In a zombie apocalpyse

[Starwulf]

I'm waiting for your justification on why D isnt the right choice. Do feel free to keep dodging it though. I know that moral high grounds get real slippery once situations go from the hypothetical and poorly defined to specific and clear.

Actually, me and my wife were discussing that scenario from the show, and she wondered how I would handle it if it was one of my daughters lives. I'm sorry, but I couldn't, in cold-blood, shoot another person, even if it meant saving my daughters life. Not in a situation like that anyways.

As to your other scenario, there is a HUGE difference between shooting someone in cold-blood when being chased by the zombies in the hopes they stop and make him a snack, and shooting a LIKELY ARMED INTRUDER that is breaking into your house. You're damn right I'd shoot an intruder into my house, whether or not I see a weapon. A damn sight different. The person running behind me likely doesn't wish me harm, but the person breaking into my house does.

Not everyone has such weak morals that the moment they are in a crisis they throw them out the window, sorry.

Edit: Honestly, I think it's time you stop your arguing about all of this. The thread has been completely derailed, and you are completely in the minority on this one(actually, you are literally the only person I see on the thread advocating your stance), so please, just drop it already, it's getting kind of old.

[Zen Monkey]

I'm going to be realistic, and say Heroic Sacrifice.

I'm a fairly big guy (avid weightlifter, which means a stamina penalty) and a decent shot, but most importantly I try to be a good person. I'm also not the most optimistic guy, so when someone has to stay behind and buy time for the group to get away, I'd probably volunteer. Give me a shotgun and a decent melee option, and I'll take a lot of them down with me.

[WyvernLord]

A lot of people here are really willing to sacrifice themselves for others. I'm just wondering who would go through with it though.
We need to start a heroic sacrifice union. Yes I know that makes no sense.

[boredgremlin]

I don't see how D is in any way better than C.

You're taking all the gear anyway. The Wheezy is going to be the first one caught anyway. He doesn't have bullets, he can't threaten you in any way. Worst case scenario, you can use that last bullet on something more useful. Best case scenario, by some stroke of luck both survive. Most likely he's going to be the one caught and so he'll be distracting the zombies while you run, exactly like in D.

D is better because they stop to eat him far from the car giving you a better chance to lose them on the way unless you happen to be running across wide open space. These things are stupid after all. If they stop to eat him long enough for you to get out of sight by getting around something you might be home free.

If he makes it close to the car before getting caught they might keep coming and eat you while your fishing out your damn keys or something to actually get into the car.

If i remember right actually it was the fat guys truck too so he probably had the keys and you need time to hotwire it. Which makes it even more important that you lose them far from the vehicle.

Actually, me and my wife were discussing that scenario from the show, and she wondered how I would handle it if it was one of my daughters lives. I'm sorry, but I couldn't, in cold-blood, shoot another person, even if it meant saving my daughters life. Not in a situation like that anyways.

And that's why you wouldn't make it and I would.

As to your other scenario, there is a HUGE difference between shooting someone in cold-blood when being chased by the zombies in the hopes they stop and make him a snack, and shooting a LIKELY ARMED INTRUDER that is breaking into your house. You're damn right I'd shoot an intruder into my house, whether or not I see a weapon. A damn sight different. The person running behind me likely doesn't wish me harm, but the person breaking into my house does.

Check your crime stats. The vast majority of burglars are NOT armed. They dont want to get hit with an armed robbery charge. Breaking and entering is much less severe sentence-wise.

And no they probably dont want to hurt you. They want to steal your jewelry or TV. Hurting you is not even on their minds except in vary rare cases.

Shooting that intruder is almost certainly NOT necessary or even ideal given self defense laws in most states if he happens to not have a gun on him. That intruder is much less of a threat to you and yours in most cases then the guy running behind you in our little scene. The intruder gains nothing and risks a lot by hurting you. The guy running just might gain his life.

But your not waiting to weigh the options and see if its necessary are you? By your own word your killing him first and looking for a weapon later.

Not everyone has such weak morals that the moment they are in a crisis they throw them out the window, sorry.

