np NP: Friday, July 22, 2016

[Howitzer 32]

http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php?id=489

I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

[Scotty 1,061]

I can understand Dan's reasoning here. I personally haven't played Undertale, though people have been telling me I should, but if the game has a legitimately playable pacifist option, and it sounds like this goes along with Grace's dream in the story comic where there is a way to avoid conflict by reasoning with characters and coming to a non violent solution, something like that wouldn't make for an interesting NP series, especially if you're trying to not spoil anything. With the Fallout:NV series, yeah you could go pacifist, but as we saw, it meant dealing with some very questionable ethics so seeing Grace reacting to that was funny.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,646]

Grace, do you really want to play a game where you don't need to kill simulated opponents?
Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

[mlooney 3,733]

50 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Grace, do you really want to play a game where you don't need to kill simulated opponents?
Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

Have you priced working classic pinball machines of late?  Not Cheap.

[Stature 97]

Just now, mlooney said:

Have you priced working classic pinball machines of late?  Not Cheap.

How about Tetris?

[Howitzer 32]

1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

Timeshock! is my favorite table, although I'm also partial to The Twilight Zone.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

[Aura Guardian 57]

36 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

Ooh, those were good, yeah.

[mlooney 3,733]

7 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

Myst is how I got my then wife to accept computers.  However, because, at the time I was a worse pack rat than I am now, she looked at the 15+ more or less functional computers in the geek room and told me that "If it can't play Myst, get it out of the apartment."   This was 1994ish.  Had a lot of XT class machines laying around.  I think I kept both of my "Coherent" machines which were 286 boxes.   That was slightly pre linux days

[The Old Hack 2,506]

2 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Myst is how I got my then wife to accept computers.  However, because, at the time I was a worse pack rat than I am now, she looked at the 15+ more or less functional computers in the geek room and told me that "If it can't play Myst, get it out of the apartment."   This was 1994ish.  Had a lot of XT class machines laying around.  I think I kept both of my "Coherent" machines which were 286 boxes.   That was slightly pre linux days

This reminds me a little of a fictional character I once created. He was this mildly immortal technomage who was born early in the 20th Century and lived in a building he owned himself. (There's a story behind 'mildly immortal' but I won't go into it here.)

Once you got into the first floor, it was totally dominated by a massive and very old computer which if investigated a bit more closely looked a lot like ENIAC. When you went a level up, you'd discover somewhat smaller (but still massive) computers made with 50s technology; these used transistors instead of bulbs. Another story up and you reached the 60s. And so forth. His entire home consisted of sort of geological layers of computers and whenever they started to take up too much room he would just move another level up where he could start filling the place with cutting edge computers.

I have no idea where he came from in my mind except that he must have been some sort of ultimate packrat. I actually think that I would like to live like this if I were able to. Then, whenever I felt nostalgic, I could just walk down the stairs.

[Scotty 1,061]

34 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I have no idea where he came from in my mind except that he must have been some sort of ultimate packrat. I actually think that I would like to live like this if I were able to. Then, whenever I felt nostalgic, I could just walk down the stairs.

Like a museum of computer evolution.

[Howitzer 32]

1 hour ago, Veya said:

 I used Undyne as an example, and why shouldn't I kill someone who's been trying to brutally impale me with spears?

You should kill her.

The first time through, anyway.

You're not really even supposed to know that being a pacifist is an option until the end of the play through, at which point you start over and do the pacifist run to see the real ending.

Of course, the tag line for the game kind of gives it away before you even start.

[Drasvin 123]

If you don't care about the characters and their plight, then Undertale will lose most to all of it's impact. A lot of people love the game because they find the characters endearing and become invested in their plight. No one piece of media or art is going to appeal to everyone. Anyone who thinks that everyone will enjoy a given piece of art is either deluding themselves, naive, or foolish. A piece of art can appeal to a large number of people, but not everyone. There are simply too many varying opinions and tastes of what is good for that to be possible.

As for the question of why to not kill Undine, why should you kill Undine? Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence. It's entirely possible to just run from her and get away. With the exception of one or two fights at the end, all monster encounters can be dealt with by dodging the attacks and defusing the incident or just running away from it. If one is going for a Pacifist run, they don't even need the Fight command at all(though you can still use it and get pacifist as long as you don't kill the monsters, presumably to prevent punishing accidents). The game berates players that killing monsters, because the setting is treating those deaths with much of the weight of killing an actual person. Someone is dead because of the player's actions. Possibly it was in self-defense, which is understandable, but it does mean the player didn't try for a better outcome and answered violence with violence.

[hkmaly 490]

22 hours ago, Drasvin said:

As for the question of why to not kill Undine, why should you kill Undine? Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence.

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

[The Old Hack 2,506]

50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

Some of mine did. I still exist.

[Vorlonagent 442]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

In my mind this is as it ought to be.  Hope for the best (resolve the boar situation without loss of human or animal life) and act on it. 

but plan for the worst, in this case pack an elephant gun.  I don't think a shotgun would have done the job with a single shot at anything besides point blank range, which Raven was not at.  Boars are really bloody-minded creatures.

