Change "Kill" Text for Dragons and Hatchlings

[Missing_NO]

Honestly, i am 100% for changing that texte, simply because lore whise it dosn't make sens :

Tamed or not i have a lot of difficulty to imagine someone killing a dragon with a knife, adults usualy having thick skin/scales and element attributed to them. Being highly intelligent, i feel like most dragons would catch up and flee/attack before they could get too enjured. I can somwhat imagine a pigmy or hatcheling being killed with a knife but a large dragon, one that can dwarf a house, nope, at least not without them agreeing to it for some raisons. So realy, to me, the message of betrail not only dosn't work with the lore but make the whole thing look out of place when looking at all the others interactions.

 

Somthing more neutral would fit better with the tone of the game and is already happening with the chicken : "You stab the chicken and roast it over a fire." Dont get me wrong here, i dont mean to use the same texte, this would be ridiculous, but there isn't all the guilt trip part that come when killing a dragon yet their growth process are the same from what i know. And before someone tell me that it's differents because it's a farm animal, yes, but multiples speacies of dragons are mentioned as being hunted for their scales/parts so, again lore whise, there is an inconsistency in the way killing is writen. 

[HeatherMarie]

3 minutes ago, Missing_NO said:

Honestly, i am 100% for changing that texte, simply because lore whise it dosn't make sens :

Tamed or not i have a lot of difficulty to imagine someone killing a dragon with a knife, adults usualy having thick skin/scales and element attributed to them. Being highly intelligent, i feel like most dragons would catch up and flee/attack before they could get too enjured. I can somwhat imagine a pigmy or hatcheling being killed with a knife but a large dragon, one that can dwarf a house, nope, at least not without them agreeing to it for some raisons. So realy, to me, the message of betrail not only dosn't work with the lore but make the whole thing look out of place when looking at all the others interactions.

 

This, imo, is the *best* argument for why the text should be changed. Rather than debate over whether it's 'punishment', whether players are too sensitive or should just look away, whatever, *this* shows that, according to the game itself, the text as it stands just doesn't make sense. We shouldn't be *able* to kill many of our larger hardier breeds with a puny knife. Unless it's an enchanted knife, or something, which is not what the text says. (Is it a knife? It says 'blade', maybe it's a sword. Still shouldn't be strong enough for some of the hardier breeds.)

[Keileon]

Again, even if it is some uber powerful magical sword, the dragon should not dodge and then immediately go about its day like nothing happened.

[random_dragon_collector]

Actually, you can easily kill it with a puny knife if it trusts you so much that you can get close enough to something vital.  ***sniff sniff that is NOT water in my eyes***

Therefore, knife and betrayal go together.

[Keileon]

I mean, theoretically you can just roleplay that you're playing Five Finger Filet but with the dragon's neck, and it dodging is it actually being good at the game, but I think that's a stretch lol

[Fuzzbucket]

8 hours ago, Shadowdrake said:

@olympe why are you so vehemently against this? You said it yourself that you never kill things so I cannot possibly see how you'd be affected by a small text adjustment to make something more accessible.

 

I've been wondering that. If it's not OK to change the text to help those genuinely troubled by it, and your argument is that all you need to do is not kill to avoid seeing it - surely, as you don't kill, you won't see any new version anyway, the same applies ?

[Starscream]

I think the text is doing just as it should be doing, making you feel bad.. You are killing it. Although, yes its a pixel game. You should really think about why this action is being taken. I always feel pangs of guilt when I drive my dagger into the dragon in my wild attempt to get a zombie, but I accept this. I also feel this way when I have to personally kill my food - which I do rarely. How should the wording be done to make you feel better. you lovingly harvest your dragon, you put your dragon into an everlasing sleep, You cull your dragon crop. As an empath, I fully get the guilt concept - which is remarkable that I'm still an omnivore, but maybe there is a solution to ensure its seen for what it is and not so brutal. Your Dragon Cave Scroll is a different persona?

 

Admittedly, I look at killing for zombies, not as myself but as my name's persona. He's Starscream, He's a Decepticon, lets say for Dragcave sake, he's been mind transferred into a human form. But my character is evil, my character is murderous and does what he does - he's also vain - and he does that sort of thing, guilt free.

