Experimental Features: Zombie slave derail

[KA101]

As for those examples, the subject was handled pretty tastefully, which can make all the difference.

OK, that’s getting somewhere. What, particularly, is not tasteful/handled insufficiently tastefully here?

[Turtlicious]

OK, that’s getting somewhere. What, particularly, is not tasteful/handled insufficiently tastefully here?

Well, first and foremost, it’s not a slave which seems bit edgy for the sake of edginess. It doesn’t have free will, it’s like someone thought it would be clever, and everyone wanted to jump on because “Fuck yeah slavery.” You can’t really call a zombie your slave, the term just… Isn’t right? I don’t mean in the sense that it’s wrong morally, (though it is kind of,) I just mean the zombies are nowhere near human, or really a thing with true sentience. The term is, fundamentally flawed.

Which makes me think, “Well why slave?” And the only real answer I could get was from Kevin, saying that the term fit (when it didn’t,) and that he didn’t want to change it because he feels like it’s reminiscent of his past experiences trying to buy sex toys in Alabama. (In that it’s a form of Sophistry to try and remain “pure.”) Unless I misunderstood that link, which he posted in this thread.

[spoiler][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:8, topic:6274”]In my home state of Alabama, it is illegal to sell vibrators or other “devices of a sexual nature”, so many are packaged as “personal massagers” to get around the ridiculous prohibition.
Partially as a reaction against that, I am not tolerant of this particular brand of sophistry.

It’s a vibrator. It’s intended purpose is insertion into the bodily orifice of your choice, where it vibrates and makes you feel good. Lots of people use them, get over it. There is nothing about this that is worthy of shame or prohibition.

My ONLY concern with things of this nature is that the depictions of them not be graphic (specifically, pornographic).[/quote][/spoiler]

^ The post he linked too.

I’m not saying tone it down because morally it’s repugnant and that would make it not repugnant, I’m saying tone it down because the word, as it stands, is false. Because the word itself is false, it gives off a weird connotation. It makes a weird thing. Again, sorry if I’m not explaining this well, I’m doing my best with the language skills I was given.

My writing is mostly self taught :\

[Crador]

everyone wanted to jump on because “Fuck yeah slavery.”

Personally i “jumped on” because of habbit of calling things their actual names. Zombies are same “humanity level” with imbeciles, Down’s syndrome victims, mentally challenged and Jennifer Psaki. Even more, few days ago Zombies were normal ordinary people. So, creating a slave from them is still a slavery. And personally i don’t understand, why do you think, that it is allright as long, as we CALL it some other way.
If you do not “support” it, don’t make slaves. If you make them - don’t lie to yourself.

Still, i think possibility to name them would be better afterwards, especially when we’ll get ability to domesticate animals and create own robots.

[FunsizeNinja123]

I think this happened with the fire blades too. Somehow people didn’t like them. Poor Natures…

[i2amroy]

Just like to drop this here about the “wrong words” objection, but there are several other dictionaries out there other than the merriam webster dictionary, some of which include definitions which it does fit, such as:

[ol][li]a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.[/li]
[li]a drudge: a housekeeping slave. (which redirects to “a person who does menial, distasteful, dull, or hard work.”)[/li]
[li]a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property (which works since our legal system is “anarchy”)[/li]
[li]a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television[/li][/ol]

All of which are viable definitions for the word and fit our use of it. (From the Random House Dictionary and the World English Dictionary).

[Turtlicious]

[quote=“i2amroy, post:85, topic:6900”]Just like to drop this here about the “wrong words” objection, but there are several other dictionaries out there other than the merriam webster dictionary, some of which include definitions which it does fit, such as:

[ol][li]a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.[/li]
[li]a drudge: a housekeeping slave. (which redirects to “a person who does menial, distasteful, dull, or hard work.”)[/li]
[li]a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property (which works since our legal system is “anarchy”)[/li]
[li]a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence: a slave to television[/li][/ol]

All of which are viable definitions for the word and fit our use of it. (From the Random House Dictionary and the World English Dictionary).[/quote]

Except it is not a person, it’s an alien/eldritch goo infested corpse.

[quote=“Turtlicious, post:82, topic:6900”]everyone wanted to jump on because “Fuck yeah slavery.”

Personally i “jumped on” because of habbit of calling things their actual names. Zombies are same “humanity level” with imbeciles, Down’s syndrome victims, mentally challenged and Jennifer Psaki. Even more, few days ago Zombies were normal ordinary people. So, creating a slave from them is still a slavery. And personally i don’t understand, why do you think, that it is allright as long, as we CALL it some other way.
If you do not “support” it, don’t make slaves. If you make them - don’t lie to yourself.

