Killing.
- Thread starter Elusive Singularity
- Start date
- Status
I find it mildly amusing that most of these encounters so far have been on the shady side of the law. Kiro, Saendra, Shade, Kara, Amara, and most recently Zaalt... at this rate Junior will become an underground kingpin long before he's CEO of Steeletech
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, assuming you don't let Tarkus get 'sploded, you probably have some friends in the UGC, including Decker. Then there's Penny, assuming you don't turn her into a sex maniac, and Juro, who will probably like you a lot if you manage to resolve the war on Myrellion ( I really think the best option would be for the Golds to just re-settle on Kui-Tan )
That would seem rather irresponsible of Steele Sr. "Yeah, uh, thanks employees, for all your hard work. But I'm gonna let the entire company go down the shitter now so that my youngest child grows into a strong leader. KthxbaiImdeadnao"
It also doesn't really account for the possibility that Jr's quest could have been really easy, and basically just scooped up all the probes unhindered, having learned little on the journey, then found out at the end that her inheritance meant nothing.
Also, I hope there's some sort of contingency in place, just in case something happens to one or more of the probes. The one on Tarkus could have been scrapped or destroyed with the planet. A probe could have fallen into the ocean, or swallowed up by some geological event, or taken offworld by someone who happened upon it.
There are multiple probes at each "leg" of the journey. Eventually you'll be able to choose between going to Phaedra II or Mhen'ga, for instance, since both will have the first probe you need.
Wouldn't that kind of fuck up the whole thing with you running into your rival at every probe?
I absolutely agree here. I sincerely doubt the probes mean all that much, but getting to them does. This entire rite of passage Victor is throwing at you seems designed to give you a similar experience to what he had, and by logical extension turn you into a similarly capable leader.
That's why I'm really interested to see an ending where the Rival manages to get their hands on the final probe, but doesn't actually wind up with anything meaningful because of the way Victor planned out the "quest." I think Steele Jr.'s "inheritance" is the life experience the journey gives them that they may not have otherwise attained. This would also serve as a decent springboard towards redeeming the Rival, who might have some kind of personal crisis when it all goes up in smoke.
Or maybe the PC just finds some crazy fat stacks. I don't know, I'm not a dev.
I'd have prefered a slightly more pragmatic version of that concept, with probes being used as breadcrumbs, guiding PC to various locations of interest where their performance is assessed. The old guard that holds the fort during your escapades would be an ideal choice for the role of judges. All that life experience Steele Junior ends up getting is simply a bonus.
What exactly was the alternate first planet suppose to be like? I know I've seen talk of it, but I forgot.
(Also, If I had caught you when you had 12 or so less posts, I would have said something along the lines of " OMG! Savin's got 1080p!!")
Alternate P1 is supposed to be Mad Max-inspired. Possibly with racing minigames.
It's also possible this is happening. Like I said, I would bank on only actually getting the company if you've already proved you're actually worthy of it, not just because you get to the last probe fastest.
As a trained ethicist, I'd just like to add you are on very shaky moral ground when you try and base your decision on what a person may or may not do at a later date. Aristotle would reject it on the basic fact that murder has no mean, or intermediate state, and therefore cannot be virtuous. Add to that the purpose of virtue ethics is to develop good character; one would argue murdering a thoroughly defeated enemy would not constitute good character. You've absolutely no chance of getting it past the deontologists as there is conceivably no way in which you could form a universal maxim that will satisfy the requirements of Kant's famous Categorical Imperative. You may have more luck with the utilitarians, but even Bentham & Mill would take issue with you killing someone to potentially save lives in the future. It is a very different situation to say, killing someone wearing a bomb vest.
There is also a logical problem, considering some of these characters do not act alone. Would killing just one person guarantee that these potential bad things do not happen? Would you have to kill their allies? All their henchmen? Their friends/family/lovers who may take dark paths because of your actions? It is the old "kill baby Hitler" chestnut - just because Hitler is dead does not mean Mengele won't grow up to be monster, or Eichman, or Barbie, or any of those other sick Nazi fucks. The human mind seeks order in a world filled with chaos and will often see simple causation where there is merely correlation; the factors that actually act upon something to bring it about are often far more varied and complex (Hegel is very insightful on how we see history occurring the way we want to).
Suffice to say, if you want to kill those characters because you want to kill, that is fine. I'm pretty sure from what has been said in the thread, the creators do not really see that as something they want in the game. Arguing doing so is just, though? A much harder sell.
[Quick edit for fun fact - Kant goes so far as to say (in the Groundworks) that he believes there is no situation in which killing is justified.]
There is also a logical problem, considering some of these characters do not act alone. Would killing just one person guarantee that these potential bad things do not happen? Would you have to kill their allies? All their henchmen? Their friends/family/lovers who may take dark paths because of your actions? It is the old "kill baby Hitler" chestnut - just because Hitler is dead does not mean Mengele won't grow up to be monster, or Eichman, or Barbie, or any of those other sick Nazi fucks. The human mind seeks order in a world filled with chaos and will often see simple causation where there is merely correlation; the factors that actually act upon something to bring it about are often far more varied and complex (Hegel is very insightful on how we see history occurring the way we want to).
