Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Treblaine said:
Yopaz said:
I'm a pacifist so my answer is no, I wouldn't shoot anyone ever. Wounded, saving anyone who's wounded, armed and ready. I would shoot none of those. I might have been able to show someone who was going to kill me, but I'm not even sure if I could do that, even if it only meant wounding him.
What if this soldier was going to kill someone you cared about? Would you shoot to kill?

If not. Well, that's why a lot of people don't like pacifists.
I think the best I could do is shoot to harm, I don't think I could kill to protect my own life, but I can't be sure since the situation is unfamiliar to me. I'd be more likely to sacrifice my life for someone I care about than to kill someone for someone I care about. Pacifism isn't the coward's way, if anything it's just more peaceful than the alternative.
 

Drake_Dercon

New member
Sep 13, 2010
462
0
0
Probably, unless it was an emotionally engaging game.

The line between videogames and reality isn't blurred if the den does nothing to blur the lines (from a psychological perspective).

For instance, even though I hated Zevran in DA:O, I felt bad for killing him because they made him a character. Noble team in reach? Not at all.

FE8: definitely
Mirror's edge: somewhat
Oblivion: a little
Prime 3: not at all
(this is for character death)

You get the point. Games have to try to be emotionally real before I think twice about ending an unreal character's life.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
jboking said:
In the video game world, Final Fantasy Tactics has taught me to shoot down the White Mage(medic) FIRST. Then take care of everyone else. So, yes.

In the real world, no, I probably wouldn't shoot a medic if he was carrying men off the battlefield. Now, if they developed a way to heal and get wounded soldiers back onto the battlefield in mere minutes, then the medic has got to go.
In games, Medics function more like helicopters than real medics.

There is no way to instantly turn a casualty back into a active combatant, only by evacuating the injured/dead and bringing in reinforcements. Medics in real life perform a mercy/,oral function first and a strategic function secondly, trying to reduce the "cost" of war.

So killing the medic in game is not such a war-crime, it's like shooting down their resupply planes.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I'm pretty sure in war you're not supposed to, and its under the Geneva Convention or something.

But if its in a video game, oh hell yeah, I'm pop some fucking bitches. You'd better start running.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
well yeah are you trying to undo my hard work?
I'll shoot the medic, then I'll shoot the medic that comes up to help the medic I just shot.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Shooting medics is a war crime

Even if you win, yous still go to jail, also its inhuman to kill someone who is just trying to help someone else from dying, even if it is the enemy. The only time where I wouldn't hesitate is if either:
A. They're Nazi's
B. They're Aliens

War is about disabling the enemy (Despite shooting them) we aren't using armor piercing rounds on people you know.
 

Riddle78

New member
Jan 19, 2010
1,104
0
0
...The words "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" come to mind. As a part of the regs stated within their mountains of paperwork,two things stand out.

-You are only allowed to fire on someone of you feel/are threatened by them

-Under no circumstances will you fire on medics and other non-combat personnel,nor will you fire on their charges.

I don't feel like being a war criminal,thank you.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
In video games? Sure. I get points for it, it shows that I got the kill and gives the chance to do some cool fnishers.

IRL? Definitely not. It's a war crime and they're already suffering enough. However, if they are in intense pain, there is no medic around, and they are begging for death, asking you to kill them, then yes, I would deliver a mercy kill. That is the only scenario were I would kill a wounded soldier.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Yopaz said:
Treblaine said:
Yopaz said:
I'm a pacifist so my answer is no, I wouldn't shoot anyone ever. Wounded, saving anyone who's wounded, armed and ready. I would shoot none of those. I might have been able to show someone who was going to kill me, but I'm not even sure if I could do that, even if it only meant wounding him.
What if this soldier was going to kill someone you cared about? Would you shoot to kill?

If not. Well, that's why a lot of people don't like pacifists.
I think the best I could do is shoot to harm, I don't think I could kill to protect my own life, but I can't be sure since the situation is unfamiliar to me. I'd be more likely to sacrifice my life for someone I care about than to kill someone for someone I care about. Pacifism isn't the coward's way, if anything it's just more peaceful than the alternative.
Yeah, shoot to "harm" does not work. There isn't a part of the body you can put a rifle round through (that will put them down quick enough) that won't likely lead to their death. Don't think you can just shoot them in the leg, there is more arterial blood flow in your thighs than in your abdomen and with femoral artery cut you cannot tourniquet it.

