert traits are known to be more comfortable taking on
their own forks as muses — who can you trust more than yourself?
Experts, however, discourage using forks as muses, given that your
average person lacks the impartiality and specialized training that
make muse ALIs such useful personal companions and assistants.
MERGING AND DELETION
The practice of merging and deleting is essential to forking prac-
tices, but also the biggest hurdle that someone new to forking must
overcome. Reluctance is very common, in part because it can feel
like ending a life. Once a person has merged a fork back into their
primary ego several times, however, these concerns are assuaged
as they understand the fork has been integrated into their own self.
It is trickier to acclimate to deletion. Some egos have a hard time
accepting it, no matter which end of it they are on — especially with
alpha forks, as they are a more complete copy. While some forks are
comfortable enough with the procedure that they can delete them-
selves, knowing that they served their purpose and their primary
continues on, it is not uncommon for forks up for deletion to rebel
or go on the run. For this reason, many transhumans only ever
merge their alpha forks or deactivate them and keep them in storage.
BEING A FORK
The realization that you are a fork can be jarring, especially if you
are the type of person who considers forks to be secondary to the
primary ego — and many people do, it’s an inherent bias towards
our own uniqueness and specialness. Even our language reflects
this hierarchy with terms like “primary” and “beta.” No one likes
being in a position where they are expendable or expected to do
someone else’s work. Once such experiences are merged with the
primary, however, people’s attitudes tend to change.
While stereotypes exist of forks finishing each other’s sentences
and reveling in being the same person, more individualistic forks
go to great lengths to make themselves stand apart from their peers,
changing their mannerisms, clothing style, and sometimes even
their way of speaking. Intentionally editing your forks to give each
a unique personality quirk is a good way to easily tell them apart.
Forking Customs • Relationships–Being a Fork
¾5

MULTIPLICITY
Posted By: Skinwalker, Firewall Sentinel
Transhumanity has adopted a bewildering variety of approaches to
MULTIPLICITY
the practice of forking.
ARTISTS
Artists pursue forking for unique cultural and social events.
Brilliant dance compositions by the artist Dominique LeStrange
have deployed up to a dozen forks simultaneously, and the recent
performance of the show “One’s Self ” at Noctis is widely regarded
as one of the most significant artistic events on Mars in the last five
years. As more people with cultural caché explore forking for art
and entertainment, they help improve public perception and coun-
teract the stories of narcissistic pleasure-seeking. Forking for artistic
endeavors is almost universally short-term and is coming to be seen
as only the start of what can be accomplished.
ASCENDANTS
Where multiplicity pushes boundaries, the ascendants shatter them.
To them, forking is only the first step down the path to entirely new,
posthuman modes of being. Ascendants go beyond forking to chal-
lenge basic ideas of personhood: Why should you only merge with
forks of yourself? Why not manipulate and change forks to create
entirely new personalities? Why not merge forks that have been
separate for years or longer?
Few are willing to publicly support such blatantly posthuman
positions. Notably, Professor Rokuzawa Chi at Titan Autonomous
University has published research and articles on forking and indi-
viduality that lay the groundwork for the exploration of such ideas,
though this has created some backlash.
The practices and pursuits of the ascendants are radical and
experimental, incorporating untested psychosurgical methods and
merging/integration techniques that are illegal in many habitats.
More than once, this has resulted in horribly traumatized egos or
personalities that are so different from their sources that they can’t
be considered the same person.
AUTOCRATS
Though frowned upon in the outer system, many inner-system trans-
humans adopt an autocratic relationship where the primary ego
SUMMARY OF FORK LEGALITIES
Anarchists/Extropians/Scum
• No limitations
Jovian Republic
• Forking is outlawed
Morningstar Constellation*
• Forks must be registered, given fork ID
• Forks considered property of primary ego
• Primary ego responsible for fork’s actions
• 48 hour maximum instance limit, subject to re-integration
• Alpha forks instanced longer than one week may apply
for citizenship and personhood status with permission of
primary ego
* Varies by habitat; these are common legalities
6¹ Multiplicity • Artists–Exes
governs over a collection of forks — usually betas carefully pruned
for obedience, but sometimes alphas as well. Autocrats rarely re-in-
tegrate with their forks to maintain a clear separation and rank over
their lesser selves, while also defending their standing as the only
“real” version. Since most inner-system habitats treat forks as prop-
erty and not people, autocrats can and often do subject their forks
to restrictions and limitations in their quality of life that would
be distasteful or intolerable for others. Since the forks themselves
are limited or pruned and only created for specific tasks, it is very
likely that they’ll be kept exclusively in VR simulspaces or run as
infomorphs if they have to work with outsiders. More often than not,
they are deleted or put into cold storage whenever their immediate
task is completed. Cognite execs are infamous in corporate circles
for this type of forking, but it’s also rumored to be widely used by
Gorgon Defense System’s R&D department to help speed up product-
development times.
CONJUNCTS
Though rare, a few asyncs have discovered an ability to mentally
link with biomorph-sleeved forks of themselves in a manner that
allows them to act simultaneously with precise coordination. This
capability only seems to work when the asyncs remain in proximity
to each other, but seems to have greater range than other async
abilities, possibly because each mind operates conjointly, in sync
with one another.
Conjuncts are capable of amazing feats of coordination, from
synchronized dance routines to handling complex mechanical
operations in concert with one another.
Additional reports that some asyncs have the capability to
remotely share memories and other information between forks
without needing to merge remain unconfirmed.
EXES
Like any other relationship, the ties between a primary ego and
their fork sometimes fray. Many primaries and forks choose to part
ways, sometimes amicably, sometimes less so. Some forks continue
on as friends, maintaining distance but keeping contact like former
friends or distant family.
Forks derived from competitive personalities often find them-
selves in friendly rivalries with their primary, urging each other on
and driving each other towards shared goals. There has been at least
one case on Venus of two separated forks running for political office
against each other.
