38 replies to this topic

[Delight]

I think that killing innocent women is wrong and despicable. No normal person would like to murder an innocent woman. I think that there's no reason why there should be an option to ruthlessly murder innocent women in computer games.

Ability to murder innocent women is a special feature that doesn't add anything to computer games. There are a lot of computer games that don't have an option of murdering innocent women and they are as immersive as those who allow ruthless, bestial murder of innocent women.

There is a line that computer games shouldn't pass, I think that murdering innocent women is behind that line.

Can you, people imagine a situation in game, where a pretty, kind innocent woman is sitting in a restaurant, chatting with her friends and then...
And then a male comes in and swings at her with his long sword, literally cutting her in two, brain, blood and fragments of skull landing on her terrified friends and innards spilling at the floor?

I think that such situation is unacceptable in computer games.

I'm thinking about making a mod that would deal the problem of murder of innocent women like Hasbro dealt with the problem of killable children in Temple of Elemental Evil.
If somebody didn't play ToEE, I'll explain - there are a lot of unique NPCs in the main town - they have their own families, that sound like real families, which would add a lot to realism and immersion the game.
It would be bad, because murdering families is wrong.
Luckily Hasbro decided to protect us from a possiblity of murdering children of those families by removing them and now those families are childless. Sadly they didn't want to protect innocent women .

Those screens show a difference between a normal BG2 and my mod:

Normal Game - Bad
An option to bestially murder innocent women is available to player.


My Mod - Good - innocent women are protected from bestial murder.

Damn, the poll got wrong - the second option should be no instead of yes.

Edited by Delight, 03 July 2007 - 11:09 PM.

[Azkyroth]

Since apparently there's a problem specifically with killing innocent WOMEN, you could just change them all to male avatars. That's acceptable, right?

(There's...really no polite way to address the premise of this, is there?)

EDIT: (Incidentally, making the target a member of the Amnish nobility is kind of pointless, since this is about INNOCENT women).

Edited by Azkyroth, 03 July 2007 - 11:44 PM.

[Chevalier]

So you think a man's life is worth less than a woman's?? Are you sick in the head??

[vilkacis]

There is no need for insults.

But seriously, I must say that I don't see the need for a mod like this. Those who would install it probably aren't the type who would go out randomly murdering NPCs - and those who enjoy randomly murdering NPCs wouldn't install it.

(Although, less random victims to drop my rep for tossing AoE spells in a crowded street isn't a bad thing... )



...joke topic, much?

[Delight]

Since apparently there's a problem specifically with killing innocent WOMEN, you could just change them all to male avatars. That's acceptable, right?

So you think a man's life is worth less than a woman's?? Are you sick in the head??

You are both right. All innocent life is sacred. I fixed it, now all innocents are protected from being cruelly murdered :

But seriously, I must say that I don't see the need for a mod like this. Those who would install it probably aren't the type who would go out randomly murdering NPCs - and those who enjoy randomly murdering NPCs wouldn't install it.

I disagree - all that murder, thievery, possibility of playing evil characters are giving games bad press. To protect our entertainment we should use some self-censorship and remove unapropriate content - otherwise shops won't sell our games.

[Clary]

Although I'm sure this is a joke, I'll have a crack at replying anyway. I like pontificating about good and evil in video games.

I disagree - all that murder, thievery, possibility of playing evil characters are giving games bad press. To protect our entertainment we should use some self-censorship and remove unapropriate content - otherwise shops won't sell our games.

I wouldn't say that the possibility of killing innocents is necessarily a bad thing in BG. True, it means that the player has the option to go on a virtual killing spree in the game. But it also makes the choice of the player not to kill innocents more meaningful in the game world. For example, if you're playing a good character (as I always do) and you fire off an AoE spell in a crowded tavern, you'll end up toasting some uninvolved bystanders. Not only are you thus required to think about your actions in terms of not hurting innocents, but the game even provides consequences in the form of reputation drops and guards attacking you. As a player of a good-aligned character, you have to actually accept certain limitations (like not stealing for extra cash, not randomly shooting fireballs, and such) in order to roleplay being a good character. So while the existing BG system may make it possible to be evil, in a way that makes it really possible to be good.

But all that aside - what about the player killing his innocent party members? Shouldn't they be "protected" too?

Edited by Clary, 04 July 2007 - 01:22 AM.

[Azkyroth]

While the question of how much scope a game should give its player to do "evil" deeds is an interesting moral question, I don't think that mods removing objectionable content would have nearly as much effect on press (bad or otherwise) as, well, the original content of the games themselves. Which is what is sold in stores, after all.