 

So maybe the compromise solution could be in the form of a sort of mood switch added to settings to change the type of message you receive  - and it could be for any BSA or Action as well. This sort of setting could be added when a user creates a scroll for the first time.

 

Good/Kind - Messages are softened to seem less guilt inducing. Could be putting a dragon to sleep. Or something as Action, success or Action Fail

Neutral/Default - Messages remain as they are.

Evil/Unkind - Messages a little darker. You Stand back, satisfied, as your dragon drains of life.

 

Its the only thing I can think of that can appeal to both camps.

 

 

the culling came from watching stargate atlantis all week.

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Starscream

[Fuzzbucket]

"Your dragon dies" works for me.

[olympe]

15 hours ago, Shadowdrake said:

@olympe why are you so vehemently against this? You said it yourself that you never kill things so I cannot possibly see how you'd be affected by a small text adjustment to make something more accessible.

I actually stated that I used to own three zombies. Used to. So, yes, I totally know the kill message, and I know how it affects me. It's why I don't use the kill action any more and don't collect zombies at all. It's a choice I made because of the message, and I'm very much fine with it. Because it's my choice. A choice that's open to everyone else, too. As well as ignoring the message or whatever floats your boat.

 

15 hours ago, MissK. said:

 

Who says it is on purpose? Perhaps it is an accident, a spell gone wrong while trying to do something else. Perhaps the dragon isn't in good health to begin with and the scroll owner is trying to help, but something goes tragically wrong. 

 

I don't do lore in the slightest, and don't personally care about the kill message, yet I can come up with several possibilities as to how killing a dragon would not necessarily be intentional or malicious. I don't see any downsides to a more neutral text, preferably one that addresses the somewhat silly notion of stabbing a dragon to death. 

 

The reason I think the kill text seems out of place for a lot of people is that it's simply antiquated; as has been mentioned already the game used to be a lot more negative towards killing, and such an attempt to guilt trip the users was probably a means of discouraging it that made sense at the time. By now we are instead getting brand new awesome zombie sprites and collecting them is much more widespread and acceptable. We even have a whole different sprite for Aegis based on dead things, and a whole new BSA to get rid of zombies since they're not considered permanent reminders of the 'evils' we have committed anymore. I think the text should be modified to reflect that. 

Hitting the link to an action named "kill" and confirming it via password or action name is very much on purpose. You must have a really bad day if this happens as an accident. Also, our "user spells" don't have a fail rate for a reason: No accidental killing here. Also, an Aegis can change even with an accidental kill, think Vampire bite gone wrong or result of viewbombing.

 

As to why I'm against changing the description, it feels to me like sugarcoating things about killing or even glorifying it. Which is not something I'm comfortable with.

Edited October 4, 2020 by olympe

[Fuzzbucket]

Clicking kill and getting a message that "your dragon dies" isn't exactly glorifying.

[Pilauli]

It sounds like Olympe and Starscream think facing the kill message should be part of killing, to ensure that people take it seriously?

 

The trouble is that even if you think that should be the way it works, then people feel different about the kill message, and so it feels to me like it's unfairly penalizing the people who actually care about the kill message.

 

And yes, none of the proposals for blanket kill text we've had here are glorifying it.  A mercy kill option sounds almost concerning, but "your dragon dies", "you stab the dragon, then watch the light leave its eyes", or "you kill the dragon with a powerful magic spell"... they just don't say anything about morality.  They let you read your own morals into it.

 

Everyone already knows that killing is wrong.  Every DC player knows that you can only use the kill action to kill 5 dragons per 2 weeks.  If that doesn't say "don't go on a killing spree", I don't know what does.

 

None of the other ways of killing dragons in DC come with a this is wrong and you are cruel message, even if they would be objectively more cruel, so if anything, we should tone down the kill action's message so as to avoid encouraging people to fog their hatchlings to death.  (Since, again, there's no way for DC to tell the difference between deliberate and accidental death-by-fog.)

[Fuzzbucket]

16 minutes ago, Pilauli said:

It sounds like Olympe and Starscream think facing the kill message should be part of killing, to ensure that people take it seriously?

