Rimworld changing our in game ethics?

[SpaceDorf]

Demon Lord of Clowns

if I read this correctly, Rimworld must have a good influence on your ethics

My favorite comparison of ingame ethics is always Shooters and RPG's,

While there was a time, when politicans and concerned citizens lost their shit over how 3d-Shooters bred killers and psychopaths, because you can kill all kind of stuff in those .. over a story or a mission .. and meanwhile

nobody noticed RPG's where the bodycount was many times higher, sometimes with equal or better graphics ..
and those kills weren't even for the story .. those kills where for xp, loot and and the lulz ..

not to speak of the bodycounts of Strategy games ( Zerg vs. Terran anybody ? )
or how the last thing many turtles saw was the fat blue ass of an italo-american plumber.

Are those creatures less dead ? Are those kills more ethical ?
Nope. But they look less real.

So ethics is something that lies in the eye of the beholder.
From there they behave the same in games as well as in real live.
Ethics are answers to the following questions :

How far can I go ?
How do I get rewarded ?
What causes problems for me ?
How can I cheat within the rules ?

Those are the principles of ethics.
What is good for me, how can I get along with everything else and reap the most rewards while not getting in trouble.

Only the answers to those questions are different in every game and in every culture.

[Bozobub]

I think you're confusing "game theory" with "ethics" ^^' .

[Shurp]

or how the last thing many turtles saw was the fat blue ass of an italo-american plumber.

LOL, that's a classic line, is that original?

[SpaceDorf]

LOL, that's a classic line, is that original?

I Hope so

I think you're confusing "game theory" with "ethics" ^^' .

Then please explain the difference to me. Preferrably while using the same examples, because to me
it applies to all these examples.
The key to this ethics is to look at every game , be it the Game of Majongg, the Game of the Month, the Game of the Year,
Game of Thrones or the Game of Life , as a ruleset on equal footing.

The ethics created by the questions in my last post are different in every set of rules and are only comparable if truly similiar conditions apply.
So yeah, some games give you a slap on the wrist by a pro forma law enforcement to simulate a bit of the danger you would be in in the game of Real Life , but still not enough to realy create a comparable environment.

Even the ethics of Rimworld itself change from alpha to alpha, and in my oppinion it is allready no longer worth it to hang on to the questionable ethics, because creating an environment where it is feasible takes the fun out of the game for me.
And be honest .. if you created a village full of psychopaths and cannibals here on our blue planet .. do you think their ethics would be much different than those in game ?

[Vlad0mi3r]

I'm with SpaceDorf on this one.

be honest .. if you created a village full of psychopaths and cannibals here on our blue planet .. do you think their ethics would be much different than those in game ?

And as a case in point or an example I give you the Sentinelese. Come near us and we will attempt to kill you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese

Yes I know its a Wiki link but Meh.

[kubolek01]

For me no change in behaviour, same playstyles. Only thing i fell bad about is killin' Thrumbos just for money.. ($.$)

[TheMeInTeam]

What little literature exists on this matter suggests that games don't alter ethics/decision-making this way.

The only way Rimworld might influence your IRL decision-making is if you try to become an expert at it, and in the process of doing so alter your approach to finding optimal solutions.  Years ago, pushing from middling difficulties to immortal/deity in civ 4 had some of that effect on me as a player.  I saw that other people were thinking about what they encountered differently and doing better than me, and I altered my approach to mimic what made others successful.  THAT carried over into other games and the times I've tried to optimize under IRL ruleset, but it had no influence on ethics/values/utility function beyond my capability to optimize.

Sane individuals have a pretty clear compartmentalization/mental separation between game stuff and reality.  If you don't believe me, watch game footage of gears of war, and then watch footage like the clip Jim Sterling showed where someone committed suicide on camera.  Suddenly the footage is disturbing, even though it's "just" a single gunshot, and not someone being sawed apart limb from limb while the other person is making a snide remark, only to himself be separated into chunks 2 seconds later.

Of course, that also means that when the true crazies get their hands on a game like this, it doesn't make them any less crazy either.