Thats true. But given that you admit in a moment of crises you would gun down an unarmed man and see if he was actually threat later YOU certainly are the kind of person who will throw them out the window in the right situation.

It just had to be a situation that felt more "real" then a zombie hypothetical that you know would never actually happen.

I said with no family. Or are you going to watch children and adults cry because of your actions?

If he gets caught and eaten then he gets caught and eaten. Whether I died with him or not has no material relevance to his families grief. By dying with him I am in no way lessening it and by coming back alive I am not making it worse.

...You know the children are the most important ones to keep alive, right?

Debatable biologically. Adults can have more children once the situation calms down. But even I'm not that cold. Children will not be out scavenging though was the point.They are not a relevant part of the scenario as a whole.

Uh huh. And it just so happens that "dead weight" is the only doctor or mechanic or welder in sixty zombie-filled miles.

You wouldnt take the doctor out scavenging in the first place.
Mechanics are pretty common. So are abandoned vehicles in this scenario. If yours breaks get a new one.

Basic construction welding is not a rare talent or especially difficult. I can personally weld using both acetylene and arc welders effectively for building barricades and simple machines. But the point is that "welder" is not an asset that will seriously damage the group to lose and the people like doctor who would be damaging to lose wont be in that situation. They will be in the center of camp surrounded by armed guards.

No the guys who are going out scavenging are the ones whose major appreciable talents are firearms and stealth including breaking and entering and the people who are simply functionally useless as anything but an extra set of hands.

Call center guy goes scavenging. You hope he comes back with something useful and if not.... well **** happens in an apocalypse send the guy from HR next.

[Hiro Protagonest]

A lot of people here are really willing to sacrifice themselves for others. I'm just wondering who would go through with it though.
We need to start a heroic sacrifice union. Yes I know that makes no sense.

Well, if I was the guy, I'd dual-wield flamethrowers (or take a flamethrower and shield, if flamethrowers are precious) and hope this earns me Elysium.

[boredgremlin]

A lot of people here are really willing to sacrifice themselves for others. I'm just wondering who would go through with it though.
We need to start a heroic sacrifice union. Yes I know that makes no sense.

Hmm, is heroic sacrifice likely to lead to a strong bargaining position though?

I mean you wont be earning wages for more then a few minutes and medical coverage is sort of moot given the "sacrifice" part.

I suppose you could collectively bargain on which scenarios where you would sacrifice yourselves and how many people per scenario....... all in all though I'm not sure you would be a very powerful union.

[WyvernLord]

Hmm, is heroic sacrifice likely to lead to a strong bargaining position though?

I mean you wont be earning wages for more then a few minutes and medical coverage is sort of moot given the "sacrifice" part.

I suppose you could collectively bargain on which scenarios where you would sacrifice yourselves and how many people per scenario....... all in all though I'm not sure you would be a very powerful union.

That's the point of the white text. Though we might get better offers depending on the number of communities willing to accept us in. If not we are also general warrior types.

Well, if I was the guy, I'd take a pistol and a flamethrower (short range burst and long range single-target) and hope this earns me Elysium.

Giving new meaning to "going out in a blaze of glory".

[Traab]

Well, if I was the guy, I'd dual-wield flamethrowers (or use a flamethrower and a shield, if the flamethrowers are extremely valuable) and hope this earns me Elysium.

When I run out of ammo, im going out into the horde armed with an axe, chanting this the entire time and go out like a boss. If not elysium, maybe we can meet in valhalla, share some good booze, and brag about how many zombies we took down before the seething mass of undead dragged us down.

I bet I can come up with a far more badarse story about how manly I was while killing everything up close and personal, while you burned to death when a horde of now flaming zombies crawled all up on you and devoured your cripsy flesh.

[Starwulf]

snip

I live out in the middle of nowhere, in an area where hunting rifles and the likes are EXTREMELY common. If someone is breaking into my house, they are likely armed, because they are here for a purpose beyond robbing(since I'm disabled, my vehicle is ALWAYS here, and I live in a trailer, which would indicate poverty, which is fairly accurate). The only reasons for someone to break into MY place, is to have some fun with the inhabitants before killing them. I'm not tossing my morals out the window at all, I'm defending my family from what is a 95% chance of an armed threat. Add onto top of that, the fact that the last 5 home break-in attempts that have happened within a 25 mile radius of me have ALL been armed break-in attempts and ended up with the inhabitant murdered(or raped, as the last one ended up being), you can be guaranteed I will shoot first and ask later. Again, not throwing my morals out the window at all, I am consciously weighing all information available and making a very informed decision.