 

The trouble is that even if you think that should be the way it works, then people feel different about the kill message, and so it feels to me like it's unfairly penalizing the people who actually care about the kill message.

 

And yes, none of the proposals for blanket kill text we've had here are glorifying it.  A mercy kill option sounds almost concerning, but "your dragon dies", "you stab the dragon, then watch the light leave its eyes", or "you kill the dragon with a powerful magic spell"... they just don't say anything about morality.  They let you read your own morals into it.

 

Everyone already knows that killing is wrong.  Every DC player knows that you can only use the kill action to kill 5 dragons per 2 weeks.  If that doesn't say "don't go on a killing spree", I don't know what does.

 

None of the other ways of killing dragons in DC come with a this is wrong and you are cruel message, even if they would be objectively more cruel, so if anything, we should tone down the kill action's message so as to avoid encouraging people to fog their hatchlings to death.  (Since, again, there's no way for DC to tell the difference between deliberate and accidental death-by-fog.)

 

This. It doesn't act as much of a deterrent if I - a life-long pacifist who can't even finish killing the mouse my cat had half killed - actually LIKE the current message. (But I think it should be changed, just the same.)

[MissK.]

5 hours ago, olympe said:

 

Hitting the link to an action named "kill" and confirming it via password or action name is very much on purpose. You must have a really bad day if this happens as an accident. Also, our "user spells" don't have a fail rate for a reason: No accidental killing here. Also, an Aegis can change even with an accidental kill, think Vampire bite gone wrong or result of viewbombing.

 

I did not mean anyone would use the action accidentally, or that any other action would result in death (obviously as that is not at all a chance right now, nor should it be). You asked for reasons to end a dragon's life and I gave a few examples. The only reason you presume that it is a purposeful, malicious kill is the current text, which is exactly what people are proposing to change. With a more neutral message in place there are actually several good reasons that a dragon might have been killed, which provides a lot more opportunities lore-wise for people who care about that sort of thing. I don't think it's sugar coating to simply state the facts, just like the egg killing text - you smash the egg, the creature dies. Nobody is saying it's a good thing.

[milo]

Hey y'all! In the hopes of having less redundant posts and arguments, I've looked through the thread and compiled the basic points for each side (pro and anti text change). I tried my best to present all of the arguments below while setting aside my personal opinions. This is long, but the main arguments are all in bold.

 

PRO (change the kill text)

• Accommodate and include players who are more affected by the message
  • Some people want to collect zombie sprites but are particularly hurt by the flavor text. 
  • While the text is supposed to signal that killing is canonically discouraged in the DC universe, the current text is only punishing those who are sensitive to it. Others find the text amusing, too melodramatic to take seriously, or easy to skip. It is unfair that it is only 'punishing' a certain part of the player base. Changing it would make the game more universally accessible. 
• Consistency with the tone and moral neutrality of other flavor text

  • Other kill text, while sometimes descriptive, doesn’t signal moral values. The current text is "extremely out of place compared to other text."

  • The current kill text assumes the players characters' intentions and codes them as evil even though the player-character could have other reasons for using the kill action if the message were more neutral. 

  • The neglected text and the egg killing text have been sighted as less "guilt-trippy" examples. 

• Consistency with other kill methods
  • Fogging a hatchling to death is not penalized by the game, so the more direct kill action (which is not canonically used to make zombies, an accidental consequence of the revive action) shouldn’t be either.
• Flexibility of lore-building
  • A neutral message would invite more interpretations of the text from people with different personal lore for the kill action. 

  • The current text has “implications that negatively impact the roleplaying experience”

  • Changing the text would not stop anyone from creating their own narrative about the kill action, whether morally good or morally evil. 

• Realism
  • Changing the killing method from “stabbing” to something either nonspecific or akin to a “magical spell” makes more logical sense.
• Avoiding desensitization
  • Since DC is a sprite collection/completionist game by nature, the gameplay encourages players to "ignore" or "get over" the brutal sentiment in the kill text.
  • Asking players of all ages (and perhaps especially those who join DC at a younger age) to become desensitized to the kill message in order to collect cool sprites makes the game less pleasant. The game shouldn't inadvertently encourage desensitization.