I wouldn't say that the possibility of killing innocents is necessarily a bad thing in BG. True, it means that the player has the option to go on a virtual killing spree in the game. But it also makes the choice of the player not to kill innocents more meaningful in the game world. For example, if you're playing a good character (as I always do) and you fire off an AoE spell in a crowded tavern, you'll end up toasting some uninvolved bystanders. Not only are you thus required to think about your actions in terms of not hurting innocents, but the game even provides consequences in the form of reputation drops and guards attacking you. As a player of a good-aligned character, you have to actually accept certain limitations (like not stealing for extra cash, not randomly shooting fireballs, and such) in order to roleplay being a good character. So while the existing BG system may make it possible to be evil, in a way that makes it really possible to be good.

I think you're right about the necessity of choosing a course and having to think about and evaluating consequences making it more meaningful--not to mention a useful (and harmless) vehicle for thought experiments and various forms of procedural learning. I'm not sure how the content of games and the actions available within them constitutes a "moral question", unless one is either contending that animated pixels/polygons and AI scripts actually suffer or has made the mistake of Drinking the Kool-Aid in evaluating the common but evidentially unsupported beliefs about the effects of media depictions on people in general and children in particular.

[Chevalier]

I disagree - all that murder, thievery, possibility of playing evil characters are giving games bad press. To protect our entertainment we should use some self-censorship and remove unapropriate content - otherwise shops won't sell our games.

D&D has always had bad press from the start. If you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim and play a game with pagan gods that you pray to can be thought of as a sin. (yes I know it is a game and players don't do it really, but I know people who object on these grounds)

Now this is something I can respond to much better. Would games that allow you to play Nazi troops trying to take over the world (only killing innocent allied soldiers) so they can kill all the Jews be removed too? Playing real world evil. Yes, I know not all/most German soldiers were evil, but they served an evil government. Where do you draw the line. Or people with the nic of Delight above a photo a Nazi bomber bombing Warsaw, Amsterdam or Oslo. Yes, I have read 'A Glittering Gem of Hatred' that you have below it, but what is the first message you get when you see it. I have often played wargames and played the German side and do not think it is wrong but some would.

I think games like 'Postal' are bad, very bad, but should we stop them from making/selling them? No, if no one buys them then they wont make them (they make games to make money).

[Clary]

I think you're right about the necessity of choosing a course and having to think about and evaluating consequences making it more meaningful--not to mention a useful (and harmless) vehicle for thought experiments and various forms of procedural learning. I'm not sure how the content of games and the actions available within them constitutes a "moral question", unless one is either contending that animated pixels/polygons and AI scripts actually suffer or has made the mistake of Drinking the Kool-Aid in evaluating the common but evidentially unsupported beliefs about the effects of media depictions on people in general and children in particular.

Save the Sprites!

Ahem. Well, as far as one's use of media concerns morals, the content of video games does. While I don't think that games cause crime, I would argue that (since it's inevitable that most players will identify to some degree with the character they play) performing actions in a game which simulate morally wrong actions in real life (GTA, anyone?) can have a detrimental moral effect on a person, much like fantasizing about doing the same things. Of course this really depends on the person themselves, and how they see their actions in playing the game.

...And, to be fair, being just out of Theology 102 at Catholic school I don't labor under the delusion that the average Internet forumgoer will agree with me on all things moral.

Edited by Clary, 04 July 2007 - 02:20 AM.

[the bigg]

http://images.google...feed the trolls

[SimDing0]

Okay, the first time I read this I went into Ding0 spaz and started formulating my angry rant in my head. I have to confess it was only by the time I got to the "PC in the middle of an empty room" shot that I realized it's actually really funny.

[vilkacis]

The solution to all these problems: Game Be-Gone. Not only does it prevent theft, murder, drunkenness, prostitution, drug use and a whole bunch of other terrible things - it also reduces the time you spend in front of a monitor like a long-haired hippy slacker instead of being out there in the real world, doing real things!

[Kulyok]

You'll find it even funnier when you'll know it started in Imoen Romance forum.

{In case anyone is curious what Kulyok might be doing in Imoen Romance forums, this morning I saw an NPC mod mention in SHS IE subforum and got curious. One Google click later, I got into the topic where the author of the said mod was announcing the mod was stalled, but she was to get married the year after next, and another click later, to a topic where the said author was announcing she was finishing high school. Another click later I was in Delight's topic, but there I decided I've had enough laughs for one day.}

[SimDing0]

I thought I got the Imoen Romance forums shut down?

[Delight]

http://images.google...feed the trolls

Hehehe .
I was just after a discussion on F3 forums in which someone said that I'm "utterly obsessed with wanting to commit child murder" just because I didn't agree with their views on unkillable characters or excluding any type of NPCs from game just because of censorship.
I had to blow off some steam .

