Why protect the children? (In Armageddon)

[Brokkr]

Why protect the children?

You get your small, blue-eyed baby from your sandcloth padded wrapping.

You take a bite from a small, blue-eyed baby.

They are more delicious when not bruised.

Love, strangely, still exists.
Human decency still exists.
Elf decency detests that you just killed something they could have sold.
Fear that if you do that to children, what are you going to do them exists.

Myriad perspectives give rise to conflict and that isn't necessarily bad.*

*I mean, you could think that babies didn't taste delicious.  And then we would have to engineer you eating your own, just to show you that is not the case.  It is simple dwarven decency to do so.

[MeTekillot]

I'd say an elf's capacity for love outweighs a human's capacity for love, but only applied to their tribe.

[Riev]

Fear that if you do that to children, what are you going to do them exists.

I was actually going to post this earlier but couldn't word it well. More along the lines of:

If you're willing to kill kids that did nothing, what are you going to do to me? Maybe you should be put down before you become a problem.

[Thomoto]

Fear that if you do that to children, what are you going to do them exists.

I was actually going to post this earlier but couldn't word it well. More along the lines of:

If you're willing to kill kids that did nothing, what are you going to do to me? Maybe you should be put down before you become a problem.



I see what your saying. Adding on, Murderer x kills kid y, that thus gives you ic reason to your character to kill the the killer and to give an excuse. I didn't care but someone did.

[Namino]

I feel like everyone is jumping on the convoluted answer. Yes, some people will use you killing a kid as an excuse to remove you as their rival by killing you. Some people will extort you for killing a kid, or will do so out of self preservation because they extrapolate what you did to a kid to them.

But I think they're a minority.

As Brokkr said, human decency still exists.

I think if you obliterate a child in the street and a person rocks up onto you and nuclear dunks your ass, Occam's Razor dictates that it is because that person had a sense of right and wrong and believed you violated it enough to deserve punishment from the universe in the form of their mighty thews. Just like on Earth.

Just because it's Zalanthas and things are rough does not mean humans do not feel a sense of social morality and are not willing to stamp out baby murderers.

[kahuna]

Why wouldn't the great majority of the population feel that an innocent child being murdered is wrong and should be penalized harshly? Of course there are exceptions to this rule but the vast majority of civilizations, tribes, cities, etc. would probably feel this way. There is a reason people have children and yes maybe they sell them into slavery but that is hardly akin to homicide which by the way in every city remains one of the worst laws you can break and for good reason. I can't think of any reason why children wouldn't as valued in this fantasy world as they are historically on earth in Mesopotamia, Babylon, Rome, or any other civilization. 

[Thomoto]

Why wouldn't the great majority of the population feel that an innocent child being murdered is wrong and should be penalized harshly? Of course there are exceptions to this rule but the vast majority of civilizations, tribes, cities, etc. would probably feel this way. There is a reason people have children and yes maybe they sell them into slavery but that is hardly akin to homicide which by the way in every city remains one of the worst laws you can break and for good reason. I can't think of any reason why children wouldn't as valued in this fantasy world as they are historically on earth in Mesopotamia, Babylon, Rome, or any other civilization.

Welcome to Armageddon!

[Lizzie]

Why wouldn't the great majority of the population feel that an innocent child being murdered is wrong and should be penalized harshly? Of course there are exceptions to this rule but the vast majority of civilizations, tribes, cities, etc. would probably feel this way. There is a reason people have children and yes maybe they sell them into slavery but that is hardly akin to homicide which by the way in every city remains one of the worst laws you can break and for good reason. I can't think of any reason why children wouldn't as valued in this fantasy world as they are historically on earth in Mesopotamia, Babylon, Rome, or any other civilization.

Why?
possible answers:

1: it's a half-elf who shouldn't have been born in the first place.
2: it's a noble's child, and heir - unless he dies, in which case this OTHER noble becomes heir.
3: a child begat of a sorcerer - superstition
4: sold into slavery and the owners decide they don't want it afterall.
5: not wanted, and can't find anyone to buy it.

