Escapism vs Racism

[Crazy Wolf]

You want to think twice before using buckshot. It leaves quite a mess - and said mess won't come out of the back of your target's head.

No, no, it's cool, 20 gauge is less messy than 12 gauge to the head would be

[TΛPETRVE]

True, but if you take it straight to the face, it still tears quite a hole.

Warning, graphic content. (Yup, that's a CD cover.)

[Elandryl]

It would simply be great to have the world around you react to what you simply *are*.

I would enjoy playing a realist, crude world where it's not always accepted to be something other than the perfect WASP. You could have to face hatred against your nationality, your langage, the color of your skin, your "normality" ("so you're not a mutant, hey?"), your wealth, your body (now how would that cannibal tribe look at you if you're fat?) and so on.

Come on, it's a post-nuclear world after a war. People are striving to survive, I doubt everybody would be nice to any kind of person.

[Mandemon]

No. People are not striving to survive, they are past that.

To explain it better, Wasteland world in similar period between Fallout 1 and 2.

Time after survival stops being main concern, but before major players have taken control. In Fallout terms, this is before NCR becomes powerhouse and starts being capable of fighting a war against Brotherhood, but after it has established itself.

Survival is no longer a concern. Now it's building a society.

[Elandryl]

Survival is no longer a concern. Now it's building a society.

And do you think that would make people a lot friendlier that they were 30 years before? I don't think so. Just look how the world was 40 years ago, and how it is now. I don't think you'd have no problem beeing member of a minority, or a hunchback, or simply a stranger in a PA world.

[Mandemon]

Perhaps not friendlier, but neither necessarily more hostile.

I mean, if day to day survival is concern, then you might be a prick to everyone outside your circle. However, when survival is no longer a concern, becomes a question "Where from now?".

In that scenario, numbers are power. technology is power multiplier, but numbers are power. More you have, more you can throw at the problem.

Of course there might, and most likely are, societies build on ideas that some people are inherently better than others. but in general most societies would most likely be happy to have more people. Especially if they are aware of genetics, because in that case bigger gene pool = better

[Shaewaros]

I don't buy the idea that if civilization would collapse, people would become predatory monsters without empathy or social restraint. People value security, predictability and order more than instant gratification of individual urges. War veterans often have told about how in a time of crisis they felt more connected to their brothers in arms than they had ever felt to their families and loved ones. I'd imagine that after a nuclear holocaust people would seek solitude in any community they had access to and try to regain at least some sense of security and comfort.

On the other hand, racism, nationalism and other means of securing social cohesion would definitely flourish after the society had fallen. There is a reason why all tribal societies had religious practices, tribe-specific initiation rites etc. These concepts are useful in creating cohesion and order among social groups. Social cohesion has been, according to evolutionary biologists, the reason why Homo sapiens became the dominant species in the first place, since social cohesion brings the benefit of learning from others and passing on the information to the next generation. Post-apocalyptic setting would certainly make a vastly different setting for a struggle for survival than a typical Darwinian struggle, however as descendants of these early tribes men I believe the modern man would follow his ancestors footsteps instead of resorting to devastating and ultimately self-annihilating anarchy.

I agree that mostly CRPGs have explored controversial social themes indirectly, for instance by representing the oppressed with elves and other fictitious entities. Personally I can't recall a single game that would have dealt with themes like racism in a really profound way. Games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex explore human nature and the nature of society admirably well though. I would warmly welcome any game that would venture to explore these controversial issues in-depth, however I don't think that Wasteland 2 is the right platform for this kind of experiment. Maybe this could be an idea for the next big Kickstarter hit?

[blinko]

I don't buy the idea that if civilization would collapse, people would become predatory monsters without empathy or social restraint. People value security, predictability and order more than instant gratification of individual urges.

