Mutation category expansion: experimenting on NPCs derail

[KA101]

If you use quotes, it isn’t really volunteering.

AllisonW’s A, B, and E points are good. C and D I wouldn’t care to merge. There’s enough exploitation that happens IRL and I don’t feel like making it part of DDA.

[Darkfirephoenix]

[quote=“KA101, post:41, topic:8641”]If you use quotes, it isn’t really volunteering.

AllisonW’s A, B, and E points are good. C and D I wouldn’t care to merge. There’s enough exploitation that happens IRL and I don’t feel like making it part of DDA.[/quote]
Fixed. (I have the bad habit of setting many things in quotes…)
Maybe some weakend version of C: Every survivor participating gets EXTRA support, mainly because of the risks from the experiments (permanent unwated mutations, pain, death).
Or some kind of a “motivation” system for participating for the normal people:

[ol][li]More people want to participate if you offer good stuff/services for experimentation, there are good results, you are acting humane with your experiments[/li]
[li]Less people want to participate if there are bad results (bad permanent mutations, death), bad/not enough supplies for participants, you act inhumane in your experiments[/li][/ol]

[AllisonW]

On slime plants for obtaining XE037: that’s one way to do it, but given that this is a zombie apocalypse and zombies themselves are a readily available source of XE037, we can probably assume that XE037 samples are fairly easy to obtain even if you’re just having your patrols bring back their (pulped or butchered, which they should be doing as a matter of policy) corpses for processing. (Of course your faction may prefer getting its XE037 samples from a slime plant rather than harvesting the bodies of zombies for resources; this may be a decision that affects your faction’s morale or civility, with a possible morale/civility bonus for observing rituals with the disposal of corpses, like cremating them and burying the ashes. That might be another thread, though.)

Another thought I had: if the player is a mutant creating a mutant society for which being a mutant (whether any mutant or a particular type) is a criterion for membership, you might be able to get more members to your faction by offering mutagen to non-mutants who are interested in becoming part of your society, or by offering purifier to mutants with bad mutations. Given that purifier is effectively a form of medical care for mutants with negative mutations.

It also occurs to me that types of mutation may go over differently with regards to obtaining volunteers. I’d imagine that Alpha mutations, for instance, would be the most popular/least unpopular, but that it may not be especially practical for factions, not simply because of the amount of resources involved in creating it but because Alpha mutants need to eat more. Mutation lines that ease food supply issues and that are possibly relatively low on disgust to human sensibilities/dangerous sociopathy problems, like Bird and Cattle, might be useful for survivor populations.

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“KA101, post:41, topic:8641”]There’s enough exploitation that happens IRL and I don’t feel like making it part of DDA.[/quote]I thought the idea was to be realistic?

Not every aspect of an apocalypse must be grim and dark. Some will be, yeah, but others will be enjoyable, and others kinda meh. Life works that way, and DDA simulates post-apoc life. (Some aspects are more or less cinematic than others, but the overall aim is fairly realistic.)

So tell me how this works out. It can only be realistic during the pleasant parts then? Do you envision post-apocolypic life as being free of corruption and exploitation?

[KA101]

End of the day, I played and I now work on DDA because it is fun.

The Rule of Fun beats “realistic” grimdark. Surviving in the face of undead (possibly even thriving) can be grim enough without putting in that sort of drek. Someone might have trouble just finding food come wintertime.

Maybe exploiting people is fun for you. It’s not for me.

[Catfoodbob]

I think a definition of fun for me would be leaping through a window into a hostile npc or zombie and ruining their day… or finding baked beans

[Darkfirephoenix]

On slime plants for obtaining XE037: that’s one way to do it, but given that this is a zombie apocalypse and zombies themselves are a readily available source of XE037, we can probably assume that XE037 samples are fairly easy to obtain even if you’re just having your patrols bring back their (pulped or butchered, which they should be doing as a matter of policy) corpses for processing. (Of course your faction may prefer getting its XE037 samples from a slime plant rather than harvesting the bodies of zombies for resources; this may be a decision that affects your faction’s morale or civility, with a possible morale/civility bonus for observing rituals with the disposal of corpses, like cremating them and burying the ashes. That might be another thread, though.)