I wouldn't say that the possibility of killing innocents is necessarily a bad thing in BG. True, it means that the player has the option to go on a virtual killing spree in the game. But it also makes the choice of the player not to kill innocents more meaningful in the game world. For example, if you're playing a good character (as I always do) and you fire off an AoE spell in a crowded tavern, you'll end up toasting some uninvolved bystanders. Not only are you thus required to think about your actions in terms of not hurting innocents, but the game even provides consequences in the form of reputation drops and guards attacking you. As a player of a good-aligned character, you have to actually accept certain limitations (like not stealing for extra cash, not randomly shooting fireballs, and such) in order to roleplay being a good character. So while the existing BG system may make it possible to be evil, in a way that makes it really possible to be good.

Heh ...
I'm so far into roleplaying, that I don't care about concepts of choice good and evil. Simply, my character does what she/he wants.
Good characters usually have some moral rules, while evil are nasty. Chaotic evil ones have tendencies to go on killing sprees .
But, frankly, I never played a Paladin. They are almost like gnomes . I hate gnomes .

I'm not sure how the content of games and the actions available within them constitutes a "moral question", unless one is either contending that animated pixels/polygons and AI scripts actually suffer

Heh...
I've noticed, that in general censorship lovers are a bit funny in the head - I recall one woman talking about how one when kills a bunch of walking pixels in Fallout has a dead child in his head XD .

or has made the mistake of Drinking the Kool-Aid in evaluating the common but evidentially unsupported beliefs about the effects of media depictions on people in general and children in particular.

Heh .
A good article - it shows exacly what's wrong with censorship lovers. Especially it shows their utter disrespect for other human being and a sick belief that they can turned into monsters by something so trivial as movies and computer games.

While I don't think that games cause crime, I would argue that (since it's inevitable that most players will identify to some degree with the character they play) performing actions in a game which simulate morally wrong actions in real life (GTA, anyone?) can have a detrimental moral effect on a person, much like fantasizing about doing the same things.

Define: a detrimental moral effect

Where do you draw the line.

I'm able to read Duck & Cover forums without getting offended .

I think games like 'Postal' are bad, very bad, but should we stop them from making/selling them? No, if no one buys them then they wont make them (they make games to make money).

Actually Postal 1 was pretty good - it was artistically done - I mean it had hand drawn maps, disturbing surreal graphics in menus, disturbing music and very disturbing main character (both voice and looks) - it was a great expression of misantrophic hatred towards mankind (I actually like playing that game when I'm in genocidal mood).

BTW

That's how I like my role playing games. I could choice to kill of a group of "gangers" because a demented major of a town/work camp wanted to avenge his son .

Edited by Delight, 04 July 2007 - 03:49 AM.

[Azkyroth]

While I don't think that games cause crime, I would argue that (since it's inevitable that most players will identify to some degree with the character they play) performing actions in a game which simulate morally wrong actions in real life (GTA, anyone?) can have a detrimental moral effect on a person, much like fantasizing about doing the same things.

Did you read the link? :/

I thought I got the Imoen Romance forums shut down?

On what conceivable grounds?

I was just after a discussion on F3 forums in which someone said that I'm "utterly obsessed with wanting to commit child murder" just because I didn't agree with their views on unkillable characters or excluding any type of NPCs from game just because of censorship.
I had to blow off some steam .

I suspected something like this. Unfortunately I've met far too many people who really think this way to find it humorous

A good article - it shows exacly what's wrong with censorship lovers. Especially it shows their utter disrespect for other human being and a sick belief that they can turned into monsters by something so trivial as movies and computer games.

The main issue is that most people, unfortunately, have a threshold of "emotionality" which, when an issue crosses it, causes their higher brain functions to shut down, such that they will accept "studies" in which the "data" are a monomolecular veneer over a huge lump of observer and confirmation bias as "reliable."

[Clary]

While I don't think that games cause crime, I would argue that (since it's inevitable that most players will identify to some degree with the character they play) performing actions in a game which simulate morally wrong actions in real life (GTA, anyone?) can have a detrimental moral effect on a person, much like fantasizing about doing the same things.

Did you read the link? :/

I did. As I said, I didn't form this opinion by reading dubious studies but by working from what I know of moral theology - that is to say, generally in Christian thought it's bad to intend doing something wrong, even if you don't actually do it. Depending on what sort of person you are, I imagine that putting yourself in video-game situations where you, yourself, feel like you're doing something wrong would not be good for you. A little (though not entirely) like the way viewing pornography is considered sinful - it hasn't got that much to do necessarily with whether there are any visible effects on the person. And of course, since it's impossible to know what goes on in someone else's head, you can't really say whether a specific game would be bad for a specific person. Thus the reason why censorship is not on - it should really be up to you what you think is too much sex or violence or whatever, rather than the government deciding it for you. What do they know about you anyway?

