A light dissertation on Morality in DayZ

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I think you missed the point. I broke Kant's actual discussion on morality into a paraphrased one liner for the masses. Of course it matches doctrine from books and codes written to give the masses rules to live by. Also, "A Broken clock is correct twice a day." that doesn't mean it keeps time. Coming to the same conclusion as another method of thought does not mean those two methods are equally valid. The bible and Hammurabi's code both approach morality from the point of punishment. In the case of the bible it is "Act as such or you will not get a reward and might be punished in the future." with Hammurabi it is a law of equal reprisal. People follow those codes not out of morality but fear of punitive measures. That is NOT morality. 

 

 

The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral. But if a person assaulted someone in the United States and removed their victim's eye, they wouldn't have their eye removed. So clearly our concepts of morality have changed over time. Even in punishment you can see a society's idea of "morality." Now we have habeus corpus, and freedom of speech. We consider those to be "moral" doctrines. But a thousand years ago, we didn't think that was true. Why is that? It's because we as a species have advanced and our subjective ideas about morality on a whole have changed. We have never grown up in a society that didn't tell us that murder was wrong. Your mother undoubtedly told you that. It's not a personal judgment, it's a logical assumption about human nature. Basically nobody has a mother that says "it's okay to kill people, Timmy, as long as you don't get caught."

 

It's scary to think other people don't recognize the same "objective" morals as you, because that means there are people out there who are willing and able to violate those morals.

 

You also act as if Categorical Imperative Morality can not change which is untrue. New evidence can alter a logical conclusion and thus could alter morality. For example, if we discovered tomorrow that chickens have the same cognitive ability as mankind or possibly even more would it still be morally right to eat them? Logic would dictate that it is not right to eat sentient intelligent beings so no it wouldn't. However at this time we have no data to even imply such a thing-

 

 

Stop right there. 

 

http://io9.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us

 

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/21/the-emotional-lives-of-animals/

 

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

 

 

There is evidence to suggest that animals have a similar level of consciousness as humans. Just look at monarch butterflies. They fly from Canada to Mexico, with nothing but their wits. Most humans couldn't do that without a map at least. Again. Human understanding increases with time. There may come a day when people generally accept the "objective" morality of treating animals as humanely as humans. It's not likely, however, because humans have their own subjective ideas about morality. Tell me, what is your criteria for "true" morality, then? Is it, for example, the maximum reduction of suffering of all conscious beings? Maximum pleasure? Is it justified retribution? What exactly is the "goal" of true morality? Is it, for example, "survival at all costs"? That would imply very different types of behavior. That would imply behavior like slaughtering millions upon millions of other conscious creatures for the benefit of mankind...

 

I knew subjective and objective was a bad argument to start...

Edited October 7, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[mercules 1290]

The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral. But if a person assaulted someone in the United States and removed their victim's eye, they wouldn't have their eye removed. So clearly our concepts of morality have changed over time. Even in punishment you can see a society's idea of "morality." Now we have habeus corpus, and freedom of speech. We consider those to be "moral" doctrines. But a thousand years ago, we didn't think that was true. Why is that? It's because we as a species have advanced and our subjective ideas about morality on a whole have changed. We have never grown up in a society that didn't tell us that murder was wrong. Your mother undoubtedly told you that. It's not a personal judgment, it's a logical assumption about human nature. Basically nobody has a mother that says "it's okay to kill people, Timmy, as long as you don't get caught."

 

It's scary to think other people don't recognize the same "objective" morals as you, because that means there are people out there who are willing and able to violate those morals.

 

 

Your first statement there, "The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral." can not be supported. You do not know what reason they made those laws nor can you provide proof that it was a moral drive that influenced them and not simple self interest. 

There are countless laws that are likely not morally sound but enforced and breaking them would actually be the moral thing to do. Just because a few laws mimic moral responsibility does not mean that all laws are based off moral codes. Example, Monsanto has been using copyright law to sue farmers who have their copyrighted crops growing in their fields no matter how the crop got there. A wind blown seed or a plant growing from a previous seasons crop is enough for them to sue farmers. This is neither ethical or moral especially considering that they basically use bully tactics against people who have no legal recourse as they can not afford the court fees. It is legal but it is not moral. 