[hkmaly 490]

30 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

Some of mine did. I still exist.

Not many of them, I would assume. Or they were close ancestors.

Considering you are Danish, you are likely to have lot of vikings between ancestors, aren't you? Those weren't exactly known for their pacifism.

(Although ... considering WHEN was the gold age of vikings, I might have as many of them between my ancestors as you do. I mean, it's 30 generations and Europe isn't that big ... especially considering the fact vikings sailed around most of it.)

13 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

In my mind this is as it ought to be.  Hope for the best (resolve the boar situation without loss of human or animal life) and act on it. 

but plan for the worst, in this case pack an elephant gun.

Yes. And I didn't played the game, but someone trying to kill me with magic spears doesn't look like "the best" ...

[The Old Hack 2,506]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Not many of them, I would assume. Or they were close ancestors.

Considering you are Danish, you are likely to have lot of vikings between ancestors, aren't you? Those weren't exactly known for their pacifism.

Not solely. My father's side of the family came from Russia. I have mentioned that they were refugees.

And there is a difference between pacifism and merely being reluctant to kill when there is no need to. It is possible to defend oneself nonlethally. I have done so myself. An ancient martial technique called 'running away.' Admittedly it is not flashy but it can be quite effective. There are other methods too, including but not limited to responding with no more force than is needed to end the threat. This may be done without necessarily ending a life, though it is a risk one always takes when employing force. (In that regard, running is better as a nonlethal response. The biggest risk to the enemy is if they suffer from a heart attack trying to run you down, in which case I wash my hands of responsibility.)

[Drasvin 123]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

What about farmers and potters and masons and smiths and weavers? And all the other common civilian occupations from the days of yore? These people aren't guards or soldiers (except when conscripted and torn away from their lives, often given rapid training in the simplest of arms) and often depend on the guards and soldiers to defend them from threats and to keep the peace.

I can understand fighting and even killing if one has to, but if one doesn't have to, they shouldn't. Get away and contact the police or such. The topic of Fighting versus Running and Hiding has been on my mind a lot as my work has been teaching the employees what to do in an active shooter situation and is even planning on having a drill on it soon.

[ijuin 603]

The possibility of running away also depends on the attacker's motivation in attacking you. If the attacker is merely defending his territory/patrol route from intruders, then he probably won't pursue you. On the other hand, if he has "wants you dead" as a high priority, then your only chance to escape without disabling/harming him is to get him to lose track of your location.

[The Old Hack 2,506]

43 minutes ago, ijuin said:

The possibility of running away also depends on the attacker's motivation in attacking you. If the attacker is merely defending his territory/patrol route from intruders, then he probably won't pursue you. On the other hand, if he has "wants you dead" as a high priority, then your only chance to escape without disabling/harming him is to get him to lose track of your location.

Or tiring him out?

My main point is: I refute this ridiculous assertation that 'kill or be killed' is the only method that works. Inside the same species there tends to be several ways a confrontation may be resolved. Fight, flight, posture and submission. The same goes for humans, to a large degree. Have you ever seen a burgeoning fight where one side clenches their fists and the other responds by throwing up their hands and saying, "Hey, I didn't want a fight!"? I have. Several times.

In fact, I would say that actually resolving every fight with killing would be contrasurvival. You very quickly get an awfully shallow gene pool that way...

[banneret 45]

I concur, there are ways and ways of surviving and thriving, and as social creatures with a wide range of communication methods and decent powers of calculation, fatal force should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, there is a lot of violence in recorded history, but it is abundantly clear that more violence is practiced than strictly warranted.

[hkmaly 490]

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

My father's side of the family came from Russia. I have mentioned that they were refugees.

... so, Genghis Khan or one of his soldiers might be between your ancestors as well?

(I mean, they certainly did attacked Russia ...)

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

What about farmers and potters and masons and smiths and weavers?

... well, originally I was referring to time period before smiths. Although ...

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

except when conscripted and torn away from their lives, often given rapid training in the simplest of arms

... I think that finding a straight line of ancestors who managed to avoid all wars even after year 1 would be hard.

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Get away and contact the police or such. The topic of Fighting versus Running and Hiding has been on my mind a lot as my work has been teaching the employees what to do in an active shooter situation and is even planning on having a drill on it soon.

My point was that we are spoiled by society we lives in. Of course, today it makes much more sense to contact police, especially considering how badly are common people trained to fight AND how easy contacting police is since the cellphones. But it used to be very different.

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In fact, I would say that actually resolving every fight with killing would be contrasurvival. You very quickly get an awfully shallow gene pool that way...

Fight inside your group, sure. Fight outside your group? Well, you aren't so likely to benefit from genes from outside your group, are you?

Is Undine even your species?

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

My main point is: I refute this ridiculous assertation that 'kill or be killed' is the only method that works.