[kahuna]

Why wouldn't the great majority of the population feel that an innocent child being murdered is wrong and should be penalized harshly? Of course there are exceptions to this rule but the vast majority of civilizations, tribes, cities, etc. would probably feel this way. There is a reason people have children and yes maybe they sell them into slavery but that is hardly akin to homicide which by the way in every city remains one of the worst laws you can break and for good reason. I can't think of any reason why children wouldn't as valued in this fantasy world as they are historically on earth in Mesopotamia, Babylon, Rome, or any other civilization.

Why?
possible answers:

1: it's a half-elf who shouldn't have been born in the first place.
2: it's a noble's child, and heir - unless he dies, in which case this OTHER noble becomes heir.
3: a child begat of a sorcerer - superstition
4: sold into slavery and the owners decide they don't want it afterall.
5: not wanted, and can't find anyone to buy it.

All things that would be the vast minority not the majority.
1. Half-elves are already a very low % of the population, this also doesn't account for the fact that children (regardless of race) would probably still be viewed as innocent.
2. Nobles aren't even 1% of the population, an exception to the rule as I stated before.
3. Even more rare, the child of a sorcerer. Not even going to respond to this.
4. I already addressed slavery. Just because you sell them into slavery doesn't mean you don't care about your child. You're cherry picking the circumstances.
5. People that don't want their children don't just randomly murder them unless they have some kind of mental illness, yet again the vast minority of the population.

[Dar]

There are reason why unwanted children are "left in the wild" instead of killed. Moral ambiguity swings towards the moral side occasionally as well.

[Armaddict]

Think we're kinda straying to the extreme.

Whole point isn't to make a rule for people to follow, that's why people went against the original post.

Atrocities go against kids as well as adults.  It's not a rule that people should look the other way when bad things are happening to kids.  It's not a rule that everyone will protect the young of the city.  Some people will probably downright hate that little rat-kid.  Some will think kids are annoying as shit and not give a damn if they all gets the plaguez.

Trying to defend either extreme puts you in a camp of overextending, this is a topic with loooooots of grey area in the middle for each character to rest somewhere in.  None of it is weird, all of it can fit.  Only thing 'wrong' here is telling everyone else how their character should see it.

[Hauwke]

Think we're kinda straying to the extreme.

Whole point isn't to make a rule for people to follow, that's why people went against the original post.

Atrocities go against kids as well as adults.  It's not a rule that people should look the other way when bad things are happening to kids.  It's not a rule that everyone will protect the young of the city.  Some people will probably downright hate that little rat-kid.  Some will think kids are annoying as shit and not give a damn if they all gets the plaguez.

Trying to defend either extreme puts you in a camp of overextending, this is a topic with loooooots of grey area in the middle for each character to rest somewhere in.  None of it is weird, all of it can fit.  Only thing 'wrong' here is telling everyone else how their character should see it.

Going to piggyback off of this and say that in my mind, the default, At least for Zalanthas, should be one of indifference. Don't care very much in either direction because it doesn't affect me.

Little Timmy down the road got stabbed in the throat? Eh, That sucks. Hope no one else got hurt in the scuffle.

Brother Danny got beat up while walking to devotions the other day? Might as well have some fun and beat the guy who did it up to teach him not to do that.

[Lizzie]

Agree with Armaddict.

The OP's point is there are two things he observes: some people go out of their way to protect kids. Also, the docs say "other people's" lives aren't exactly sacred, in Zalanthas.

Someone asked why anyone "would" want to harm a kid. Several of us posted some ideas on why this would happen.

Someone else asked why anyone would *not* want to harm a kid. Several of us posted some ideas on why this would happen.

Infanticide is not a universal interest in Zalanthas, but neither is the sacred trust the innocent place in the hands of adults.

[kahuna]

Think we're kinda straying to the extreme.

Whole point isn't to make a rule for people to follow, that's why people went against the original post.

Atrocities go against kids as well as adults.  It's not a rule that people should look the other way when bad things are happening to kids.  It's not a rule that everyone will protect the young of the city.  Some people will probably downright hate that little rat-kid.  Some will think kids are annoying as shit and not give a damn if they all gets the plaguez.

Trying to defend either extreme puts you in a camp of overextending, this is a topic with loooooots of grey area in the middle for each character to rest somewhere in.  None of it is weird, all of it can fit.  Only thing 'wrong' here is telling everyone else how their character should see it.

I think the point is what is the majority? Laws exist here. Murder is clearly wrong, it is against the law in every major civilization in the game for a reason. There are distinct parallels between every fantasy world and our own. If the documentation clearly states this then there is no discussion and that's exactly what docs are for. We have clear majorities in the game: Magick is feared and never trusted by the masses, stealing and murdering are wrong (or else there wouldn't be laws against it). So if we establish a norm that murder is wrong and people don't think it is okay why would it be okay for the masses/majority to think it's okay to murder children? Things such as these will always fall into the minority of civilizations because we've established these societal rules not only in our world but also in the games we play.

[kahuna]

Agree with Armaddict.

The OP's point is there are two things he observes: some people go out of their way to protect kids. Also, the docs say "other people's" lives aren't exactly sacred, in Zalanthas.

I think the great majority should and would go out of their way to protect children. Where in the docs does it say otherwise? Life most certainly is sacred especially in a world where it is so tenuous and fragile. I have no problem with people playing sociopaths or serial killers but those are the minority and those characters will not be accepted by the majority of people living within the confines of civilization.

[Lutagar]

Treating children as precious and valued isn't common, but I'd say it's not as rare as sociopaths that murder them out of boredom.

For every kid killer there's probably ten that fawn over them for no other reason than them being children.

[Lizzie]

Agree with Armaddict.

The OP's point is there are two things he observes: some people go out of their way to protect kids. Also, the docs say "other people's" lives aren't exactly sacred, in Zalanthas.

I think the great majority should and would go out of their way to protect children. Where in the docs does it say otherwise? Life most certainly is sacred especially in a world where it is so tenuous and fragile. I have no problem with people playing sociopaths or serial killers but those are the minority and those characters will not be accepted by the majority of people living within the confines of civilization.

The entire theme of the game is Murder Corruption Betrayal. Life is fleeting, there is no free lunch. From the home page:

In this harsh realm, life is a constant struggle, and death may occur over a drink of precious water.

also from the "About Armageddon" page on the website:

The world of Armageddon is known as Zalanthas. It is a harsh planet where only the fittest survive, and competition over extremely scarce resources causes constant strife, struggle, and bloodshed. [snip] Most citizens lead lives of extreme hardship, struggling to survive and get ahead. Sometimes this is accomplished by means of banding together with others, especially powerful clans and Houses, or by forging friendships or alliances with powerful individuals. At other times, people survive by climbing over anyone who gets in their way, by cheating, stealing, killing, swindling, or otherwise taking advantage of others. Many Zalanthan citizens survive just by keeping their heads down and hoping no one considers them either weak enough or threatening enough to target.

In other words - the post I wrote that you quoted, specifying that "other people's" lives aren't exactly sacred, is valid. Your life is sacred to you, but isn't to anyone who values your water, your boots, your money, your influence, your friends, your enemies, your bone sword, you fresh kill, more than they value you. And MOST people in the world - will value at least one of those things, more than they value you.

The same will be true for every being in the world of Zalanthas. Something or someone will always be more valuable than they are, and worth killing for that reason.

[kahuna]

The entire theme of the game is Murder Corruption Betrayal. Life is fleeting, there is no free lunch.

Using a tagline to make your point is a fairly weak argument. Every clan in the game offers free food and water, so yeah there is plenty of free lunch.

In other words - the post I wrote that you quoted, specifying that "other people's" lives aren't exactly sacred, is valid.
Your life is sacred to you, but isn't to anyone who values your water, your boots, your money, your influence, your friends, your enemies, your bone sword,
you fresh kill, more than they value you. And MOST people in the world - will value at least one of those things, more than they value you.

The same will be true for every being in the world of Zalanthas. Something or someone will always be more valuable than they are, and worth killing for that reason.

If what you say is true then how is it possible that the crimcode exists? If nobody cares about anybody why would citizens bother to report
crimes at all? There are communities in the world that do care for one another, there are tribes, there are organizations where people care greatly for their
families, children, lovers, brothers/sisters, comrades, etc.

Your claim that everybody is a corrupt, betraying murderer is not only absurd but goes against any semblance of common sense. Yes of course those people
exist but not every single person is like that. You would have no cities, no law or order, no organizations, tribes, families, nothing at all if everyone thought that way.

[Armaddict]

Using a tagline to make your point is a fairly weak argument.

IGNORING the tagline is a fairly weak argument as well.  You don't use a tagline that has no bearing on the game, the same way I don't advertise the meat of this deer I killed as the most delicious fruit you can get.

IGNORING the idea that bad things happen because of bad people, and people play good people and bad people and all of the spectrum in between, is missing the point of those posts, which is that reversals in standpoint on this matter can happen from character to character.

I'm not sure why you insist on hassling because people said that they could come up with reasons for their characters to not care.

Your claim that everybody is a corrupt, betraying murderer is not only absurd but goes against any semblance of common sense. Yes of course those people exist but not every single person is like that. You would have no cities, no law or order, no organizations, tribes, families, nothing at all if everyone thought that way.

The claim was not that everyone is one. The claim was that the setting of the world makes those people powerful, more common (in comparison to 'real' civilized societies), and often accepted into the overall theme of the game.

The reverse claim, that no one should care, or that everyone should be child-murderers, or okay with child-murderers, was already addressed.

[Heade]

People are taking the idea that "life is cheap" to an extreme level here. People are still people, and they still experience the entire range of human emotion, including compassion. Consider Zalanthas much like earth might be in a zombie apocalypse. People will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to survive because resources are scarce and law isn't universal. People will suffer horrible tragedies, but yet, there will still be people who show compassion for others, particularly the defenseless, like children.

[ShaLeah]

Liz, I love you, but a kid isn't an asset until it's old enough to speak clearly, obey and follow directions.  We're talking at least 4 yrs of complete and utter parasitic behavior before DONDE kind of return/income can be established.


1 of my characters murdered her infant immediately after giving birth.
Another had her lover help her abort the child of a krathi ex lover.

It depends on the character. As people have said, we experience the human range of emotions. 


Higher ups wouldn't give a fuck about a commoner's kid being murdered... unless that commoner is of use to the higher up, or someone paid him to care.


For me it'd be MORE normal on Zalanthans to NOT wanna breed when you're common and unaffiliated or worse, a realllllll down on your knees foraging midden heaps for food. It makes no sense to bring another into this world when you can barely survive yourself.  And yet look at those 3rd world countries. Ensuring the survival of the species is an instinct for some. It's no different on Zalanthas I would think.


I think it's important to realize that what's ATROCITY here in the real world is COMPLETELY NORMAL on Zalanthas. Walking past the corpse pile and grabbing a pair of boots is normal.  Grabbing a pair of boots off a dead child on the pile should be too. WTF cares how it got there except the people involved? No one.

We, collectively, don't get to decide that though. That's kinda personal.

Most of my tribals are breeders.
Most of my city folk ain't.
AlLL of my sponsored roles are because it MIGHT be required of marriage and children are bartering material.  Sweet-Di was going to breed Borsail a kid. Axhimas had a kid for her cousin that couldn't have one.

Armageddon documentation tells you the mindset and setting.  The norm. 

There is nothing normal about murderer though, even in a place where it happens all the time.

Add this to the things to think about before making a character.

[LindseyBalboa]

My take: Even on Zalanthas, children are the future. Animals are there to fuck, breed, and kill, and people are no exception. There isn't a human culture that doesn't put its own emphasis on how best to raise children for the betterment of that culture. It doesn't seem that strange to me that culturally the general slope would be toward protection of or caring about the next wave of people.

That isn't to say if someone is hungry they won't backstab a child and sell the body for a few sid.