I may post more after I finish reading this thread, but for the time being, I thought I’d just point out this:
moot point - An issue that is subject to, or open for discussion or debate, to which no satisfactory answer is found
It seems like people keeping using this phrase to imply a closed case, or a settled argument. That is not what it means. I apologize for my pedantry.
It already implies negative connotations in some of the special messages it gives you in various situations.
In DDA the term ‘psychopath’ is specifically referring to the whole ‘diminished empathy and remorse’ aspect. It’s not a perfect word for it, but our ‘schizophrenic’ trait doesn’t really emulate actual schizophrenia, our ‘asthma’ trait doesn’t really cover all the bases for real asthma, and the food dislike traits don’t really differentiate between dislike and an outright allergy either; they’re just shorthand terms so that folks can readily understand what they do.
It already implies negative connotations in some of the special messages it gives you in various situations.
In DDA the term ‘psychopath’ is specifically referring to the whole ‘diminished empathy and remorse’ aspect. It’s not a perfect word for it, but our ‘schizophrenic’ trait doesn’t really emulate actual schizophrenia, our ‘asthma’ trait doesn’t really cover all the bases for real asthma, and the food dislike traits don’t really differentiate between dislike and an outright allergy either; they’re just shorthand terms so that folks can readily understand what they do.[/quote]
Milk/wheat are allergies, the rest are psychological. Should specify in the description, leastwise I’m pretty sure it already does.
Psychopath v. Sapiovore: the Psychopath is still human, but doesn’t care about norms like “don’t kill or eat people”, whereas the Sapiovore doesn’t consider itself human, so killing and eating a human is taking prey, not cannibalism. In this sense, anyone with Sapiovore would generally not want to join a human faction (unless in the market for sheep’s clothing) and even then the mental changes involved in Sapiovore rule out persuade checks in conversation.
You don’t have a conversation with your prey animals.
It seems like some people want characters to be playable and fun forever.
I love this game, but I accept it for what it is…a post-apocalypse simulator. In a post-apocalypse situation, what would you do? Personally, I’d try to create an effective defense system, and then grow food, and just live out my days. Is that what my character does? No. Because that wouldn’t take terribly long, and isn’t as much fun as raiding everything to find all the features. Lets say you are the kind of person who’d actually go out and do that…at some point you’ll still have seen most if not all of the threats, and conquered them.
In an apocalypse, none of us would be hoping that things get randomly more challenging. We’d be trying to eke out our survival, and if we accomplish it…great.
IMO, a lot of these arguments could easily be tabled in lieu of starting a new character. Go a season without facing any serious danger? New character. Is food and water and warmth no longer an issue, and will obviously never be an issue again? New character. Congratulations…your character lives ‘happily’ ever after. You won the game…play again. Afraid it will be too easy? Use a scenario. Play a weaker character.
There have been some great arguments about what players will all do when faced with the current gameplay. They may be true. That’s our trained drive to ‘win’ the game. Right now, you can effectively win DDA…which is great. You can win in life too…create a situation where you are never forced into risks outside of your comfort zone and never want for anything. Taking away the ability to win this game isn’t great design. It’s an attempt to make a single game immortal.
If you know this game so well that you can always win if you survive a week…go play another game. There’s SOOO many games. It’s insane to design a game around people who have the rather conflicting desire to make the game ‘unwinnable’ while always choosing to play in a way focused on ‘winning’.
I just played my first character to near this point of homogeneity, where I had the gallons of mutagen and CBMs, and a diamond katana. It was fun. I have basically made the character design that I used for that character off-limits for future runs. I will never start in the evac shelter again. I will never min-max my character again. Because playing the same character in exactly the same way is what makes a game stale…not the game itself having effective sameness. If you have given yourself the most challenging character possible and still ‘won’ the game, then you beat the game on Insane. What do you do with every other game that you beat on Insane?
Go play Zangband, and let me know when you kill The Serpent of Chaos.
tl;dr - this is a simulation game; characters need not be played forever
All that being said…there’s tons of great ideas to add into the game…I just think the motivation for adding them would be more rational if it was focused on making the world feel more real, making it cooler, and more dynamic, and not focused on extending the late-game just because. There SHOULD be a point at which any sane person recognizes that this character has ‘won’ and picks up a new character, or a new game.
Like what, for example? I do not remember anything like that.
Okay then, back to my original point about “psychopaths”. Why would shaolin monks be against someone with ‘diminished empathy and remorse’?
But you totally do. Look at all those people who have pigs (or dogs - in places like Korea) as pets rather than food source. Again, the fact that you can eat humans does not mean that you inevitably will eat humans. And, returning again to our Shaolin - it does not actually matter what you eat: “Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving,
worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat.” (Amagandha Sutta)
Like what, for example? I do not remember anything like that.[/quote]
if (has_trait("CANNIBAL") && has_trait("PSYCHOPATH") && has_trait("SPIRITUAL")) {
add_msg_if_player(m_good, _("You feast upon the human flesh, and in doing so, devour their spirit."));
That one took all of twenty seconds.