That probably puts me in the camp of the conservative conspiracy the link complains about, but there you go.

But, frankly, I never played a Paladin. They are almost like gnomes . I hate gnomes .

Now I'm having weird visions of gnome paladins.

Edited by Clary, 04 July 2007 - 02:14 PM.

[Delight]

I was just after a discussion on F3 forums in which someone said that I'm "utterly obsessed with wanting to commit child murder" just because I didn't agree with their views on unkillable characters or excluding any type of NPCs from game just because of censorship.
I had to blow off some steam .

I suspected something like this. Unfortunately I've met far too many people who really think this way to find it humorous

The only way to defeat them is making fun of them and showing how insane they are.

The main issue is that most people, unfortunately, have a threshold of "emotionality" which, when an issue crosses it, causes their higher brain functions to shut down, such that they will accept "studies" in which the "data" are a monomolecular veneer over a huge lump of observer and confirmation bias as "reliable."

That's why the reason can rule only with an iron fist. There really should be a free gamer state with its own army that would protect our culture from deviants that want to destroy it.

I did. As I said, I didn't form this opinion by reading dubious studies but by working from what I know of moral theology - that is to say, generally in Christian thought it's bad to intend doing something wrong, even if you don't actually do it. Depending on what sort of person you are, I imagine that putting yourself in video-game situations where you, yourself, feel like you're doing something wrong would not be good for you. A little (though not entirely) like the way viewing pornography is considered sinful - it hasn't got that much to do necessarily with whether there are any visible effects on the person.

Oh, I forgot about the thoughtcrime . How could I forget. Thanks Goddess I'm I have my own morality.

And of course, since it's impossible to know what goes on in someone else's head, you can't really say whether a specific game would be bad for a specific person. Thus the reason why censorship is not on - it should really be up to you what you think is too much sex or violence or whatever, rather than the government deciding it for you. What do they know about you anyway?

Yes, there's no reason why the government should be deciding for me what should I read, play, watch and listen too. Of course, there are always moonbats that want to decide for others, because in their delusions and arogance they see themselves as better than normal people.
On the other hand, players usually do nothing to promote their positive image ...

Edited by Delight, 04 July 2007 - 03:02 PM.

[Azkyroth]

I did. As I said, I didn't form this opinion by reading dubious studies but by working from what I know of moral theology - that is to say, generally in Christian thought it's bad to intend doing something wrong, even if you don't actually do it. Depending on what sort of person you are, I imagine that putting yourself in video-game situations where you, yourself, feel like you're doing something wrong would not be good for you. A little (though not entirely) like the way viewing pornography is considered sinful - it hasn't got that much to do necessarily with whether there are any visible effects on the person. And of course, since it's impossible to know what goes on in someone else's head, you can't really say whether a specific game would be bad for a specific person. Thus the reason why censorship is not on - it should really be up to you what you think is too much sex or violence or whatever, rather than the government deciding it for you. What do they know about you anyway?

I forget; is Euthyphro's Dilemma considered a low blow now? ;/

That probably puts me in the camp of the conservative conspiracy the link complains about, but there you go.

I don't think the link was addressing a "conspiracy," rather it's a phenomenon that constitutes an emergent effect of a large number of people interpreting both the media and the research on it through personal-prejudice-colored coke-bottle glasses. And no, the fact that you believe things that I regard as nonsensical but aren't attempting to force others to abide by your standards relegates this to a difference of opinion. ^.^

[Delight]

I don't think the link was addressing a "conspiracy," rather it's a phenomenon that constitutes an emergent effect of a large number of people interpreting both the media and the research on it through personal-prejudice-colored coke-bottle glasses.

I think that the main problem is that the moonbats that want to destroy our culture are highly motivated and are obsessed with getting power. On the other hand, while players are a majority in civilised countries, they don't strive towards power. Which is wrong, because they practically give power to the enemy.

I think that if there are detrimental effects of violence in games - it is making gamers more likely to abstain from violence and power in RL which makes them easier victims for criminals and tyrants.
The enemy says that there's a plague of violence. There's no greater lie. People are less violent than ever. The problem is that we need violence. We need violence to defend ourselves from criminals, we need power to defend ourselves from the enemies of our culture.

Edited by Delight, 04 July 2007 - 03:40 PM.