In case you missed it: ZOMBIE CHILDREN

Such a thing will bring us in front of ethical choices. It's you who will have a decision to make : fight those children or avoid them. Nobody here forces you to fight childrens nor allows you to do so, even if those are zombies. It will be your decision to do so, or not do so. You can run, you can mesmerize them, you can throw caltrops to slow them, you can avoid meeting them, you can hide in the shadows, you can...

But sure, also, you can prefer to blind yourself in front of difficult choices and go play something else, where your morale is never challenged. Anyway, a game without moral dilemns is simply NOT the way I see a game where virtues matter.

As long as Shroud of the Avatar has zombies, it's pretty logical that the plague is not reserved for adults. The opposite would have looked too much like politically correct games where the logic is defied in order to preserve the sensitivity of players who prefer not to challenge or test their own moral certainties... like you, obviously.

The real question that you should ask yourself here is : why do you prefer that a game sacrifice its plausibility so that you do not have to make moral choices, you, the one who tells others what is good or wrong?

 

Be careful of that pressure plate in Artifice!

 

+1 to being able to kill crawling zombie babies

Also there is no ethical dilemma here. Zombies are undead meaning they are already dead. If anything killing them is virtuous as you end their suffering.

I would rather kill zombie children than the poor innocent kobolds in the mines that are rightfully mining their claim.

 

My counter argument is: why are zombies plausible at all?

The question of plausibility reminds me of a commercial I saw on TV on my recent visit to the US which I found hilarious.



I understand the argument that the existence of zombie children offers a moral choice. However, I also understand that including children in any gaming situation where the children are deployed as victims (even victims of a plague) can arouse an unsurmountable degree of abhorrence in many people (including myself). Before I had children of my own I didn't feel this way or understand how people could feel this way. But suddenly some nurturing instinct was ignited, and ever since I find the thought of child victims unbearable. A game can offer moral dilemmas without involving child victims in my opinion.

 

*shrugs*

 

Killing zombie children isn't murder; it's mercy.

I for one am glad to see the world of zombies widening in the game. Hopefully also on the list of additions will be zombie hordes and fast zombies. And possibly global pandemic events.

 

Yep, I have mixed feelings about going killing children. Even when they transformed into zombies. I do think there is a taboo on this subject.
Then again, flesh eating viruses do not infect only adults. So it makes sense to see zombie children/bears/wolfs etc etc.

Spoiler: shhhh

BURN THEM!!!!!!!

 

In a world filled with magic, zombies are plausible and children zombies too. Many fantasy worlds, in the occidental culture, have developed some logic through their own conception of magic to justify their existence. Even the ancient oriental cultures has undead creatures (the Yūrei in the japan culture, if my sources are correct @Serafina ). You can laugh at the concept, but every game has to be based on logic. If you laugh at zombie childrens plausibility, I'll laugh at every magic spell plausibility. It's not up to us to tell everyone what is ok and what is not. Everything is about : Is this logic or not ?

You can't understand the argument of the moral choice if you think that this moral choice is always easy to do. Nobody forces you here to do one way or the other in the game. It's all up to you.

I have childrens too. I will probably avoid any contact with those new creatures for the reasons you just told. My sensibility is my own. I don't have to impose it to everyone, especially if the game gives me the opportunity to show that, yes, you can opt for not killing agressive zombie childrens, justly because it sounds bad.
It's up to a game to make me think about my actions, or we will here have another fps shooter where everything is simple/stupid like the enemy is this soldier in front of you... Talking about soldiers, there unfortunately are soldier-childrens everywhere around the globe in reality. Will you ask for the TV shows not to mention this, just because it hurts your parent sensibility ?

Stop being controlled by your fears. Evil things happen everywhere in reality and in virtual worlds. If you want things to change for the better, it's not through censorship, but through example and education that you'll get there. And education can't be delivered when we are just avoiding every "disturbing" questions which goes against some preservation instinct or phony moral.

 

Hello there, @Hornpipe! I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. I am not lobbying for censorship or to impose my sensibility on everyone. I merely stated my opinion and expressed my understanding for people who abhor the subject of this thread. I think that should be allowed without becoming a target of all kinds of accusations.

