I went through Fallout without killing any PEOPLE once, but I did whack a few rats and radscorpions. About the middle of the game, when your sneak and talk and barter skills are very, very high and your combat skills are fairly rudimentary, I actually found that the game got easier than it had been for my previous gun-toting character. I admit that I jacked my small guns skill (with books) and got one of those 10mm SMGs (the .223 would have required bloodshed) for disposing of the lower animals, but all of my interpersonal relations were peaceful. Neat game, all around.

And that''s what I think is important here. We''ve been talking a lot about how to develop your character with interesting foibles and idiosyncracies, but we''ve also pretty much locked him into a blood-drenched career. Why not let players take jobs as thieves, or even as hackers? You sneak into the facility, find an empty office, jack into the network and go crazy with the data manipulation. You could even give it a "virtual reality" feel like in Johnny Mnemonic, so you can use the sneaking, jumping, and blasting engine you''ve developed for the stone-cold killers.

It could also be conducive to teamwork and pacing. Your demo guy and your commando guy are blasting their way into the power plant to set some charges, your tac-ninja guy is creeping through the vents to assassinate the book-keeper, and your hacker guy is cyber-commandoing his way through the mainframe to get the WMD plans. You all wrap it up at about four minutes, and you log off, pull out, and hit the bricks before the place goes up in a gout of flame. The commando and the demo guy get badass points, the ninja gets stealth points, and your hacker gets 31337 points. Everyone goes home happy, and the job gets done. The hacker didn''t even need a gun.

Actually, you''d probably get "team reputation" points for that, so people might see the hacker and say, "I hear he''s with the Mechamercs. They wiped out the Cryotech facility last November." And he''d just have a share of the badassitude that the team has.

Violence:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

(from www.dictionary.com)

Whether or not using a trank on someone falls within the above definition seems unclear to me. By some interpretations of the definitions, it is impossible to open a door in a nonviolent manner. Certainly in a situation where the choice is between using a trank and using a live bullet, the trank is less violent. A committed pacifist could well take a mercenary job involving destruction of property, kidnapping, and tranquilisation of guards on the grounds that it is the best way to minimise the amount of violence done (if those with principles won''t, then the only ones who will are those without)

A pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence. Running someone over in tank is not the act of a pacifist. I think in a mercenary game it would be very hard if not impossible to be a pacifist. You could only use nonlethal means but those are still acts of violence.



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
I think in a mercenary game it would be very hard if not impossible to be a pacifist. You could only use nonlethal means but those are still acts of violence.

---

of course it would be hard, but that doesn''t mean it shouldn''t be an option!

in a video-game world where everyone is killing anyone else, someone who only knocks others unconscious could be considered a pacifist, IMO. i suppose we should find a new word to use instead of "pacifist", since so many people here are arguing semantics instead of discussing the idea behind it.

Sure it could still be done, to be a mercany pacifist you would have to.

1)Never resort to violonce.
2)Never take part in a mission that involves violence.

So as long as the game allowed a player to take part in mission with non violent goals. As wells overcome obstacles without violence then you could play a pacifist.

Knocking someone unconscious is still an act of violence the fact that you didn''t kill them doesn''t change that.

Of course there could be plenty of merc work that pacifist could do such as.
1)hacking
2)Infomation gathering
3)Survallience
4)Negotions
5)Theft



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Is the act of rendering someone unconscious automatically a violent act, or is it the method used that makes it violent? Suppose you had some sort of magic "sleep ray" - or some knock-out gas would using that be a violent act?

Anyway, I guess the actual semantics aren''t that important - an infiltration where everyone wakes up an hour after you leave the building is still a lot less immediately obvious (particularly if they don''t realise they fell asleep) than one where the body-count hits 4 digits, and one will get you a much higher reputation for causing carnage than the other, while both will (unless body-count was a mission parameter) get you the same reputation for success.

Almost, if not all missions for a merc will involve causing actual harm to others - maybe not physical harm, but still harm nonetheless. Depending on your interpretation of pacifism, you may indeed end up unable to take any missions.

Having the player to choose to be a pacifist is nice but when it goes against what the client REALLY wants, then it`s a whole different story. I mean, what if the client wants his victim to go down in bloodshed, should the player actually do it to pass the mission? And will it effect the 'pacifist' reputation?

[edited by - Zido on February 26, 2004 5:01:40 PM]

the pacifist player should not accept such a mission ("sorry, but it is against my principals to create a bloodbath for revenge or pay"), or accomplish it without violence and risk the client being pissed that it was done neatly.

However, if the player has a great success rate in Bloodbath missions, and in pacifist missions, then will they both oppose each other? I mean, will different reputations affect each other? And I think having a different reputation in each land could be a good addition. It allows the player to have multiple reps.



[edited by - Zido on March 1, 2004 2:52:00 PM]

Well you could handle that two in ways.
1) Violence level - Acts of violence increase this, non-violent acts in potentially violent situation decrease this. So Bloodbath missions and pacifist missions would cancel each other out.

2)You could simply make the mission mutally exlusive if you have attempted any bloodbath or mass destruction missions then you you can''t attempt any pacifist missions. Afterall who would hire someone to peaceful diffuse a kidnapping who is know for blowing up a mall to assassinate a vip.

An old game called darklands had a fame system. Basiclly there was fame and local fame. Doing jobs for people would increase you local fame. When your local fame got high enough it would increase your fame by a small amount as well as your local fame in the surrounding towns by a small amount.

So while you may be a hero in one town you could goto another nearby town and no one would have ever heard of you.

The kinds of missions and the people who would offer them to you where based on a combination of local fame and fame.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document