On the other hand, shooting your buddy in the leg so the zombies get him and not you is NOT a well informed decision, because for all you know, he might have ended up saving your life(as someone else pointed out) and now you're dead too! I don't think the person breaking into my run-down trailer is looking to save my life, ya know? You're trying to compare apples and oranges just to make your stance more justified, despite the fact that, again, you are literally the only person in this entire thread that is arguing FOR your viewpoint. Don't you think that you should step back and think WHY that is? That maybe, I don't know, your viewpoint is a bad one, and that it perhaps needs changing?

Also, please note, I specifically said that I wouldn't shoot someone in the leg to save myself from a rampaging zombie horde. I never said I wouldn't shoot someone if the situation called for it. So, I don't know, maybe don't put words into peoples mouths?

In the end, you're still wrong. You keep saying that our morality makes us weak, but how do you know that? I'm sure plenty of us will survive just fine in a zombie apocalypse without ever having to resort to savagery of the likes you are advocating. On the other hand, if ANYONE EVER saw you do that to someone who is supposed to be your ally, they will end you in an instant, no questions ask. At least our stance doesn't lead to us being exiled or worse at the hands of our group.

Edit: The really funny thing, is you are VERY obviously modeling your stance on Shanes from The Walking Dead. How are you going to feel when he ends up dead at the hands of the group at large, or zombie bait because no-one else is willing to put their life on the line to save him when he gets cornered? Because I'm pretty willing to bet it's going to happen sooner or later. Maybe if nothing else, it will help you realize how flawed your reasoning really is. Hell, no-one even SAW Shane shoot the fat dude, and yet, by now, many people are quite sure he did, and are starting to seriously distrust and resent him for it. See the issues that arise when people take your stance?

[Pokonic]

Heck, if it ever gets to the point that I am surounded by zombies, I will play this song , and then start pouring the ol' gas. And then the grenade. Can't zombify chunky salsa, eh?

[Hiro Protagonest]

D is better because they stop to eat him far from the car giving you a better chance to lose them on the way unless you happen to be running across wide open space. These things are stupid after all. If they stop to eat him long enough for you to get out of sight by getting around something you might be home free.

I still don't see how it's better. Because if he's as slow as you say, they'll get him before you get to the car. Just running at full pace would put you ahead of him. Then there's the fact that that actually gives him a chance.

If he makes it close to the car before getting caught they might keep coming and eat you while your fishing out your damn keys or something to actually get into the car.

You don't have a designated driver waiting for you? Or at least the keys in your hand already?

If i remember right actually it was the fat guys truck too so he probably had the keys and you need time to hotwire it. Which makes it even more important that you lose them far from the vehicle.

...So in your hypothetical situation, the slowest member of the group is the one that's best equpped to get you out of there?

And that's why you wouldn't make it and I would.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Check your crime stats. The vast majority of burglars are NOT armed. They dont want to get hit with an armed robbery charge. Breaking and entering is much less severe sentence-wise.

And no they probably dont want to hurt you. They want to steal your jewelry or TV. Hurting you is not even on their minds except in vary rare cases.

Shooting that intruder is almost certainly NOT necessary or even ideal given self defense laws in most states if he happens to not have a gun on him. That intruder is much less of a threat to you and yours in most cases then the guy running behind you in our little scene. The intruder gains nothing and risks a lot by hurting you. The guy running just might gain his life.

But your not waiting to weigh the options and see if its necessary are you? By your own word your killing him first and looking for a weapon later.




Thats true. But given that you admit in a moment of crises you would gun down an unarmed man and see if he was actually threat later YOU certainly are the kind of person who will throw them out the window in the right situation.

It just had to be a situation that felt more "real" then a zombie hypothetical that you know would never actually happen.

