Slaying innocent people scenario

Started by Slasher, Thu 28/09/2017 08:48:32

Previous topic - Next topic

Slasher

Hi

I have a question.

If you have a weapon and you use it on innocent people generally you say like "I'm not slaying an innocent person."

What about if you could slay them and after so many innocent slayings get called for by the King who sentences you to death for the brutal slayings of many innocent people.

What is your take on this scenario?

cheers



Click'd


CaptainD

If you're talking about the general idea of having an ethical accountability in a game then I'm all for it, assuming you want to lend some kind of authenticity to the game.
 

Slasher

Hi Capt

I was thinking along these lines... kill too many innocents  and it's 'Head off' (laugh)

Well, it is set in very ancient times..

So our guy needs to be certain that any guy is guilty first...

Snarky

Quote from: Slasher on Thu 28/09/2017 10:33:13
Hi Capt

I was thinking along these lines... kill too many innocents  and it's 'Head off' (laugh)

Well, it is set in very ancient times...

Back when there was a quota on how many people you were allowed to murder?

Slasher

QuoteBack when there was a quota on how many people you were allowed to murder?
The man is working for the King. But the King will not forgive endless killings of the innocent.


Danvzare

Ooh, I like this idea. :-D
Although it sounds strangely familiar. :-\

I think I've heard of something similar being used before. Where if you kept doing bad things that you weren't supposed to do, you would keep getting warnings, until eventually you got a game over.

CaptainD

Maybe using stats like Fame, Honour, Reputation etc, to allow the player to know when they are crossing the line?  Also influencing how people react to you perhaps?  (People will be unwilling to help you if you are unknown or unhonourable, for example.)
 

Mandle

I remember well slaughtering entire towns in whichever Ultima game was the one with the virtues. And that did have accountability because I believe you could not progress as the Avatar until your good/evil alignment was balanced properly. Also, the guards would try to kill you, but everything was forgotten if you left the town and reentered. And all the people you had killed were alive again. A limitation of the memory space at the time I'd say. I guess they could only afford one array for town characters that was reused for every town.

Also, in Deus Ex you could wipe out entire levels killing all innocents and, at first you would get in trouble from the boss back at UNATCO headquarters, but later, after you had gone rogue-agent there were no real consequences. In fact, I once played a "Genocide" run of the game where I killed every single killable character in the whole game and could still get to the end and "win" the game. (I also completed a "Ghost" run of the game where I never killed anyone (except the one the game forces you to kill) and was never spotted by any enemy agents, but that is much, much harder...)

I'm a huge fan of this kind of freedom in games. I actually want to one day design a game where any kind of action is possible, including despicable acts so that your character could become a mugger, a bank-robber, a con-man, a murderer, a serial-killer, a human trafficker, a rapist, or even worse. Of course this would be totally the player's choice and not forced upon them. They can be a really good and honourable person or anything in-between. And the consequences of their actions should play out as they would in real-life: If they are caught by the cops as a serial-killer they would stand trial and probably go to jail (not game-over, you continue to play in the jail environment) or they can maybe get away with their crimes for a long time, if not until they die. Death would be the only game-over in the game. One thing I would not do is have a "guilt" or "morals" meter or somesuch. I would want the player's own feelings about what they have done to affect their actions. Not some fake-feeling game-mechanic. Also not so easy to do because the player obviously knows the game is not reality and has no real-life consequences for them. I realise this game is almost impossible to make but I hope to give it a go one day.

Slasher

So,

if one had a clue to their innocence this would stop you slaying them..

Maybe by a dialog option of choices... slay or don't slay perhaps...?



Mandle

Quote from: Slasher on Thu 28/09/2017 13:51:31
So,

if one had a clue to their innocence this would stop you slaying them..

Maybe by a dialog option of choices... slay or don't slay perhaps...?

Oh, so, in the game you are not sure if they are innocent or not?

If that's what you mean then this mechanic of questioning them is quite hard to use:

If it is just a repetitive series of outcomes, even including various random answers, to spot who is innocent or not then this becomes just a memory chore for the player.

If you include a "tell" answer that only the guilty character will say then this becomes a "spot the difference" puzzle.

Maybe have the "tell" answer be just slightly different from an innocent answer, like:

Innocent reply: "I don't know anything about that!"

Guilty reply: "I don't know nothing about that!"

(Their bad grammar obviously picks them as the criminal!) (laugh)

AnasAbdin

As a game idea, it sounds interesting. But I'd expect different punishments for different numbers of victims. If the king would order your death after 100 kills, it would sound dumb to get away with 99.

In real life, I think killing one person is the same as killing the entire human race.

Slasher

AnasAbdin,

The King does summon you after you have killed a few people and reprimands you and tells you it must stop..

Kill too many and its the ax-mans Axe (laugh)

Click'd

Quote from: AnasAbdin on Thu 28/09/2017 16:20:32
In real life, I think killing one person is the same as killing the entire human race.
If you kill everyone there's nobody left to punish you.

selmiak

Quote from: ClickClickClick on Thu 28/09/2017 17:34:11
Quote from: AnasAbdin on Thu 28/09/2017 16:20:32
In real life, I think killing one person is the same as killing the entire human race.
If you kill everyone there's nobody left to punish you.

this is so unsettingly true  :-D

Khris

Quote from: AnasAbdin on Thu 28/09/2017 16:20:32In real life, I think killing one person is the same as killing the entire human race.
Can you clarify this? Because as I read it, it's one of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time.

milkanannan

Quote from: Khris on Thu 28/09/2017 19:32:08
Quote from: AnasAbdin on Thu 28/09/2017 16:20:32In real life, I think killing one person is the same as killing the entire human race.
Can you clarify this? Because as I read it, it's one of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time.

(laugh)

Atelier

Quote from: Danvzare on Thu 28/09/2017 11:12:48
I think I've heard of something similar being used before. Where if you kept doing bad things that you weren't supposed to do, you would keep getting warnings, until eventually you got a game over.

In Assassin's Creed you would be 'desyncronised' if you killed a bunch of random civilians in quick succession.

Slasher

After reading the opinions in this thread and other sources I have decided to only have the killing option on the enemy...

Maybe if it were another type of game then it could be so... But seeing as the 'killer' is in fact the Kings defender I don't think he would go around killing willy nilly (laugh)

In some cases there is an alternative besides killing an enemy to complete a task...

Atelier

Quote from: Slasher on Mon 16/10/2017 07:43:04
Maybe if it were another type of game then it could be so... But seeing as the 'killer' is in fact the Kings defender I don't think he would go around killing willy nilly (laugh)

Exactly, you just need to decide to what extent the character is 'owned' by the player, in light of any other RPG elements in the wider game :)

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk