Little Girl

[Colt47]

I'm just wondering why people think the 'shoot first' idea can't just as much backfire on you.

In an RPG, anything can backfire on you, including doing nothing.

[Talmonis]

No one can help you. You must face the Gazebo alone.

[Razzinold]

i have used the OP sinario 3 times with different variations in my game the first time she was just a normal little girl that made her way out of her parents house that they were holding up in, the second one was she was an imposter zombie, and the third she was a feral child that took a chunk out of one of the PCs (my gf) arm. but in all 3 they tried to save her cause guess what they were being human unlike some of the people in this thread.

(I high lighted the parts that compelled me to respond)

Temper, temper dargo83, nobody likes being told how to game. The OP asked for personal opinions and we gave them. Nobody (well for the most part) didn't try to force anyone else to run the scenario the same way they would, they merely defended WHY they chose the path they did as did the posters in favour of saving the girl. To refer to a bunch a people as "less than human" because they were slightly less than knights in shining armour is a little childish. Human nature if fight or flight not rescue the world. That's why we call people like firefighters HEROES, because they overcome that human nature and hurl themselves into a burning house to save people. Sorry to burst your, and many other people's bubbles but regardless of what the media/entertainment industry pushes at us, the world is not full of heroes. If it were, people wouldn't be getting shot on a daily basis because of difference of skin colour, reglious belief or social/economical standing. If everyone was a hero, than we'd be heroic enough to put aside our differences and live with our fellow people without murdering them. MAN am I going off on a rant, sorry back to your post.
Did anyone call the people in your group because they foolish endangered the lives of the entire party ? You proved our point exactly, your GF was bit. Period! It was just pure fluke that it wasn't a zombie. I stand by my reaction, and as previously mentioned I have two daughters, but I'm human and as a human I want to remain a living one. So I make a snap decision, blow her head of, or just put my heels to her and bug out, I'd do the same to any adult zombie (and non zombie) that threatens (even potentially) the safety of my family/group.

[Noon]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable responce on someones part"?

And there's a certain irony in wanting ones opinion protected by other people who aren't close kin, when ones opinion shows no interest in protecting anyone who is not close kin.

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

[Colt47]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable responce on someones part"?

And there's a certain irony in wanting ones opinion protected by other people who aren't close kin, when ones opinion shows no interest in protecting anyone who is not close kin.

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

A persons imagination is the worst enemy when given a situation with minimal details. We got a little girl standing around in poor lighting conditions hypothetically in an urban center at night. This doesn't tell us much at all as the little girl could be a special zombie or just scared out of her witts. The one thing I can definitely say will happen if someone tries to investigate the situation is that the little girl will be running either one direction or another, and one can only hope it is not towards the PCs. Why? Because given the situation the only way that girl is running towards a person she does not know in a dangerous and uncontrolled environment is if she isn't alive.

[Razzinold]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable response on someones part"?

Well that is irrelevant to the scenario, the OP didn't ask "what do you do when you find your little girl murdered?" If it did happen, I wouldn't know how I would respond until I was actually playing it.

And there's a certain irony in wanting ones opinion protected by other people who aren't close kin, when ones opinion shows no interest in protecting anyone who is not close kin.

I don't need anybody to protect my opinions, I could care a less if every single other poster in this topic disagreed with what I wrote. I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't name call/think less of other people posting because they didn't share the same viewpoint. I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family. You may think I'm being unemotional I'm not, I'm being realistic. I don't care who you are if we're traveling together and you get bit, you get shot. End of story. Those fools in Walking Dead taking that guy with them (season 1) when they head out to the CDC were stupid. It makes a little more sense in Resident Evil to not kill your party members straight away because at least in that setting a cure exists. Only in movies do people hang onto anyone/anything that threatens their/group safety.

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

Than feel free to "let go" anytime. Also I'm not caught in a loop, I am simply having a discussion with multiple people simultaneously. I made my original statement, responded to questions that were direct at me. I then asked questions/made statements of my own (to the person who saved the girl even though they were bit). I am now posting again because I'm answering more questions directed at me. I don't simply post over and over to kill the kid and move on and to not answer people's questions would be considered rude. Also I asked a few questions of my own, generally that's how a discussion works.

[Noon]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable response on someones part"?

Well that is irrelevant to the scenario, the OP didn't ask "what do you do when you find your little girl murdered?" If it did happen, I wouldn't know how I would respond until I was actually playing it.

Well, it seems something a PC aught to think about in advance, rather than waiting for the moment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or those you care about), and all that. Stuff like this makes for deep character moments, IMO. (and please don't uncharitably read that as 'if you don't do this, your character isn't deep'. That's not what I said. It's one source of deep character moments).

I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family.

I'd assumed that already. But anyone else outside the tribe is fair game.

I'm just saying there is this weird line in the sand. For those on one side of the line, they are kin or part of the traveling group and it would be appalling to, as you put it, just randomly execute these people. On the other side of the line, those who happen to be merely on the wrong side of the line, it ceases to be appalling?

I don't care who you are if we're traveling together and you get bit, you get shot. End of story. Those fools in Walking Dead taking that guy with them (season 1) when they head out to the CDC were stupid. It makes a little more sense in Resident Evil to not kill your party members straight away because at least in that setting a cure exists.

Seems a bit meta gamey? I mean, if you've read the rulebook or wiki page, sure you know if it's curable or not. Or even whether the person can shrug it off or it's a (un)death sentence. But that's the player reading those things, not the character.

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

Than feel free to "let go" anytime.

I do. I play characters, from time to time, who would simply plug a round in the girls head and walk.

Have you ever played a character that would check to see if it was a living girl? Just occasionally, of course. That's all I was suggesting.

[Trooper Jim]

who the hell plays a character with family in a zombie survival game.... this isn't white wolf!

Me, it's called role playing.

[dargo83]

in my game most of my family is alive cause mine is 20 years in the future and the PCs are playing themselves just 20 years down the road and in the beggining of my game is set at the beggining of of the outbreak (now its 6 months into it.)

[Trooper Jim]

Someone had better be kidding about Zombie Teleportation and Zombie Parasites. Otherwise this game has really "Jumped the Shark".

[Ravenwing]

who the hell plays a character with family in a zombie survival game.... this isn't white wolf!

Sadly no it isn't White Wolf If Justin hadn't killed OWoD(which just got resurrected) then perhaps White Wolf would have continued to dominate the RPG world, and eventually we would have gotten Rifts: A storytelling game of Future Horror in a world gone mad.
But as it stands, I think unless sales of the OWoD books picks up, then WW will probably go outta business before PB.

[Ravenwing]

Someone had better be kidding about Zombie Teleportation and Zombie Parasites. Otherwise this game has really "Jumped the Shark".

Yes Trooper we are in fact joking. But it does explain how in the books a pack of 1d6x100 zombies appear in Bump, Population 5.

[Razzinold]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable response on someones part"?

Well that is irrelevant to the scenario, the OP didn't ask "what do you do when you find your little girl murdered?" If it did happen, I wouldn't know how I would respond until I was actually playing it.

Well, it seems something a PC aught to think about in advance, rather than waiting for the moment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or those you care about), and all that. Stuff like this makes for deep character moments, IMO. (and please don't uncharitably read that as 'if you don't do this, your character isn't deep'. That's not what I said. It's one source of deep character moments).

I still feel this is a "cross that bridge when you get to it" kind of moment. I don't know too many parents who sit around and think about what they would do/how they would react if they ever found their child murdered.

I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family.

I'd assumed that already. But anyone else outside the tribe is fair game.

I'm just saying there is this weird line in the sand. For those on one side of the line, they are kin or part of the traveling group and it would be appalling to, as you put it, just randomly execute these people. On the other side of the line, those who happen to be merely on the wrong side of the line, it ceases to be appalling?

I reread what I wrote and I saw I wasn't too clear with what I meant. I meant I would not hesitate to kill anyone outside the group that was harmful/potentially harmful to the group. So yes anyone outside our group that poses as a threat is "fair game". I happened to watch Van Helsing again last night and Igor had a good piece of advice "Do unto others before they do unto me". I don't see why in a situation like this people continue to think that the people they meet are going to be this shinning light of goodness. People kill you now for your ipod, you think they won't kill you during a zombie apocalypse for something they want ? or just for fun ?
I'm not saying everyone you meet is going to be evil and I'm not saying to go around and kill everyone, but if it comes down to a me vs you situation, sorry but I'm going with me. Like I said, I would gun down anyone meaning to do me or mine harm and not loose a second sleep over the fact that I did what I had to do to protect them.