AGAINST (keep the current kill text)

• Penalize/discourage the act of killing in-game
  • In addition to the limited kill slots and the two-week period of having a tombstone/eggshell remain on your scroll, the unpleasant flavor text helps the site signal that killing dragons is canonically wrong.
  • It is another way for the game to give “negative feedback“ or to dole out a consequence to the player for performing this canonically bad action.
  • This argument has two factions. One group seems to believe the text should make the real-life DC player (as opposed to the player character) feel bad. It is a "punishment". The other group believes that whether or not it succeeds in making the real player feel bad, the text should signal the intended value system of the game itself. 
• Discourage the act of killing in real life
  • The kill text should make real life players (as opposed to the player-character) understand that killing is wrong.
  • Neutral text would make killing seem “socially acceptable.”
• Keep zombie sprite rarity
  • Braving the kill text is part of what makes zombies valuable. If a player can't handle the text, they shouldn't have a zombie.
  • There is already an option to not see the text - don’t kill.
• Keep dramatic/interesting text
  • The neutral text is “more boring" than the current text.
• Attachment to the current text
  • Opposition to a text change because the current text is “part of the game”

Maybe before posting we can all take a skim and see if our point has already been brought up and debated. If you have something to add that is not already on this list, you should feel free to bring it up! But I think all of the core points and refutations have been made, and re-articulating them is redundant. Having complied all of these pros and cons as community, I think at this point the only thing left is for TJ to weigh in. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by milo
added a new point

[olympe]

I don't know, I feel like the neglected dragon description is pretty guilt-trippy if you read it to understand. There's mention of neglect, making the dragon in question weak and crippled. The last sentence even hints very obviously at an abusive relationship between dragon and "master".

[Keileon]

7 hours ago, olympe said:

As to why I'm against changing the description, it feels to me like sugarcoating things about killing or even glorifying it. Which is not something I'm comfortable with.

I'm sorry, in what world is the message "your dragon dies" in any way sugarcoating it? It's the bluntest, most neutral way of saying it.

[olympe]

@Keileon And that's already a lie by omission. Because the dragon didn't just die of its own, it died because of something you did. You killed it. It didn't just die.

 

And there have been suggestions to include options like "mercy killing", "suicide help" and "behavioral euthanasia" with the dragon in question being effing grateful for your "help" floating around. All for inclusion's sake, of course.

[Keileon]

2 minutes ago, olympe said:

@Keileon And that's already a lie by omission. Because the dragon didn't just die of its own, it died because of something you did. You killed it. It didn't just die.

 

And there have been suggestions to include options like "mercy killing", "suicide help" and "behavioral euthanasia" with the dragon in question being effing grateful for your "help" floating around. All for inclusion's sake, of course.

Excuse me, but what? Okay, sure, how about this. "You kill the dragon". There, no lie.

[KrazyKarp]

6 hours ago, olympe said:

 

As to why I'm against changing the description, it feels to me like sugarcoating things about killing or even glorifying it. Which is not something I'm comfortable with.

Changing it to just "The dragon dies" or "You kill the dragon" isn't sugarcoating or glorifying killing at all. It's completely neutral, with no emotional charge in any direction whatsoever. That's the whole point of this thread, after all; a more neutral text. If you think there's a better way to make the text more neutral, we're all ears.

 

Also, I think you kind of dodged Shadowdrake's question. Her point was that you'd never see the message anyway so why would it matter to you? Also it's already clearly been stated not everyone is able to simply ignore the message and feel comfortable, and if your choice is to not kill then that's fine. But other people would like to so that they can get zombies, or kill for whatever other reason they may have. I think the main issue here is you're lacking empathy in this situation, and you're expecting everyone to look at things through your own tunnel vision.

 

"I don't like the kill message, so I don't kill, and so everyone should be exactly like me" is the gist of what you're saying

 

Which I think is why you keep bringing up pretty extreme things like political correctness, a kill message glorifying killing, and a neutral kill message telling young people that killing is ok. Trust me, a neutral kill message on this game won't suddenly create a cult of killers in real life, it won't make people think "hey since this pixel game says killing is ok, it really is". And you can still keep continuing not to kill dragons no matter what the message is, too; no one says you need to change your mind if the message is changed, and your playstyle is perfectly valid. Just, stop trying to shove it down other people's throats.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I like the dodge change, that's always made sense to me.