That is when you know where to look =) And that (cannibal+psychopath+spiritual) is very specific selection of traits. Any other examples (regarding specifically “cannibal” and/or “psychopath” traits)?
I also know how to do a search-in-files.
else if(!g->u.has_trait("CANNIBAL") && g->u.has_trait("PSYCHOPATH")) {
g->u.add_memorial_log(pgettext("memorial_male", "Killed someone foolish enough to call you friend, %s. Didn't care."),
pgettext("memorial_female", "Killed someone foolish enough to call you friend, %s. Didn't care."),
name.c_str());
}
And this is about unsightly act, not about “PSYCHOPATH” or “CANNIBAL” being bad by itself.
Like what, for example? I do not remember anything like that.
Okay then, back to my original point about “psychopaths”. Why would shaolin monks be against someone with ‘diminished empathy and remorse’?
But you totally do. Look at all those people who have pigs (or dogs - in places like Korea) as pets rather than food source. Again, the fact that you can eat humans does not mean that you inevitably will eat humans. And, returning again to our Shaolin - it does not actually matter what you eat: “Taking life, beating, wounding, binding, stealing, lying, deceiving,
worthless knowledge, adultery; this is stench. Not the eating of meat.” (Amagandha Sutta)[/quote]
OK, I dug up a fair amount too. However, the willingness to do the act should imply that the Psychopath/Cannibal is not someone you’d want around.
Oops, you killed your friend:
“Killed a friend, %s.” (-500 morale, and you’ll be feeling that for a few days)
But with Psychopath:
“Killed someone foolish enough to call you friend, %s. Didn’t care.” (zero morale effect)
Better kill that NPC before xe has any chance to burglarize your stuff:
“Killed an innocent person, %s, in cold blood and felt terrible afterwards.” (-100 morale, 24 hours at least)
But with Psychopath:
“Killed an innocent, %s, in cold blood. They were weak.” (zero morale effect)
Someone’s pre-cataclysm photos don’t mean a thing to a Psychopath:
“Wasted time, these pictures do not provoke your senses.” (no MORALE_PHOTOS for you!)
Upside-down crucifix tombstone if a Cannibal/Psychopath dies whilst packing a bible.
And there’s a host of interactions with cannibalism when the food’s made of hflesh.
[hr]
Pets != prey.
[hr]
DDA!Psychopaths have no problem with taking life, deceiving/lying (in the sense of NPCs thinking you’re friendly before you attack them), or binding (making a zlave is a serious morale issue to most folks). If we assessed morale issues for lying they wouldn’t have 'em; as is, Skilled Liar is a separate trait.
There is difference between “willing to do thing” and “apathetic towards doing a thing”. And “Psychopath” is not willing (not more than anyone else) towards killing, he is exactly apathetic.
[quote=“KA101, post:50, topic:8589”]Oops, you killed your friend:
“Killed a friend, %s.” (-500 morale, and you’ll be feeling that for a few days)
But with Psychopath:
“Killed someone foolish enough to call you friend, %s. Didn’t care.” (zero morale effect)
Better kill that NPC before xe has any chance to burglarize your stuff:
“Killed an innocent person, %s, in cold blood and felt terrible afterwards.” (-100 morale, 24 hours at least)
But with Psychopath:
“Killed an innocent, %s, in cold blood. They were weak.” (zero morale effect)[/quote]
Again, those strings about an unsightly acts being bad, not about “Psychopath” trait itself being bad.
[quote=“KA101, post:50, topic:8589”]Someone’s pre-cataclysm photos don’t mean a thing to a Psychopath:
“Wasted time, these pictures do not provoke your senses.” (no MORALE_PHOTOS for you!)[/quote]
That’s pretty neutral. And why someone’s pre-cataclysm photos should mean a thing for survivor, surrounded by walking dead and impending doom in the form of various denizens in the first place?
I appreciate that black humor =)
One should not argue about tastes.
[hr]
Dog=dog, pig=pig. Whether it is your pet or your prey - is up to you.
[hr]
Do you really not see the difference between “having no emotional problem with it” and actively “doing it”?
Also, this all is of no consequence to buddhist. Buddhist does not kill not out of fear of guilt - he does not kill because this would hinder his ascension towards enlightenment. He does not lie not because he is bad at it - he does not lie because this would hinder his ascension towards enlightenment.
Indeed, because I and the faction NPCs are not concerned with whether the Psychopath is actively killing anyone right now; if xe does, we can certainly act on that.
What we’re concerned about is whether we can trust the Psychopath not to mis/abuse the trust we’d be placing in xem.
Someone who wouldn’t care about enlightenment (or basic human morals) might decide that it’s easier and more profitable to just liquidate the monks (monk! you are not bulletproof!) and take the contents of the temple rather than go through the training and trials needed to become a monk.
As someone who knows at least a bit about psychopathy and has talked to an actual psychopath, nobody would be able to tell that you’re a psychopath. It’s like the ultimate psychology trait that gives you a lack of empathy and an ability to focus 100% on your needs without taking away the ability to relate to other people. If anything, psychopaths are extremely charismatic, inconspicuous, and capable of manipulating people to their needs.