I don't care who you are if we're traveling together and you get bit, you get shot. End of story. Those fools in Walking Dead taking that guy with them (season 1) when they head out to the CDC were stupid. It makes a little more sense in Resident Evil to not kill your party members straight away because at least in that setting a cure exists.

Seems a bit meta gamey? I mean, if you've read the rulebook or wiki page, sure you know if it's curable or not. Or even whether the person can shrug it off or it's a (un)death sentence. But that's the player reading those things, not the character.

Not really, depends on the setting and what you are playing. In walking Dead as far as they knew there was no cure so they brought that guy along on a hope that there was, I feel that was too risky/stupid. Personally I would have killed him, I mean look what happened to that one girl because she wouldn't let them do what was nescessary when her sister was killed. In Resident Evil the soldiers from Umbrella knew their was a cure so it makes sense for them not to execute their team members when bitten.
Now in the DR setting your characters may or may not realistically posses this knowledge, I'm sure run of the mill characters do not. Which is why I said as a character I would kill anyone who was bit because being some regular guy I wouldn't know it was curable or survivable when everything around you points to "you get bit, you become the walking undead"

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

"Than feel free to "let go" anytime.

I do. I play characters, from time to time, who would simply plug a round in the girls head and walk.

Have you ever played a character that would check to see if it was a living girl? Just occasionally, of course. That's all I was suggesting.

Actually in pretty much every other game I've played the lowest my alignment has been was Scrupulous, so yes I've played many times where I would check to see if she was still human. I just chose to play a DR character as someone more hell bent on survival than goodwill, more realistic in my opinion

[Razzinold]

who the hell plays a character with family in a zombie survival game.... this isn't white wolf!

Well I've never played anything by Whitewolf but you have to admit it does add a unique challenge to the game. It also fits with the genre, lots of movies, books, etc. are about a family or group of friends trying to escape the horror.

Not sure if I would play a character like that or not, I wouldn't be against it, but not sure I would choose to own my own accord. If the GM decided it I wouldn't complain. I mentioned my real family in some of my posts (to illustrate a point), and I think some of my messages got lost in translation because I kept mentioning in and out of game stuff and the lines kind of started getting blurred.

[Traska]

who the hell plays a character with family in a zombie survival game.... this isn't white wolf!

Someone who sees a character as more than a collection of numbers and stats on a piece of paper?

[Ravenwing]

Someone had better be kidding about Zombie Teleportation and Zombie Parasites. Otherwise this game has really "Jumped the Shark".

Zombie parasites exist in Civilization Gone book.

Actually its more like Parasites ON zombies, rather then actual zombie(IE undead) parasites. Unless I missed something.

[Trooper Jim]

Someone had better be kidding about Zombie Teleportation and Zombie Parasites. Otherwise this game has really "Jumped the Shark".

Zombie parasites exist in Civilization Gone book.

Another stupid idea, brought to you by Kevin. also destined to be ignored by me.

[Noon]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable response on someones part"?

Well that is irrelevant to the scenario, the OP didn't ask "what do you do when you find your little girl murdered?" If it did happen, I wouldn't know how I would respond until I was actually playing it.

Well, it seems something a PC aught to think about in advance, rather than waiting for the moment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or those you care about), and all that. Stuff like this makes for deep character moments, IMO. (and please don't uncharitably read that as 'if you don't do this, your character isn't deep'. That's not what I said. It's one source of deep character moments).

I still feel this is a "cross that bridge when you get to it" kind of moment. I don't know too many parents who sit around and think about what they would do/how they would react if they ever found their child murdered.

Well, philosophically I think it's interesting to note how sometimes one has places ones imagination does not like to go. On the other hand, if one were to go there, the sitiation found it might be found to be really important.

I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family.

I'd assumed that already. But anyone else outside the tribe is fair game.

I'm just saying there is this weird line in the sand. For those on one side of the line, they are kin or part of the traveling group and it would be appalling to, as you put it, just randomly execute these people. On the other side of the line, those who happen to be merely on the wrong side of the line, it ceases to be appalling?