Don’t forget this:
The main benefit of the “slime pumping/harvesting plant” is that it supplies non-perishable resources for mutagen (even for the slime version, also tainted meat starts rotting FAST), doesn’t endanger your people, doesn’t cost ammo/repair materials (for the equip of your ppl from the confrontation with the zombies) and is nearly unlimited (I imagine that it has some conection to the groundwater and thus has a near limitless supply of blob) where the zombies in your area may “run out” after a time (unless you play with hordes).

The main drawback would be that you have to secure the pit first, which either takes a long time or many resources and bears a risk for the participants (rule 1: Don’t use weapons that may cause fire).

[iceball3]

Hmm, if you kill someone with a headshot, but use available medical resources to jump start their body and keep it running, it would dodge the whole issue of exploitation of living humans ordeal when experimenting with mutagens, right? I can see the best approach being jump starting the body while flooding it with medical mutagens to start, but this may morally backfire if most of their brains hadn’t left through the exit wound. However if all goes well, could sit on roughly the same level as zlaves, with added murder/self defense kill aspect. Thoughts?

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“KA101, post:45, topic:8641”]End of the day, I played and I now work on DDA because it is fun.

The Rule of Fun beats “realistic” grimdark. Surviving in the face of undead (possibly even thriving) can be grim enough without putting in that sort of drek. Someone might have trouble just finding food come wintertime.

Maybe exploiting people is fun for you. It’s not for me.[/quote]
Well, it’s not. Because like I said, I don’t usually like to play the villain. But it’s not a matter of what I want to do, it’s a matter of what the other guy wants to do. It’s a matter of the game being inclusive to different play styles and political views. Not everyone sees the NPCs like you do, and not everyone has the same ethics as you.

Think about it this way. You can play a cannibal in the game and have a good time, but that doesn’t mean you are a cannibal or even sympathize with cannibals. You just decided to play a different character that time, it’s an RPG and that’s what you do. Your post comes off as saying “Why would you do that? You’re a horrible person who gets off on the misery of others”, but then you know that’s not true. If this were pornography and I was having a shleck at it you might have a point, but it’s not.

And it’s not as though I am completely unsympathetic, I have my own boundaries. For example, I find the burning of books extremely distasteful, I consider it abhorrent and repulsive. Even if I were playing the villain I wouldn’t do it. And yet to my chagrin I found some of the people here seem to relish in the activity. I may have to choke down my utter disgust, but I wouldn’t deny them this. I wouldn’t petition to have destroying books be made impossible, despite my undying hatred of the act.

Honestly KA101, this is selfish. I play the game too, and I’ve certainly played it as long as you have. And I do care about it, despite my lack of activity around here or on Github. What you’re doing is forcing your political views on others and denying them their dissent. It’s one thing to avoid including a topic all together if it is so awkward, it’s another to include that topic but force the player to go about things how you would to push a moral stance. It’s disrespectful to the game and the players intelligence.

[iceball3]

It is worth noting that Kevin also seems to hold a similar stance to KA, and given he practically owns his site we might as well be at the beck of his whim if he really wanted for the duration our stay…
That said, i really like the points you present bomevomit.
Really though the only way you can prevent the exploitation of NPCs:
-'Innocents" become invulnerable to you and anything you could potentially guide them into
-Lying and coercion gets removed
Splashing them on the face with gene-shifting mutagen is rather tame compared to everything else we can do to them already.

[Stretop]

[quote=“AllisonW, post:38, topic:8641”]a) mutant-lovers who are excited about the idea of being mutants! (may be in short supply, especially for experimentation where they have limited control over what kind of mutant they’re going to be)
b) other scientists or science-enthusiasts interested in the value of mutagens to the future of humanity (or transhumanity, as the case may be), who may participate as researchers in some trials and subjects in others–the PC may be one of these (may be in short supply)
c) people who need resources, shelter, and protection, and who are willing to be experimented upon in exchange (likely an ample supply; exploitative, but depending upon your perspective may be less bad than alternatives)
d) capital criminals who accept experimentation in lieu of execution or exile (supply uncertain; exploitative, but depending upon your perspective may be less bad than alternatives)
e) purifier being a thing: it’s not perfect, but if you have an ample supply and administer it to your subjects when you’re done with a trial or when they develop a life-threatening mutation, it significantly reduces the risks and will probably increase the availability of willing test subjects. (Purifier might also be a good thing in the case of finding a scared and distraught mutant with bad/unpleasant mutations.)[/quote]

I would like to add
f) Mutagens like Alpha may be legitimate treatment for many tissue-degenerative syndroms, beginning with spinal muscular atrophies and going all the way to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, due to their ability to overcompensate innate traits of subject organisms.

