...do you really want to be able to kill children

[Sorrow]

But my FICTIONAL character that I am ROLE playing in a FICTIONAL world might have reason to.

Some people don't want to roleplay a fictional character, some people want to LIVE in a virtual world.

 

[Seelix]

This 'do you really want to be able to kill children?'
is very similar to:
''He's Liam Neeson! Who wouldn't want Liam Neeson as their dad, right?'

They seem to want to point out that if someone want [to be able to kill children] or in the latter do not want [Liam as father] there must be something wrong with them.
Like they're [Beths] suggesting that 'noone wants to kill kids these days', 'everybody would like Liam Neeson to be their father' [it seems Todd would like - some father issues or something?]. Just like in retarded commercial ['everybody like this, don't be stupid! like it too!"].

But I really don't get another aspect of this case... If killing children is so bad, wrong and oh so immoral then why playing with such powerful and serious matter as nuclear weapons is so easy, nice, cool and funny? Because I understand nuclear catapult and all fuss around 'wow-mushroom-cloud-making-wow' as making nuclear stuff nothing more than a toy. And that's not only stupid [comparing to how serious 'nuclear stuff' was took in FO1/2], that's more wrong than ability killing a few more virtual NPCs [being children or not - it doesn't really matter at this point]. Being bad guy means you can destroy whole town with nice and quiet people [and do it just for getting access to another area/quest... etc. - how deep and immersive, yeah!] but killing one children is oh so wrong that there is no chance to do just that? On one side there is "violence is oh so funny and cool" and "look! there are eyeballs flying around! what a shot! wow! let's do it again and enjoy how it looks in slow motion!" but on the other "Do you really want to be able to kill children?" What a crap.

And the other thing... You can kill old people, right? Weaker people with no armor, no weapon while you are armored and wielding some big gun, right? But children are damn untouchable? And all that took place in the post-apo setting? If you bad guy and kid pisses you off, is annoying little creature, who offend you - why not give him lesson? a little but loud and only one lesson?
It's a game for Jupiter's sake. Games let people do things they rather don't do, wouldn't do in real world.

Is this connected with this 'immershun' thing? Making game so similar to real life that NPCs may be taken as real beings? What a nonsense [even bigger when compared to the option: 'blow up whole city full of those 'almost-real-beings' because you can'].
Beth should create amusement parks, theme parks - like "Post-Apo park of joy". Not games.

Lack of logic in most Fallout-3's matters give me headache. Must go and make myself cup of tea.

 

[Carib FMJ]

I never liked killing the kiddies, but I have to admit taking it out from the game does sort of water it down, as if you wanted to be evil or had to kill someone - say a witness - you may have to kill a child or two.

I am sure someone will mod it and put it in. If Beth won't some rabid fan will.

 

[Vault 69er]

It really stems from a skewed morality. Bethesda want you to "be" the character with their oh so great immersion. So the question is asked "why do you want to kill kids?"

Aside from the aformentioned nuking of a town.. are the people at Bethesda and the ESRB for that matter really so psychotic as to think it's okay to kill adults? "Hey I'm totally immersed in my second life in Fallout 3, I killed all the defenseless innocent adults! Hur hur. But there were no kids to kill so it's okay."

Killing kids is wrong and evil. Killing adults is wrong and evil too. Man, woman, child. Ending an innocent life is the lowliest, most selfish act a person can do. That's why I find this kind of selective morality sickening. Killing is wrong. But killing in a game is not. They're pixels, polygons, textures and scripts. They're not people. And if people like Todd think they are, then frankly they need therapy.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Killing kids is wrong and evil. Killing adults is wrong and evil too. Man, woman, child. Ending an innocent life is the lowliest, most selfish act a person can do. That's why I find this kind of selective morality sickening. Killing is wrong. But killing in a game is not. They're pixels, polygons, textures and scripts. They're not people. And if people like Todd think they are, then frankly they need therapy.

Exactly.
Viva la libertad de elección!

 

[zioburosky13]

Basically, it's okie to kill mutant because they are green and huge =evil (?).
It's okie to nuke a town because you have to (no alternate way to save/destroy the town?).
It's okie to kill unarmed farmer because they are poor and filthy *grin*(welcome to the wasteland)
It's okie to kill a prostitue because they are dirty slut(they have child to feed).


But it's not okie to kill a child because they are young and innocent (you will hate them if they keep stealing your stuff )?

Bethesda certainly fail in their game-logic thinking...