I reread what I wrote and I saw I wasn't too clear with what I meant. I meant I would not hesitate to kill anyone outside the group that was harmful/potentially harmful to the group. So yes anyone outside our group that poses as a threat is "fair game". I happened to watch Van Helsing again last night and Igor had a good piece of advice "Do unto others before they do unto me". I don't see why in a situation like this people continue to think that the people they meet are going to be this shinning light of goodness. People kill you now for your ipod, you think they won't kill you during a zombie apocalypse for something they want ? or just for fun ?
I'm not saying everyone you meet is going to be evil and I'm not saying to go around and kill everyone, but if it comes down to a me vs you situation, sorry but I'm going with me. Like I said, I would gun down anyone meaning to do me or mine harm and not loose a second sleep over the fact that I did what I had to do to protect them.

But it's not a 'me Vs you' situation. It's a 'you THINK it's a me Vs you' situation.

If someone shoots the girl without checking (before or after) and then tells themselves 'oh, it was a zombie' as if they know for a fact, I call that denial or delusion. It'd be like someone telling themselves they knew the number on a sheet of paper that's inside a box, without ever opening the box. Just shooting her without checking is leaving the box closed, but acting like you knew the number. To me, this is madness (and let me just say - sometimes I play characters who are inclined toward this thing I call madness!). Okay, someone call me out saying "Oh no, it's easy to know a number hidden inside a box without opening it - I win the lottery each week, as well!" or something. I suspect no one will call me out in this way.

As to just leaving her, for me it depends on more external activity - if you haven't seen a zombie for a week, for example, why ditch her? And if you don't like to imagine one of your own children ditched and left to die, well this is part of the problem. You can't see a problem, because you are not willing to see the problem (but on your own side of the fence).

If a horde of ultra tough zombies was seconds away, I would see it as a different scenario to the 'last sighting being a week ago' scenario.

because being some regular guy I wouldn't know it was curable or survivable when everything around you points to "you get bit, you become the walking undead"

Well, how many times has your character observed someone being bitten, the gestation process and end result?

But yeah, it's not your characters genuine reaction to intitiate a scientific evaulation. He goes on his gut instinct - no matter how false that can be and based on superstition.

It's just worth seeing that the character is doing that. Though in a way, that is a scientific observation of character in itself!

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

"Than feel free to "let go" anytime.

I do. I play characters, from time to time, who would simply plug a round in the girls head and walk.

Have you ever played a character that would check to see if it was a living girl? Just occasionally, of course. That's all I was suggesting.

Actually in pretty much every other game I've played the lowest my alignment has been was Scrupulous, so yes I've played many times where I would check to see if she was still human. I just chose to play a DR character as someone more hell bent on survival than goodwill, more realistic in my opinion

Well, to me the idea that as soon as the apocalypse hits, all alignments instantly change isn't all that realistic. What time period are you talking about? Right at the outbreak? Years latter? If latter, was your character good aligned prior the outbreak, but then slipped? What does he think of his former values now, as he aims at the little girls head and his trigger finger starts to tighten? Or was he born post outbreak, and raised under very difficult circumstances. Does he know anything other than what he was raised as? Or if it's right at the outbreak, surely his alignment didn't pop over instantly? Or was he always non scrupulous? Prior the outbreak, what did people think of him for being like that? Does he want the future to be like him? Or he doesn't care?

Just interesting character questions, really

[Ravenwing]

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable response on someones part"?

Well that is irrelevant to the scenario, the OP didn't ask "what do you do when you find your little girl murdered?" If it did happen, I wouldn't know how I would respond until I was actually playing it.

Well, it seems something a PC aught to think about in advance, rather than waiting for the moment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or those you care about), and all that. Stuff like this makes for deep character moments, IMO. (and please don't uncharitably read that as 'if you don't do this, your character isn't deep'. That's not what I said. It's one source of deep character moments).

I still feel this is a "cross that bridge when you get to it" kind of moment. I don't know too many parents who sit around and think about what they would do/how they would react if they ever found their child murdered.

Well, philosophically I think it's interesting to note how sometimes one has places ones imagination does not like to go. On the other hand, if one were to go there, the sitiation found it might be found to be really important.

I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family.

I'd assumed that already. But anyone else outside the tribe is fair game.

I'm just saying there is this weird line in the sand. For those on one side of the line, they are kin or part of the traveling group and it would be appalling to, as you put it, just randomly execute these people. On the other side of the line, those who happen to be merely on the wrong side of the line, it ceases to be appalling?