While on the whole I tend to agree with your statements, I don't believe that we can discount the limits of unchecked natural human perversity in a post-apocalyptic scenario. Also, the wording of the phrase in quotes uses people ambiguously enough that its meaning might include every person across a vast wasteland rather than a statistically significant handful. I believe you're setting the bar too uniformly high for what you expect people will not or can not endure, their natural faculties of reason and rationality, and what they will view and accept as structure and order. If the Stanford prison experiment was any indication of what could happen if no one checks the limits of authority men convey, then it should not be beyond reality to assume that because of the order created by men who are flawed, that systematic abuses could and would take place, existence and enforcement of laws would not be uniform or universal, and that largely the pockets of population would on the whole accept whatever is happening as normal as long as it happens usually or consistently, due to relativism. Basically, I don't think doing what it takes to balance feelings of safety and normalcy and satisfying individual urges are necessarily mutually exclusive.

People are not born with a perfect account of world history, sociology, or philosophy and even today are expected to do little more than assess whether they will be hurt now or later if they do or don't do something before complying, not argue about the philosophical basis each law or command is contigent on in order to prove that having the most guns does not a correct decision make. All it takes is one person, one charismatic sociopath, one zealot proselytizing of supernatural salvation in a sizable population to give them both the social structure and protection they desire at costs we today might not bear. Ritual human sacrifice, genital mutilation, conspicuous consumption that cripples otherwise healthy humans to increase their luxury value have all taken place in our very recent history by people who had much longer to come up with a culture than the smattering of groups populating the wasteland. What makes you hold them in higher esteem than any other groups in history, the fact that their ancestors who ultimately destroyed themselves travelled in smoking hunks of metal to dine at prefab buildings where entire meals were served instantly, or that they could communicate with each other over long distances their favorite things about whichever Kardashian goddess they worshipped using 160 characters or fewer? It is not sound testament to our social and cultural advancement that a man hiding in the mountains was able to disrupt and distort the policies of the modern world's wealthiest and best armed nation for over a decade by doing nothing, and while we'd like to think that a structured society is what soundly separates us from all of the other animals, we need not look any further than own fear of death and the dark to know we are not yet so far removed.

[DrunkVision]

I don't buy the idea that if civilization would collapse, people would become predatory monsters without empathy or social restraint. People value security, predictability and order more than instant gratification of individual urges. War veterans often have told about how in a time of crisis they felt more connected to their brothers in arms than they had ever felt to their families and loved ones. I'd imagine that after a nuclear holocaust people would seek solitude in any community they had access to and try to regain at least some sense of security and comfort.

On the other hand, racism, nationalism and other means of securing social cohesion would definitely flourish after the society had fallen. There is a reason why all tribal societies had religious practices, tribe-specific initiation rites etc. These concepts are useful in creating cohesion and order among social groups. Social cohesion has been, according to evolutionary biologists, the reason why Homo sapiens became the dominant species in the first place, since social cohesion brings the benefit of learning from others and passing on the information to the next generation. Post-apocalyptic setting would certainly make a vastly different setting for a struggle for survival than a typical Darwinian struggle, however as descendants of these early tribes men I believe the modern man would follow his ancestors footsteps instead of resorting to devastating and ultimately self-annihilating anarchy.

I agree that mostly CRPGs have explored controversial social themes indirectly, for instance by representing the oppressed with elves and other fictitious entities. Personally I can't recall a single game that would have dealt with themes like racism in a really profound way. Games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex explore human nature and the nature of society admirably well though. I would warmly welcome any game that would venture to explore these controversial issues in-depth, however I don't think that Wasteland 2 is the right platform for this kind of experiment. Maybe this could be an idea for the next big Kickstarter hit?

I' ll repeat my words from "nationality" topic: "Cromanions do not agree with you, lol. When resources are scarce racism is in full bloom. Racist logic is quite good in such situation, cause well, you would want for your family to survive more than to other families, your nationality more than other nationalities and on the brink of extinction it's the only logical solution. Only good trade system implied can prevent that kind of situation."