 

[Maxor127]

I think the more freedom in a game the better. I don't want to kill children, even in a game, and I probably never will unless one particularly annoys me (like the ones that stand in doorways and don't move). But I still want to have the option and freedom to. But at this point, I think having kids at all, even if they're immortal is an improvement over the childless, barren, doomed Children of Men world of Oblivion. They should just leave a .config option. But then again the media would probably twist that around as some hidden child-killing code to subvert the ESRB ratings and use the headline Fallout 3 - child-killing simulation!

 

[Caldera]

*Raises his fake-eyeglasses from his nose Otacon style from MGS*

Bethesda certainly fail in their game-logic thinking... Surprised

I know, I know... I'm new here and propably pumbing an old topic. I hope I can be forgiven for such horrid actions.

Well... I have to disagree with this.

Nuking a city and killing a child are morally UNCOMPARABLE. The reasons to nuke a city is more often political and fanatical while killing a child is.... directed at one certain person and the person whom did it most likely one sick mind as well.

Note, cities has been nuked in real life before. Has anyone called those people murderers? Have they been even charged for mass murdering of civilians and for acts against humanity? Yeah, I mean the US President whom ordered the 2 nuclear bombs on Japan and the people whom actually did it. (Although under direct orders, so they are free of charges I believe.)

How can you say that it's okay to nuke a city in real life, but oh, so wrong in a game? Now that's twisted logic, if anything. Now, of course, I do realise that nobody with half a brain would actually think this way conciously. But that's pretty much what some people has been saying here because they didn't think what they said.

So here's my conclusion. Detonating a nuclear bomb in a metropolitan, or a city in general is definately a bigger crime than killing a child. However, you definately need a sicker mind to kill a child than to detonate that bomb. Nobody thinks that "I'm going to kill all the children and civilians with this bomb" if they would do it.

They would do it for, as I said earlier for political reasons. Like US did in real life. To scare Japan off of war. Another reason would be to wipe off a huge enemy base, or encampment.

Children would die, women would die, poor helpless animals would die, but yet this is still morally more credible than whacking a child. It is hard to find another statement that is more controversial and paradoxic than this one. It's an endless loop of "on the other hand".

On the right hand we have the massive populouse being wiped out. But on the left hand we have a sick psycho whom gets sadistic pleasure from doing a child in. See? This is exactly like comparing watermelons to... say, apples. (Yeah, that's a biblical reference. Apple being the forbidden fruit) The other one is more massive, but the other one is against all morality humans envoke so often.

As a side note. Yes, I do hope that both are possible. I do want to shoot the kid whom stole 10 bottle caps from me, or tried to whack me with a stick while I'm wearing a power armor. Yes, I do want to blow up a huge city in a nice big mushroom cloud and yell towards their general direction "Just Duck and Cover and you'll be allright dickheads!!" because this is a game, not reality.

On the other hand.... I DO NOT WANT FALLOUT 3 TO BE REMOVED FROM SHOP SHELVES BECAUSE OF THIS! It's a shame to lose it, yes, but it's not a feature I'll sorely miss. Unlike hitting a praying mantis in the crotch with a sledgehammer. Ohhh, that's my chosen method of castration, definately.

But even more than this, I was uttely shocked to hear that Bethesda wants to change the comedy from Fallout 2. Fallout 2 was HILARIOUS with it's Monty Python references. I wish this to return.

I want and I shall spit towards your general direction. Gotta love it.

[edit]Owwww... call me a sick bastard, or anything.... I just have to mention this. We can kill man and women, we can even take drugs have sex and kill children.

However, we cannot have sex with children, nor animals. I know, this is way over the top, but if you think about it, they all fall quite near to the category of same morality as killing children. How about killing impregnated women?

Or.... is there another reason why you couldn't do that? Just wondering about this whole subject of morality[/edit]

The knight that sais NI!,
Caldera

P.S. since the edit I added was quite dark and so unacceptable by common morality I just saw the need to add that I do not endorse those things in any way, nor do I exactly want to see them in the game either.

 

[Kahgan]

...do you really want to be able to kill children

What a stupid question. Of course I do, they keep stealing from me.

..if you nuke a town, would that mean killing everything except the children? Would the children just magically survive the nuke and be the only living creatures left in the bombed out, radioactive burning hell of a town?

 

[Sander]

Nuking a city and killing a child are morally UNCOMPARABLE. The reasons to nuke a city is more often political and fanatical while killing a child is.... directed at one certain person and the person whom did it most likely one sick mind as well.

