I don't want to kill babies!

in today's world I really wonder who that joke is on...

 

This morning I saw ''small crocodile'' in place of ''baby crocodile" just outside of Solania.

But there was still one ''baby'' croc that wasn't renamed.

However for me, if it gives an animal hide, it's going to die and contribute to my crafting.

 

Noone will judge you, that would be anti-virtuous

 

There are currently Large Crocodiles, Crocodiles, Small Crocodiles and Baby Crocodiles, so there has been no re-naming yet. As Chris said, the Babies will be re-named Caiman in R24 (thank you @Chris!).

 

Now that you mention it, I did encounter some there early in one of the recent releases. I killed the first one as a reaction to it attacking me. It was such an easy kill that I've ignored all others since.

 

Is this really a thing people are worried about? Killing baby gators? I mean... This *is* a LB game right? ... We already know that killing children is a thing!

So would you rather kill baby animals.. or babies?

I will keep to my own personal quote "If you are going to kill and eat my friends (which are animals) , I am going to kill and eat yours..."

~offers Dinsoo some baby toe pie~

 

So ready to play devil's advocate ?

hm.

Perhaps we'll have to quote you on that... someday...

 

This is not an either/or thing. It is neither/nor.

 

If you were referring to me, I am happy to be quoted on it - After all, it is one of my quotes.

Let me ask you - are you a meat eater?

Do you enjoy veal? lamb? chicken?

I am only asking because some of the best, most tender meat, with the most flavour comes from... you guessed it. Baby Animals.

 

Yes, Amber Raine is correct. Killing children is now Avatar canon. It can not be changed.

 

To all the players who delight in killing children in a computer game I have only the following explanation to share: when I was a kid, I told as many and laughed at as many dead baby jokes as the next person. Having since had children of my own, and having now a baby in the family with a life threatening condition that may leave the child handicapped, I no longer see the humor in the idea. So giggle at my thread all you like but please leave me be.

 

Non-starter, that one, I think.

I think it is fair to question whether this is right. Does a good game design need this to prove that its morality system works?

I'm not that worried, though I think the opening post makes an interesting point. Instead of taking it as a sign of intolerable evil in the game, I see this as a non-immersive design flaw. The developers could choose to be far more creative in naming creatures than calling them baby, small, medium, large. I mean, crap, any fledgling game developer creating an average game can call monsters baby, small, large. This is not an average creative/development team....just sayin.' And this community says no to average all the time.

We could have good, constructive discussion around that last piece. I don't think challenging some one on their personal meat eating habits or baby-killing morality as a way of justifying a game's design is going somewhere good here, from what I see above. A better discussion would be ....ok, this is what we got....is that it......or could the game be better....?

 

Who is making you kill them? They attack you because they don't know any better, you can just run away and leave them be!

 

I for one don't like Alligators ,baby or not... After all they grow up to be BIG alligators ... I say KILL them all ....

 

one size fits all croc

 

Because you have a phobia of reptiles dosen't mean most people don't consider baby animals cute

Besides its a game, we're just aiming to reasonably tend to everyone sensibilities by filtering things like this, which are easy to change and also the discussion is evolving towards all those people who want to play SOTA without violence. This is NOT a "everyone is offended by everything" situation.

This has been brought up many times, some people like in UO want to be a fisherman, want to be a tamer, want to be a crafter, a beggar ; and it would be a good idea not to force them to kill to get where they want, like in UO.

I'm being very polite about this, but we really hope not to see a WoW clone and this is part of it. Of course take it with a grain of salt because there will be ways for people to get rare ressources because other people will "farm" for them, but you have to give them a way to get up and running without forcing them into violent gameplay and/or having to buy stuff with real money.

I really feel let down by many in this community on this, I'm the first to argue for a siege perilous super violent and open pvp so I should be the last to defend this, but here I am again filling the seat noone wants to take.

Booya !

 

Who cares. Let's just kill them all.

 

Apparently I do now, and theres a bunch of others, shouldn't come as a surprise in the new world order. Don't be a clown... all your jokes could be funny in a gaming context, but this is SPARTA.

 

I am not a part of the new world order, ty, but I like the old one ty very much . And I say Kill all those pesky critters, no matter what the heck they are called .. all for one and one for all ... "shhhh!!! , be berry berry twiet, i'm hunting wabbits "... And what's wrong with jokes? The world could use a lot more of them ....

 

I disagree with this statement. RG and co are putting out a video game - a piece of fiction. Interactive it may be, but it is still fiction. It is not up to me, you, or anyone else to decide if the content and story is "right" or "wrong", it just is. If you don't like the content, you don't have to play it.

It's the same as a book or movie which contains content objectionable to some viewers/readers. Is it ok to criticize? Sure. But saying something is "wrong" and should not exist based on one (or more) people's personal opinions, and hoping for a change based on those criteria, is a slippery and dangerous slope.