[Mandemon]

Except, once again, world of Wasteland isn't exactly "One step away from extinction". They are in early stages of birth of first real nations. Like when Rome started to build it's empire. They have resources NOT to be racist.

[DrunkVision]

Except, once again, world of Wasteland isn't exactly "One step away from extinction". They are in early stages of birth of first real nations. Like when Rome started to build it's empire. They have resources NOT to be racist.

well, they don't. Policy of Rome since it's start of expanding of it's influence would be: "All others are barbarians", "We will take what is made for civilized people to have from barbarians", etc. Those so-called "civilised" romans didn't know even how to build a proper wall or road untill they met part of etruscan tribe. Birth of nations was long after the death of Roman Empire cause empire itself was not a single nation nor gathering of different nations, but just group of cities united which is itself made it collapse the same way Babilonian empire fall.

[Mandemon]

Thing is, back then civilizations like today didn't had roots.

Today, we are taught from birth certain values. I doubt those values just go *poof* moment nobody is looking. Certain values will undoubtedly survive, like concepts of democracy, tolerance etc. etc.

Some groups could value these values over others and build their societies based on those. Just because world as it is now gets nuked, doesn't mean everything achieved in past 2 000 years is going to disappear. Why would we value tolerance and oppose racism, if those things are something society normally embraces?

When Roman Empire collapsed, true, much was lost, but not everything. Roman calendar survived. Names survived. Some technologies survived. We use Roman alphabet even today. Latin survived, despite everyone who speaks it for his/her mother language disappeared. Law system used by Romans survived and became a base which modern courts have been build. Russian Tsar is derived from Caesar.

Just because society collapses, doesn't mean everything, from morals to ideas, disappears. I refuse to submit to idea that humanity loses all ideas of co-operation and tolerances and reverts about 1800 years.

[tuluse]

I feel like I read the OP wrong.

Fallout was a game that didn't portray racism? Seriously, that's what you got from it?

[DrunkVision]

Thing is, back then civilizations like today didn't had roots.

Today, we are taught from birth certain values. I doubt those values just go *poof* moment nobody is looking. Certain values will undoubtedly survive, like concepts of democracy, tolerance etc. etc.

Some groups could value these values over others and build their societies based on those. Just because world as it is now gets nuked, doesn't mean everything achieved in past 2 000 years is going to disappear. Why would we value tolerance and oppose racism, if those things are something society normally embraces?

When Roman Empire collapsed, true, much was lost, but not everything. Roman calendar survived. Names survived. Some technologies survived. We use Roman alphabet even today. Latin survived, despite everyone who speaks it for his/her mother language disappeared. Law system used by Romans survived and became a base which modern courts have been build. Russian Tsar is derived from Caesar.

Just because society collapses, doesn't mean everything, from morals to ideas, disappears. I refuse to submit to idea that humanity loses all ideas of co-operation and tolerances and reverts about 1800 years.

Lol, do you think that civilisation right now has only good roots without any bad ones? Take for example part of the report given by professor Gary Orfield from Harvard University at 2006 "level of segregation in USA have risen to the level of 1960s".
Today a LOT of americans prefer to live in closed communities and isn't it quite famous motto like having your own house in small town with clear air?..
Also may I ask you - did you protest against Iraq bombings? What about Livia bombings? Americans tend to write on their chests that they are tolerant while not giving a duck that their government without any proper reason is bombing other nations. Futhermore, we, russians, do not forget that many germans migrated to your country in 1945, including scientists who were experimenting not only on american, french, russian, england soldiers, but on pregnant woman and children. Yeah, we did steal some of the result of your research, but it was your government that while giving sentences to simple-minded generals whose only sin was to be loyal to their nation, made whole institutes for your newly aquired "friends" to continue their research in more mild way.

I do believe that there are a lot of good-natured americans with excellent personalities, still, I don't believe that you're good neightbours.

[Mandemon]

First of all, I am from Finland, but I did oppose Iraq war because whole thing smelled "FREE OIL".