Planetary Consortium &
Lunar-Lagrange Alliance*
• Forks must be registered, given fork ID, tracked
• Forks considered property of primary ego
• Primary ego responsible for fork’s actions
• Some activities (travel, financial, legal) limited without
primary ego authorization
• Limited to 24–48 hours maximum instance
• Forks exceeding time limit subject to deletion
Titanian Commonwealth
• Forks considered dependents of primary ego with limited
rights/protections
• No time limit, forks may apply for emancipation/citizenship
 At the opposite end, forks and primaries can also become life-long
enemies. This can range from creating as much distance as possible
from each other to actively interfering and sabotaging each other. More
than one socialite and celebrity has driven themselves to ruin and
disgrace after a high-profile tiff between forks escalated out of control.
FAMILIES
Families build social units of forks that work and live together for
extended periods of time without merging or integration. Individual
forks within the family are typically psychosurgically edited to fulfill
specific work or social roles. Since the preferences, attitudes, and
proclivities of the core personality remain present in each fork, it’s
easy for the primary and its iterations to form and maintain strong,
long-lasting relationships.
Though most often used for companionship to create friends or
“siblings,” there are also people creating forks to populate intimate
relationships as lovers and spouses, or to replicate extended fami-
lies. Given the intended long or permanent duration of the forks
and the attendant illegality and social stigma, this approach is rare
and limited almost exclusively to a few isolated habitats with small
populations and infrequent contact with other communities.
If a family is too inwardly focused, it can lead to extreme social
isolation and a rise in misbehavior as pre-existing personality disor-
ders or negative traits are ingrained and reinforced. The perception
of being anti-social and disordered makes family personalities an
easy target for anti-forking commentators, though few other multi-
plicity adherents do much to defend them.
GEN GAPS
Backups have been around long enough that some people have
copies of themselves that are several decades younger. These
previous iterations are sometimes re-instantiated to give these
younger versions of themselves a “fresh chance” at life, with the
knowledge of the choices they made and how their lives turned out.
This sort of mentorship can be challenging — the Fall and upheavals
of transhumanity’s technological progress is difficult for revived
forks to process and catch up with.
HEDONISTS
Transhumanity has a long history of turning innovations towards
the pursuit of pleasure, and hedonists have done all there is to
do with multiplicity. Orgies and bloodsports are by far the most
common pastimes, but given the costs involved for the necessary
physical instancing of the participants and damage the morphs can
suffer, only the wealthiest can afford such extravagant amusements.
The exception are small communities of scum who revel in this
lifestyle and dedicate all of their shared resources towards it. Most
who use forks for such pursuits quickly tire of the novelty and move
on. The majority of hedonists content themselves with multiplayer
virtual environments.
SLAVERS
Can you exploit yourself? Some primary egos have shouldered past
this question as they ruthlessly commodify and profit off of their
own forks by selling them into indentured service. Multiplicity
advocates strongly condemn this practice, but with the return
of indenture to the legal codes of most habitats and the creation
of the IndEx contract exchange, indenture contracts are a focus
of economic innovation. With the landmark ruling of the Lunar-
Lagrange Alliance’s Supreme Judicial Court in Shelby v. Shelby, it
was deemed legal for an originating ego to negotiate and agree
to an indenture that bound a fork before it was created. Despite
widespread public disgust over the ruling and proposal before the
Planetary Consortium to ban the practice, it is legal for now and
IndEx is actively brokering contracts. As much as market forces
enable this practice, however, they are also holding it back. Most
corporations and individuals refuse to touch these types of contracts
for fear that they’ll soon be nullified.
Outside of IndEx, the underground market for soul-trading
remains strong; any egos that find their way into the hands of Nine
MULTIPLICITY
Lives or similar cartels are forked and sold repeatedly.
SURVIVALISTS
Standing aside from other approaches are the survivalists. Since
the Fall, there has been a widespread focus on transhumanity
rebuilding a robust population, and one argument is that forking
is the best way to do so quickly and effectively. While infugees are
steadily re-instanced through indenture programs, they come back
to society out-of-touch and less-equipped than others who survived
the Fall intact. The first generation of transhumans born since the
Fall is still in its infancy and, given the horrific failure of the Futura
project, speed-raising new egos in VR is an attempt few are willing
to contemplate. It will take years for the next generation to develop
and become a strong, contributing part of society rather than a
precious liability.
Survivalists argue that those with valuable skills should create
permanent forks of themselves and spread across current habitats
in the Solar System and into the exoplanets beyond the Pandora
gates to help re-establish transhumanity. Extreme ideologues even
suggest taking forks of entire habitats or the whole of transhu-
manity and sending them off in fleets of colony ships with different
destinations. Creating forks of transhuman society outside the Solar
System and, hopefully, beyond the reach of the TITANs and any
other existential threats could dramatically improve the likelihood
of civilization enduring. While some criticize these ideas as foolish,
their supporters are quick to point out that transhumanity almost
fell to the TITANs precisely because the vast majority of the popula-
tion was still concentrated on Earth.
A number of backup cliques within Firewall support this surviv-
alist view, and they are slowly rolling out some low-key social
manipulations to forward their beliefs.
TWINS
Twins run and maintain a single fork of themselves. Most often
instanced as an infomorph, twins frequently keep the fork in a
ghostrider module, use it in place of a muse, or incorporate it
with the multiple personalities mental augmentation to split their
attention and efforts. While some twins focus on the efficiency of
tackling problems with multiple versions of themselves, most focus
more on the companionship and awareness brought by having a
fully instanced ego sharing your life with you. Serious twins work
to establish an equitable relationship where one ego isn’t always or
exclusively in control, mentally or physically. The fork is allowed
to persist more or less permanently, growing and developing on its
own with only infrequent re-integration with the originating ego.
Over time, one twin may decide to change the relationship and
backup or instance separately.
So-called “parasitic twins” are far less equitable, keeping one
instance limited or dependent on the other. This is usually a beta
fork, but some prefer the efficiency of alpha forks, modified to be
subservient and seek affection from the primary ego. The depen-
dent fork is most often kept as a muse or virtual minion.