Honestly KA101, this is selfish. I play the game too, and I’ve certainly played it as long as you have. And I do care about it, despite my lack of activity around here or on Github. What you’re doing is forcing your political views on others and denying them their dissent. It’s one thing to avoid including a topic all together if it is so awkward, it’s another to include that topic but force the player to go about things how you would to push a moral stance. It’s disrespectful to the game and the players intelligence.

It is all true. But it is also true, that KA101 develops the game while you only play it. So, as always, you are free to fork and create your own version, where you can implement any features you want.

[kevin.granade]

What you’re doing is forcing your political views on others and denying them their dissent.

"Help! Help! I’m being repressed!"
Get over yourself, THIS is your dissent. You have successfully dissented.
The only thing we’re not letting you do is tell us what goes into our version of the game.

[Bonevomit]

[quote=“Bonevomit, post:49, topic:8641”]What you’re doing is forcing your political views on others and denying them their dissent.

"Help! Help! I’m being repressed!"
Get over yourself, THIS is your dissent. You have successfully dissented.
The only thing we’re not letting you do is tell us what goes into our version of the game.[/quote]I’m not talking about my dissent. I’m actually pretty happy with how it all turned out.

I’m talking about the players dissent while in the game. KA101 says you can make your own XEDRA, but only if it’s up to some kind of arbitrary ethical code. And if the player disagrees with the code of ethics? Well the player can’t disagree, they don’t have the faculty to. It’s essentially saying your character must share his ethics.

Although admittedly that wasn’t the best term to use, especially in the context of the discussion. Sorry.

[KA101]

I’m not sure where I said that one could make one’s own XEDRA, but I’m sure someone can throw a cite to some statement somewhere here.

Chances are the statement was out of context or otherwise unclear, and for that I’ll apologize in advance. So far as I am concerned, I will not PR, or merge if PR’d, any “features” or “content” that exists/is designed for the purpose of increasing suffering; XEDRA’s conduct was specifically Not Nice–they canceled research into telefragging using human subjects NOT because it was deliberately killing subjects and that’s murder, but because human subjects were expensive–and players seeking to emulate that behavior might consider the whole looking-into-the-abyss thing.

Weapons, of themselves, are generally designed to incapacitate or kill, which is not the same as “increasing suffering”. A weapon that solely increased pain in the target, with no other effect, might qualify.

Claim the vibrator is controversial all you like, but it’s an instrument designed for relaxation & recreation. I’m sure someone’s used a Magic Wand to violate someone, somewhere. Here, it’s safe, pleasurable, and makes a handy debug tool as well. We can’t meaningfully stop you from abusing game mechanics to find ways to torture folks: much like permadeath, enforcing that would be more trouble than it’s worth.

But we’re not going to make torturers’ gratification any easier, nor endorse their conduct, by specifically putting it in the game. Tazing folks for the fun of it, restraining folks and injecting them with mutagens, forcibly placing folks into sexualized gear, or otherwise impinging on someone’s body for your amusement isn’t cool.

[iceball3]

[quote=“KA101, post:54, topic:8641”]But we’re not going to make torturers’ gratification any easier, nor endorse their conduct, by specifically putting it in the game. Tazing folks for the fun of it, restraining folks and injecting them with mutagens, forcibly placing folks into sexualized gear, or otherwise impinging on someone’s body for your amusement isn’t cool.[/quote]Oh come on, i understand your personal preference to not include certain content into the game but now you’re just unfairly grouping a bunch of people together.
First, shunt out parts in regards to sexualized content because that is not what is being actively discussed, i mean unless you really want to keep bringing it up, i can’t control it. But it isn’t what i’m talking about and i’ve only seen it brought up in this thread besides you in responses to your statements. (Granted, this more likely means i missed something, in which case feel free to correct me)
Next up, what standard of cruelty are we supposed to be abiding during the cataclysm? Geneva convention levels? Should being cruel to humans enforcibly matter anymore once you are in-human, such as fungal or Sapriovore? Sapiovore doesn’t necessarily make it so but it grants the faculties needed for your character to consider sapients as food, and in such case depending on the philosophy of said sapiovore human sufferig could easily be deemed meaningless.
Next point,
Increasing the pain of a weapon has function, it incapacitates the opponent such that you can flee and survive, or commit theft of varying degrees without guaranteeing the death of the victim. Which is marginally better than killing them, the only current solution.
Using test subjects, especially belligerent bandits, also has use in further developing science, but maybe be a bit too small of a test group. Maybe invlude a means of putting disabled NPCs into a vegetative state so that experimentation can be done more easily, as well as simplifying the whole “catering to fantasies” thing that we are trying to avoid but the game does anyway? To clarrify ,we have bullwhips, full bondage gear, vibrators-with-extreme-morale-boosts-and-fatigue-consumption, acid, napalm, and fletchettes.