Second, yes, there are bad things. However, they should not be the only things to survive nuclear bombardment. Idea that Humanity Is Real Monster is based on assumption that when no outside force is keeping us controlled, we default to "Bastard" mode. Which I don't think is true.

Furthermore, what you describe is tribalism, not racism. There is difference there.

[Crazy Wolf]

...Lol, do you think that civilisation right now has only good roots without any bad ones? Take for example part of the report given by professor Gary Orfield from Harvard University at 2006 "level of segregation in USA have risen to the level of 1960s".
Today a LOT of americans prefer to live in closed communities and isn't it quite famous motto like having your own house in small town with clear air?..
Also may I ask you - did you protest against Iraq bombings? What about Livia bombings? Americans tend to write on their chests that they are tolerant while not giving a duck that their government without any proper reason is bombing other nations. Futhermore, we, russians, do not forget that many germans migrated to your country in 1945, including scientists who were experimenting not only on american, french, russian, england soldiers, but on pregnant woman and children. Yeah, we did steal some of the result of your research, but it was your government that while giving sentences to simple-minded generals whose only sin was to be loyal to their nation, made whole institutes for your newly aquired "friends" to continue their research in more mild way.

I do believe that there are a lot of good-natured americans with excellent personalities, still, I don't believe that you're good neightbours.

Er, both the Western Allies and the CCCP did the whole "grab Nazi scientists and not kill them in exchange for their knowledge and expertise", so it seems sorta a strange point for you as a Russian to be making.

People pass on what they know and practice. So if you had a lot of bomb-shelter dictators, I'd expect the civilization after them to have a fair amount of dictators. If people continued to adhere to representative government, then I'd expect representative governments to come out of those (barring any major revolution in thinking). Similarly, if people bothered to be racist or xenophobic, then their offspring would likely uphold that tradition.

[Drool]

First of all, I am from Finland, but I did oppose Iraq war because whole thing smelled "FREE OIL".

I wish. Gas prices today are more than twice as high as they were back then. I could use some free oil.

[DrunkVision]

Furthermore, what you describe is tribalism, not racism. There is difference there.

Is there difference? When there are nations flourishing-it's racism, when only few people are there-it's tribalism, isn't it?

Er, both the Western Allies and the CCCP did the whole "grab Nazi scientists and not kill them in exchange for their knowledge and expertise", so it seems sorta a strange point for you as a Russian to be making.

People pass on what they know and practice. So if you had a lot of bomb-shelter dictators, I'd expect the civilization after them to have a fair amount of dictators. If people continued to adhere to representative government, then I'd expect representative governments to come out of those (barring any major revolution in thinking). Similarly, if people bothered to be racist or xenophobic, then their offspring would likely uphold that tradition.

Well, no, USSR did not grab scientists for their knowledge (basically we did it ti keep them out of USA control) and those taken were sent to Gulag and other death camps (that they liked so much) to die while working in hazardios places like in mines caughting their lungs out or cutting trees in freezing cold. The main source of tehnologies for USSR was to steal them from other nations. It's hard to understand such actions, but they are justified, while USA methods are not.

There is such thing that teenagers rebellios age, when hormones make kids even more aggressive. Currently medical system of USA just gives the most active kids some drug-pills and even now from time to time even in Russia we can hear news of some kid shooting in his school at USA. What will happen if there wouldn't be such pills?

[Mandemon]

Furthermore, what you describe is tribalism, not racism. There is difference there.

Is there difference? When there are nations flourishing-it's racism, when only few people are there-it's tribalism, isn't it?

Tribalism is supporting your own tribe over other. Racism is supporting your own race over other. Native American tribe hating other Native American tribe is tribalism, not racism. One German state hating other German state is tribalism. These all are same race /nationality(Native American, German). However, Native American hating German because he is German is racism, where hate stems from being different race, not from being from different "tribe" who competes for resources.

[TΛPETRVE]

Sounds more like nationalism in my book.