There's a big difference between shooting someone who will potentially hurt you and definitely steal from you, and shooting your own ally.

If he gets caught and eaten then he gets caught and eaten. Whether I died with him or not has no material relevance to his families grief. By dying with him I am in no way lessening it and by coming back alive I am not making it worse.

But you would know he would've had a small chance if you hadn't shot him down.

Debatable biologically. Adults can have more children once the situation calms down. But even I'm not that cold. Children will not be out scavenging though was the point.They are not a relevant part of the scenario as a whole.

Well, I agree with Traab's point. I'll be generous and stretch the age down to 10. But any child below that is likely more of a liability than a help.

You wouldnt take the doctor out scavenging in the first place.
Mechanics are pretty common. So are abandoned vehicles in this scenario. If yours breaks get a new one.

If things are desperate, you send everyone out. And mechanics aren't much more common than average doctors and doctors' assistants.

Basic construction welding is not a rare talent or especially difficult. I can personally weld using both acetylene and arc welders effectively for building barricades and simple machines. But the point is that "welder" is not an asset that will seriously damage the group to lose and the people like doctor who would be damaging to lose wont be in that situation. They will be in the center of camp surrounded by armed guards.

You are implying that you already built a strong fortress.

And building classes are becoming much less common. My welding teacher's high school (he's about 35 or 40) cut out auto when he was there. I think they might've also cut out welding too, and he took it the year before they cut it.

No the guys who are going out scavenging are the ones whose major appreciable talents are firearms and stealth including breaking and entering and the people who are simply functionally useless as anything but an extra set of hands.

Call center guy goes scavenging. You hope he comes back with something useful and if not.... well **** happens in an apocalypse send the guy from HR next.

Again, this assumes professionals in every field in your group.

[Traab]

Again, this assumes professionals in every field in your group.

Not only that, it assumes a small army, since he not only has his needed professionals back at the base, he has them guarded by more goons, AND he has his armed forces out there (with a fat guy in case they need a sacrifice) scavenging for supplies and killing zombies. Sounds to me like he has his own town with him, and believes that they will let him just shoot the red shirt and get away with it. Oh, and what happens when you are the slowest guy in the bunch? Will you volunteer to get shot so the rest can survive? Nope, you will shoot the first person you can aim your gun at so you can run by his dying body and survive. Im sure everyone else will understand. After all, you are special and definitely wont be executed on the spot for killing your teammates. And it wont look shifty AT ALL to be the only survivor every time there is an encounter in the group you are with.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I bet I can come up with a far more badarse story about how manly I was while killing everything up close and personal, while you burned to death when a horde of now flaming zombies crawled all up on you and devoured your cripsy flesh.

Ahem.

Giving new meaning to "going out in a blaze of glory".

...

Burned.

[Murska]

Yeah, that's another point - if everyone believes it's all fine to shoot allies, in a situation where two guys are running away from a zombie horde even if it's likely both will escape they'll have doubts about each other - one starts falling behind, they'll start shooting at each other just to do it before the other guy does. Or the fat guy will decide that since he has the car keys, he'll just shoot you and make it out with the gear (if he hypothetically has ammo) while you decide to shoot him at the same time, and both get shot. Trust is pretty important in a group.

[Traab]

Ahem.


...

Burned.

Pfft, the only blaze of glory will be your clothes catching on fire as the burning zombies grapple you to the ground and start chewing. Fire is a very bad way to fight zombies. Especially out in the open. From a nice fireproof bunker position surrounded by concrete and other things that wont burn, it could work, (though god that would stink) but as a last hurrah? Running out into a swarm and trying to kill as many as you can? Nope. bad idea. Stick to an axe, its less likely to cause you to die in an even more painful way than being eaten alive.

[SaintRidley]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

More to the point. Bored, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of you.

You keep telling us that your method is why you'll survive and everybody else will die being eaten by the zombies. You forget that your method is why you won't even get the chance to be eaten by the zombies. You will be killed by the first group you become a part of because you refuse to be a team player and actively seek to destroy what effectiveness the team has.

[WyvernLord]

Burned.