 

I'm not scared at all. I do not believe a single person is capable of living a moral life given the definition of morality that I follow. I believe we can strive for morality but I do not believe in a person who is completely moral. All I ask is that they try. 

[Vicco 123]

They are related. You can't really play the video game without being alive and experiencing life. 

In the video game it isn't the lack of punishment that drives the KOS mentality. In fact punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons. What does cause KOS is lack of empathy or connection with those other players. We look at them as another game obstacle and not people who are experiencing the same things we are. We have a level of disconnection with them because of the filters of the game and we no longer associate their struggle with our own. This is why a more difficult game might just bring some people around to less KOS mentality, they might come to realize that the other player struggled like they did to get where they are.

Damn, I'm not sure what happened, but you're getting my beans twice today. Everything you've said is rock solid.

I would disagree about punishment as a deterrent. It often is, and in a game can made to work better than IRL.

After all, in a game mechanic, a KOS (murder) could easily remove all your weapons and break your leg.

A game is "All powerful." The designer is God.

I'm fairly educated in philosophy and metaphysics, but don't use those arguments much any more.

It can be fun, but usually leads to going in circles.

Worked well with some chicks in college.

My favorite bit of philosophy now is:

“To be is to do”—Socrates.

“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.

“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

Morality questions tend to devolve into biblical quotes. Which are all contradicted by other biblical quotes.

I'll just say adult humans have morality that says killing another human is wrong.

Saying it's only there because it was "learned" is meaningless. That's the only way to reach adulthood.

As I use Sinatra for philosophy without shame, I'll use dogs - or cats - to describe human morality against killing.

Mammals, and social animals like us.

They vey rarely KOS.

I'm a dog guy, have had big and little.

Doesn't anybody else wonder at the ability of a tiny dog and a big dog, of totally different breeds, to meet up and get along?

I do. Every time I see it happen.

So all you have to do is look around. Real life morality is always staring you in the face.

A zombie apocalypse wouldn't affect it much.

But as you said, DayZ is a game. No connection to reality.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

... were still morally wrong. Why do you think the Nazi regime specifically dehumanized the Jewish people? It was because they understood that any empathy towards them would force the people under their rule to morally object to what was being done to them. Part of Kant's universalism is the very simple concept of, "Would I want this done to me?" If the answer is no, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to others. That is Categorical Imperative broken down into layman's understanding level. 

 

Religous texts and well oral traditions were not specifically treatises on morality but more so instructional manuals on how to live your life if you wanted to belong to that social structure. There is NOTHING immoral about shaving your beard but the old testament forbids it.

 

 

True morality is not subjective.

Absolutely incorrect. There is NO such thing as an objective moral truth. Try to come up with even one, I dare you.

 

Nazis were considered morally wrong from those outside their social order. Inside, what they were doing was the highest moral imperative. You can argue that Hitler did not accomplish what he set out to do but you cannot prove what he did was objectively wrong.

 

As an aside rule of thumb, however, those who claim they know what is objectively right and wrong, are usually the ones who are the most incorrect and least able-bodied to comment on such matters.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Ozelot

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Your first statement there, "The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral." can not be supported. You do not know what reason they made those laws nor can you provide proof that it was a moral drive that influenced them and not simple self interest. 

 

Morality is a concept that is driven out of collective self-interest. It defines the difference between right and wrong. Clearly if a person is punished for a certain action, it means that another person thought that behavior was "wrong" and therefore deserving of punishment. If a person obeys societal morals, then they enhance their own ability to survive by earning acceptance among their fellow man. That is a logical inference which supports itself. Ancient society imposed laws for the same reason ours does today - because there are "immoral" people, who would hurt or cause destruction to society. Even then, we have "right" and "wrong" (moral) ways of punishing human beings who have committed crimes. Basic morality is an evolutionary necessity. However, as we become more advanced and our methods of hurting each other become more nuanced and advanced, morality has to adapt. But again, you cannot define the main goal of "objective" morality. If a universal moral code exists, then what is it's purpose? How could morality exist if conscious beings did not exist? It simply couldn't. Morality requires a mind - an observer - to become an idea. Other than that, it is not a material truth. It is simply an idea within the mind.