Multiplicity • Families–Twins
¾7

GROUP MINDS:
MANY AS ONE
Posted By: Ruqinzhe, Firewall Sentinel
GROUP MINDS
The practice of combining multiple egos together into a single
collective entity — a group mind — is on the tip of transhumanity’s
capabilities. However, this practice of synthesis is widely viewed
with mistrust and suspicion. Thanks to the TITANs, intelligence
augmentation efforts of this sort are frowned upon. Many also fear
the idea of losing their individuality and free will in a collective
consciousness. Without ourselves, our own personal thoughts and
identities, what are we? Yet the practical utility of putting minds
together to tackle tasks cannot be overlooked.
A HISTORY OF COMING TOGETHER
The potential for group minds began before the Fall, when mesh
inserts became widely adopted. Direct, telepathic, brain-to-brain
communication via radio waves and mesh connections enabled
people to directly share their own sensory input and experience
that of others on a widespread scale for the first time. This altered
the nature of transhuman collaboration overnight. When combined
with other apps that facilitate the exchange of data, people became
interconnected and interoperable like never before.
The first expansion of these capabilities into more of a shared
mind-state came with egos that engaged in mass forking with
regular merging. This allowed an individual to amass multiple
experiences at once and then combine them together, but the time
required to merge forks makes this process somewhat inefficient.
This was later followed by morphs that incorporate multiple egos
to operate, such as flexbots and weapon systems like the fenrir, as
well as the core morphs that oversee habitats and ships. However,
these are widely viewed as cooperative endeavors rather than full
group minds.
Though many renegade scientists and technologists have exper-
imented with group consciousnesses, the first true success in this
regard was born partly out of necessity. The hypercorp Ambiscience
was field testing its “hypermesh link” implant with the colonists of
Synergy when the exoplanet’s Pandora gate access was cut off for a
full six years. During the hardship that followed, the group mind
established via these hypermesh links became critical to the colo-
nists’ survival. Upon re-establishing contact with the Solar System,
the colonists were originally greeted with fear and caution, but
their success has since led to others adopting the hypermesh link to
create their own localized group minds.
Not all is perfect when it comes to collective egos, however.
Polities commonly outlaw group mind technologies and research,
and participants face a great amount of social stigma as inhuman
drones. Security agencies are known to keep a close watch
over gestalt egos, fearing that they may evolve into an expo-
nential-growth superintelligence much like the TITANs. These
concerns are inflamed by terrorist attacks made by exhuman
“soul eaters” who are known to practice dangerous ego-merging
techniques on unwilling victims. And continued experimentation
with hypermesh links and similar technologies has been hit or
miss, with some notable failures, such as the Synergists’ attempt
to incorporate young children into their group mind, only to “lose
them” within the collective consciousness.
8¹ Group Minds: Many As One • A History of Coming Together–Arguments For
FEARS
The concerns people have about group minds are established in
or enhanced by the alien nature of a collective consciousness.
Transhumans are used to being distinct entities, with our minds
sacrosanct, and the concept of becoming so closely entwined with
the minds of others is alarming and squicky.
The primary fear when it comes to gestalt minds is loss of individu-
ality. If we mash our minds together with others, where does ours end
and the others’ begin? Depictions of group minds in popular media
portray them as subsuming the self into a greater whole, with the end
output that individual components exhibit the same sort of groupthink
we commonly attribute to cults or the brainwashed. The reality, however,
is that few of the collective intelligences possible with transhumanity
are this bleak. While some group minds exhibit “personality overlap,” it
can be argued that this is just an exaggerated form of the subconscious
manner in which we all tend to mimic and copy the mannerisms of
our close friends. Even among the neo-synergists, people retain their
individual nature — at least, so far. It is only the developing minds of
children that have been subsumed into the group whole.
Related to this is the concern that people within a group mind
become mindless drones without their own self control and free
will. Losing one’s agency is certainly terrifying, but few group minds
take things this far. In most situations, individuals retain their
ability to act independently. At worst, group minds make decisions
collectively and there is pressure within the group to adhere to that
decision. Of course, the overwhelming pressure to conform to the
group’s desires can itself be coercive.
The most widespread objection to a collective mind is the inva-
siveness. It takes massive trust to give others access to your deepest
thoughts and most embarassing memories. Proponents argue that
this increases the bond, as everyone is stripped bare, and those
linked find the commonalities in their experiences. To those of
us who value our privacy, such openness is anathema. Even if you
consent to opening yourself up when joining a group mind, consent
is only valid if it can be withdrawn at will, which is not the easiest
once you are part of a collective ego.
Fears that group minds will develop an exponentially increasing
intelligence are largely baseless. While there is power in numbers
and sharing of skills and memories, the technology does not enable
that sort of unrestricted intelligence amplification.
Regardless of your opinions on group minds, one should always
consider one known drawback: the addictiveness. The deep connec-
tiveness of group minds is known to trigger reward centers in the
brain, such that leaving a group feels like a let-down. Participants
who withdraw from a group mind are known to suffer a form of
withdrawal, sometimes debilitating. Many people who leave group
minds inevitably return, or find new ones.
ARGUMENTS FOR
The obvious benefit to group minds is the cooperative force-
multiplier aspect. By putting our minds, skill sets, and experiences
together, transhumanity is better capable of tackling its problems
and rising to the occasion. Of course, we can do this without
melding minds, but grouping together is more efficient and
provides more opportunities for collaboration.
Less obviously, group minds bring people together and build
community in an unprecedented way. The intimacy of group-mind
interactions mean that the participants rapidly come to know each
other’s capabilities and quirks, enhancing collaboration on a deeper
level. Even if the individuals within a group are not close friends,
they quickly come to know each other as if they are.
THE MINDS WITHIN
Since egos within a gestalt mind retain their individuality, the
groups within can be just as fractitious as any other mass of people
in society. While group minds are typically more unified in purpose
and better capable of achieving consensus due to their linked
nature, the reality is that their constituent parts are not always in
full agreement. This can lead to a paralysis of decision or a change
in position over time as one faction within the mind achieves domi-
nance over the others. Very rarely, individuals in a group will find
a matter so divisive that it splits the group and either some leave or
a bitter struggle for control breaks out. Usually, however, compro-
mises are reached and the group mind finds a way forward that is at
least acceptable to its components, if not ideal.