 

I'd leave the kill message as-is. The whole point of the dodge changing text is to prevent disconnect from gameplay. Well, isn't the whole game about making faux emotional attachments to our pixel dragons? I'd say the guilt message does that very well. It's definitely made me pause at times over killing things I'd rather be rid of, and I'd say that's pretty gameplay-enhancing for a simple line of text!

 

If you can't live with the guilt, either don't kill the dragon or remind yourself it's a game and do it anyway. (Or find out where the message appears on your browser and put tape over that part of the screen while you do the dirty  )

[Pilauli]

Why make people remind themselves it's a game?

 

Why not just let the game be a game, and leave people to make attachments themselves?

[olympe]

32 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

Changing it to just "The dragon dies" or "You kill the dragon" isn't sugarcoating or glorifying killing at all. It's completely neutral, with no emotional charge in any direction whatsoever. That's the whole point of this thread, after all; a more neutral text. If you think there's a better way to make the text more neutral, we're all ears.

"The dragon dies" is still a lie by omission. At the very least, if this gets changed, it needs to be a *killing* message. Because DC dragons don't just die randomly.

 

34 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

Also, I think you kind of dodged Shadowdrake's question. Her point was that you'd never see the message anyway so why would it matter to you?

Just because I'm not a US citizen doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion on whether I, personally, prefer Trump or Biden to win the election. And just because I'll never drive a Porsche, much less own one doesn't mean that I'm unable to have an opinion on a car being able to go 310 km/h. Nor does it mean I cannot speak up about either issue to express my opinion. 

So, your point is?

 

39 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

Also it's already clearly been stated not everyone is able to simply ignore the message and feel comfortable, and if your choice is to not kill then that's fine. But other people would like to so that they can get zombies, or kill for whatever other reason they may have. I think the main issue here is you're lacking empathy in this situation, and you're expecting everyone to look at things through your own tunnel vision.

 

"I don't like the kill message, so I don't kill, and so everyone should be exactly like me" is the gist of what you're saying

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that actions come with consequences. And the kill action comes with the consequence of the kill message. What you, as a player, make of this knowledge is your choice. And you have choices. Kill anyway and toughen up, kill anyway and skip the message, kill anyway and deal with it somehow or don't kill, just to name a few. Just because people these days feel entitled to do whatever they want and be applauded for it doesn't mean a diametrically opposed stance equals "tunnel vision".

 

45 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

Which I think is why you keep bringing up pretty extreme things like political correctness, a kill message glorifying killing, and a neutral kill message telling young people that killing is ok. Trust me, a neutral kill message on this game won't suddenly create a cult of killers in real life, it won't make people think "hey since this pixel game says killing is ok, it really is". And you can still keep continuing not to kill dragons no matter what the message is, too; no one says you need to change your mind if the message is changed, and your playstyle is perfectly valid. Just, stop trying to shove it down other people's throats.

Only after these things have been expressed as points for changing the kill message. Sometimes in the thread where the idea came up in the first place.

Inclusivity - which, btw, is covered by political correctness:

23 hours ago, Shadowdrake said:

I cannot possibly see how you'd be affected by a small text adjustment to make something more accessible.

Young people:

DC says it's for ages 13 and up, and the current kill message, as it stands, isn't as age-friendly as the rest of the site.

Quote by milo, to be found here: 

I do not, and did not say that video games create monsters or killers. However, I brought the educational part ("killing is bad") up as a counterpoint to "the current kill message isn't age-friendly".

 

Feel-good or killing-but-not-killing texts suggested:

To get a dead dragon you have to accept that one of your alive dragons dies. Yes, that could count as killing it if you like, but LORE WISE you aren't killing anything since it isn't described in game. I repaet: you don't need to be described as the one who caused its death. It's not necessary. The player needs to be aware of the consequences of a particular in-game feature, while the dragonkeeper doesn't need to assume a specific murder role

[*snip*]

DEATH Possible new neutral sentences: (a big warning appears: Selecting this option the dragon has an high chance of dying. Dead dragons will eventually be removed from your scroll)

The dragon misteriously died recently.

or

You find out the dragon died for unknow causes.

