Merged Player Cannibalism Functional Thread

[Zeal]

"Noone would use it" Fallacy.

I would use it , and al ot of people who like challenge an who play the whole "IF i lose once i restart" mindset would probably like this feature.

i don't see an issue with adding a toggle/more options for people.

I mean its being suggested and supported by some which means there is atleast some demand for the feature.

It was a generality.
The overall point though is that it goes against the theme/idea of Kenshi. It also sets the game extremely in your favor in many different cases, such as raiding a town. The only thing that really makes that difficult is the enemies getting back up. If you could just execute them all when they go down, clearing out a town will be a breeze, and all the loots are freely yours. So those who want "extreme mode" are not actually doing so. They're making the game easier.

This feature itself has always been argued as "I'm tired of enemies getting up". You'd be the very first that i've seen to take the stance of "I want enemies to execute me".

I totally get the wishes to play ironman mode, and the like. I play those modes on games myself, and often have to set my own rules because the game doesn't support it. But I don't think it's wise to add features to the game that aren't in the intended and promoted theme and idea. If it was in the core theme and idea of Kenshi, an option to disable it would be fine. But adding it as a feature for those who want it when it isn't in the devs view of the game, is time and resources better spent in areas that are intended.

However i feel if you could enable it in the options you should still have to check a box on your chars to give them permission to kill(or not) . after all even if there are moves the kill you out right. it wouldn't be unrealistic to think you might wish to capture someone alive. so telling your units to try an avoid killing them should be doable.

Was this about accidently killing people? This can already happen with hits strong enough. Crank up that death chance or global damage, and there you go. But I was under the impression this was about executing downed enemies as a right click option.

[Mattk50]

It was a generality.
The overall point though is that it goes against the theme/idea of Kenshi. It also sets the game extremely in your favor in many different cases, such as raiding a town. The only thing that really makes that difficult is the enemies getting back up. If you could just execute them all when they go down, clearing out a town will be a breeze, and all the loots are freely yours. So those who want "extreme mode" are not actually doing so. They're making the game easier.

I don't really think it makes sense to assume that cannibalism would always make the game easier, your right if there was just a right click -> eat guy button with no concequences it would make it easier but thats assuming by far the laziest possible implementation. That said doing it well would involve a number of other changes that likely would not be worth the effort to implement, i'll list some possibilities just as an exercise.
1. Inability to eat/reduced nutrition from regular food, this would force continuous hunting of living bodies just for survival and make larger armies quite difficult to sustain.
2. Not just inability to conduct diplomacy, but automatic siege level events and raids continually levied against you from every non-cannibalistic faction AKA most of the game. Probably triggered each time you feed.
3. Other cannibals still need to eat, and will often still target you outside of settlements expecially early on or if you piss them off
4. cannibal towns being very primitive with very limited ability to get trade goods of any kind, meaning making your own settlement requires raiding guarded towns for sustenance.
5. Cannibal characters can only recruit more people with a taste for sentient flesh, and only by giving them a corpse as a demonstration of your strength, limits your recruiting pool and ups difficulty and rate of expansion significantly.
6. Recruiting a cannibal as to a non-cannibal party would lead to the same diplomacy hits every time you feed, making it a very undesirable option.


Just reading this list would make the devs have a heart attack so im very understanding of not wanting to implement features like cannibalism and slavery for the player's use, but i also think its very much doable from a design standpoint. I would argue with that points the game would be much harder than vanilla kenshi.

[Zeal]

I don't really think it makes sense to assume that cannibalism would always make the game easier, your right if there was just a right click -> eat guy button with no concequences it would make it easier but thats assuming by far the laziest possible implementation. That said doing it well would involve a number of other changes that likely would not be worth the effort to implement, i'll list some possibilities just as an exercise.

I supposed i'm rolling around on the wrong ball here. My disagreement is with an execute command for unconscious enemies. Something like cannibalism could be implimented very differently and not provide such a major deterence from the gameplay, as it may just require you to actually pick up and trek the bodies back, or take some time sitting there eating them... Whatever the case, it would take a bit more time/work than simply lopping off a sleeping person's head and moving onto the next.

Cannibalism and other means of killing off the player that currently exist already exhibit a courtesy time of allowing the player to actually do something about it. Immidiate on the ground executions are not so lenient.

I suppose if you had a sacrificial alter for execution you had to build in your outpost, and drag unconscious enemies back to it to execute them, it could be different, but that would be silly.

[toaster Assassin]

Well, it kind of is a moot point. If you are leveled enough, then the enemies will most likely die from their wounds anyway.(like you said) So if you are strong enough to raid a town successfully, you are probably at that point.

The issue I see would be when stealth is fully implemented (wall climbing,etc) one person could completely mop up a settlement.