Don't see how "sacrificing" will help anything, that will only mean both you are dead as well as your friend. You'd do better to run away and at least tell people what's going on. Then maybe they (also you if you've developed the gumption) can organise a proportional and justified response i.e. retaliation.

Don't be a sucker and think the lack of retaliation will cease hostilities. Tribes who tried that are extinct for a reason.

How can you be so gutless about killing your sworn enemy when you can be so flippant about your own life? Just because its your own life doesn't mean its not valuable, like it or not your life has responsibilities to provide/care for other people. If you can't live for yourself what about for others?

This pacifism seems to come from guilt. Yeah, there is a certain amount of guilt in killing someone, even an aggressive enemy but nothing compared to the negative emotions of losing those close to you knowing you could have done something to save them.
 

StANDY1338

New member
Sep 25, 2006
333
0
0
Lineoutt said:
Nope, I wouldn't shoot them... and I'd probably cry and throw up for being there in the first place... then i'd probably pass out into a coma
props for giving the only honest answer I have seen.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Treblaine said:
This pacifism seems to come from guilt. Yeah, there is a certain amount of guilt in killing someone, even an aggressive enemy but nothing compared to the negative emotions of losing those close to you knowing you could have done something to save them.
As I said, I can't really come up with an answer since I've never had to kill anyone to save anyone. And I never said I WOULD sacrifice myself, I said it was more likely that I would sacrifice myself rather than killing someone, and my pacifism doesn't come from guilt. I just don't like hurting anyone. I'm not a naive person, I don't believe not being violent will stop violence. Every day there's too many who get beaten up or killed for no reason. I know the solution sometimes is to fight back, but AS I said, I have never been in a situation where I actually had to make a choice so I can't really say. And if I am gutless to killing, how come you take it so lightly? Either you have never been in the situation either, or you have bigger problems than I do.
 

Frotality

New member
Oct 25, 2010
982
0
0
the geneva convention is for reality, not gaming! unless the game actually follows the actual rules of warfare (has ANY game done that?!) and shooting medics and wounded is punishable and allies call you out on that, i clean house. hell, i might toy with them; shooting the wounded then leaving them to sulk in failure or shooting everyone BUT the wounded so he has to lie there forever.

i make the most of video game cruelty potential, damnit.
 

SilentCom

New member
Mar 14, 2011
2,417
0
0
Considering how military style action shooters work, I would definitely take the opportunity to take out another 2 or 3 enemies. Even if there are medics, they are typically combat medics and playing TF2 taught me to not go easy on them, otherwise I might get a saw to the face >_<
 

Cazza

New member
Jul 13, 2010
1,933
0
0
In a video game the medic would drag them out of the way. Take like max 10secs to heal them and they are fighting again. In that I would shoot. The only way in a game for the kind of gameplay to work. Would be the best the medic can do is stabilize them and the player can't play anymore. Which only can be done small round based games.

In the real I wouldn't shoot.
 

Custard_Angel

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,236
0
0
I'd shoot at my enemy shooting at me, but if they don't start shit, I won't start shit.

I believe this to be the optimum balance between humanity and duty.
 

Yokai

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,982
0
0
I seriously doubt it. In multiplayer, sure, because then it's other people, there's constant breaking of the fourth wall going on, and you're just dicking around and having fun. I'd shoot them just to hear their aggravated swearing over the mic.

In singleplayer though, when I'm properly immersed, I usually take pity on enemies that aren't actively trying to kill me. I let the grunts run away in Halo, and it took me a couple minutes to work up the courage to kill the first target in Hitman: Blood Money, who was begging for his life. It just feels like such a dick move, pixels or no.
 

Trolldor

New member
Jan 20, 2011
1,849
0
0
It's a video game, they're the enemy, unless I've been given a reason to see them as anything more than digital enemy characters, yeah why not? They might drop some ammo or something.