This, and the rest of your tangent, shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about. There is a difference between dropping a nuclear weapon in a time of war, and nuking a city for, essentially, a bundle of cash.
Also, yes, the US government has been accused of murder in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You're also misrepresenting the possible motives for killing children in a game. Just because you can kill a child, doesn't mean that every child death would be the result of a sadistic fuck who just wants to kill some children. There can be reasons behind it as well. The moral implications are *not* any different from killing a grown man.

 

[Sorrow]

Actually, war is one of the most sick and demented things that humanity invented.
Things like murdering children, or even rape, murder of a real, adult person are pale in comparison to war.

 

[Stag]

How so? Murder is planned out...deaths in war aren't spawned from the same minds (usually...). Isn't intent what we're talking about here?

 

[Caldera]

This, and the rest of your tangent, shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about. There is a difference between dropping a nuclear weapon in a time of war, and nuking a city for, essentially, a bundle of cash.
Also, yes, the US government has been accused of murder in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Accused by civilians? International law committies? (I'm not that familiar with the aftermath of those droppings) In either case my statement still stands. Even if YOU commence the actual detonation for a bundle of cash, that bundle of cash is still not the ultarior motive behind the detonation. The motive in such scenario would be the persons whom gave you the cash to do this.

Note: I am talking from 3rd person view. Although that bomb might be just a pile of cash for you, it still has a bigger motive for someone else and I still believe this motivation to be political instead of impulsive behaviour, or the result of a lunatic/greedy mind.

You're also misrepresenting the possible motives for killing children in a game. Just because you can kill a child, doesn't mean that every child death would be the result of a sadistic fuck who just wants to kill some children. There can be reasons behind it as well. The moral implications are *not* any different from killing a grown man.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see where I stated that all children deaths would be like that? But in the case of Fallout series... it is. Those pricks can be quite annoying in FO and FO2 as they steal sometimes quite valuable items.

I fail to see where it is "necessary" to kill a child in the game? No matter how hard I think, I can't recall such occasion. If I'm wrong on this, then I apologise.

But I have to ask you something. Are you saying that there is no such situation where you get that mischievouse smirk when you shoot one of the children in the groin with a sawed off shotgun? Counting out the occasions when you're just too pissed off by their antics with excessive amounts of adrenaline bumping in your veins.

 

[Sander]

Accused by civilians? International law committies? (I'm not that familiar with the aftermath of those droppings) In either case my statement still stands. Even if YOU commence the actual detonation for a bundle of cash, that bundle of cash is still not the ultarior motive behind the detonation. The motive in such scenario would be the persons whom gave you the cash to do this.

Note: I am talking from 3rd person view. Although that bomb might be just a pile of cash for you, it still has a bigger motive for someone else and I still believe this motivation to be political instead of impulsive behaviour, or the result of a lunatic/greedy mind.

Missing the point again. This has no effect whatsoever on the moral implications for your character in the game. The scenario is the following: some random dude offers you a pile of cash to kill a shitload of people. You do it.
How in hell's name is this less morally reprehensible than killing a child?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see where I stated that all children deaths would be like that? But in the case of Fallout series... it is. Those pricks can be quite annoying in FO and FO2 as they steal sometimes quite valuable items.

So the ulterior motive is to get them to quit fucking stealing your items.

I fail to see where it is "necessary" to kill a child in the game? No matter how hard I think, I can't recall such occasion. If I'm wrong on this, then I apologise.

I can't see how this is relevant.

But I have to ask you something. Are you saying that there is no such situation where you get that mischievouse smirk when you shoot one of the children in the groin with a sawed off shotgun? Counting out the occasions when you're just too pissed off by their antics with excessive amounts of adrenaline bumping in your veins.

And again, how is this relevant? You could make the exact same argument for any action in the game, including detonating nuclear bombs.

However, we cannot have sex with children, nor animals. I know, this is way over the top, but if you think about it, they all fall quite near to the category of same morality as killing children. How about killing impregnated women?

The reason why you can't do those things is very, very simple: it doesn't exist by itself in the game. The reason you can kill children is simply the combination of the facts that you can kill people, and children exist in the game. If a pregnant woman would exist in the games, you should be able to kill her as well. However, you can't just have sex with any random person in the game world because it simply doesn't add anything to the game, hence why you can't have sex with animals or children either.

 

[Sorrow]

Accused by civilians? International law committies? (I'm not that familiar with the aftermath of those droppings) In either case my statement still stands. Even if YOU commence the actual detonation for a bundle of cash, that bundle of cash is still not the ultarior motive behind the detonation. The motive in such scenario would be the persons whom gave you the cash to do this.