Can be found here:

Also

I see your point, but actually mercy is more about having an alternate way of killing more than an alternate way of zombifing. If someone wants to simply kill his/her dragon fro whatever reason besides zombifing it would give a different taste to it. I understand that not every single reason about killing a dragon requires a specific sentence displayed (that's what dragon descriptions are for) but "mercy" or "euthanasia" were the most basic alternatives to murder I could think of. If you have another generic reason about killing I don't mind using that. As I said  the purpose of that was more about changing the role playing from murder to something more close to the spirit of the game, aka something that involves caring for your dragons.

, found here:

 

 

But yes, just attack me instead of my arguments wherever you can and take my points out of context to mock them. Just go ahead.

[Keileon]

9 minutes ago, olympe said:

"The dragon dies" is still a lie by omission. At the very least, if this gets changed, it needs to be a *killing* message. Because DC dragons don't just die randomly.

You neglected to address "You kill the dragon" though. Would that make you happy?

 

9 minutes ago, olympe said:

Just because I'm not a US citizen doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion on whether I, personally, prefer Trump or Biden to win the election. And just because I'll never drive a Porsche, much less own one doesn't mean that I'm unable to have an opinion on a car being able to go 310 km/h. Nor does it mean I cannot speak up about either issue to express my opinion. 

So, your point is?

The winner of a country's election affects political relations with that country, and thus can have global effects.

A car's speed can affect road safety, and thus the safety of everyone else who's driving.

What does the content of a message you'll never see in a game do to you?

 

9 minutes ago, olympe said:

But yes, just attack me instead of my arguments wherever you can and take my points out of context to mock them. Just go ahead.

Your arguments are being attacked, rather than you, but Karp is trying to put things into perspective for you. Nobody's mocking you in this thread and painting it like that's what's happening reads as trying to play victim to garner sympathy. This isn't an attack on you-- this is how I perceive this statement.

[Pilauli]

19 minutes ago, olympe said:

And the kill action comes with the consequence of the kill message.

Fine.  New argument.  It currently comes with that consequence.  Should it?

 

---

 

I hope you'll also notice that this thread is mostly not requesting a mercy/euthanasia option.  That was part of the other thread.  This thread proposes to change the kill message to something less explicitly murder-with-a-blade-y.

 

I agree that "the dragon dies" could be too detached.  But I like "you kill the dragon" and "you kill the dragon with a powerful magic spell".

 

As far as separating player decisions from player-character actions, though, the player character (the "you" in the kill action) doesn't have anything to do with breeding a dragon or influencing an egg, even though the player chooses for it to happen.  So there is precedent for detached messages like "the dragon dies."  It probably does make sense for the kill-a-dragon message to address "you" like the kill-an-egg and fog-a-hatchling messages, though.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Pilauli
Yeah, "the dragon dies" is probably more than "a bit" too detached. Removed those two words.

[Shadowdrake]

10 minutes ago, olympe said:

Just because I'm not a US citizen doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion on whether I, personally, prefer Trump or Biden to win the election. And just because I'll never drive a Porsche, much less own one doesn't mean that I'm unable to have an opinion on a car being able to go 310 km/h. Nor does it mean I cannot speak up about either issue to express my opinion. 

So, your point is?

Perhaps stop conflating real world issues with a video game that's less graphic than even the news can be? Unlike those issues, this one cannot effect you at all simply due to how DC is set up as a single player game.

 

13 minutes ago, olympe said:

However, I brought the educational part ("killing is bad") up as a counterpoint to "the current kill message isn't age-friendly".

If a person, a thirteen year old, thinks killing is okay, they have bigger problems than a text-based mechanic can fix.

 

15 minutes ago, olympe said:

I do not, and did not say that video games create monsters or killers. However, I brought the educational part ("killing is bad") up as a counterpoint to "the current kill message isn't age-friendly".

Neither of those quotes are in this thread and it's not great to see you drag arguments from a dead thread on a different subject than this one (which is, pure and simple, "make the kill text less of a guilt trip in case someone wants to use any of the functions that kill can do without being guilted by it").