If these puns keep up my temper will flare.
All jokes aside I'd probably end up just shooting you Bored. You are the weakest link. I don't care if you have better skills then the guy you shot a link that destroys other links is not one I want in my group. Also .

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pfft, the only blaze of glory will be your clothes catching on fire as the burning zombies grapple you to the ground and start chewing. Fire is a very bad way to fight zombies. Especially out in the open. From a nice fireproof bunker position surrounded by concrete and other things that wont burn, it could work, (though god that would stink) but as a last hurrah? Running out into a swarm and trying to kill as many as you can? Nope. bad idea. Stick to an axe, its less likely to cause you to die in an even more painful way than being eaten alive.

Well, I might take a spear with a long slashing blade to get a reach advantage and chop off their heads.

But really, it's either I burn a bunch of them 'til they're mangled, heavily debilitating them IF they survive, since even maintaining full human strength no matter how decayed they are doesn't help offset lack of limbs, or hack at them and hope to get a strong enough swing to get all the way through.

[Starwulf]

If these puns keep up my temper will flare.
All jokes aside I'd probably end up just shooting you Bored. You are the weakest link. I don't care if you have better skills then the guy you shot a link that destroys other links is not one I want in my group. Also .

But that doesn't matter, because he's with a group of friends who have taken over a jail, summarily executed EVERYONE inside, and his friends obviously won't give one WHIT if he shoots one of them because they are slow and he is not and doing so will save his life!

[WyvernLord]

But that doesn't matter, because he's with a group of friends who have taken over a jail, summarily executed EVERYONE inside, and his friends obviously won't give one WHIT if he shoots one of them because they are slow and he is not and doing so will save his life!

Of course they won't that would be bad teamwork.

[Solaris]

There's five million people in this nation. If we assume that the most heavily-populated areas are mostly zombified right at the start, that leaves a few hundred thousand people alive to realize there are zombies and to start fleeing. Most of these would probably head for the sea, or follow roads north. Many more would seek their own cabins and plots of land to live on. It's a long trip north with plenty of dangers. I'm not saying it isn't possible for someone to end up finding me, but I find it a bit unlikely - there's a lot of land for a few hundred thousand people to disperse into. Especially since this person would also have to have the knowledge, skill and tools to build a watercraft to land on and search a small island. (Who ordinary civilian is going to carry a bunch of sandbags into a deep forest and have the knowledge to build a raft that can't be shot up out of them?)

I'm not saying I'd be in an unassailable position, just that it is unlikely for anyone to end up both wanting to assault it and succeeding.

I'm not disputing that it's fairly secure. I'm just saying that, in a survival game where any failure has a very real chance of fatality, you need to account for the million-in-one. After all, you had the idea to go there. Why wouldn't someone else?
(Take logs. Lash them together. Take some wood and make a sort of double V on the bow. Fill double V with packed sand and gravel. Weight-and-balance accordingly. This can be done using nothing but tools found on-site.)

... If you can make some sort of waterborne mine, I think that'll take care of the raft problem.

Disease and injury are the worst risks when alone, and I'll try to minimize those by packing medicine and supplies and being careful. If I end up getting unlucky, then I'll die. But I'm trying to make this plan based on what's available.

Well... let me put it this way: If you had the opportunity for a companion (who wasn't boredgremlin), would you take it? If you knew of a small community (say about thirty) survivors who were doing well nearby, would you try and make it towards them (assuming travel is relatively safe thanks to your aforementioned isolation)?

I'd be more safe if I had a fortress, a set of MBTs, motion sensors, automated turrets, a bunch of trustworthy friends, endless supply of food and water and everything else necessary and some sort of an airborne supervirus that only targets zombies and has 100% kill rate on them. But I don't have any of those things, and I'm not going to actually spend money or effort on preparing for a zombie apocalypse, just idle thought while bored.

Of course. Spending money on a zombie apocalypse is insane. Spending money preparing for the possibility of disasters that actually happen isn't.
Thus why all of my critiques don't require spending money or investing resources until after the stuff hit the fan.