Edited October 8, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Jex 1104]

I did exactly the opposite. You're arguing against yourself. I never claimed to be "doing science." What, and you do have a lab? As if you're better than me? Fuck off troll. You aren't providing constructively to this discussion. You don't have any real data to back up your claims, either. You used a film to make a blanket statement about human nature, that's called starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to fit it. Then I point out obvious exceptions to your conclusion, and you call me "unscientific." Good job contradicting yourself at every turn. My view of morality allows for exceptions, which is why I'll be keeping my view, thanks.

 

I'm not making any claims, dipshit. I'm saying yours are bogus, especially when you use words like "proves" which you have failed to do so. Your thread is based on your biased scientifically observed interactions of players in a game and then talking about rl.

 

I used a film to make a blanket statement about human nature did I? I already explained this to you in the last post, do I really need to explain it again. Nevermind, everyone else but you got it.

 

Now I'm starting with the conclusion???? WTF?? lmao seriously,  just stop right there. We already know you have zero respect for truth and the scientific method but when you try to use my argument against me, you just make yourself look silly. Now remember I said that being alone will eventually drive you mad, as exemplified by that movie, which was countering your completely bullshit claim that if only 2 people lived in the entire planet, there's nothing to stop them from killing each other. Here, have a fucking paper on isolation from human beings...

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1898

 

Of course, being scientific, you decided to use the highly likely and probable scenario of only 2 people being alive on the entire planet.

 

Let's look at what you said that I said that I didn't actually say

 

"You used a film to make a blanket statement about human nature" - wrong - you can't even get what I say correct so good job convincing anyone that you have an argument. Let's try this again, I actually said that human beings don't do well being isolated (because we're social animals). If you would care to counter that claim and the paper I think science weekly might publish you. That was my claim, not that if you watch a fucking film with Tom Hanks in it you wouldn't cope in a zombie survival game LOLOLOL

 

And I contradicted myself? lmao

 

My view of morality allows for exceptions, which is why I'll be keeping my view, thanks.

 

Of this I am not surprised at all.

[mercules 1290]

Absolutely incorrect. There is NO such thing as an objective moral truth. Try to come up with even one, I dare you.

 

Nazis were considered morally wrong from those outside their social order. Inside, what they were doing was the highest moral imperative. You can argue that Hitler did not accomplish what he set out to do but you cannot prove what he did was objectively wrong.

 

As an aside rule of thumb, however, those who claim they know what is objectively right and wrong, are usually the ones who are the most incorrect and least able-bodied to comment on such matters.

 

The problem with your brand of morality is that it is literally morality of convenience which is not morality at all. "Well, today we decided this particular social class is inferior and can be shot on sight. This is now morally just and right!" It doesn't matter what pressures or motivation drive someone to commit genocide, genocide is wrong. There is no moral principle providing for a group of humans to die simply because they share a social norm or genetic history.

I have never claimed I know what is objectively right or wrong, I have only claimed that morality is objective and can be based off reason and logic and that the Categorical Imperative is a very good formula to follow to try and achieve the unachievable. 

 

[Bludy 324]

to put an accent on my previous post, where i said you only play a role ingame, you don't have a real morality, i must say that:

 

i'm a hero, i don't kos, i avoid contact in the north and only go for ammo supplies when needed.

i always camp hot spots to help players when i'm gearing up myself, i shoot only in self defence, but when i'm done in towns, like i've found everything i need, i enter in ''now screw all i must go away'' mode and kill everything i see in my path between me and the woods..mode which ends once i'm ''safe''.

[Ozelot (DayZ) 394]

The problem with your brand of morality is that it is literally morality of convenience which is not morality at all. "Well, today we decided this particular social class is inferior and can be shot on sight. This is now morally just and right!" It doesn't matter what pressures or motivation drive someone to commit genocide, genocide is wrong. There is no moral principle providing for a group of humans to die simply because they share a social norm or genetic history.

I have never claimed I know what is objectively right or wrong, I have only claimed that morality is objective and can be based off reason and logic and that the Categorical Imperative is a very good formula to follow to try and achieve the unachievable. 