I reread what I wrote and I saw I wasn't too clear with what I meant. I meant I would not hesitate to kill anyone outside the group that was harmful/potentially harmful to the group. So yes anyone outside our group that poses as a threat is "fair game". I happened to watch Van Helsing again last night and Igor had a good piece of advice "Do unto others before they do unto me". I don't see why in a situation like this people continue to think that the people they meet are going to be this shinning light of goodness. People kill you now for your ipod, you think they won't kill you during a zombie apocalypse for something they want ? or just for fun ?
I'm not saying everyone you meet is going to be evil and I'm not saying to go around and kill everyone, but if it comes down to a me vs you situation, sorry but I'm going with me. Like I said, I would gun down anyone meaning to do me or mine harm and not loose a second sleep over the fact that I did what I had to do to protect them.

But it's not a 'me Vs you' situation. It's a 'you THINK it's a me Vs you' situation.

If someone shoots the girl without checking (before or after) and then tells themselves 'oh, it was a zombie' as if they know for a fact, I call that denial or delusion. It'd be like someone telling themselves they knew the number on a sheet of paper that's inside a box, without ever opening the box. Just shooting her without checking is leaving the box closed, but acting like you knew the number. To me, this is madness (and let me just say - sometimes I play characters who are inclined toward this thing I call madness!). Okay, someone call me out saying "Oh no, it's easy to know a number hidden inside a box without opening it - I win the lottery each week, as well!" or something. I suspect no one will call me out in this way.

As to just leaving her, for me it depends on more external activity - if you haven't seen a zombie for a week, for example, why ditch her? And if you don't like to imagine one of your own children ditched and left to die, well this is part of the problem. You can't see a problem, because you are not willing to see the problem (but on your own side of the fence).

If a horde of ultra tough zombies was seconds away, I would see it as a different scenario to the 'last sighting being a week ago' scenario.

because being some regular guy I wouldn't know it was curable or survivable when everything around you points to "you get bit, you become the walking undead"

Well, how many times has your character observed someone being bitten, the gestation process and end result?

But yeah, it's not your characters genuine reaction to intitiate a scientific evaulation. He goes on his gut instinct - no matter how false that can be and based on superstition.

It's just worth seeing that the character is doing that. Though in a way, that is a scientific observation of character in itself!

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

"Than feel free to "let go" anytime.

I do. I play characters, from time to time, who would simply plug a round in the girls head and walk.

Have you ever played a character that would check to see if it was a living girl? Just occasionally, of course. That's all I was suggesting.

Actually in pretty much every other game I've played the lowest my alignment has been was Scrupulous, so yes I've played many times where I would check to see if she was still human. I just chose to play a DR character as someone more hell bent on survival than goodwill, more realistic in my opinion

Well, to me the idea that as soon as the apocalypse hits, all alignments instantly change isn't all that realistic. What time period are you talking about? Right at the outbreak? Years latter? If latter, was your character good aligned prior the outbreak, but then slipped? What does he think of his former values now, as he aims at the little girls head and his trigger finger starts to tighten? Or was he born post outbreak, and raised under very difficult circumstances. Does he know anything other than what he was raised as? Or if it's right at the outbreak, surely his alignment didn't pop over instantly? Or was he always non scrupulous? Prior the outbreak, what did people think of him for being like that? Does he want the future to be like him? Or he doesn't care?

Just interesting character questions, really

Thats why I support Chaotic Neutral as my alignment. It means never having to say your sorry.

[Oberoth]

There is no right or wrong answer to this conundrum. The OP provided no context or timeline. No affiliations with said girl, the other players, or alignment of said players are presented either. There is no answer that will satisfy any of the conditions for a "Right and moral" action on behalf of the player/character. The context of the situation is ambiguous at best. What if the characters were looking for a little girl that wandered from thier haven? Then obviously the character wouldn't be shooting anything that moves. He/she would check first.

[Noon]

Well, I'd say no (or I'd say you are applying a set of moral rules in how to regard an ambiguous situation). Morality doesn't just kick in when you have concrete knowledge. Morality rules include how to deal with ambiguity as well - it's not like ambiguity is a 'no morality' zone or something.

I don't know about a right or wrong answer - but if someone would do unto others but wouldn't dig that being done unto them or their close ones, I atleast think that's a contradiction in their approach. That's as close to conclusively wrong as I get.