See and if I were sitting somewhere watching you and one other guy through binoculars running away from zombies and you both get caught and eaten because you were too stuck in a different moral code to survive then i would chuckle at your foolishness, wait for the zombies to finish eating and then go loot your corpses because your high intentions got you killed.

And if situations were reversed, I would have been using my handy-dandy rifle to pick off the zombies chasing you two. Heck, considering my preference for taking high ground, I'm probably on a building and can cover you two as you take shelter inside. Given the rate of fire of your standard-issue M16A2 (we're assuming I haven't picked up an M4; they're lighter and better for close-quarters, but the stocks are more fragile and they're worse at range) and the ease of availability for ammunition, suddenly you have no need to make that decision.
Just for shiggles, we put me on a trainer that involved masses of enemy charging my position. I dropped them all at the 150m line, only letting a handful pass as I took a few seconds to swap out magazines. Given my performance in real-life scenarios, it's fairly safe to say that I can, in fact, perform as advertised.

Why would you not do the same for me?

If we're going by a television show as an example, why not? You're named characters, it's not outside possibility some random newcomer shows up to save your bacon. Worse scripts have been written.

If we're not going by a television show as an example (you seem to be the only one pulling scripts from a series), then again... why not? Worst-case scenario, you're a few hundred zombies closer to turning that city into a habitable area again.

Assuming theres others counting on you back in camp though (wife, kids,etc) i would make up a better story about how you got killed then "he was an idiot who wasnt fast enough". Thats probably the least kindness I can give them considering they are now without a defender or provider in an apocalypse. But hey, you did the right thing........

You may have murdered me in cold blood for potential advantage, but hey! at least you're providing my hypothetical family with a flimsy story about how I wasn't fast enough.
(I assume we're ignoring the fact that I'm actually a pretty quick runner and would thus most likely not be the guy trailing behind unless I were slowing down to engage them, yes?)

1. Who says we're friends? Theres a good chance its just some person that I was thrown together with by random chance. Who may or may not be just another mouth to feed. That sort of thing happens in every emergency.

You haven't spent much time in a combat situation. I can tell.

Here's my thing. I don't object to you and yours being extra mouths to feed. I object to you being an apparently eager killer, but that's besides the point. I'm fairly comfortable in my ability to survive and thrive in any environment known to man. Worst-case scenario, yes, I will have to cut them loose. But you know what? I don't go into combat situations with people I can't trust and rely on. I'm not going to take the guy who's soggy 'round the midsection, I'm not going to take the guy who seems to confuse reality for a game of GTA or a movie. They get to stay at base camp while I go in and do what needs doing.

2. Surviving is hardly "any advantage" it is in fact the ONLY advantage that matters. Where there is life, there is hope. When your zombie chow cause tubs back there slowed you down the only hope you have left is the zombie craps you out somewhere nice. (Do zombies crap? Anyway neither here nor there i suppose.)

Survival is the only advantage so far as you are concerned. I'm of a somewhat different mindset. I've gone into situations I did not expect to survive because if I didn't, my comrades would have had to face a worse situation down the line. The fact that I'm here to talk about it is largely irrelevent (it means I'm really, really lucky and just good enough to squeak by, really).

I read your little scenario earlier. It reeks of the Idiot Ball and plot contrivance. How would you have time to turn around, shoot him, loot his corpse, and then run back to the car if the zombies are that close? In point of fact, that is simply not how I would conduct an operation. I, after all, am not a sociopathic policeman.

Tubs makes me a map and a list, along with written descriptions of the items I need. I go with the competent, fit fighter, leaving Tubs behind. We have a getaway driver who, if nothing else, can swing around later after we've dropped the gear and skedaddled (zombie horde in hot pursuit) to pick it up and finish the mission. Buddy and I hole up in a building (clearing it in hand-to-hand if need be), use the ol' 'zombie guts' disguise, exfiltrate. If I don't have another fighter with me, then I go alone - again, using the zombie guts disguise (refreshing as necessary).

3. If after my comrade is dead they manage to catch me anyway. Well then ****, that sucks. But I'm chow either way. At least i friggin tried to survive.

What if what stops you is a ten-foot wall? Those are easy to cross with assistance. Not so much without.