 

Morality of convenience is still morality. Hell, morality is really nothing more than a facade put up by people in order to function in their given societies.

[geryon 180]

Video games such as Dayz show how mean spirited people can be when they view there are no consequences.  We can debate if there is too much or too little KOS in the game but I don't think it matters.  If we interpret KOS in the game to all types of real life anti-social behavior I would think it is pretty spot on to what life would be like in a shit storm. 

 

Would you allow your daughter, sister, girl friend or wife walk alone in this type of world?  You wouldn't because you would risk kidnapping, rape or murder.  KOS for me is a simplistic representation of how mean spirited and selfish people would be.

 

I always live by the motto: In the modern world strangers are nice because they can afford to do so.  It's very rare to see alturistic selflessness.  To anyone who says they are nice or good people, I roll my eyes cause I know they will be first person to push away the child to get out of the burning building or take the last seat in the lifeboat.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

-bollocks-

 

I stopped reading after this once I realised what a complete load of bollocks you just spouted.

 

 

 

A: proof that you have not read my entire argument, and therefore undeserving of inclusion on the discussion.

 

B: a very good way to use your own words against you.

 

Take your pick.

 

 

The problem with your brand of morality is that it is literally morality of convenience which is not morality at all. "Well, today we decided this particular social class is inferior and can be shot on sight. This is now morally just and right!" It doesn't matter what pressures or motivation drive someone to commit genocide, genocide is wrong. There is no moral principle providing for a group of humans to die simply because they share a social norm or genetic history.

I have never claimed I know what is objectively right or wrong, I have only claimed that morality is objective and can be based off reason and logic and that the Categorical Imperative is a very good formula to follow to try and achieve the unachievable. 

 

 

 

I never implied that was the truth. If you seriously think that is the summation of my thoughts, then you clearly are not reading and just looking for a straw man to argue with. What I said was that an objective moral code does not leave room for circumstances where killing may be necessary to ensure your own survival. Morality is convenient. Just ask any combat soldier.

 

Says who? You. Other people. People say that genocide is wrong. Without people, there would be no genocide to even commit. The fact still remains that for morality to even exist, it requires a highly advanced conscious mind to make a judgment about a particular event or action. Ergo, morals do not exist separate from consciousness. Even then, I NEVER denied that morality comes from objective thought.  If you would have READ my post about the semantics of objective and subjective, then you would comprehend what I am saying. "Morality is subjective" means that it takes place within your own mind. It doesn't matter if the thoughts are logical or emotionally driven, they are still thoughts. Without thought, morality does not exist. Therefore, it is a product of the mind, therefore it is subjective. Again, why don't you look up the definitions of objective and subjective, and you would see that subjective can mean:

 

"Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world."

 

Morality is a construct of the mind. Therefore it is subjective, even if the mind which constructed it is thinking objectively. (without influence of bias or emotions)

 

However, we all know that human minds are never constantly objective and therefore it stands to reason that morality actually stems from both emotion and logic. It's only logical not to kill because "killing could threaten your own survival." It is emotional to think "this person has a mother, and a brother, and a son, and if I kill him, I will be emotionally hurting many other people besides just this one." That is PATHOS. You cannot deny the emotional aspects of morality. It is exactly because humans are empathetic creatures that we say "genocide is wrong." If we were all completely logical, unemotional reasoning machines, then we would abort all babies with genetic defects and illnesses that could be passed on to future humans. That is also quite logical, if you think about it. Is it moral? Most would say no, it isn't. Because it takes away freedom of choice. It is "cruel." These are pathological responses, not logical ones. It's exactly humanity's ability to be illogical that allows us to have such confusing moral beliefs, complete with exceptions, differences from individual to individual, and so on.

 

Morality is a belief. It's a belief about how one should act. But people have different beliefs, and most people are hypocrites anyway.

Edited October 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Jex 1104]

The problem with your brand of morality is that it is literally morality of convenience which is not morality at all. "Well, today we decided this particular social class is inferior and can be shot on sight. This is now morally just and right!" It doesn't matter what pressures or motivation drive someone to commit genocide, genocide is wrong. There is no moral principle providing for a group of humans to die simply because they share a social norm or genetic history.