While most group minds employ decision-making processes
that ensure each individual voice within is heard, they are subject
to group dynamics just like everyone else. Without safeguards, the
loudest, most charismatic, or most manipulative egos can achieve
disproportionate sway over collective decisions. A few group minds
dispense with collective decision-making altogether, falling back to
hierarchical models where one voice leads the group.
Group Minds: Many As One • The Minds Within–External Relations
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
From the outside, an individual participant in a group mind is indis-
tinguishable from a normal single-minded person, but it’s important
to remember that you are dealing with a number of minds at once.
Their nature makes it difficult for individuals within a group to
maintain intimate relations with people outside the group. Potential
partners are usually uncomfortable with the details of their relation-
ship being shared with the rest of the collective. There is a sub-set
of people who get off on that, however, and specifically seek group
minds out. Even friendships can be difficult to maintain; depending
GROUP MINDS
on the type of group mind, it is not always apparent which compo-
nent of the collective ego you are dealing with, and they sometimes
blend together.
Some group minds go out of their way to advertise via AR
which individual component you are dealing with at any given
time. Others prefer to minimize their individual identities, always
presenting a group front. In fact, some collective egos go out of their
way to establish a gestalt personality, a unified presentation of their
varied selves. Other transhumans tend to find these group personas
unsettling, as if they can tell they are manufactured or not a single-
minded person. The kinesics of a morph sleeved by a group mind
are often quite strange, seeming to blend multiple persons’ manner-
isms together in an incongruent way and then subtly shifting to
something different.
¾9

SYNTHESIS
Posted By: Ruqinzhe, Firewall Sentinel
As transhumanity explores this new collaborative mindscape, a
SYNTHESIS
multitude of practices, applications, and lifestyles are emerging.
AGGREGATES
Crossing the line between synthesis and multiplicity is the increas-
ingly common practice of aggregation. Multiple forks are instanced
and maintained under the direction of the primary ego, main-
taining synchronicity and unity through regular use of merging
to share experiences and information and then forking out again.
Alphas are preferred to minimize the risk of complication during
mergers, though betas are used for menial tasks or for work focused
on a very narrow activity.
Aggregates within the inner system regularly re-integrate their
forks to maintain compliance with restrictive forking laws, but
they often bend the rules by having older forks merge with newly
instanced ones, thus extending the time period that branch is sepa-
rate from the primary, to better facilitate remote or ongoing projects.
Elsewhere, aggregate forks typically remain instanced for lengthy
periods before re-integration.
Aggregation is practiced by a number of metacelebrities, poli-
ticians, and business elites and is increasingly popular across the
Solar System. This is also the process used by the infamous Claudia
Ambelina to operate her Pax Familae criminal organization, though
she is rumored to have access to unique technology that facilitates
the process.
Aggregates are also sometimes rreferred to as choruses and mobs.
COHORTS
Cohorts takes advantage of a hypermesh link to create a group
mind-state. Instead of incorporating multiple egos, however, cohorts
are composed of forks of the same ego. The hypermesh allows these
egos to remain integrated by sharing experiences and memories in
real-time (as long as they stay linked).
The process of updating each fork with each other’s experiences
is close to instantaneous, though with large cohorts it can take a few
seconds. Individual forks sometimes take a short while to assimilate
the memories, particularly if they weren’t playing close attention
to that particular input stream. Particularly unusual, shocking, or
upsetting experiences can send waves through a cohort, as each
internalizes the experience and transmits their own feedback back
out. If a fork is cut off from its cohort, it can take time for that cohort
to re-sync with the others, which is sometimes a stressful experience,
akin to merging.
Though a new practice, cohorts are considered by some to be the
ideal of multiplicity, as they allow a single mind to be instantiated
in multiple places and act as one simultaneously with real-time
communication and updates.
Cohorts lack the diversified capabilities and amassed knowledge
of neo-synergist cells, but they exponentially increase the capa-
bilities of a single ego and its forks, particularly one that has the
capability to sleeve its forks. As the forks are already of the same
mind anyway, the hypermesh link just makes it all easier. Bypassing
the need to merge is a game changer, and we expect to see cohorts
overtake aggregates in the near future.
10¹ Synthesis • Aggregates–Neo-Synergists
HIVES
Hives refer to group minds where the individuals are subsumed into
the collective ego; they have no identity and no individual free will.
There are few known/public hives; the idea of surrendering your self
is unpleasant to most transhumans. Nor is there technology readily
available that even makes this feasible. Nevertheless, rogue technol-
ogists have made many attempts to create hive minds, with most
aborted after horrible failures or shut down by authorities. Rumors
abound of hives lurking in remote areas of the Solar System and in
dark corners of the mesh.
Artists and transhumans who yearn to be part of a greater
gestalt or who want to emulate the elegance of insect hives have
sought out hive mind technology willingly. However, many hives
have been built from unwilling participants. The exhumans exiled
to the exoplanet Rorty are known to use hive minds constructed
with radical psychosurgery techniques from the minds of captives
to operate their dreadnought war machines. An entity calling itself
the Crungus, which has claimed responsibility for several major
aerostat hacks on Venus, has implied that it is a hive intelligence.
There’s talk of an Extropian black clinic in the Belt that offers its own
unique ego-unifying hive-mind ware for the right price.
MULTIS
Some morphs enable multiple egos to work together to control
different facets of their functionality. These include flexbots, large
morphs equipped with multi-ego control hardware, and the core
morphs that oversee ships and habitats. Though multiple egos
are housed and working together within the same morph, there is
disagreement over whether multis can be considered true group
minds, as their minds are not deeply interlinked.
With flexbots, each module has the capability to act as a separate
morph. When combined together, one ego must take control of the
unified modules. However, because each module is equipped with
a cyberbrain and linked together, the other egos may be assigned
control over specific functions: mobility, sensors, tools/ware,
weapons, and so on.