[Trooper Jim]

even so, The Parasites are under control by the Zombie.

this is one of the main issues i have with this setting as written. Zombies are Zombies......no special types of Zombie, just Zombies. No magical parasite controlling, Zenu spawned, PPE sucking ZEDS. Just good old fasion zombie virus spreading brain eating, undead horrors.

[Ravenwing]

even so, The Parasites are under control by the Zombie.

this is one of the main issues i have with this setting as written. Zombies are Zombies......no special types of Zombie, just Zombies. No magical parasite controlling, Zenu spawned, PPE sucking ZEDS. Just good old fasion zombie virus spreading brain eating, undead horrors.

Well maybe not brain eating, since then it's hard for new Zombies to be created. Now flesh eating, virus spreading Zombies? Totally on board for that one.

[Trooper Jim]

even so, The Parasites are under control by the Zombie.

this is one of the main issues i have with this setting as written. Zombies are Zombies......no special types of Zombie, just Zombies. No magical parasite controlling, Zenu spawned, PPE sucking ZEDS. Just good old fasion zombie virus spreading brain eating, undead horrors.

Well maybe not brain eating, since then it's hard for new Zombies to be created. Now flesh eating, virus spreading Zombies? Totally on board for that one.

The brain eating thing was a joke.

[Dobergirl]

Just clearing something up about AR since some people were wondering how I've been able to survive

Your weapon range is the "shouldn't miss" range since it's basically in its range. So use that range and you'll get the bonuses for the "shouldn't miss" and lower the AR and such acoarding along with all the bonuses applying. So snipers can snipe without rushing close while those relying on shotguns and handguns would have to get closer, which is also understandable. From extreme close quarters, you can totally ignore AR because otherwise, you'd not be able to do any damage with a melee weapon. Though for general rule I have, if it's farther than the arm length, it's "shouldn't miss" again.

The question is whether you're okay when the go around comes around - ie, if your character has daughters, one gets seperated and then you latter find her with some bullet holes in her forehead (and no sign of infection), would you say "Ah yeah, perfectly understandable responce on someones part"?

I'd investigate it, of course. I've not thought of it that way and it's not even a question asked in this topic. Sounds very grim and I don't think I'd like that very much.

And there's a certain irony in wanting ones opinion protected by other people who aren't close kin, when ones opinion shows no interest in protecting anyone who is not close kin.

I am not sure what you mean by that?

Part of this whole thing is the sunk cost fallacy - once you've defended a particular approach, that just makes it even more imperative to defend the same approach even more, and so on in a loop. But it's not like it costs anything to let go of the approach in a hypothetical scenario.

Again, not sure.

I don't need anybody to protect my opinions, I could care a less if every single other poster in this topic disagreed with what I wrote. I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't name call/think less of other people posting because they didn't share the same viewpoint. I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family. You may think I'm being unemotional I'm not, I'm being realistic. I don't care who you are if we're traveling together and you get bit, you get shot. End of story. Those fools in Walking Dead taking that guy with them (season 1) when they head out to the CDC were stupid. It makes a little more sense in Resident Evil to not kill your party members straight away because at least in that setting a cure exists. Only in movies do people hang onto anyone/anything that threatens their/group safety.

Thanks Razz, you're saying the things the way I couldn't. <3

Infected get killed. It's the humane thing to do really, to give them dignity of a death instead of being mindless drone.

Well, it seems something a PC aught to think about in advance, rather than waiting for the moment. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or those you care about), and all that. Stuff like this makes for deep character moments, IMO. (and please don't uncharitably read that as 'if you don't do this, your character isn't deep'. That's not what I said. It's one source of deep character moments).

I agree, killing my daughter probably would be deep, akward moment and act as catalyst for tons of adventures to come.

The thing is, she's an established character who's been around for 5 game years by now. She is an important part of the reapers, helping out train other children and teaching them the tricks she herself knows. Her death, would be meaningful and hurt the entire community because of her status.

It is uncomparable to the death of a random girl and I'm not saying that out of bias of me being their parent; this is just a random girl, not an established character like your own character or your family member.

I'm just saying there is this weird line in the sand. For those on one side of the line, they are kin or part of the traveling group and it would be appalling to, as you put it, just randomly execute these people. On the other side of the line, those who happen to be merely on the wrong side of the line, it ceases to be appalling?

Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I do. I play characters, from time to time, who would simply plug a round in the girls head and walk.

Have you ever played a character that would check to see if it was a living girl? Just occasionally, of course. That's all I was suggesting.

Yes, sadly these people die in about 20 minutes.

who the hell plays a character with family in a zombie survival game.... this isn't white wolf!

I do, it is called socializing and moving on. This isn't the Lone rider either.

One of the biggest drama and the motivation for the character to make it to another day is to ensure the safety of their new families and friends and to maybe one day see that their children may see a world without zombies.

Well, philosophically I think it's interesting to note how sometimes one has places ones imagination does not like to go. On the other hand, if one were to go there, the sitiation found it might be found to be really important.

No matter how many scenarios I run in my head all the time, it doesn't cover all the possible scenarios. One of the most basic ideas of the game of this type is to expect the unexpected. That is why my imagination never even thought of this "my child is shot" scenario but it does sound plausible now.

But it's not a 'me Vs you' situation. It's a 'you THINK it's a me Vs you' situation.

Crazies. Bandits. Death cults.

You don't think it's me vs you, you really do hope it's an invidual you could trust. But fact is, half the people you meet are rotten to the core and if you run around like man in shining armor, people will make use of you and abuse your kindness and you may even be killed in your sleep.

If someone shoots the girl without checking (before or after) and then tells themselves 'oh, it was a zombie' as if they know for a fact, I call that denial or delusion. It'd be like someone telling themselves they knew the number on a sheet of paper that's inside a box, without ever opening the box. Just shooting her without checking is leaving the box closed, but acting like you knew the number. To me, this is madness (and let me just say - sometimes I play characters who are inclined toward this thing I call madness!). Okay, someone call me out saying "Oh no, it's easy to know a number hidden inside a box without opening it - I win the lottery each week, as well!" or something. I suspect no one will call me out in this way.

The thing is just as the numbers in the box, there are possible variations to this.

Just as there can be numbers 1-34 for instance, there's about billion things that could happen from getting close to the girl.

As to just leaving her, for me it depends on more external activity - if you haven't seen a zombie for a week, for example, why ditch her? And if you don't like to imagine one of your own children ditched and left to die, well this is part of the problem. You can't see a problem, because you are not willing to see the problem (but on your own side of the fence).

If you've not seen zombie in a week, you've hanged around in your safe zone too long.

Who ditched my girl and left her to die? How does this relate to anything?

If a horde of ultra tough zombies was seconds away, I would see it as a different scenario to the 'last sighting being a week ago' scenario.

The thing is, there may be horde just seconds away. You know, being dormant and you get close to girl, she's zombie and moans. Soon you realize all around you zombies start crawling from the sewers, from within the alleys, places you'd not think zombie could come from.

Well, how many times has your character observed someone being bitten, the gestation process and end result?

Several times. Honestly, zombie bite is really, really bad for your health. It's one of the best ways to get gangrene, especially if you find yourself near dirty water after. (Such as, having to make escape through the sewers)

But yeah, it's not your characters genuine reaction to intitiate a scientific evaulation. He goes on his gut instinct - no matter how false that can be and based on superstition.

That, is playing in character. I'd give bonus points for that!

Well, to me the idea that as soon as the apocalypse hits, all alignments instantly change isn't all that realistic. What time period are you talking about? Right at the outbreak? Years latter? If latter, was your character good aligned prior the outbreak, but then slipped? What does he think of his former values now, as he aims at the little girls head and his trigger finger starts to tighten? Or was he born post outbreak, and raised under very difficult circumstances. Does he know anything other than what he was raised as? Or if it's right at the outbreak, surely his alignment didn't pop over instantly? Or was he always non scrupulous? Prior the outbreak, what did people think of him for being like that? Does he want the future to be like him? Or he doesn't care?

I don't think Dead Reign is all that close to the outbreak really. I think it's already been well established and most of the world has fallen.

Since the miliatry aspect was brought in, I'd like to make a comparision.

As a soldier you're expected to protect and to fight, sometimes your conflicts end in someone dying.

This does not mean you're a bad person for killing others, this means just that you're under a conflict and the situation calls for ending a human life.


In this case, every moment is a moment of conflict with the world gone mad and even the nicest persons have had to kill so many they've probably lost the count.