I have never claimed I know what is objectively right or wrong, I have only claimed that morality is objective and can be based off reason and logic and that the Categorical Imperative is a very good formula to follow to try and achieve the unachievable. 

 

 

You start with Sam Harris, where he takes the worst position of suffering for someone and then goes upwards from there. By using this method, you can come to terms that make sense.

[dallas 5195]

Without an organized society or social structure there is no morality, no one to preach it and no one to enforce it.

There's only humanity and only the individual decides, whether he wants to fight for more than his own survival.

[Mr Nasty 1023]

This horse has been beaten ad nauseam.

 

There is no correlation between what transpires in my game to how I act outside the game. I dont understand why people keep trying to find this relationship.

 

No consequence, no lasting emotional or psychological impact. Most of the people who I know that play DayZ who have 'morals' are the ones typically killed by those who have none.

 

The point of the game is to survive. Those with little to no morals seem to survive longer.

 

In this game logic > morals.

 

Those with morals love the beach. Know what I mean?

[dallas 5195]

Those with morals love the beach. Know what I mean?

Vamos a la playa oh oh oh oh oh!

[Mr Nasty 1023]

Vamos a la playa oh oh oh oh oh!

 

Ive missed you old friend. We need to link up soon and play some DayZ or Arma3.

 

 

 

Sorry to OP for going off topic I probably could have sent this to him via PM but well im lazy. Here have some tea <3

[Jex 1104]

Morality of convenience is still morality. Hell, morality is really nothing more than a facade put up by people in order to function in their given societies.

 

Unlikely. We can all understand what is suffering and what can be done to improve things. As social animals we've evolved to cooperate and we're able to empathise with each other so morality is a product of those things put into words.

[Jex 1104]

 

A: proof that you have not read my entire argument, and therefore undeserving of inclusion on the discussion.

 

B: a very good way to use your own words against you.

 

Take your pick.

 

I got so far and since everything you said was wrong, what was the point in continuing to an obviously flawed and biased conclusion. Would I need to open a book on creationism and read the whole thing or would the first chapter be enough for me to say their argument is bollocks? If you start off with incorrect data there really is no point in wasting my time any further.

[Jex 1104]

Without an organized society or social structure there is no morality, no one to preach it and no one to enforce it.

There's only humanity and only the individual decides, whether he wants to fight for more than his own survival.

 

Not quite - can you back up your claim that without organised society there can be no morality? You do know apes have morals, right?

 

Barbara King argues that while primates may not possess morality in the human sense, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of morality. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self", and a concept of continuity.^[4][5][6]Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Many social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group^.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality  

[dallas 5195]

Apes organize too. 

 

Problem is DayZ is a respawn simulator to many and a survival simulator to few. As long as a KOS player can suicide to select a spawn near Elektro and Cherno, a KOS player only have a 3 minute run to recover from death. Because death isn't a deterrence for KOS players, they can throw themselves into battle without any care for their own lives. If death had a more predominate consequence, players would be forced to play more as survivors, rather than simply playing as gamers.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Dallas

[mercules 1290]

 

I never implied that was the truth. 

 

 

You realize you are arguing as if that comment you quoted was addressed to you.

 

 

Since you brought it up I'll address it. 

Ehem... No shit I think I stated that. Morality comes from logic. No thought, no logic. Thus the whole discussion about Kant's Categorical Imperative. Who's punching the strawman? :)

[wild_man 4442]

is only game :|

 

in real life I have strong morals my mother and father give to me this

 

I don't say lies :thumbsup:

 

i don't steal nothing :thumbsup:

 

I hope I never kill some guy even when I join army next year, I will kill if I need to defend me and my friends and do my duty and follow orders :thumbsup:

 

I help always people who need like old guy next door I do shop trip for him, cut grass for him :thumbsup:

 

I have moral code :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

 

but in game I don't give fucks for this, is game for fun, I do everything I don't do in life because is fucking game this one, for PLAY!!!

 

too many guys get butthurt and say shit like 'you are bad person, you are evil, you are psychopath!!!'

 

:huh: what???