Still, i think possibility to name them would be better afterwards, especially when we’ll get ability to domesticate animals and create own robots.[/quote]

You completely ignored my post :\ You just cherry picked the part you took offense too and responded to that, ignoring the whole of what I’m saying. Not cool man.

[Crador]

You completely ignored my post :\ You just cherry picked the part you took offense too and responded to that, ignoring the whole of what I’m saying. Not cool man.

“The whole” was about zombies are not humans (persons), thus slavery termin don’t fit. That i responded too. Zombies are mutated humans. Otherwise, less then 1 years old children and all other people i mentioned are not “humans” in your view, only because they are not “sapiens” enough. Not cool, man.

[i2amroy]

It’s a human body, which despite being puppeted by ooze from another dimension still meets these definitions of “person” (From Random House dictionary again):

[ol][li]a character, part, or role, as in a play or story. (or videogame, for our purposes)[/li]
[li]an individual of distinction or importance.[/li][/ol]

Since I’m not talking about the subject of philosophy or law’s finer points, the fact of whether or not the zombie has a “will” or not is irrelevant. It’s a human body in-story, and thus qualifies as a “person” in that sense. (Technically even while ooze puppeted our zombies are closer to being “people” than some of the edge cases being debated in modern law today such as comatose patients.)

Edit: Typo fix

[Turtlicious]

[quote=“Turtlicious, post:86, topic:6900”]You completely ignored my post :\ You just cherry picked the part you took offense too and responded to that, ignoring the whole of what I’m saying. Not cool man.

“The whole” was about zombies are not humans (persons), thus slavery termin don’t fit. That i responded too. Zombies are mutated humans. Otherwise, less then 1 years old children and all other people i mentioned are not “humans” in your view, only because they are not “sapiens” enough. Not cool, man.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I’m having real trouble parsing what you’re trying to say.

Vy govorite po Rossii? Вы говорите по России?

[quote=“i2amroy, post:88, topic:6900”]It’s a human body, which despite being puppeted by ooze from another dimension still meats these definitions of “person” (From Random House dictionary again):

[ol][li]a character, part, or role, as in a play or story. (or videogame, for our purposes)[/li]
[li]an individual of distinction or importance.[/li][/ol]

Since I’m not talking about the subject of philosophy or law’s finer points, the fact of whether or not the zombie has a “will” or not is irrelevant. It’s a human body in-story, and thus qualifies as a “person” in that sense. (Technically even while ooze puppeted our zombies are closer to being “people” than some of the edge cases being debated in modern law today such as comatose patients.)[/quote]

It seems like quite the stretch, a different more accurate term, like one of the many suggested ones, Pacified Zombie, Thrall (which is literally a zombie servant,) Luggage Zombie, Mutilated Zombie, would all be better fitting.

We could call it a Zrall, it means Zombie Thrall, it’s got the pun, it’s a zombie servant, and it works.

[i2amroy]

Yeah, after some discussion I think Zhrall would work as an acceptable substitute that would still maintain the slight bit of black humor that Cata likes to cultivate from time to time (which is one of the things I like about C:DDA).

Really I think we’re at the point of discussing word connotations though, which doesn’t make that big of a difference IMO.

[jimboblordofeskimos]

Im generally pretty open to just about anything, but the zlave thing did tweak a bit of a nerve, im not 100% sure why tbh.

As alternatives, Zthrall (zhrall? zrall?) Zauler (zombie hauler) or Pack Zule/zule (zombie packmule) dont seem to bad.

Slavery is one of those things people are funny about.

[Datanazush]

Still not a fan of just putting Z in place of another letter. I much prefer extending the name to “Zombie Thrall” or something like that. It’s better to have a themed set for each group of zombies, Humans get , animals seem to be more of Z.

[GlyphGryph]

I too would prefer a two-word name to another (imo, dumb) z-name.

And i2amroy, the zambies are certainly less people than the triffids are. Their intelligence is sub-animal-level (for the most part). You could argue that getting a pet dog in the game is “enslaving” it, but that would still be dumb.