If we were in a situation where the two of could have fought them off then clearly we would have done so and not been in this situation to start with. If we're running for our lives then having that other guy around wasnt going to help me if they caught me anyway so i really dont see your point there. Are you trying to say its better to die together? Cause honestly i would rather not die at all thanx. Better to live in infamy then die with honor and all that.

I take it you're missing out on what I'm saying to Murska about going it alone, right? Take that and change it from 'million-to-one' to 'pretty darn likely'. What he's going with is a workable, albeit risky, plan. What you're going with is a drawn-out form of suicide because of your stupidity and your piss-poor planning.

What your not taking into account is that the slow guy ALSO has a gun. And he's slower then me. So he has a very, very good reason to shoot ME and leave me so that he can get away. AND he's behind me so i probably wont see it coming.

I am, actually. But see, I've already got a gauge of this guy because he's willing to risk his life to save a kid that ain't even his. He's a decent human being. The odds of him putting a bullet in my back for no gain whatsoever are slim to none.

I might be able to get away on my own and I'm still thinking of offing him. If he's back there as impending zombie chow you can bet your butt that the same thought is at least going through his head too.

Actually, most people would be more concerned with the zombie horde behind them than their buddy getting away. A fair number of folks might actually try to slow the zombies down so you could get away and complete the objective. A chubby smoker who volunteers to infiltrate an infested town to save a kid sounds like he'd be one of them.
... The part in bold? That sounds really sick. That's where it crosses the line from a mercy-killing into murder.

And since i don't particularly know or trust him I'm certainly not going to just hope he doesn't put one in MY back so that he can get away. Better to seize the initiative and be wrong then be the one sitting on the ground with my knee blown off and a horde of zombies coming.

Why would you go anywhere armed with someone you don't particularly know or trust? Don't feed me that line about necessity - we're not playing with a television script. We're all thinking human beings capable of making decisions that don't adhere to a plot. Why would you put yourself in that contrived scenario to begin with?

You probably dont have a choice who your around. Look at earthquakes and tsunami's or war dispossessed in the real world for example. completely random groups are forced to form by situational pressures where people try to survive by combining numbers and skills.

Negative, this is not a random group. This is a group who survived an attack/plague, and that requires a certain set of skills, a certain mindset, and a certain degree of luck. Natural disasters are almost entirely luck. Frankly, I'd be rather surprised if a fat, asthmatic smoker who can't run any kind of distance would survive that far into an apocalypse.

Sure some people will go off alone, but most people are going to get stuck with a group that they probably had little say in how it formed. And in that case you make do with what you have.

A group that's already displayed the basic necessities of survival, because we are not assuming a television show where there's a script demanding certain logical incongruities. I absolutely am not.

"giving up morality"

Is a laughable concept. Morality is a human construct designed to reinforce the laws of a given society. No more and no less. Its changed so much over the centuries that assuming any sort of objective morality is just silly.

Laws don't arise from morals? Are you kidding? Are you trying to tell me that you can legislate morality?
Do I need to go reductio ad absurdum on this, or can you see how laughable the idea is without me explaining it any further than that?
I think the problem is that you have a very loose moral compass, whereas others in this topic have a much firmer one. I happen to know mine is pretty much unshakeable.

Actually, the base morals have remained pretty standard throughout humanity's run: Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie. How they define murdering, stealing, and lying might differ, but in the end they're pretty much all there. Just because you're amoral doesn't mean everyone else works that way. Most of us don't easily kill someone.

Heres my zompocalypse morality. I have a wife and 4 kids. 3 of them under 5 years old, including an infant. They need a safe place to be away from zombies, food and medicine.

I'm honestly surprised you're not sixteen. You claim familiarity with Nietzsche, but not with game theory. You display the shortsighted sociopathy of youth.

Same question I'm asking Murska, then, only moreso because he's going it solo without a carful of dependents (and thus has a decent chance, whereas you... will be the empty hut we clear out when we get to it). How will you do it alone? It takes a village to raise a child, much less four. Two people simply do not have the time, energy, and resources to keep four kids alive and safe in an actively hostile world. Your deciding to backstab for a fleeting, minor advantage actively counters your stated morality.