[Bozobub]

LOL, that's a classic line, is that original?

I Hope so

I think you're confusing "game theory" with "ethics" ^^' .

Then please explain the difference to me. Preferrably while using the same examples, because to me
it applies to all these examples.
The key to this ethics is to look at every game , be it the Game of Majongg, the Game of the Month, the Game of the Year,
Game of Thrones or the Game of Life , as a ruleset on equal footing.

The ethics created by the questions in my last post are different in every set of rules and are only comparable if truly similiar conditions apply.
So yeah, some games give you a slap on the wrist by a pro forma law enforcement to simulate a bit of the danger you would be in in the game of Real Life , but still not enough to realy create a comparable environment.

Even the ethics of Rimworld itself change from alpha to alpha, and in my oppinion it is allready no longer worth it to hang on to the questionable ethics, because creating an environment where it is feasible takes the fun out of the game for me.
And be honest .. if you created a village full of psychopaths and cannibals here on our blue planet .. do you think their ethics would be much different than those in game ?

It's easy:  "Ethics" = "morality", "game theory" = "how organisms interact with a given 'game'", where "game" = "scenario that can involve 'winning'/'losing'".  Game theory intersects with ethics, because your ethics influence your choices in many ways, but they're not even close to the same thing.

[Crow_T]

    One thing I've been thinking about lately is that there is sort of a trend in entertainment where the characters aren't precious anymore- anyone is fair game to kill off, even really good ones. See: Got and The Walking Dead. I don't remember it being like that 10 years ago, and having played video games since the Atari 2600 it's a mental challenge to keep playing a colony when a founding member or really good character dies off. For me it's not so much what the characters do, but how we treat the characters now that is a big change in ethics. At the same time I think things are more interesting and dramatic when no one is safe in a story.

[AngleWyrm]

Sane people simply don't attempt to extend video-game actions into the real world.

The "sane people" argument looks remarkably similar to the no true Scottsman fallacy.

Behavior within worlds, be it Rimworld, Starbound, IRL, or any other theater in which a person behaves (such as this one) differs according to their assessment of what will produce desirable outcomes and undesirable outcomes.

... there is sort of a trend in entertainment where the characters aren't precious anymore- anyone is fair game to kill off, even really good ones. See: Got and The Walking Dead.

Movie producers of Hollywood have made a habit out of blowing stuff up, including main characters. Rarely has it been a part of the story and often it has come across as contrived. Some of that "just kill 'em, that never gets old" may be bleeding over into the memories of game developers, especially where there's a movie tie-in.

Notable exceptions that tell a story outside the story: When Sigourney Weaver signed off in Avatar -- her hello and goodbye were memorable moments. Resident Evil:The Final Chapter did a two-ending finale where the audience could choose where the story ends. And of course Rogue One, where everyone died, up to and including the iconic leading actress from the original film. She reminds me a bit of the movie remake of Bewitched.

[zzz1000]

after rimworld it forced us to change our play style in the game. we don't even think about it when we take a prisoner and harvest their organs until they die or get sold off.

I disagree with inicial premise, especialy "forced" part. I never did organ harvesting and never feel need for that. If I do not want to recrut prisoner I just release them.
On other hand pure min/max player do not see them as characters so ethics is just not involved.
Can it somewhat desensitize person to such stuff -  I'm doubt it, he can think so, but even if you killed thousands virtual people encounter of real death and corpses is very different experiens.

I actually find it strange that pawns get debuff thoughts from organ harvest and etc. In a survival situation you will be grateful to any resource you can utilize. If that liver from a prisoner could save your family, you should be happy about the rare opportunity of possible transplant.

From your point of view killing and eating people if it needed for your survival is totaly ok, but historicaly lot of people, not all, do not see this as acceptable. So for humans is totally normal to be at least in some way concerned by this.

[AngleWyrm]

Many things can be described as "good" or "bad." Hell, the weather can be described as good or bad.

Umbrella, warm clothes, trips to the beach.