Also, harming others for no purpose is sort of a myth about psychopaths. Sure, some do that, but usually, psychopaths only hurt others either to benefit themselves, or out of revenge. And when it comes to revenge, most tend to be really cruel, with it usually being mental rather than physical. Yet again, psychopaths aren’t insane or irrational. They just lack empathy.
Exactly what I was going to say. How would they know?
But this is not dictated by character’s traits. This is dictated by player’s decisions, only. You cannot divine the latter simply by peeking at the former. And if player would decide to slaughter that temple - all moral hits in the world would not stop him.
As far as I remember… Did not you say that temple itself is its own entity. Shouldn’t it just long-range teleport such miscreants?
And also have poor control of their urges and, usually, uncapability for planning and following said plans. Not so “ultimate”. really.
And any human might hurt others either to benefit himself, or out of revenge, psychopath or not.
On mutant types, interactions with humans, and martial arts, as well as the Sapiovore trait (I may have mentioned some of these before, but I think they bear repeating:
…Do lupine mutants get Sapiovore? Because it’s important to consider that canines and humans can get along just fine, and I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply if the canine is a formerly human mutant.
…How do human factions considering mutants from the “Are they dangerous to us?” angle feel about, say, cattle mutants, that don’t get traits related to people-eating? Would a faction with dangerous arts to teach be able to trust such a creature, considering human beings are not on its menu?
…On mutants and martial arts. Perhaps a balancing factor for these would be whether they all work with claws. Martial arts that claws get in the way of would have a physical in-game reason for being useless to certain mutants, and they’d also cover certain types of bionic humans. In the case of claws that can be retracted, like feline claws, bionic claws, and finger-razor bionics, they could still be used, but with no bonus from claws. (Similarly, it occurs to me that some martial arts may not work with tentacles or pseudopods.)
[quote=“AllisonW, post:57, topic:8589”]On mutant types, interactions with humans, and martial arts, as well as the Sapiovore trait (I may have mentioned some of these before, but I think they bear repeating:
…Do lupine mutants get Sapiovore? Because it’s important to consider that canines and humans can get along just fine, and I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply if the canine is a formerly human mutant.
…How do human factions considering mutants from the “Are they dangerous to us?” angle feel about, say, cattle mutants, that don’t get traits related to people-eating? Would a faction with dangerous arts to teach be able to trust such a creature, considering human beings are not on its menu?
…On mutants and martial arts. Perhaps a balancing factor for these would be whether they all work with claws. Martial arts that claws get in the way of would have a physical in-game reason for being useless to certain mutants, and they’d also cover certain types of bionic humans. In the case of claws that can be retracted, like feline claws, bionic claws, and finger-razor bionics, they could still be used, but with no bonus from claws. (Similarly, it occurs to me that some martial arts may not work with tentacles or pseudopods.)[/quote]
Nope, Lupines and Felines are OK around humans: no Sapiovore in-category. (Felines don’t yet purr though.) Beasts are not, and neither are Bears, Lizards, Spiders, Raptors, or Chimerae.
Good catch, and once this gets going I’ll probably have the monks, etc get Twitchy on Sapiovore and/or the high-level Predator traits. Post-thresh is a way to enforce branching but it can be imprecise.
Individual techs don’t check for traits (no infrastructure for that, but some can probably be created) and neither do MA styles, same reason. Currently there’s no physical reason a mutant couldn’t perform a Dragon Strike, or any other MA tech.
Hm, by the way: “psycopathy” trait is not about psycopathy at all: absence of guilt by itself is not enough to diagnose psycopathy and it does not turns someone into some kind of omnicidal maniac. For such person to be diagnosed with psycopathy weak control over urges must also be present. And without such weakness (or even more so - with trait like “addiction resistant”) survivor would be more like schizoid rather than psychopath.[/quote]
To my understanding, It was a name chosen to represent a concept in lieu of giving it a clinically correct name, as I assume people were wary of labelling anything more specific as ‘okay with murder’ (that or somebody didn’t know a better name for it). If enough people were offended, I’d opt a backup name of ‘Guiltless.’ Not everyone understands what psychopathy or sociopathy means clinically. Nor Schizoid, and how it is differentiated from Schizotypal, and the various types of schizophrenia. Which need re-defining in the DSM V, I don’t know if that’s out yet but my entire psychology degree was basically hallmarked by the DSM IV needing a workover. So an accurate label might not help players much anyway.
Apologies if any of the terms I dragged in are in fact archaic and no longer used clinically, it can be hard to keep up to date on this. Frankly that just goes to show why a name like psychopathy has remained uncontested, if it is in fact the wrong name.
Incidentally, the psychopath trait also does not turn someone into some kind of omnicidal maniac. It just makes coping with already-dead-children a little easier, and putting survival of the self above the act of killing other survivors. You are not forced to utilize the trait: your argument does not technically reflect how the trait functions in-game.
An article sort of related to stuff: link