Morphs with multi-ego control ware work similarly, except that
additional egos are loaded into ghostrider modules and all control
is facilitated via the shell’s cyberbrain. This is an ideal situation for
large morphs with multiple systems, such as tanks or construction
equipment.
Core morphs take this to an even larger scale, where a single ego
oversees the entire installation but additional infomorphs are dele-
gated control over various subsystems, such as power, environment,
comms, sensors, etc. Core morphs rely heavily on ALIs to help them
manage ship/habitat sub-systems on a day-to-day basis, calling in
transhuman egos for help in special circumstances.
NEO-SYNERGISTS
The neo-synergists are arguably the closest transhumanity has
gotten to an actual group mind, combining multiple disparate egos
into a collective intelligence. Since the re-discovery of Synergy
(thus “neo-synergists”) and the gradual acceptance of the group
mind established on that colony via experimental hypermesh link
implants, the concept has now spread to small pockets through
the Solar System and beyond. These individual group mind nodes
rely on updated versions of the hypermesh link. The largest contin-
gent makes its home on the Octavia aerostat (Venus), where they
were welcome with open arms and much interest by Morningstar
Constellation technologists.
 By all acounts, neo-synergists retain their individuality and
agency while remaining bonded to the group mind’s common
purpose. While linked, each neo-synergists has intimate access
to each other’s memories, emotions, and knowledge. The setup
offers a degree of collaborative effort and innovation that makes
each neo-synergist node a productive powerhouse. Distinct nodes
are already proving themselves to be pushing the cutting edge of
research and technological development in several areas.
It’s important to remember, however, that hypermesh links are still
experimental technology, and not all of the bugs have been worked
out. Despite reporting high levels of satisfaction and happiness,
neo-synergists are known to exhibit anomalous behavior such as
speaking gibberish, echolalia, “personality bleed” (exhibiting traits
from others within the group mind), and a higher susceptibility to
mental disorders, particularly if they are separated from their node
for a lengthy period. The suspicious background of the now-defunct
Ambiscience hypercorp that designed the original hypermesh link
also makes it worthy of further investigation.
SOUL EATERS
The soul eaters are a noxious faction of exhumans who seek to
create the ultimate gestalt intelligence. Their process relies on
coercive measures and extremely dangerous and experimental
ego-merging techniques.
The progenitors of this movement were a pair of serial-killers
known as Mahaz and Thierry before the Fall. These psychopaths
stalked people known to have high intelligence, particularly scien-
tists and engineers. They began by hacking backup services and
forknapping the egos they desired, but soon progressed to killing
their victims and stealing their stacks. The minds of their victims
were chopped apart with extremely crude psychosurgery techniques
and forcibly merged with their own. This process slowly fractured
their minds, leading to their capture and trial.
The next generation of exhumans to be inspired by Mahaz and
Thierry also took note of the stack-harvesting methods of the TITANs
during the Fall. While the reasons the TITANs collected so many egos
is unclear, to the exhumans it was obvious: they were absorbing them
to elevate their own super-intelligence to even higher levels.
The current clade of soul eaters acquires the minds of victims
however they can: purchasing from soul traders, hacking cyberbrains
and infomorphs, or even acquiring forks from a primary ego via vast
sums of credits or blackmail. Their favored method, however, is to
track down the victim physically and cut out their stack, thus exhib-
iting their alleged superiority. While soul eaters seek out the brilliant
and extraordinary in society, they are also content to acquire egos en
masse to sample transhumanity’s mass diversity. The most desirable
aspects of each victim’s mind — their skills and strengths, the things
that made them exceptional — are then excised and merged with the
exhuman’s own, to increase their capabilities.
Merging even part of another transhuman’s mind with your
own is extremely dangerous, and the soul eaters’ techniques are
unproven at best. They frequently destroy their own minds, only
to have their backups try again. The surviving merges continue on,
an amalgamation of minds and horror, methodically becoming less
sane and even further from human.
More recently, a soul eater known as Silent Mercy has taken
ego-merging to a new low with the invention of fiendish software
known as a goya machine. This app pits two minds together — the
exhuman and their victim—in a psychosurgical battle of dominance.
The two minds are forcibly merged, with individual components from
each mind either winning the struggle and becoming incorporated
or losing and getting excised and discarded. In the end, the stron-
ger-willed mind stands dominant, having survived this round of
forced “evolutionary selection,” yet incorporating elements from
the other. By this torturous method, the soul eaters believe they are
making their hybrid, gestalt egos stronger and smarter.
SPLITS
Splits adopt the unique position of combining multiple egos not
only in the same body, but in the same brain. By partitioning a mind
with multiple personality ware, up to four egos may be housed
together. Individual egos take turns “driving” the morph, but each
of the egos can experience sensory inputs, be active via the mesh,
and communicate with the other egos internally. Though each ego
is partitioned from the others, they can choose to share thoughts,
SYNTHESIS
memories, etc—or keep each other closed out if they prefer. Unlike
egos connected via a hypermesh link, they may not “share” skills,
but they can hand over control of the morph as needed.
On rare occasions, split egos may find themselves in a struggle
of wills for control of the morph. There has been at least one known
case of divided egos where one took dominance, closed off mesh
links, and kept the others captive within the morph’s mind.
While splits are not common, they are an ideal solution for neuro-
divergent people who have difficulty handling transhuman society
on their own, couples/groups who have an intense social bond, or
those who simply want to take a back seat to life’s interactions.
When a new ego takes control of the split’s morph, their kinesics
change along with their personality and knowledge. This can throw
people off, especially if they are unaware they are dealing with a
split. However, splits engaged in covert operations have used this
to their advantage.
Splits avoid calling their distinct egos “alters” so as not to confuse
their partitioning with a disassociative identity disorder diagnosis.
THE SWARM
The network known as the Swarm may be our first example of a
group mind not faciliated by transhuman technology. The Swarm
is composed of asyncs infected by a particular sub-strain of the
Watts-MacLeod exsurgent virus. Each member of the Swarm auto-
matically links up to other Swarm asyncs within physical proximity,
establishing a telepathic connection. While the range of this link
is limited, it seems to reach much farther than most other remote
async capabilities. This link allows Swarm members to mentally
communicate, aid each other, and even use their sleights through
each other.
