End the geno/xenocidal assault on a sentient species

[SergMx]

First one has to agree on the definition of evil, surely?

Well I kind of play Elite and kind of commander (I'm a member of the Pilot's Federation, and I get a reward for every bug I kill from the Pilot's Federation) inside the game so my position is clear : good Beetle - dead Beetle !

If I were playing the game on the side of the Beetles, i.e. as a traitor to all humanity, then yes, my concept of evil would be different.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Well I kind of play Elite and kind of commander (I'm a member of the Pilot's Federation, and I get a reward for every bug I kill from the Pilot's Federation) inside the game so my position is clear : good Beetle - dead Beetle !

If I were playing the game on the side of the Beetles, i.e. as a traitor to all humanity, then yes, my concept of evil would be different.

I kill anything, bugs, innocents, pirates, wipe out lawful settlements just because I can.

I'm not evil, you understand, not by my metric, rather cleansing the galaxy, bit by bit, of the parasites that inhabit it...

Other humans may not see my actions in the same light, of course!

 

[SergMx]

I kill anything, bugs, innocents, pirates, wipe out lawful settlements just because I can.

I'm not evil, you understand, not by my metric, rather cleansing the galaxy, bit by bit, of the parasites that inhabit it...

Other humans may not see my actions in the same light, of course!

I have it easier, I'm a mercenary in the game, where I get paid is where I go. I can kill, I can drive, etc.
I've never even flown to Colony since I don't get paid for it.

 

[Rainbro]

It's not about what they said and couldn't agree on. Not talking at all doesn't change the point.
One species was at war with the Thargoids.
The other species (us) is at war with the Thargoids.
Isn't that enough for you? You need a third species to also fight the Thargoids and only then you will admit that the Thargoids are evil? Or do you need five more?

That doesn't make sense at all, though. You're concluding that the Thargoids are evil based on just the fact that the Thargoids have existed long enough to come into contact with multiple races.

Imagine, in a galaxy far far away, Species A. They're the most objectively moral force in the universe. Years ago, they're forced into a war with Species B, who want to drink their brains. Years later, after species B has wiped themselves out, they're forced into a war with Species C who want to nuke their homes for fun.

So, using this logic: 2 species have fought with Species A, but only 1 has fought with B and C. Therefore, A is evil. I think it should be obvious that the actual circumstances of each conflict matter a great deal more than the number of conflicts - or else humanity is pretty screwed just for the amount of infighting we've had. Is a trader evil if they have like 5 pirates coming after them one after the other?

 

[Leadfoot]

I would like to point something out here that I remember from long time ago when they were first introduced:

FD did mention that how we react to them will determine how they react to us.

 

[Jmanis]

I would like to point something out here that I remember from long time ago when they were first introduced:

FD did mention that how we react to them will determine how they react to us.

I'd couch that ever so slightly in a different light: People will play games using the mechanics as-presented to them.

Nobody plays games to, well, not play games, but that was the option presented:

• Go shoot these guns at Thargoids; or
• Don't do anything with this new content and just go back to flipping systems with the BGS

There's never been any other choice... and it's a no brainer that players chose "interact with the new content", where the only option of interact === shoot at them.

 

[SergMx]

So, using this logic: 2 species have fought with Species A, but only 1 has fought with B and C. Therefore, A is evil.

That's right. A has double aggression on both B and C.
B and C have single aggression, only on A. 2 > 1.
A is evil! It's all logical ... human

 

[Greasetrap42]

That's right. A has double aggression on both B and C.
B and C have single aggression, only on A. 2 > 1.
A is evil! It's all logical ... human

Using this logic, IRL police officers are evil because they keep engaging in conflict.

A kid at school being regularly bullied by various people must be the must be the bad person, because they keep getting in conflict.

I'm not sure this line of reasoning makes any sense.

 

[Yure]

I always feel like ED is a psycho-social experiment. Would players wipe another race because they can't understand them (2nd Thargoid War)? Will players support an immoral cause because the rewards are better (CGs)? Will players waste days of their life searching for something that they don't know is somewhere or nowhere (exploration)?

And it always feels like the game is rigged or the experiment is made to get the results they want...

 

[Greasetrap42]

I always feel like ED is a psycho-social experiment. Would players wipe another race because they can't understand them (2nd Thargoid War)? Will players support an immoral cause because the rewards are better (CGs)? Will players waste days of their life searching for something that they don't know is somewhere or nowhere (exploration)?

Will players repeatedly do something immoral ingame because it is "just a video game"? The NPCs being affected don't matter, they aren't real humans. They are far from being actual humans. It is being encouraged, there are no laws against it, I am getting rewarded, and everybody else is doing it, so it is okay. And the more I do my status increases.

Edit: Similar excuses have been use historically IRL, which is very awful. A justification that we can treat others however we wish because "they aren't human".

You are right. Excellent social experiment.

 

[Rainbro]

That's right. A has double aggression on both B and C.
B and C have single aggression, only on A. 2 > 1.
A is evil! It's all logical ... human

But A was never the aggressor in this scenario. Under this logic, the only moral races would be ones that are strictly pacifist and then promptly get wiped out upon contact with another race that aren't pacificsts. Can't have multiple conflicts if you never make it past the first one, I guess?

But then again, even this standard doesn't apply to humanity or indeed any race we have knowledge of, so it doesn't seem particularly useful for determining who's right here.

 

[Jmanis]

Will players repeatedly do something immoral ingame because it is "just a video game"? The NPCs being affected don't matter, they aren't real humans. They are far from being actual humans. It is being encouraged, there are no laws against it, I am getting rewarded, and everybody else is doing it, so it is okay. And the more I do my status increases.