 

The problem here, is that you express your understanding with someone who just said that :

Sorry, but I had the impression that his words were not just the expression of a simple opinion. But rather an expression of an opinion formulated as a direct attack on something that should be forbidden, as if it were obvious. And that's something you agreed with. That's why I'm talking about censorship. And by the way, you said that :

...which is untrue, because this supposes that there are moral dilemmas better than others. Now it is precisely the nature of moral choices to be all valid. Only the answers that people bring to these problems are debatable. If everyone could choose the choices he or she has to make during his life, or the challenges he or she faces, then morality would no longer have any meaning or value. Clearly, I hate to say that, but your answers gives me the impression that morality has no value for you, that it is an "on-command" thing. Because it seems like you only want to make the choices with which you are comfortable, when you are ready for it.

 

I just wanted to highlight here one of the most pseudo-intellectual ineffective arguments I've ever read on this forum.

 

And of course, you will explain why... Ah no, you didn't feel the need to. I wonder who is the most pseudo-intellectual here.

Oh sorry, I pulled you out of your sleep on reddit?

 

The difference here is that I was critical of your argument and you of me as a person.

 

Indeed. But it actually does not make any difference. Your criticism was not argued, it was only the pretext to convey an aggressive word against me. And the form shows that the intention was to humiliate : "the most pseudo-intellectual ineffective arguments here" implied: "you reason so badly that" or "You are so useless ...". There would be an argument expressed to support it, one could have doubted your bad intentions. But no. My answer has been to send back your own attack, just using logic, common sense and a dictionnary. You did not like it ? It is your problem. But here, this is not the place for this kind of conversation.

 

I only collect the tears from children to make beer. I do not eat them. Eating children would stop the flow of avatars of the eating age. Avatars must procreate to bring me more food. It's axiomatic.

 

Indeed, I understand and sympathize with that person's opinion. I don't, however, understand why that is a "problem". You have a different opinion, but that doesn't automatically make your opinion valid and correct and mine invalid and incorrect.

You stated that my opinion that a game can offer moral dilemmas without involving child victims is

untrue, because this supposes that there are moral dilemmas better than others.

This is not a logical argument. Following it to its conclusion it supposes that any game that contains any moral dilemma must contain every moral dilemma under the sun, a sheer impossibility.

In my opinion it is a mistake to be so judgmental about someone one doesn't know based solely on a forum post.

 

No, it only supposes that every game can contain any moral dilemna under the sun without this being a problem. As long that there is no good or bad moral dilemna, it only means that every moral dilemna is acceptable. But yes, the more, the better .

As long as there is no good or bad moral dilemnas, there are just moral dilemnas. That's because moral dilemnas don't intend to be good or bad. Moral dilemnas are just questions. Those doesn't involve that any solution is better than anything else. It's up to everyone to judge the options according to his or her own morality.

So yes, it's a logical argument.

And yes, opinion can be invalid (for exemple : Earth is flat), if those are based on biased fact or reasonings (Actually, it seems like we have a lot of pictures which shows that the Earth is not precisely flat ; of course, I didn't saw Earth from space myself - @Lord British did - but there are many signs which do not deceive.).

The only problem is that nobody here is able to judge unless he has proof of an error, and even if there is proof, nobody has the authority to impose his or her views, even if those were perfect.. The only way to go is to convince, simply. That's why, most of the time, people are entitled with their opinion. And people can have opinion about other's opinions !

I would reread his quote if I were you. Quite often, you can easily guess the intentions of a person through the words that were used.

 

In the end, the only thing that matters is what a mechanism thinks, namely The Oracle. She will not see shades of grey, when the only thing that matters to her is absolutes. Just as with Fauns, it does not matter that you can argue a release from their pain, she will still judge you as lacking in Courage.

 

Dying Light has undead toddlers.

I don't have an opinion on their inclusion in this game, however there is a fine line between fantasy and sick fantasy. There is a growing trend in sick fantasy and it grosses me out. See Game of Thrones as an example. The things people fantasize about for entertainment is sometimes a little out there... imo of course.