I tried to be friendly

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

horrible? - Morality is something that can change during the time (see Ancient Rome and slaves).

 

14 year old - Well ... prejudice isn't a horrible thing? "Every bandit = 14 years old" ?!?!?!

 

If you honestly think the Roman Empire and a video game justify killing, then I suggest you move to the Congo and experience it for yourself. The brutality is absurd. You'd probably wind up dead or more likely leaving and going back to your comfy modern life, posting comments about killing people on the internet. Also, slavery exists today, all around the world; even in the United States. I do know my history, and politics, very well.

 

And yeah, I have to wonder about the mental capacity and maturity of someone who claims they would murder people in a state of emergency. It's not prejudice, because I'm judging based on something you said. (see the definition of Prejudice)

Edited December 23, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[bluemage 1]

If you honestly think the Roman Empire and a video game justify killing, then I suggest you move to the Congo and experience it for yourself. The brutality is absurd. You'd probably wind up dead or more likely leaving and going back to your comfy modern life, posting comments about killing people on the internet. Also, slavery exists today, all around the world; even in the United States. I do know my history, and politics, very well.

 

And yeah, I have to wonder about the mental capacity and maturity of someone who claims they would murder people in a state of emergency. It's not prejudice, because I'm judging based on something you said. (see the definition of Prejudice)

 

I didn't say that a video game justifies killing and i didn't say that slavery doesn't exist today. What i wanted to say is that there is not a state-aided slavery. I am talking about modern states. A state represents the ethics of the folk. As you can see ... poverty has to do something with brutality. In a zombie apocalypse (which is unrealitic) there will be people who are starving. Starving means people will get desperate. Desparate people will do things, which they wouldn't do in a well-fed situation(more crime). 

 

My comment about killing people in a zombie apocalypse was referred to a post about grouping. Let's say 500k people survived the apocalypse. Do you think all of them will be "friendly"? No. Do you think all of them will be "bandits"? No. Now i say that i am a bandit. Now you know that there will be one person who is not friendly. Would you still try to meet every person you see?

 

To meet a lot of bandits in such a scenario is really realistic. A lot of bandits means ~5-10%. So if you want to survive, you cannot group up very easy. You have to be really careful. The other thing is ... being a bandit in that scenario isn't equal with being a horrible person. 

 

Let's have a look on the evolution of the human race. There are theories about that our ancestors killed the Neanderthals. These theories are not unrealistic. Our ancestors did not stay in Africa. They moved because they wanted to find places to stay. "Places to stay" means places where you have enough food and water. That's why there could be a fight between these two races where the Neanderthals lost. Are our ancestors horrible people? (Two races - no communication possible). 

 

Killing people in state of emergency or is it self-defense? See season 2 of "The walking Dead" ... i don't want to spoil. What would you do in such a situation?

 

prejudice - You talked about being 14 years old. It's just like saying your are a car thief -> You have to be a pole. That's prejudice. If you would say "Your ethical views are horrible". That would be juding based on something i said.

 

Congo - Would you go to Congo? You have to carry about 50000 € in that scenario. Carry means in your hands - Everybody has to see it. If yes ... why? If no ... why? In a zombie apocalypse you can replace the money with a backpack. I took Congo because you said Congo. Replace it was a fictional state where the brutality is absurd.

 

Grouping in a apocalypse - Of course there will be groups of people. Grouping will be like becoming friends. You don't go out and ask people whether they want to be your friend.

[colinm9991 196]

You people think too far in to this, regardless of your age; you should not even be playing this game if this is what the subject matter will be like.

 

Unfortunately, I am now with the thread creator; I am now a shoot-on-sight guy and generally try to avoid contact when possible.

I travel in a group of 10+ and despite us being 9 times larger than the average "bandit", he still tries to shoot or kill one of us just because he has a gun in his hand or a gas mask on his face.

 

At the beginning of the game release, just like the beginning of the mod release and for a short time after; I noticed a lot of friendlies, but that's no more.

It's not about getting more loot (Bodies disappear anyway, but regardless), it's not about "killing for fun", it's just about playing the game and not having idiots try to ruin what entertainment you are having.

 

Until there is a resolution, maybe even a handful of servers thrown up where PvP can be somewhat disabled (If you don't like it, I don't care; simple resolvement: Don't play there) then myself and many others will have to become what most people hate, a KoS Player.

[pythonmsh 71]

The whole friendly vs bandit debate is retarded. If you prefer one style of play stick to it. You aren't playing the game incorrectly if you decide to be a bandit nor friendly.

[Odysseus (DayZ) 43]

I have never killed a fellow survivor.

 

That said, I know my luck - if I were to give up on being what I call a citizen and turned bandit, my first victim would be an honest citizen like I was, and I'd have instant remorse.

[Gator Biggs 22]

I've been playing DayZ for a long time, I know how it works. I've got way too many hours into this game for me to even count lol.

 

Then you should know that you can play however you want. You don't need to justify your playstyle..