It's a PVP game, and I like PVP but I didn't join just for the PVP. If someone wants a fight I'll probably indulge. If someone is griefing or doing something stupid, I might indulge. I also lose a bit more than I win, because lag but I have fun. I saw this one day about a month ago. It was the last thing I saw, and I had to get the image out of the crash report. It took me forever (over a week!) to figure out how he got on board.
Is Killing Justified in Star Citizen?
- Thread starter Wolfy
- Start date
That's because we are.
I vote for a flexible interpretation of what griefing is.
Which is why the term should be very flexible and fit with in our idea of what having fun is. I for one can easily see myself shooting someone just because I don't like the way they look, or because I was bored or needed to sight in my newest rifle. In all honesty the game play investment itself will strictly dictate the amount of PVP'ing most people engage in. To easy to earn UEC's and clean ones reputation then the game world will be far more like a common FPS. After all its a game and most players current decisions will be made about their perceived current risk/reward.
Since there will be always a way to get the ship back using legal ways I'm fine. And no, I would not shoot, except if it's you.
Last edited:
I got no issue with killing people. Hell I hardly need a reason haha. But I like deep, drunk, moral discussions.
I think you can drink to almost anything.
Just as long as you keep providing the beer. :) You might even convince me to vote for space kitties.
Hot damn *hands keg*
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
We hear this a lot, but I am pretty sure CIG is on record that UEE ships do not have a self-destruct, only Vanduul ships. Also, there is a plan to hugely inconvenience players when they die--no details forthcoming yet, but this is intended to thwart the kind of solution you're proposing.
Besides, if it's okay to blow up the ship with you aboard thus killing them, isn't it okay to put a bullet into their brain pan and leave your ship and person in place? The point is, there are conditions one can kill in almost every ethical theory. The only exceptions I am aware of are ancient Zoroastrianism, which so far as I'm aware is quite dead, and more modern Christian pacifism, which most admit is based upon a misunderstanding of Jesus' teaching. So if most of us believe you can kill under certain circumstances, like self-preservation, why would not your avatar do similarly?
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
Well yeah, there ain't anything wrong with a bit of killing. I just prefer it serves purposes either inline with my own or not contractory.
Imagine if SC rewrote the book on the game play... nearly every game - ex. Pit Fall, Doom, Battle Field, COD, etc... your character dies, you get up, and retry. I am not saying that model does not work... but maybe there is another way. I know this would be very hard trying to make a system where death means something without destroying game play... it is the ultimate price after all.
What if you got killed while your ship was stolen, you hunt down your ship and blow it up without you even being inside the ship, I mean, you already received the inconvenience from being killed, which is another good reason to hunt down your own ship. Rule: an eye for an eye.
They killed you before by putting their gun against the back of your head. Why give them the chance to defend themselves in a fair gunfight?
I hope that I can enjoy the no fighting elements of the game (and therefore killing) most of the time but that there will also be epic fights I can see or partake in occasionally. I do not want static that will be boring, but also sadly after a long day at work if all that happens is I get ganked or griefed often then this will have been an epic fail for me.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
It's important to note that "an eye for an eye" is the measure handed down in Torah through the lawgiver Moses, iterated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and is specifically intended as a guideline for the maximum penalty that could be handed out by a judge in a court of law. 1600 years later when Jesus taught "turn the other cheek", he was actually not correcting Moses, rather he was correcting the Pharisees who were teaching this "eye for an eye" principle ought to be applied to personal relations. That is not its place. It is a rule for judges that determines the extent of suffering the state can cause as part of a complete criminal justice system. If you are measuring out retaliation yourself, you have vigilante justice, not a real justice system. So both are important and have their proper place--an eye for an eye in the courts and turn the other cheek in personal relations.
But that assumes that people care about the specific morality mentioned in the bible. Looking from a outside point of view it is a poor system as it has clearly been open to interpretation over the many years it has existed. A moral system worth basing a life around should be concrete and not open to interpretation or it may as well not posit it's theory at all. And that's specifically relating to justice which assumes that it is a punishment. What if someone simply enjoys killing for the personal pleasure of it? While most of society is rather opposed to this out of their selfish worry that they may be killed if it was allowed, that doesn't make it wrong, just undesirable and illegal.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
It is the basis for all Western Civilization. Study some world history and you'll see it is things like this that lifted humanity from the muck 3,600 years ago. To this day, there is still no better system.
Okay I'll bite. What would make killing wrong in your eyes? What could ever make anything intrinsically wrong?
Last edited:
We are not arguing for a system, it's an argument that killing isn't wrong. There is nothing inherently bad about killing someone if you default in that view. While on the other hand it could be inherently bad. This is an argument about why killing in SC is justified in the narrow confines that it is a game but it still has ramifications on the person playing the character.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I'm sorry I don't know what that means. Do you know what that means?
Okay so your point is that killing is not necessarily "wrong" in the game? You didn't intend to say that you believe this in general in real life?
I think it would be wise for you to think about what you type before you type it, so that you're more clear. As stands, you sound like a sociopath we should all be worried if you have access to firearms. The nonsense about "interpretation" is just that--nonsense. Everything in life gets interpreted. Has nothing to do with the value of the thing itself. The statements about killing not being "wrong" are weird past understanding and I have to wonder if you think before you type, or if this is all an attention getting technique?
What were you trying and failing to say?
I'm looking at it from the perspective that people are inherently selfish and this drive to protect themselves is what drives the social contract that stops me and basically everyone not insane from going around shooting anyone they like. It's just not worth it, so we develop the social condition that it is "wrong" but the question is whether this carries onto video games where it doesn't kill or bodily harm the person in real life. Does the potential ramifications from killing their avatar make it wrong to kill the person in SC or does it not matter since it doesn't affect them. I'm addressing the issue partially from a psychological egoist perspective and partially from social contract theory.