You generally have some options before you get into the "kill or be killed" situation. First, you can escape, if the space is open enough and you are fast enough. You can negotiate (talk). And if the space is not open enough and enemy is not open to negotiation, you can try to use force but not kill - but at this point, you should accept that it can end up with killing the enemy. Especially if you have little or no experience with how to fight without killing. If you will try to make sure enemy will survive, then you failed to make sure you survive.

14 hours ago, banneret said:

I concur, there are ways and ways of surviving and thriving, and as social creatures with a wide range of communication methods and decent powers of calculation, fatal force should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, there is a lot of violence in recorded history, but it is abundantly clear that more violence is practiced than strictly warranted.

The main reason that more violence is practised than warranted is that the violence is applied on incorrect people. For example, common soldiers instead of politicians who send them to fight. But this is also historically new: before invention of politics, the tribe leaders WERE part of the fight, and often in the front.

 

[The Old Hack 2,506]

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

My point was that we are spoiled by society we lives in.

*groans* Not THIS again. Look, Robert E. Howard wrote some cool fantasy books, but the entire POINT of society -- any society -- is banding together for mutual protection. This notion of an ancient barbarian world where men were men and could stand tall and proud in their loincloths whilst in the middle of a howling blizzard, holding their swords aloft in one hand and the severed head of an effete virgin-sacrificing sorcerer in the other, a just barely not-sacrificed virgin clinging to their leg, may all be well and good but it has very, very little to do with reality.

If you look at history and take a close look at the bits that don't get as much attention as the others -- that is, the boring bits without war in them -- you will see long stretches of time in which hunters hunted, farmers farmed and (eventually) craftsmen crafted. They certainly didn't walk around killing one another on a daily basis. In fact, it was even hard to kill one another if you didn't have a good weapon, and weapons might well be frowned on by society or monopolised by whatever ruling power held it together.

These days it is appallingly easy to kill. Even in societies where firearms are controlled, nearly any adult can become a lethal killer just by taking the wheel in a car. Drive half a ton of automobile into someone at sixty kilometers per hour and see how good they look afterwards. Or you can go to a hardware store and buy a good steel steak knife. How available were these some three thousand years ago? The answer is: not very.

But let's totally drop the 'society that turns us into effete civilised people' and look at some ten thousand years ago. Did people kill one another back then? Sure they did, but murder was still an aberration. Normally fighting only led to someone giving up. But even if you wanted to kill someone, this was actually hard work and might take time -- and the other members of your band of hunter-gatherers might well be spoilsports and try to stop you.

Remember the movements of tribes a few thousand years ago? Some three thousand years ago a bunch of bloody immigrant refugees arrived in Denmark and immediately started to act like they owned the place. Why did they do that? Well, the main reason was that they had lived somewhere else and then been forced to relocate when another bunch of people moved in where they used to live. Note that phrase -- FORCED TO RELOCATE. That's not quite the same as being systematically killed. Anyway, these buggers (my ancestors on my mother's side) took over, absorbed the less technologically advanced tribe that used to run the place and started to establish an agrarian culture.

And that agrarian culture turned out to be pretty boring, all about getting harvests in and very little about killing one another for fun on the weekends. How effete they must have been, what has the world come to.

[hkmaly 490]

15 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

is banding together for mutual protection

Mutual. People were generally expected to help with protecting the community, when the need arise. They prayed it won't happen, sure, but they couldn't rely on professionals arriving in minutes if necessary.

16 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

a just barely not-sacrificed virgin clinging to their leg

... barely not-sacrificed no-longer-virgin, more likely ...

17 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

you will see long stretches of time in which hunters hunted, farmers farmed and (eventually) craftsmen crafted

The thing about long stretches of time is that you can easily find multiple things in them.

19 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

In fact, it was even hard to kill one another if you didn't have a good weapon, and weapons might well be frowned on by society or monopolised by whatever ruling power held it together.

It's surprising how many tools not only common, but necessary for hunters, farmers and craftsmen are acceptable-level weapons. Although ...

22 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

These days it is appallingly easy to kill. Even in societies where firearms are controlled, nearly any adult can become a lethal killer just by taking the wheel in a car. Drive half a ton of automobile into someone at sixty kilometers per hour and see how good they look afterwards. Or you can go to a hardware store and buy a good steel steak knife. How available were these some three thousand years ago? The answer is: not very.

... it's true that todays tools are much more effective in killing. Like the mentioned car. (I don't think steel steak knife is that more effective in killing the first person compared to less advanced knife. Sure, it will stay sharp longer, if you plan to kill more people ...)

In fact ... maybe the current society trying so hard to convince people to not kill is NECESSARY reaction to how easy would be to kill someone ...

29 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Note that phrase -- FORCED TO RELOCATE. That's not quite the same as being systematically killed.

Sure not systematically. I still find quite likely there was some killing before the people felt forced enough.

31 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

took over, absorbed the less technologically advanced tribe

... which might involved killing some people who didn't liked it ...

But if your point is that conflicts were generally solved without one side being eradicated, then yes, true.

Nice example is that after Trojan War, the Trojan survivors escaped to Italy and later founded Rome. Some Greeks might've regret they weren't more systematic later ...