Members of the Swarm exhibit behaviors not seen in other
asyncs. Though they conceptually grasp the idea of individual
identity, they universally refer to themselves in the plural sense and
do little to distinguish between individuals when acting with other
Swarm members. When together, they seem to react in unison and
automatically rush to aid each other when in need.
We have recently learned that when a number of asyncs within
the Swarm occupy the same habitat/area, they have used their own
spit to facilitate the growth of an apparent xenobiological fungus
throughout the area. These fungal growths work as a sort of mental
repeater or mesh, allowing each Swarm async within proximity of
the fungal network to be linked to any other Swarm async also in
range. Attempts to sample and analyze these growths have so far
failed—the Swarm seems aware when the fungus has been collected
and the samples rapidly die and liquefy. The Swarm hides this
fungal network within ventilation systems and maintenance areas
to prevent detection.
Synthesis • Soul Eaters–The Swarm
¾11

GAME INFORMATION
In addition to the following, we discuss incorporating forks into
games several times in the core rulebook (▶ 293, 351, 368, EP2).
CHARACTERS AS FORKS
GAME INFORMATION
A fun concept that best works as a one-shot or limited-run campaign
is to have everyone in the party play a fork of the same character.
The first thing to establish is: what is the relationship between
the forks? Is one character the primary ego, with authority over
the others? Or is everyone on equal footing? Are some of the forks
growing restless at their treatment? Are they part of a larger family
or aggregate? Are some of the forks derived from older backups,
while others are newly instanced? How much have they diverged?
Do they carry the same memories and information? Have their
personalities been edited to make each distinct? Were any of them
forknapped? Are they restricted or endangered by their habitat’s
legal attitude towards forks? Does everyone even know they are a
fork of each other at first? Depending on the scenario the GM has
crafted, these forks may be meeting each other for the first time.
The biggest difficulty with everyone playing a different version
of the same character is that their skills and abilities will largely
be the same. Normally, a party of PCs relies on the diversity of
different character types to handle different challenges that arise
in the course of the game. There are a few tricks you can employ
to diversify the characters: mind-edited skill sets, different morphs
and ware packages, skillware, Watts-MacLeod infection, drugs, and
reliance on bots and NPCs. You can also have one or two players
play a separate not-fork PC, filling in some of the gaps in skills and
abilities the forks lack and may need in that scenario.
The intriguing part about a PC team of forks is the role-
playing  — getting everyone to play the same character’s personality
and mannerisms. It’s best if the group defines a few aspects and
quirks of the forked ego’s personality up front, so everyone has some
common ground to work with. From there, the goal is to riff on each
other’s roleplaying. If one player exhibits a specific mannerism,
catch-phrase, or worldy outlook, the others should pick up on that
and incorporate it into their own versions of the character. Over time,
this back-and-forth will flesh out the ego and bring them to life.
Don’t worry about getting it perfect. Differences between forks
can be explained away as personality edits and divergence over
time. In fact, these distinctions can be used as in-character conversa-
tion points, as forks are likely to comment on differences that arise
in order to feel unique and special or to discourage what could be
seen as divergence from the group mindset.
For an example of how a scenario played with multiple forks of
the same ego could work out, see our published scenario Ego Hunter.
CHARACTERS AS GROUP MINDS
GMs and players should carefully consider whether or not to allow
PCs who are part of group minds into their campaigns, for the
simple reason that it can break the game. After all, it’s not just a
single character, it’s the entire group mind they bring along. For
group minds based in flexbots or multiple personality, this is less of
an issue. But for others, this can lead to a character having excessive
capabilities as well as increased workload for the GM with handling
NPCs and the group mind overall.
That said, playing a group mind can be interesting. One way to do
it is to make all of the PCs part of the same group mind.
This can be challenging if the PCs are all confined to a single
morph, such as with multiple personality ware or multi-ego controls.
12¹ Game Information • Characters as Forks–Optional Merging Rules
Scenarios would need to be crafted to accommodate this situation,
as they will lack the full diversity of morphs, ware, and numbers
that a normal team of PCs would have. Some capabilities could
also fulfilled with bots, NPCs, or forks. However, the challenges of
sharing a body could be an interesting roleplaying angle to explore.
The same is true with flexbots, though they have more options in
terms of separating their modules and shapechanging.
Aggregates and cohorts do not suffer the limitations of a single
body, but they do encounter the same issues as a PC team of forks.
Neo-synergists and other group-mind types offer more open
possibilities. A small cell of neo-synergists composed of just the
PCs would not be that different from a standard group of characters.
It could be compelling to explore the inner dynamics of the group
mind, group decision-making, and the invasiveness of it all. This
could be a particularly interesting project for a group of players that
are invested in roleplaying and interpersonal dynamics.
Playing neo-synergist PCs who are part of a larger group mind
would give the party a significant advantage, as they are able to draw
upon the skills and memories of NPCs within the collective conscious-
ness. GMs running such a scenario should increase the difficulty and
detail some of the other NPCs linked within the group mind.
STORED FORKS
Many transhumans keep inactive forks (usually betas) in storage to
spin up as needed. An inactive fork does not take up the space of an
ego and can be stored in almost any device. Forks are usually heavily
encrypted and only kept on secured devices to protect forknapping.
When the fork is needed, the stored fork can be copied and then
activated, following the normal rules for forking (Creating a Fork
▶ 292, EP2). Reactivated forks suffer from lack due to their time in
storage; at the GM’s discretion, the fork may need to make a WIL
Check against SV 1d6.
OPTIONAL MERGING RULES
These options expand upon the rules for merging forks ▶ 296, EP2.
Merging Non-Primary Forks
The rules for merging assume the most common scenario, in which
a briefly instanced fork is re-integrated back with its primary ego.
Any memory loss incurred applies to the fork’s memories, not the
primary ego.