Now for a philosophical point: from an outside-of-the-game perspective, how do we to truly differentiate the differences between hostile NPCs and security bots on a moral level? Granted this question is more about the current state of the game than the planned state of the game, but maybe that says something in itself.

[Stretop]

Increasing the pain of a weapon has function, it incapacitates the opponent such that you can flee and survive, or commit theft of varying degrees without guaranteeing the death of the victim. Which is marginally better than killing them, the only current solution.

I would like to also add that NPCs should learn to be grateful and stop being hostile when you incapacitate them but not kill them even when you have every capacity and justification to terminate them.

[kevin.granade]

So we should code in Stockholm Syndrome?

On a different note, watch a few episodes of Cops or some other arrest or incarceration reality show and see just how grateful people are for not being shot. (hint, not at all)

[PoeSalesman]

I really do not understand why content should be blocked simply because it violates one person’s real world moral stance. If it does not fit the tone of the game it’s one thing, but in the sorta scifi zombie hellscape before us, throwing the NPC you just knocked unconcious into a vat of mutagen isn’t exactly defying genre. There are already many opportunities for evil in this game, experimentation is by no means something new.

One thing creators often must do, in regards to both games and books, is learn to depict people whose morals may not match their’s. And in regard to games, that extends to giving players the means to act in ways they may not think are right in the real world. Should the thief character be prevented from stealing because the programmer disagrees with the concept of theft? Obviously they are able to do so, but it’s important to have the ability to separate things like this, and to be able to make decisions objectively from the stance of what make sense and not what they approve of. I speak from experience, as I’ve been involved with both those things.

To be more specific here, nobody should be obligated to program it, since it’s not vital and it’s something they dislike, but if someone else did, there’s no objective reason not to include it in the game as an extension of the ‘nicer’ experimentation system. It’s not like it’s being done out of ‘gratification’ or anything so dark but the simple desire to go the easy/lazy/immoral way about genetic experimentation. Very rarely is this thing done solely to get jollies off in a game format, especially if there’s no descriptive detail. It’s more than a little unfair to paint everyone that way.

[Stretop]

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:57, topic:8641”]So we should code in Stockholm Syndrome?

On a different note, watch a few episodes of Cops or some other arrest or incarceration reality show and see just how grateful people are for not being shot. (hint, not at all)[/quote]

Do you realize the difference between being incarecated by police (situation, where you are supposed to have some civil rights and not to be shot in most circumstances) and being bitten in the ass by your decision to try and shoot someone who is vastly more powerful than you and who had no interest in you in the middle of, you know, zombie apocalypse (situation, where you are supposed to be swiftly killed for your massive stupidity)? Do you not see great difference in expectations in those situations?

[MormonPartyboat]

To be more specific here, nobody should be obligated to program it, since it’s not vital and it’s something they dislike, but if someone else did, there’s no objective reason not to include it in the game as an extension of the ‘nicer’ experimentation system.

Yes, there is. Lets say someone came around and made a pull request that adds player driven $horrible_thing (like beastiality). By accepting that pull request and merging it into the main game, it creates a significant degree of negative controversy. “Oh, C:DDA? That game where you can sex a horse?” Look at the FATAL pen & paper ruleset for an example of this (or don’t, because it’s insane and nobody should read it) and why rolling a character’s butthole circumference doesn’t actually add anything other than creepiness to a game.

And simulation for its own sake is bad design. Even in simulation games.