You are right. Excellent social experiment.

.... *goes back to playing Rimworld where.... y'know what... describing what I'm doing there is probably a forum infraction...

 

[Yure]

But A was never the aggressor in this scenario. Under this logic, the only moral races would be ones that are strictly pacifist and then promptly get wiped out upon contact with another race that aren't pacificsts. Can't have multiple conflicts if you never make it past the first one, I guess?

But then again, even this standard doesn't apply to humanity or indeed any race we have knowledge of, so it doesn't seem particularly useful for determining who's right here.

A mama bear charging because you are near it's cub is still aggressive. A polar bear attacking a human just because you are possibly nutritious and you are in its territory is still aggressive.

Animals do as animals do. There is no good and evil in the animal kingdom. There might be empathy and attachments in the animal kingdom, but they turn on each other if it suits them for mating or resources. Good and evil is a higher level being construct. We rate acts as moral or immoral based on our own ethics value system. Lacking that value system you are left with a reason based system or a primal based system. All three systems have their flaws, but humans are willing to self-sacrifice when it least makes reason or for their own self interest. This has led to the worst in humanity and the best in humanity.

Which do you think Thargoids fall under... Are they just primal beasts without thought or reason for anything other than resources and territory? Or are they machine that will extinguish us because we are a threat and can only become a bigger threat in the future? Or do they use reason and their actions are based within the left and right limits of their moral compass?

If they are of primal instincts, then we have no other choice than to cull the threat and potentially start a conservation program. If they are machine intelligence we have no other choice then to proceed in slaughtering and reserve engineer their technology so that we may again technological supremacy so as they do not become a threat any longer. If they are beings or reasons guided by morals... then their morals are lacking by most decent people standards... but at least in this category they can be persuaded to a more peaceful resolution.

 

[Rainbro]

A mama bear charging because you are near it's cub is still aggressive. A polar bear attacking a human just because you are possibly nutritious and you are in its territory is still aggressive.

Animals do as animals do. There is no good and evil in the animal kingdom. There might be empathy and attachments in the animal kingdom, but they turn on each other if it suits them for mating or resources. Good and evil is a higher level being construct. We rate acts as moral or immoral based on our own ethics value system. Lacking that value system you are left with a reason based system or a primal based system. All three systems have their flaws, but humans are willing to self-sacrifice when it least makes reason or for their own self interest. This has led to the worst in humanity and the best in humanity.

I don't see how this has any relation to what was being discussed. Are you suggesting that the Thargoids aren't "higher level beings" and so can't make moral decisions? I'd have to disagree on that, but even that would have little bearing on if humans are in the right, it'd just shield the Thargoids from any accusations of evil or whatever. So I'm not sure what this accomplishes, unless the position is that humans have a god-given right to do whatever the hell they like as long as its not against another human. I would also disagree with that.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

I kill anything, bugs, innocents, pirates, wipe out lawful settlements just because I can.

IIRC, that is the very definition of genocidal sociopathy.

If you do not perform the actions you have mentioned IRL, then it means that your in-game character is an opposite to your IRL self, or maybe just an unrestrained version of it.

This seem to indicate that you do know the difference between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, based on societal definitions but, in-game, you don't care to steer your behavior through those definitions, therefore you act in ED according to the genocidal sociopathic way.

IMO, the words you write are obviously sarcastic or representative only of your in-game character, not yourself.

I'm not evil, you understand, not by my metric, rather cleansing the galaxy, bit by bit, of the parasites that inhabit it...

Eerily similar speech to some historical genocidal maniacs...

Other humans may not see my actions in the same light, of course!

I would counterpoint, that neither does your IRL persona...

 

[SergMx]

That's weird.
Why is there no mention of the Pilot Federation and the reward for killing the Thargoids?
I play the game according to the rules of the people who created the game. Are you suggesting we ignore those rules?

 

[Rainbro]

That's weird.
Why is there no mention of the Pilot Federation and the reward for killing the Thargoids?
I play the game according to the rules of the people who created the game. Are you suggesting we ignore those rules?

Because "someone is willing to pay me money to do this" is a really poor indicator of ethics.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

I'd couch that ever so slightly in a different light: People will play games using the mechanics as-presented to them.

Nobody plays games to, well, not play games, but that was the option presented:

• Go shoot these guns at Thargoids; or
• Don't do anything with this new content and just go back to flipping systems with the BGS

There's never been any other choice... and it's a no brainer that players chose "interact with the new content", where the only option of interact === shoot at them.

Very much this.

 

[Yure]

I was editing to add content that you might have missed. Went longer than I thought it would.

But in short if they are animals and they would continue their acts of aggression until we are neutralized or we neutralize them or discourage them to continue this path.

If they are machine intelligence which they only consider the best likely outcome EVER, they will continue to attempt to extinguish us and therefore we must extinguish them.

If they are beings of reasons their moral compass is broken and either we must fix it to make peace or we must neutralize them. Now what I mean by moral compass broken in terms of Thargoids is that they have chosen not to communicate. For some reason they see this as a better strategy than just out right sending representatives to all the empires and independent worlds. I see this as morally wrong. If you want peace you have to communicate in some fashion that both parties can understand. We obviously can't understand their wants by way of lights so... They are going to have to binary it out since they obviously know binary of sorts.

 

[SergMx]

Because "someone is willing to pay me money to do this" is a really poor indicator of ethics.

I'm a mercenary in the game.

Someone pointed out what evil means. Basically, yes, we are judged by earthly standards. Maybe by Thargoid standards, we're saving them.