When two non-primary forks are merging together, the rules
operate the same, but there are two extra things to keep in mind:
First, the divergence period should be based not only on how
much time has passed since each was instanced from the primary
ego (or whatever version of the ego the two forks have in common)
combined, but also the time period between when each fork was
instanced. For example, if one fork was spun up 2 weeks ago and the
other 1 week ago, their divergence period is 4 weeks total.
Second, the source of any memory loss should be randomly
determined by rolling 1d6: 1–2 from the first fork, 3–4 from the
second, 5–6 from both.
Frequent Merging
The rules for merging assume that characters only occa-
sionally merge with forks, to highlight the difficulties of re-
integration. Some characters, however, may take heavy advantage
of forking and merging in play, in which case the constant tests
will become tedious and the stress will add up. To accommodate
frequent fork merging, have the player make a Merging Test once a
month with a –10 modifier (perhaps more if the forking was exces-
sive), based on the largest divergence period that applies for that
 month. Any memory loss is spread among the various forks merged
during that period. For situations in which the memory loss could
play a significant story role, however, it is recommended to make a
Merging Test as normal.
Merging Forks with Advancements
If a fork has been separate long enough to improve/acquire skills,
gain or lose traits, or change their aptitudes, those differences are
normally lost during merger as only the memories are prioritized
for retention. It is possible for a gifted psychosurgeon to also
transfer the improvements, however, but not without cost.
Any attempt to transfer aptitudes, skills, specializations, or
traits during a merging incurs a –10 modifier to the Medicine:
Psychosurgery Test for every 1 CP of improvements. If successful,
the merging ego gains the skills points, traits, and/or aptitude
points, but takes an additional stress point per CP. Additionally,
you must spend Rez Points to purchase these advancements as
normal (▶ 238, EP2). If you do not have the Rez Points available, you
owe a Rez Point debt, and any new Rez Points earned must immedi-
ately go to to pay off this debt. If the test fails, no advancements are
gained, and you take an additional stress point per CP.
Merging Different Egos
Merging two distinct minds is a drastically difficult and dangerous
affair. Only the most skilled and daring psychosurgeons could
ever hope to succeed, and even then the outcome depends on luck
almost as much as skill. Due to the risk and possible illegality of this
procedure, finding a psychosurgeon willing to attempt it requires
going through backdoor or black-market channels. GMs should
require a successful g-rep Rep Test and the expenditure of a major
favor or similar measures.
This procedure is incredibly complex; treat it as regular merging
but with a minimum timeframe of 10 days and a –60 modifier. At
the GM’s discretion, this same process can be used for forks that
have been divergent for more than a year.
If the test fails, the combined ego is for all intents and purposes
a shattered thing, haunted by fragments of its former minds. Most
are simply brain-dead. Treat as a gamma fork NPC:
If the test succeeds, compare the stats of both egos and follow
these steps:
• For each aptitude, roll 1d6: 1–2 take the lowest rating, 3–4 take the
average rating, 5–6 take the highest rating.
• For each skill that the egos both have, roll 1d6: 1–2 take the lowest
rating, 3–4 take the average rating, 5–6 take the highest rating.
• For each skill that only one ego has, roll 1d6: 1–2 lose it, 3–4 keep it
at half its rating, 5–6 keep it at its full rating.
• Keep each ego trait, motivation, language, and sleight that both
egos have. If they have a trait different levels, roll 1d6: 1–3 keep the
lowest level, 4–6 keep the highest level.
• For each ego trait, motivation, language, or sleight that only one ego
has, roll 1d6: 1–3 lose it, 4–6 keep it.
• For ego Flex, roll 1d6: 1–2 take the lowest, 3–4 take the average
rating, 5–6 take the highest.
• Gain the Mental Disorder (Disassociative Personality Disorder) trait
• For each ego’s memories, roll 1d00. This is the percentage of memo-
ries you retain.
• The combined ego suffers SV 5d6.
• For each superior success, one lost or diminished stat (or one ego’s
memories) is restored to its full value. Alternatively, one motivation
MENTAL WARE Ware Type Complexity/GP Description
Hypermesh Link CH Maj/3/R Group mind-state, +1 Insight, can use Insight to borrow skills.
Multi-Ego Controls HM Maj/3 Multiple egos may control the same morph simultaneously.
or negative ego trait is removed or the SV applied from the proce-
dure is reduced by half.
• Recalculate aptitude checks, Initiative, Lucidity, Trauma Threshold,
Insanity Rating, and Infection Rating (▶ 46, EP2).
• If the Psi trait is lost, all sleights and Infection Rating are lost.
Even when the procedure is successful, the composite ego suffers a
–10 modifier on all tests for one week as the new identity comes to
terms with its newly-integrated thought patterns.
NEW MENTAL WARE
Hypermesh Link
This ware was developed by the Neo-Synergists to create a group
MAKING CHARACTERS
mind-state. Hypermeshed egos automatically share their real-time
emotions, thoughts, and experiences with each other and also
their memories and skills. These broadcasts can be tuned out to a
low-level emotional “hum,” where changes in an emotional state can
be picked up with a Perceive Test.
Hypermesh links are not for everyone  — many find them too
invasive or overwhelming. When first joining a group mind-state,
you must make a SAV Check or suffer SV 1d10 from alienation. If
you fail, you must make the test again in 24 hours.
Hypermeshed egos receive +1 Insight pool. You also gain a
special use of Insight pool: you may spend an Insight point to make
a test using the skill of another hypermeshed ego. For NPCs with
this ware, treat this as being able to make any test with skill 50. At
the GM’s discretion, certain specialized skills may not be available.
The intimacy of the group mind-state means that hypermeshed
egos cannot deceive or withhold secrets from each other. Egos in the
group are also subject to personality bleed: attempts to identify you
using Kinesics suffer a −30 modifier and you receive a +30 modifier
to impersonate other hypermeshed egos.