Unless there is some sort of death shriek upon execution implemented. Any enemy executed would have a shriek text appear. which draws full settlement attention. Or maybe executions can only happen if all enemies are defeated? idk.

Also, the more of one faction you execute the higher the likelyhood they will execute you when you go unconscious (gothic II rules)


The concept is understandable, but it is a sloppy one that goes against the Kenshi grain.

Maybe handcuffs of rope could be a better option, i.e you can tie up a downed enemy and their comrades can untie them.

[Mattk50]

I don't really think it makes sense to assume that cannibalism would always make the game easier, your right if there was just a right click -> eat guy button with no concequences it would make it easier but thats assuming by far the laziest possible implementation. That said doing it well would involve a number of other changes that likely would not be worth the effort to implement, i'll list some possibilities just as an exercise.

I supposed i'm rolling around on the wrong ball here. My disagreement is with an execute command for unconscious enemies. Something like cannibalism could be implimented very differently and not provide such a major deterence from the gameplay, as it may just require you to actually pick up and trek the bodies back, or take some time sitting there eating them... Whatever the case, it would take a bit more time/work than simply lopping off a sleeping person's head and moving onto the next.

Cannibalism and other means of killing off the player that currently exist already exhibit a courtesy time of allowing the player to actually do something about it. Immidiate on the ground executions are not so lenient.

I suppose if you had a sacrificial alter for execution you had to build in your outpost, and drag unconscious enemies back to it to execute them, it could be different, but that would be silly.

I would make a similar argument for the an execute command too, if you just add an execute button yes it just becomes too easy to the player and doesnt really add any proper decision making. However, implemented so that neither the player or the ai really wants to just execute willy nilly there's room to use it well.

You would need to integrate it with the diplomacy system, giving the player penalties or bonuses depending on their decision. Letting an enemy live that was the aggressor would give you positive relations or negative depending on the ethics and world view of the relevant faction, same for killing. things like "showing weakness" or "letting the weak live" are interesting topics for the player to bounce off the various factions. Then you'd need to implement the AI decision making for killing downed targets, for most factions it would depend on your diplomacy with them but done well it would include various behavior types depending on the faction. Maybe losing to the holy nation increases your relation to them because they feel they have better control over you, but are zealots so once you down them kill or not they will demand retribution. This would lead to interesting area based risks that dont exist just by adding zombie type npcs like cannibals/fogmen and interesting decision making on the player's part.

Then you balance by point in the game, early on if you dont have any real enemies sure hungry bandits and police may beat you to shit but they wouldnt kill you, they dont have a motive yet. once you make serious enemies of the bandits or are well known as a bandit or cop killer the risk increases, but so would your strength and ability to survive such issues, great way to have difficulty scale realistically. But that takes a lot of work, again and i can understand if the devs arent interested.

[toaster Assassin]

I like your reasoning. An execution determined based on political/religious/diplomatic ideology. i.e different consequences based on the perception of a faction.

Theoretically:

-Cannibal/Fogmen:
Would not execute since npc/player = only food source.

-Holy Nation:(religious)
retribution for harming a "religious one" makes sense
Execution if relations is low enough, i.e. your deemed heretic,demon,etc
Spare a H/N unit = positive reaction
Spare a bandit in H/N radius = negative reaction (you gave mercy to a heathen,etc)

If not executions, the player should be able to at least detain/tie up downed enemies. Enemies tied up cannot attack, unless they are freed by an ally. To comply with the standing that players cannot enslave, the tied up npcs would either run away or remain on the ground. (i.e. the only control the player would have over them is picking them up.) The ability to tie-up should be object-based. (i.e. the player needs shackles or something in the belt area.

[Zeal]

The major problem i have with this whole diplomacy element in executions, is that there is no difference between you slicing up and letting someone bleed to death in the dirt, or cutting off their head. Either way, they are dead. You killed them. No faction in their right mind is going to nod their head at you and say "It's ok you cut them up and let them bleed to death, but cutting off their head is a no-no.", let alone will they pay attention to the details of -how- you killed them. A death is a death, you assaulted lethaly with the intent for someone to bleed and possibly die. So unless you were to impliment also that unless you spent the time first-aiding the individual to prevent them from dying, you would take the same standing hit as executing, it would make little sense...

That's barring the fact that executions could happen while no one is looking. Do you take a hit if no one is nearby? If you're assaulting a town, then you're already in the hole enough you will not care about the standing hits, and the hiveling are not going to give two honeys if you execute a holy nation member all the way across the map. They wouldn't even know, let alone care if they did..

Well, it kind of is a moot point. If you are leveled enough, then the enemies will most likely die from their wounds anyway.(like you said) So if you are strong enough to raid a town successfully, you are probably at that point.