Back to important issues: Can anyone tell me if these creatures respond to Master Manipulation? I am really looking forward to my posse of Pacified Zombies becoming my death. :V

[acidia]

I like either ‘zombie slave’ or ‘zombie thrall.’ Should probably create a faction value to determine if this is acceptable… I’m pretty sure I would tell someone to “GTFO” if they came back to camp covered in blood and claiming that they decided to take a zombie and hack off its arms, smash-off its jaw and teeth, and hobble its legs so it can carry an extra backpack for them. Having an NPC declare that your moral choices are questionable at best might be a good thing.

So… I’m guessing there is going to be a riot if/when actual NPC slaves start appearing.

[kevin.granade]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here.

Welcome to the forums. THAT is poetry. It brought a tear to my eye. If you don’t mind I’d like to use parts of that in the game or the website, that OK?

For the sake of discussion, can we assume they’re called ‘zombie slave’? That’s as good as done and referring back to it confuses the discussion here.

Changing the displayed name of the zombie slave to a proper name is just as reasonable as doing it to your other property (zing)

Uh, I haven’t tested vs zombie masters, it may well un-enslave them with it’s ability.

Changing the displayed name of the zomb

[i2amroy]

Back to important issues: Can anyone tell me if these creatures respond to Master Manipulation? I am really looking forward to my posse of Pacified Zombies becoming my death. :V

That… would be hilarious and should totally be in the game.

Also total support of raiding you own names to your zombie slaves.

That said I still think that it would be more effective to just cover your zombie with some thick gloves and a mouth guard and use as little mutilation as possible, than going the full on mutilation route, given the ooze’s way of bouncing back from any sort of injury you throw at it but stronger.

(Hmmm… for some reason I whenever I try to type mutilation I end up typing mutilzation. Wonder where I picked that up?)

[Datanazush]

That said I still think that it would be more effective to just cover your zombie with some thick gloves and a mouth guard and use as little mutilation as possible, than going the full on mutilation route, given the ooze’s way of bouncing back from any sort of injury you throw at it but stronger.

I always thought that zombies and other goo puppets didn’t really have any special regenerative capabilities, and that pulping stopped zombies from getting up simply by smashing all the bits that it uses to move.

[GlyphGryph]

Pulping kills them because you do enough damage to kill the organism living inside the shell, essentially. They definitely have special regenerative abilities - that is why they heal fully over time, and sometimes why they become various mutant forms.

That said I still think that it would be more effective to just cover your zombie with some thick gloves and a mouth guard and use as little mutilation as possible, than going the full on mutilation route, given the ooze's way of bouncing back from any sort of injury you throw at it but stronger.

I don't know, thick gloves would still allow it to grapple you and probably hurt you. You'd have to basically put it in a straightjacket, and since it would probably destroy a mouthguard fairly quickly some sort of of full face guard.

Either way, Zombie Masters should still be able to mutate them out of the situation. It would be cool, if they end up staying surgically altered, to let them even become something special.

[vultures]

I like either 'zombie slave' or 'zombie thrall.' Should probably create a faction value to determine if this is acceptable... I'm pretty sure I would tell someone to "GTFO" if they came back to camp covered in blood and claiming that they decided to take a zombie and hack off its arms, smash-off its jaw and teeth, and hobble its legs so it can carry an extra backpack for them. Having an NPC declare that your moral choices are questionable at best might be a good thing.

So… I’m guessing there is going to be a riot if/when actual NPC slaves start appearing.

I’m absolutely defiant to any moralizing on behalf of this issue. You can’t follow Lovecraftian, and otherwise horror, legacy and start hissing when an imp such as a pale zombie is depraved of its ability to move or attack. That would be just as surreal as appealing to the holocaust every time you encounter a pile of bodies in cinema, on your computer or on TV. Coming to think of it, discussing zombies as animated carcasses is as fun as yelling at a door that is well shut, and it had been that way ever since the cataclysm was concluded. The most ill thing here is discussing morale effects for a repetituous action such as mutilation, especially when the established morale penalty, explicitly viewed as psych/shock, is called upon destroying “zombie children”. There was always an understanding that Cataclysm should play with character’s sanity, and simply because that’s the nature of the fantasy.

Looking back at those few who inclined slavery was a sexual thrill, or even slavic at origin, only one sentence needs saying:
“Leave the keyboard on the desk, mind the gap and take the spaceship back to your home planet.”

edit: What should it be called? It should be called LeggZ.

[Yossarian23]

[quote=“Yossarian23, post:74, topic:6900”]Long-time lurker, first-time poster here.

If you don’t mind I’d like to use parts of that in the game or the website, that OK?[/quote]

Thank you! Yeah, I’d love if you used it for the game or sure.