Egos may voluntarily leave the group mind-state and sometimes
do for privacy (though their memories are accessible later when they
return). However, the hypermesh creates a dependency for everyone
part of it for more than a week. If cut off from the hypermesh for 2
hours, you suffer a –10 modifier to all actions. If cut off for more
than a day, you must make a WIL Check against SV 1d10/half. At
the GM’s discretion, you may continue to suffer stress if cut off for
an extended period.
Forks of the same ego in the same hypermesh automatically
merge in real-time (no tests necessary) as long as they remain linked.
Multi-Ego Controls
This cyberbrain enhancement allows more than one ego to control
a single morph simultaneously. Up to 5 other egos in ghostrider
modules can be linked to the primary cyberbrain. Each ego goes
on their own Initiative order, allowing the morph to act multiple
times during the action turn. Each ego must be assigned a specific
function of the morph to control: movement, perception, specific
weapons, or other capabilities. Only one ego may control a specific
function each action turn, though other egos may access data from
systems controlled by others. Switching control of a system is a free
action, but the other ego may not use the system until the next turn.
The morph’s pools are shared by all linked egos. Modifiers applied
to the morph affect each linked ego.
For hacking and control purposes, the ego in the primary
cyberbrain is considered the controller node, with each ghostrider
module puppeted to it.
Game Information • New Mental Ware–New Mental Ware
¾13

NEW SUB-STRAIN: THE SWARM
You are no longer alone. Your mind is inextricably linked with
others in a vast, unifying network. You feel it deep inside at all
times, a distant if detached connection, but when you come close to
others of your multitude, your minds automatically fuse together as
GAME INFORMATION
one. You work in unison towards a vast, inscrutable purpose. Your
individual identity is but a mask, a façade you show to others to
blend in. Within, you have shed these singular shackles; you are not
one, you are legion.
Negative Trait (Choose One): Enhanced Behavior (Swarm Unity,
Level 2)
Free Sleight: Swarm Mind
Swarm Sub-Strain
D6 Roll Influence Effect
1 Physical Damage. Take DV 1d6.
2 Mental Disorder: Paramnesia. You become confused with
memories that are not your own.
3 Restricted Behavior: Physical Communication. You can no
longer be bothered with vocalizing or emoting, you communicate
exclusively online or with sleights.
4 Enhanced Behavior: Cooperation with Allies. You go out of your
way to help allies, particular other members of the Swarm, even if
it means taking risks or making personal sacrifices.
5 Enhanced Behavior: Specialized Role. You have a specific
defined role to play for the greater good, your focus is on that role
and that alone.
6+ Motivation: Control Territory. You must free an area you control
from outside threats. You may be inclined to block off access, set
traps, stock provisions, and otherwise protect your space from
intruders.
Other Potential Enhanced Behaviors:
Avoidance, Cliquisheness, Grooming, Hoard, Socialize.
Other Potential Motivations:
+Eradicate Enemies, +Transform Environment, +Spread Infection
NEW SLEIGHTS
Conjoin and Synchroneity are new sleights available to all asyncs.
The others sleights listed here are only available to asyncs with the
Swarm sub-strain.
Conjoin (Psi-Chi)
When you are within 40 meters of a fork of yourself in a biomorph
who also has this sleight, your minds automatically merge with
each other, sharing memories and experiences. Treat this as
merging (▶ 292 EP2), but use WIL Check at +10 in place of Medicine:
Psychosurgery and the process timeframe is 1 action turn per month
apart. You can actively choose not to sync up your mind with a fork,
but otherwise the process is automatic.
14¹ Game Information • New Sub-Strain: The Swarm–New Sleights
Possess (Psi-Gamma)
Action: Complex • Duration: Sustained • Infection Mod: 6
This sleight is only available to asyncs with the Swarm sub-strain.
You may possess the body of any async you are linked to with the
Swarm Mind sleight. You control this body the same as if jamming
a drone (▶ 346, EP2). You may use your own sleights, but you do not
have access to the possessed async’s skills or sleights.
Remote Targeting (Psi-Chi)
This sleight is only available to asyncs with the Swarm sub-strain
and Swarm Mind sleight. You may target others with your sleights
via the mind and senses of an async you are currently linked to with
the Swarm Mind sleight. The remote async may not take any other
actions using Psi skill that turn. Make the Psi Test as normal, but
use the distance between the remote async and the target for range
purposes. If attempting to use the sleight at Touch range (▶ 276, EP2),
the remote async must make the Melee Test to make contact with
the target.
Swarm Aid (Psi-Chi)
This sleight is only available to asyncs with the Swarm sub-strain
and Swarm Mind sleight. You subconsciously draw upon the minds
of others in the Swarm to aid your efforts. For every async you are
currently linked to with the Swarm Mind sleight, you gain 1 addi-
tional Flex pool, to a maximum of +3.
Swarm Mind (Psi-Chi)
This sleight is only available to asyncs with the Swarm sub-strain.
Whenever another async with this sleight is within 40 meters, your
minds become interlinked. You may telepathically communicate
with them and anyone else they are linked to. Language is a factor,
but sounds, images, emotions, and other sensations may be trans-
mitted. You can also experience via their senses in real-time and
share memories. You can detect changes in the mental/emotional
states of those you are linked to with a Perceive Test.
Swarm Power (Psi-Chi)
This sleight is only available to asyncs with the Swarm sub-strain
and Swarm Mind sleight. You may spend a Flex point to use a
sleight known by another async to which you are currently linked
via your Swarm Mind sleight, for as long as you remain connected.
Assume that NPC asyncs have 1d6 randomly selected sleights,
evenly split between psi-chi and psi-gamma.
Synchroneity (Psi-Chi)
When you are within 40 meters of a fork of yourself in a biomorph
who also has this sleight, you become subconsciously attuned and
may synchronize your actions with perfect timing and coordination.
You both act on the same Initiative. In situations where timing and
coordination are a factor  — including simultaneous attacks against
the same opponent(s), hacking the same target, choreographed
Athletics or Pilot maneuvers, etc.  — you each receive a +10 modifier.
Asyncs with the Swarm Mind sleight may use this sleight to
synchronize with any other async they are linked to who also has
this sleight.