Note: I am talking from 3rd person view. Although that bomb might be just a pile of cash for you, it still has a bigger motive for someone else and I still believe this motivation to be political instead of impulsive behaviour, or the result of a lunatic/greedy mind.

You are failing to see the essence. The method of gratification isn't relevant to the question of morality of the deed!
It's the mere fact that a basic compassion to a fellow, innocent human being and respect for human life was overcome by the gratification.

Damn, it's no wonder that the western "civilisation" went down the drain...

I fail to see where it is "necessary" to kill a child in the game? No matter how hard I think, I can't recall such occasion. If I'm wrong on this, then I apologise.

It's necessary when one comes to town with his gun and decides that all must die. Everyone, every man, every woman, every child, every dog, every brahmin, all must die.
No matter of social standing, age, employment, soldier or civilian, mutant, human or animal, all must die.

No one should stay alive.

But I have to ask you something. Are you saying that there is no such situation where you get that mischievouse smirk when you shoot one of the children in the groin with a sawed off shotgun? Counting out the occasions when you're just too pissed off by their antics with excessive amounts of adrenaline bumping in your veins.

So? Again you are resorting to the moronic straw man argument that someone who "kills" "children" in game targets specifically "children" and that the game starts to be some magical "childkilling simulator".

[edit]Owwww... call me a sick bastard, or anything.... I just have to mention this. We can kill man and women, we can even take drugs have sex and kill children.

However, we cannot have sex with children, nor animals. I know, this is way over the top, but if you think about it, they all fall quite near to the category of same morality as killing children. How about killing impregnated women?

Or.... is there another reason why you couldn't do that? Just wondering about this whole subject of morality[/edit]

I have no objections. Other than a limited development time that requires cutting out features that don't add much to game and require additional effort like writing dialogs and making additional models.

Actually, I remember one moment in Baldur's Gate 2 which practically begged for showing children prostitution/sex slavery.
There was an inn operated by slavers which had a brothel with slaves.
They didn't even allow wishing for a same gender slave.
When one follows the route of freeing slaves, one encouters locked up children some of which were thrown on an arena with two trolls.
I was like, they throw children to trolls, not force them do "services" to demented amnian nobles? I don't buy it (Heh, maybe I watched the Taxi Driver one time too many XD .).

 

[Caldera]

Ouch, there's some misinterprations here... Maybe that was my fault for not being clear enough? I dunno... I'll try to clear what I meant.

Accused by civilians? International law committies? (I'm not that familiar with the aftermath of those droppings) In either case my statement still stands. Even if YOU commence the actual detonation for a bundle of cash, that bundle of cash is still not the ultarior motive behind the detonation. The motive in such scenario would be the persons whom gave you the cash to do this.

Note: I am talking from 3rd person view. Although that bomb might be just a pile of cash for you, it still has a bigger motive for someone else and I still believe this motivation to be political instead of impulsive behaviour, or the result of a lunatic/greedy mind.

Missing the point again. This has no effect whatsoever on the moral implications for your character in the game. The scenario is the following: some random dude offers you a pile of cash to kill a shitload of people. You do it.
How in hell's name is this less morally reprehensible than killing a child?

You see, this is something I never said. I never said (Or at least meant to say) that killing a child is a bigger crime morally. All I said is that it's impossible to compare these two things.

I'm talking about motivation and state of mind rather than which is morally more "evil", or anything like that. The other is triggered by political reasons, or greed, while other is triggered by sadism, or revenge. Well... I guess you could trigger a nuke for revenge too, but that'd be a slight overkill.

I fail to see where it is "necessary" to kill a child in the game? No matter how hard I think, I can't recall such occasion. If I'm wrong on this, then I apologise.

I can't see how this is relevant.

That's weird when you brought this issue up with:

You're also misrepresenting the possible motives for killing children in a game. Just because you can kill a child, doesn't mean that every child death would be the result of a sadistic fuck who just wants to kill some children. There can be reasons behind it as well. The moral implications are *not* any different from killing a grown man.

Maybe i misinterpreted you on this? *shrug*

Anyways, when I met those thieving kins I just stole my own stuff back and avoided them in the future. There was no need to go all the way to kill them. So what other reasons could there be? But I remember stating "Taking out the moments when there's excessive adrenaline running through your veins", or something similar and a revenge kill for stealing definately fits that category.

So what I'm saying is that there are 2 reasons to kill a child. Sadism and revenge in a form, or another. I wonder if you overlooked, forgot, or just didn't understand that statement.