 

NO I AM NOT >:(  I AM PLAYING GAME :P SHUT MOUTH AND PLAY GAME ALSO  

 

STOP TO ANALYSE EVERYTHING AND ENJOY THIS SHIT IS FOR FUN!!!!!

Edited October 9, 2013 by KoS

[mercules 1290]

 

NO I AM NOT > :(  I AM PLAYING GAME :P SHUT MOUTH AND PLAY GAME ALSO  

 

STOP TO ANALYSE EVERYTHING AND ENJOY THIS SHIT IS FOR FUN!!!!!

 

Yes, I get that for you the game is "La, la, la shoot everyone." Good for you, now go into your special little corner and enjoy that game. 

Some of us are playing this game and not Battlefield or CoD because there is an actual reason to not shoot everyone on sight. Heck, in BF you shoot friendlies because every server I have been on there is no friendly fire so it doesn't hurt to shoot everything that moves as you can only kill the enemy. 

 

We are playing this game because it is attempting to simulate, a bit, the idea of being a survivor in a zombie apocalypse situation, where shooting everyone you see would be a less than intelligent response to survival. Where grouping up and gathering survivors into that group could actually make life easier for them against the zombies and bandits. That is where the "Morality" play comes in. I understand you don't "get it" and that is fine but you don't need to tell the rest of us we are wrong simply because you don't get it. 

[wild_man 4442]

Yes, I get that for you the game is "La, la, la shoot everyone." Good for you, now go into your special little corner and enjoy that game. 

Some of us are playing this game and not Battlefield or CoD because there is an actual reason to not shoot everyone on sight. Heck, in BF you shoot friendlies because every server I have been on there is no friendly fire so it doesn't hurt to shoot everything that moves as you can only kill the enemy. 

 

We are playing this game because it is attempting to simulate, a bit, the idea of being a survivor in a zombie apocalypse situation, where shooting everyone you see would be a less than intelligent response to survival. Where grouping up and gathering survivors into that group could actually make life easier for them against the zombies and bandits. That is where the "Morality" play comes in. I understand you don't "get it" and that is fine but you don't need to tell the rest of us we are wrong simply because you don't get it. 

 

 

you thinking too much on this :D

 

I play for survive also but I enjoy fight more than flight B)

 

is guys like me who put real fear in dayz

 

you don't want to die??? good for you - me the same, but threat of death is need for enjoy game

 

go play nopvP server and have safe apocalypse experience :D

 

you make mistake if you don't think bad guys and gangs are exist after law and order is finish

 

believe me these guys will rule post apocalypse world BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MORALS, NO RESTRICTION ON WHAT THEY DO!!! ;)

 

I am roleplay this guy,,i am hunt player for loot for fun for buzz for all this and I make game more real than carebear try live in peace like hippy :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

[mercules 1290]

you thinking too much on this :D

 

I play for survive also but I enjoy fight more than flight B)

 

is guys like me who put real fear in dayz

 

you don't want to die??? good for you - me the same, but threat of death is need for enjoy game

 

go play nopvP server and have safe apocalypse experience :D

 

you make mistake if you don't think bad guys and gangs are exist after law and order is finish

 

believe me these guys will rule post apocalypse world BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MORALS, NO RESTRICTION ON WHAT THEY DO!!! ;)

 

I am roleplay this guy,,i am hunt player for loot for fun for buzz for all this and I make game more real than carebear try live in peace like hippy :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

 

There you go again, belittling anyone who doesn't want to shoot EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Just because I see no reason to shoot someone who is no threat to me doesn't mean that I don't want there to be threats out there. I like people like you in the game but I don't want a game that is all you. Why? because all you is boring as hell. There is MORE tension and excitement to approaching someone who may be friendly or might not be than simply raising your gun and firing. 

You have one type of interaction with other players and it can be summed up with, "Bang". I have a lot more and the game is richer for it. 

The bandits won't rule... the evidence is in modern society. If survival was more likely in a lawless situation... that is what we would be surrounded with today or we would have died off as a species for caring for each other and making governments and laws. Guess what, people live because they get regular food, health care, have shelter and society aids in that. The bandits might rule for a short time but some organization will form and it will deal with them, the proof is part of history.