This does not mean your aligment has changed, it means the situation has and you have just been able to adapt to it.

[Razzinold]

I don't need anybody to protect my opinions, I could care a less if every single other poster in this topic disagreed with what I wrote. I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't name call/think less of other people posting because they didn't share the same viewpoint. I also never said I wouldn't protect anyone else, I simply stated that I would do anything to protect me and mine first (not a very uncommon occurrence). Just because I said I would shoot the kid or leave her there without help doesn't mean I would randomly execute anyone who is traveling with me, even if they're not family. You may think I'm being unemotional I'm not, I'm being realistic. I don't care who you are if we're traveling together and you get bit, you get shot. End of story. Those fools in Walking Dead taking that guy with them (season 1) when they head out to the CDC were stupid. It makes a little more sense in Resident Evil to not kill your party members straight away because at least in that setting a cure exists. Only in movies do people hang onto anyone/anything that threatens their/group safety.

Thanks Razz, you're saying the things the way I couldn't. <3

Infected get killed. It's the humane thing to do really, to give them dignity of a death instead of being mindless drone.

No problem Dobergirl, as for the bulk of Noon's questions I'm pretty sure they were directed solely towards me (Noon correct me if I'm wrong on this ) but that might be why you didn't get some of the points he was making.

[Trooper Jim]

So we are back to the kill the kid thing again......

[Razzinold]

So we are back to the kill the kid thing again......

Isn't that what this thread is about? lol

Good point The thread was supposed to be about the posted scenario (i.e. to discuss who would kill her or save her and why), so it shouldn't be that surprising that someone else would weigh in on the topic. As for the whole teleporting zombie parasites thing, that was one odd sidetrack to follow, lol

[Ice Dragon]

MiB reason, why to shoot the little girl:

[In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl]
Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.
[pause]
James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?
[pause]
James Edwards: That's a good shot though...

[Noon]

Yeah, it's just that it all has the aura of post hoc rationalisation - do the act, then make up the reasons for doing the act after having done it, as if those reasons had been the instigator rather than a garnish.

I mean, who had their policy for dealing with the scenario written down prior to encountering the scenario? So for those few who would consider, how do you know your responce comes from the reasons you say, rather than the reasons you say simply coming after the responce you describe?

[Traska]

MiB reason, why to shoot the little girl:

[In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl]
Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.
[pause]
James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?
[pause]
James Edwards: That's a good shot though...

Leaves me to wonder why no one posted that before.

[Severus Snape]

MiB reason, why to shoot the little girl:

[In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl]
Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.
[pause]
James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?
[pause]
James Edwards: That's a good shot though...

Leaves me to wonder why no one posted that before.

You obviously missed my post, which was the first reply to this topic. Not stated in those exact words, but...

One rule I learned while gaming: If it looks innocent, either hit it with everything you've got or run away screaming bloody murder.

Little girl, out all alone, at night, DURING THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE? Every weapon in the party is trained on her little body, ready to take her out if she even SEEMS like the walking dead.

[Traska]

MiB reason, why to shoot the little girl:

[In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl]
Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.
[pause]
James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?
[pause]
James Edwards: That's a good shot though...

Leaves me to wonder why no one posted that before.

You obviously missed my post, which was the first reply to this topic. Not stated in those exact words, but...

One rule I learned while gaming: If it looks innocent, either hit it with everything you've got or run away screaming bloody murder.

Little girl, out all alone, at night, DURING THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE? Every weapon in the party is trained on her little body, ready to take her out if she even SEEMS like the walking dead.

I was actually referring to where I posted a more verbose version fo the quote (and with very few words changed... more or less the post I just quoted.)

[Severus Snape]

MiB reason, why to shoot the little girl:

[In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl]
Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.
[pause]
James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?
[pause]
James Edwards: That's a good shot though...

Leaves me to wonder why no one posted that before.

You obviously missed my post, which was the first reply to this topic. Not stated in those exact words, but...

One rule I learned while gaming: If it looks innocent, either hit it with everything you've got or run away screaming bloody murder.

Little girl, out all alone, at night, DURING THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE? Every weapon in the party is trained on her little body, ready to take her out if she even SEEMS like the walking dead.

I was actually referring to where I posted a more verbose version fo the quote (and with very few words changed... more or less the post I just quoted.)

Ah, I see now. My bad. I now return you to the arts.