Yes, see, that's the problem though. If you were able to execute enemies in this case, you'd be able to wipe out a town without having high-leveled stats and top end weapons. Players can be pretty efficient with how they can manipulate the battlefield to gain benefits over the AI, so you're not required to be leveled up to knock units unconscious. But that would be all you'd need to do.. Knock them unconscious, and then they're dead. Attrition really is the only advantage the AI has over the player, and you'd be completely eliminating it.
The OP did suggest block executions though. That would prevent wild free quick executions, and this wouldn't be a problem.


To be completely honest, I don't think it makes any sense that you can't kill downed enemies. Not in a realistic standpoint. But on that same token, it doesn't make sense that enemies can't do the same to you. And no, I still disagree that there would be any diplomatic reprocussions. Considering thousands of battles happen every day all over the world of Kenshi, and hundreds die by hundreds of other hands, no one is going to pick out the people who cut off someone's head, over people who let them bleed to death.. If a holy nation unit attacks you, because you're a heathen, no one else is going to care if they kill you, or how they do it....

If the wild free executions could be avoided, an execution feature (like the block) would be interesting, and wouldn't entirely detract from gameplay, even if the enemies could freely do it to you. It wouldn't be much different than deadhive or cannibals.

[toaster Assassin]

The major problem i have with this whole diplomacy element in executions, is that there is no difference between you slicing up and letting someone bleed to death in the dirt, or cutting off their head. Either way, they are dead. You killed them. No faction in their right mind is going to nod their head at you and say "It's ok you cut them up and let them bleed to death, but cutting off their head is a no-no.", let alone will they pay attention to the details of -how- you killed them. A death is a death, you assaulted lethaly with the intent for someone to bleed and possibly die. So unless you were to impliment also that unless you spent the time first-aiding the individual to prevent them from dying, you would take the same standing hit as executing, it would make little sense...
.

I was thinking along the lines of:

if you kill a person in battle it = negative

If you kill a person when they are down = really negative

The difference would be represented in the sense that you killed someone who was equally able to kill you vs killing someone who was disabled and not a threat.

The logic would only make sense though if the general consensus in Kenshi society/lore is that there are limits to fighting and taking the effort to go beyond that is very frowned upon. Whether it is a thief den or a city there are laws and social codes that would be considered. To kill a person that is disabled could be considered a cowardly and violent act, where as, killing in combat would be an equal chance of death with neg consequences.

At least that is how I would see the diplomacy aspect.

My main argument with executions was that it presents a way to prevent the enemy from getting up and attacking after combat. Your belief that the player can exploit that is true, so I was also thinking about the ability to restrain. (non slavery)

If the player can tie up the downed enemies,then they cannot attack or keep harming the player after a battle. However, when the enemy unties their people they will be able to fight again. The AI could be given the same ability to do the same to the player. (if there are no cages nearby). The restrained people can still run, but cannot fight. To prevent exploitation, the process of restraining a npc/Player would take time and the restrainer would be vulnerable to attack. (Similar to the enslavement process).

[Chinsei]

The major problem i have with this whole diplomacy element in executions, is that there is no difference between you slicing up and letting someone bleed to death in the dirt, or cutting off their head. Either way, they are dead. You killed them. No faction in their right mind is going to nod their head at you and say "It's ok you cut them up and let them bleed to death, but cutting off their head is a no-no.", let alone will they pay attention to the details of -how- you killed them. A death is a death, you assaulted lethaly with the intent for someone to bleed and possibly die. So unless you were to impliment also that unless you spent the time first-aiding the individual to prevent them from dying, you would take the same standing hit as executing, it would make little sense...
.

I was thinking along the lines of:

if you kill a person in battle it = negative

If you kill a person when they are down = really negative

The difference would be represented in the sense that you killed someone who was equally able to kill you vs killing someone who was disabled and not a threat.

The logic would only make sense though if the general consensus in Kenshi society/lore is that there are limits to fighting and taking the effort to go beyond that is very frowned upon. Whether it is a thief den or a city there are laws and social codes that would be considered. To kill a person that is disabled could be considered a cowardly and violent act, where as, killing in combat would be an equal chance of death with neg consequences.

At least that is how I would see the diplomacy aspect.

My main argument with executions was that it presents a way to prevent the enemy from getting up and attacking after combat. Your belief that the player can exploit that is true, so I was also thinking about the ability to restrain. (non slavery)

If the player can tie up the downed enemies,then they cannot attack or keep harming the player after a battle. However, when the enemy unties their people they will be able to fight again. The AI could be given the same ability to do the same to the player. (if there are no cages nearby). The restrained people can still run, but cannot fight. To prevent exploitation, the process of restraining a npc/Player would take time and the restrainer would be vulnerable to attack. (Similar to the enslavement process).

However without mass media to spread information about who died, where , when, and how.