I actually find it strange that pawns get debuff thoughts from organ harvest

Since we all totally agree on what is best, there should be laws that enforce exactly one play-style and nothing else that threatens our precarious claim to what's best should be allowed... Actually, if we all agreed then no such law would be necessary.

I'd much rather see a game that allows for what is best in another world to be considered good in the context of that world, rather than the ongoing drivel about attempts to transfer what's good for life on Earth as appropriate to life on a Rimworld.

Ideally that would be the player expressing their beliefs and discovering which are true and which are false in Rimworld. Failure to adapt could be harmful to their colony, and adapting to observations could be beneficial. Exploration, discovery and use of alien ethics.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go mutilate my son's genitals and censor some controversial material at the library.

[SpaceDorf]

I'd much rather see a game that allows for what is best in another world to be considered good in the context of that world, rather than the ongoing drivel about attempts to transfer what's good for life on Earth as appropriate to life on a Rimworld.

Ideally that would be the player expressing their beliefs and discovering which are true and which are false in Rimworld. Failure to adapt could be harmful to their colony, and adapting to observations could be beneficial. Exploration, discovery and use of alien ethics.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go mutilate my son's genitals and censor some controversial material at the library.

This post is rated yai by the Spacedorf-Society.

Hell, I would like to see what DF Players would come up with, if they had the medical posibilities of Rimworld. Poor Cheesemakers.

As personal ethics go, I am trying to keep to my own 21st century 1st world ethics in the game, but sometimes
it is an "eye for an eye" or a "leg for a leg" because the welfare of my people always outweighs the the welfare of some asshole that attacked me.
Never for profit, though, that is one of the 1st world ethics that personally makes me sick to my stomach.
This makes my ingame ethics quite fluid, but I also embrace nearly everyone who wants to join my colony on their own free will , regardless of traits. Still I recruit the best of my attackers or some Visitors from Hospitality that I really want to stiffen the herd ..

[SpookyMunky]

My knee jerk reaction to this thread was the thought that through giving you an insane amount of options to earn silver, what you do is a reflection of your moral code ?, but in retrospect, hmm...

Since the addition of silly little things like mental debufs for slaughtering humans (wimps) to get their oh so precious skin and organs
my gameplay has changed from a monster into a hippy. By hippy I mean I always end up growing weed and have people rolling joints 24/7 to earn enough to keep me in constant plasteel and steel


That in itself has it's own moral implications though, e.g. instead of capturing downed enemies then healing and filling them with drugs before harvesting their organs in a nice legendary bed I now just strip them naked to get their armor and leave them in the wild to get eaten by animals and blistering heat / biting cold until they die hehe, if I had an option at the end I know which one I would chose !

Does that make my hippy commune evil ?, is that a reflection on who I am as a person ?, lol... I feel a lot happier now that I don't capture / accepting everyone without noticing they have brain damage.. an affliction that was terminal in one of my games thanks to a dark corridor and a psychopath with a sniper rifle...

It was always for the greater good hehe... every dark act I have committed has been for the good of the people....... sound familiar ?

Without a shadow of a doubt I feel that this game can effect how your brain racts to social implications etc.. within this game

If you find youself walking down streets thinking about all the valuable organs and skin leather then heh, go find an island as far away from humanity as possible ?   There will always be some crossover into reality with anything people do, that doesn't make the game good or evil, just a game.. just numbers

For me... hmm, the most prominent side effect from playing this shit for so many years is I guess I am more willing to accept that even with the best intentions leaders can be shit, but at the same time not evil ?.. they are all just pawns trying to stay happy etc (sadly usually they do it at the cost...) meh hehe

[cultist]

It comes down to how much you can detatch yourself from the game and view it as just ones and zeroes. Nothing that happens in Rimworld matters, nor does it have any impact on the real world. Regardless, I play the way I always have, which means try and be a good person. I don't do anything that would be considered morally reprehensible in the real world like cannibalism or harvesting organs to sell, but at the same time I value my pawns over the lives of strangers. If I am in a very bad spot, strangers will be left to fend for themselves. I didn't ask them to come here and have a heart attack in the middle of a nowhere.