But I have to ask you something. Are you saying that there is no such situation where you get that mischievouse smirk when you shoot one of the children in the groin with a sawed off shotgun? Counting out the occasions when you're just too pissed off by their antics with excessive amounts of adrenaline bumping in your veins.

And again, how is this relevant? You could make the exact same argument for any action in the game, including detonating nuclear bombs.

The keyword in your quote is definately "Could". Yes, it is completely possible to do that, but those are not the only reasons in FO to do so. While the game offers no "official" reason to kill children, it does so to kill other personnel.

"Official" stated in quotes because hardly any kill is necessary in the game at all... officially.

The reason why you can't do those things is very, very simple: it doesn't exist by itself in the game. The reason you can kill children is simply the combination of the facts that you can kill people, and children exist in the game. If a pregnant woman would exist in the games, you should be able to kill her as well. However, you can't just have sex with any random person in the game world because it simply doesn't add anything to the game, hence why you can't have sex with animals or children either.

Completely technical and slightly sarcastic answer, although absolutely true.

And now that I think about it... there actually is at least a reference to some Brahmin poking in FO2. But are you sure that Interplay saw this to be too unmoral as well? That is my actualy question that you didn't provide an answer to. Of course I didn't really expect an actualy answer to that at all, just mere discussion.

I fail to see where it is "necessary" to kill a child in the game? No matter how hard I think, I can't recall such occasion. If I'm wrong on this, then I apologise.

It's necessary when one comes to town with his gun and decides that all must die. Everyone, every man, every woman, every child, every dog, every brahmin, all must die.
No matter of social standing, age, employment, soldier or civilian, mutant, human or animal, all must die.

No one should stay alive.

Errrr.... which is unsadistic.... how? Sadism was definately one of the prime reasons to kill a child in the game in this whole thing, so what is the point of that statement?

But I have to ask you something. Are you saying that there is no such situation where you get that mischievouse smirk when you shoot one of the children in the groin with a sawed off shotgun? Counting out the occasions when you're just too pissed off by their antics with excessive amounts of adrenaline bumping in your veins.

So? Again you are resorting to the moronic straw man argument that someone who "kills" "children" in game targets specifically "children" and that the game starts to be some magical "childkilling simulator".

You make me sound like Jack Thompson when I completely with the bottom of my heart disagree with such logic.

I just can't remember saying anything like that during this whole discussion at all. If I did, please point them out.

This whole topic is about specifically killing children. Not killing in general. Doesn't it make pure sense to then speak about killing children instead of something else?

I am NOT stated anywhere that I am talking about people whom solely targets for children and plays the game for that very purpose alone. I am talking about those occational occations that happens in the game every now and then.

Saying that a game could ever be a killing "simulator" is completely and utterly nonesense and just plain redicilus. The only thing you could possibly with certain types of games do is to practice military tactics and sorts, but killing? Don't kid me. Besides, this is complete offtopic and I believe we should continue here any further.

Regards,
Caldera

 

[Sorrow]

Killing doesn't need a reason.

Actually, one may have a reason to kill children - humanity have destroyed the planet, destroyed the nature.
Nature would regrow in millenia without a human intervention - therefore all humans must die so that Earth would be reborn.

 

[Caldera]

Killing doesn't need a reason.

Actually, one may have a reason to kill children - humanity have destroyed the planet, destroyed the nature.
Nature would regrow in millenia without a human intervention - therefore all humans must die so that Earth would be reborn.

I have yet to see a murder, or kill that lacks a motive. I believe there has never been such thing in RL, or in a game.

In a game, boredome counts definately as a motive to slaughter a village. If you can provide an example that doesn't have a motive whatsoever I have no chance but to admit that there can be other reasons to kill a child in FO other than revenge and sadism (Forgot boredome obviously. ).

But I kinda doubt you can pull that off.

-C

 

[Sorrow]

What it has to do with actions of censorship loving beasts? Are you trying to defend them?

 

[Caldera]

What it has to do with actions of censorship loving beasts? Are you trying to defend them?

I have absolutely no idea what it has to do with actions of censorship loving beasts, but the topic is ...do you really want to kill a child and I believe it has 100% to do with that. Thus I don't completely comprehend your question.

And no, I am not trying to defend them. I already stated that I want to nuke a city and I want to shoot a child in the groin in FO3. If you ask me, I oppose the decision to take these out with my whole heart.

[edit]I am merely discussing this topic and presenting my own opinions and ideas and of course I am going to stand behind what I state, whom wouldn't? I also believe that what I have presented thus far has been legit and factual, or at least opinions of my own, which I believe, am allowed to possess.[/edit]

Cheers,
Caldera