Suffice to say, if you want to kill those characters because you want to kill, that is fine. I'm pretty sure from what has been said in the thread, the creators do not really see that as something they want in the game. Arguing doing so is just, though? A much harder sell.
[Quick edit for fun fact - Kant goes so far as to say (in the Groundworks) that he believes there is no situation in which killing is justified.]
Last edited by a moderator:
For reference in the TiTs concept doc I immediately posted this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO0Os3LCdg8
why did i even have access to that back then i hadn't done anything yet
Makes me remember the movie the dark knight returns. When batman talks about counting all the people he murdered by letting the joker live.
As for whether or not it´s ethical, my personal uneducated opinion is that there really is no correct answer to this. One can never be truly sure whether or not the person is going to be able to go through with their threats, but I believe that one shouldn´t give them the opportunity to do it. Of course there´s always a possibility that such an opportunity will rise if you choose to spare said person, no matter what precautions you´ve tried to make.
I´m also reminded of Magi, where spoiler alert: Ali baba decides to exile his cruel brother, which I totally was having "just die" thoughts of, who wanted to turn his kingdom´s people into slaves, and finds him later slightly kinder and more caring towards his fellow man.
(This thread suddenly turned deep)
Last edited by a moderator:
K
Krynh
Guest
You don't have to kill Baby Hitler. Send him to a family that cared about him or have him become a sucess as a painter and Nazism might very well have not happened (and the second world war)
Yes, and family in other country, no less. Or a country where WW1 didn't happen or ahd different ending.
"Happens"
Intentionally or unintentionally? If it's happening purely by accident... it's going to feel a bit silly, no?
I don't have to get it past ethicists, I just have to get it past the people writing for this game.
No. And who says it has to guarantee that bad things don't happen? Bad people deserve to be punished, and it's enough to say that it guarantees that person will never hurt anyone again. After that, it's simply a matter of scale. Eventually, you will deter people from being criminals or you will run out of criminals. It would be awfully defeatist to say we can't punish bad people because it might not prevent other people from being bad or even encourage them to be bad. You could argue the same about any sort of punishment you might mete out, so, what, are you just supposed to just let them get away with it? No, that's fine Amara, you go ahead and shoot everyone up with that chaingun and blow up lawful shipping vessels, we wouldn't want any unfortunate, unforseen side effects to come about as a result of your death. >_>
The only reason I can see to justify not killing bad people (and instead applying a lighter sentence like prison) is when there is doubt as to whether the person is guilty. But unlike in real life, we're not bound by that uncertainty here. We're not judges listening to a prosecutor recount the evidence of a crime, after the fact, and trying to convince us that such evidence amounts to truth of his claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not allowing a discussion of whether or nor - and when - it's ethical or viable to murder someone, even if you lean on the conceit of a fictional reality. Which you are leaning in and out of. You cannot kill a character because you are not given the option and, thus, your character doesn't have motive or desire to kill that person. This is one of the conceits of a roleplaying game; your self-insert character is, in fact, not entirely you, with your infinite array of options. You can lobby for the option, but we've fielded requests on "Can we kill (mean/antagonist character here)?" for over five years. It hasn't been met!
There may be some situations where you're given the option. In both the CoC and TiTs narrative I feel that's a mistake, but that isn't my call. (And I made an implied murder bot, so there's mild hypocrisy.) You can embrace them or scorn their randomness or whatever. You won't be able to off your Cousin in any meaningful way in the middle of the story, as you have no reason to murder them.
There may be some situations where you're given the option. In both the CoC and TiTs narrative I feel that's a mistake, but that isn't my call. (And I made an implied murder bot, so there's mild hypocrisy.) You can embrace them or scorn their randomness or whatever. You won't be able to off your Cousin in any meaningful way in the middle of the story, as you have no reason to murder them.
You could've just copied the text in the quote, hit ctrl + right click on the quote to remove it and then paste your comment there.
You seriously need to stop reading shitty comic books about anti-heros if that's your opinion.
Or yous should read less shitty manga about "heroes" who let a villain go with a frown and finger wag after another mass massacre again and again.
I rarely read those anyways. I'm just find the idea of straight up executing all "bad people" (which is a highly undefined to begin with) instead of putting them in prison highly repulsive.
Fair enough :|
That's kinda backwards. Things like that have more to do with restrictions intrinsic to a particular interactive medium and with the need to give the protagonist some pre-set characteristics, than they do with roleplaying in general. Captain Steele needs to fall into certain boundaries for this game to work the way devs envsison it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But it's not universally true for all forms of roleplaying.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is because of propaganda about government monopoly for violence. This requires goverment power to enforce such monopoly, which is not the case for frontier setting, second, legitimacy of goverment, shich is not the case for frontier setting, and it would be quite nice to see that goverment uses it's monopoly effectively, which is not the case where villain can return to villany again.
- Status