Most people wouldn't know when where or how you killed someone. and i really don't want a "gods information bureau " telling everyone what i've done every day since teh start of the game.

now survivors going on to spread what i did fine. but in the end that would depend on numerous factors to. such as who is this survivor? whats my "public" reputation when they try to spread rumors?.

just because i go into town an say Superman tried to murder me not everyone will believe he did.

Some might believe it. but the more superman is known not to kill at least publicly , the less likely people are to believe them. unless they have evidence.

if we're going to have reputations that should be from NPC to NPC. with them having their own reps toward believabiliy.

after all if a Dust bandit wanders into your town proclaiming someone cut them to pieces most people would not believe them, not care, or would assume that the dust bandit was trying to rob them(this is assuming they know the individual in question is a bandit).

obviously games have limitations so i don't expect it to be exactly like this (though would be nice). but and i don't really see people in Kenshi people who have it hard who know that fighting means survival or death. would inherently care to much about you killing someone unless it was someone they know or from their town/faction.

in the end even in our society their are thousands of things we take into account before we ...usually....believe if someone did, or didn't do something. and how far we're willing to care, or act on whats been done .

for example if someone in germany i don't know dies. Socially i'm supposed to make it out to be a tragedy .because its the loss of a life.

but knowing that 48million people , or about die every day. and that i had no attachment to him i'm not overly going to care that the person died. an the only time i might mention it , is if there is something morbidly amusing about the death in question. o.o .

on the other hand if i know the person i might show care. and i might wish to do something to help the people they cared for , or i might go to the funeral if i cared about them enough an they died in a way that might warrant it i might even go so far as to try and avenge them.

but a lot of how we view things is from our upbringing through school which tries to guide us along the lines of law to be good abiding citizens who contribute . KEnshi would probably have a school more for "Do what our leaders say an you prosper. Go against an die, or be outcast."

without much guidance toward what is , or isn't believed to be wrong.

[toaster Assassin]

I think Divine Divinity has a relation system like you mentioned. However, I think such a system would only work for permanent npcs (that are globally retained) not generated ones. Very performance taxing. The reason for the moral code concept was my attempt to somehow balance the concept of an execution feature, without the player effectively exploiting it.

[Roccandil]

The lack of execution -does- seem unrealistic, although it's possible now in a clunky way (strip a person's weapons and medkits, and then hit them again when they recover consciousness).

I suspect execution could easily be handled by the current crime system. The real problem, obviously, is the absolute termination of a player's game. At that, though, I wonder about realistic solutions. After all, slavery is a thing in this game, so if dust bandits clobbered somebody, why -wouldn't- they kidnap them and make a deal with an unscrupulous slave trader?

In other words, I suspect that only a few factions would be absolutely out for blood over money, but those few would add some texture to the game, kinda like you know Beak Things -will- kill you.

[bob33380]

I'm not sure if there's some overarching way that hunger is handled by NPCs, but I've noticed that cannibals and fogmen are magically kept at a certain hunger threshold (with fogmen specifically bouncing between 299-300). I created an alternate start mod to play as a fog prince, and added the AI goal "eat a random cage occupant" to it. This let me successfully chow down on people I brought back to those prisoner poles while the rest of the fogmen did their nice worshiping animation thing. However, I regained no actual hunger from the act!

I also messed around with the popular paradise falls mod from the workshop, which I know is buggy, but in that mod player cannibals also don't regain any hunger from eating corpses/unconscious people. It's a little weird that the mechanics for being eaten limb-by-limb exist but not actually eating for sustenance considering that it is somewhat conceivable that the player can recruit a cannibal even in an unmodded game. I'd like to see this mechanic fleshed out if the goal is still: players are not limited in what they can do compared to NPCs~

[Tarragon Rill]

I know the devs have said this is not going to happen...

but I would like to say if it was possible to turn on the option of right click kill moves I would enable it. I fully understand that the AI would do it to me and I am happy with that. as long as it is handled in such a way that a nearby character has a chance of stopping me/them. I mean if the "Coup de gras" took a bit of action like healing or enslaving, basically kneel at their side for 3 or 4 seconds performing this action which allows a nearby character to in turn attack the "giver" to save the "receiver". this at least makes it so in a fairly even fight you do not just insta-kill them as a nearby mate will help them out and interrupt your attempt with big bonus to hit and damage on the giver. and if this attack hits you must start that 2 or 3 second action at the beginning again. basically this will mean it only happens on a squad wipe, where one party vastly outnumbers the other, or the occasional time where the pair has split off from the main fray and are distanced enough that the action could be performed before a savior arrives to prevent it.

and for the idea that it is not in line with the idea of Kenshi I would say just the opposite. Kenshi touts itself to be a game of hardship where the player is nobody special and death waits at every corner. this is supposed to be a game where the player must struggle to survive so this fits right in.

but then I also support the idea of player slavery, player cannibalism as well