To get those things they need me to survive to protect them and scavenge up the stuff that they need.

Yeah... how's that gonna go if you've shot your only other scavenger, again? Or have you played so many video games that you think solo ops are actually viable in any kind of real-world scenario?

Is it moral for me to put the life of Johny the chain smoker who cant out run a zombie ahead of the life of my infant and wife?

No it is not. Not only is johny unlikely to care for them if he's the one who happens to come back instead of me but he's less capable of it even if he does try. Which is why his wheezy ass was behind me in this scenario to start with. Because lets be honest here. Sooner or later Johny is zombie food anyway.

Johnny the Chain-Smoker here volunteered to go into an infested area in order to save some kid he barely knows. Why wouldn't he save you if the situations were reversed?

"He was probably gonna die anyways" is hardly a reason for you to waste a bullet killing him.

In this scenario the "morality" of an ordered society where you have a duty to law, order and some vague, ill-defined sense of right and wrong must give way to the "morality" of the hunter gatherer where you have a duty to yourself and your family first your small group second and everyone else a very distant third. Where your "duty" as a man is not to law and order or doing the right thing but to acquiring and protecting resources.

>_<
Good Lord, you're one of those people.

A duty to you and yours does not equate to murdering someone in cold blood.

The people who can accept that reality the fastest and adjust accordingly are the people who will survive. Because as much as we can compare human reaction to massive disaster like war or natural disasters to how we might act in a zompocalypse there is one very important difference. It doesnt get better in zombie land.

Fire and EMS arent coming to fix the stuff.
The red cross is not coming with food and medicine
The police will not be there to protect you
The soldiers will not be there to protect and shelter you
The grocery stores and hospitals are not being re-supplied

Stuff is not getting better anytime soon. Probably not for years and years if ever. And that is the reality you would have to adjust to. Your not surviving for a while, your not surviving until help comes. Your just surviving.

We've already established two out of the three in this thread would be. I estimate an easy half of the troopers in the US Army would be focused on the rebuild and restore portion, not setting themselves up as the warlord in the vision of Despotopia you seem to be salivating for. The other half would be trying to protect their families, with a tiny percentage playing bandit or solo scavenger.

But hey, we know you'll be all on your own because you fail to comprehend game theory and the fact that humans survive better in groups than alone. Don't worry, we'll let you watch as we rebuild society. We might even let you in at one point.

Responding to 2 different people isnt double posting. With that sort of spot skill I'm not too worried about you being able to scavenge enough to survive zompocalypse anyway.

I usually just click on the Quote button and open it in a new tab, then copy-paste everything into one. With that sort of problem-solving skill I'm not too worried about you being able to survive any sort of apocalypse, anyways.

[WyvernLord]

I'm honestly surprised you're not sixteen. You claim familiarity with Nietzsche, but not with game theory. You display the shortsighted sociopathy of youth.

Please don't group all youth with him. It hurts my feelings. But seriously please don't group me with him at least.

[Lither]

The Leader.

I'm a planner at heart and am capable of raising everyone's morale. I've studied military tactics and strategy quite a great deal, and can come up with three workable tactics a minute.

Plus, I've had a lot of experience with radios and .22 rifles. I'm not helpless, nor am I incapable of keeping everyone in constant communication.

[Asta Kask]

I'll be the guy who gets all the girls, food and booze while you others slave away at my bidding.

Or is that job taken?

[Starwulf]

We've already established two out of the three in this thread would be. I estimate an easy half of the troopers in the US Army would be focused on the rebuild and restore portion, not setting themselves up as the warlord in the vision of Despotopia you seem to be salivating for. The other half would be trying to protect their families, with a tiny percentage playing bandit or solo scavenger.

Not to much to add to that beautiful rebuttal of a post, you did it so much better then I could have, that's for sure. Just wanted to say, that if I was still in the military, I'd probably be joining with you guys on the eliminate/rebuild/restore bit. Patriotic Duty + loyalty to my unit for sure. As it is though, I'm ex-military, so I'll definitely stick with my aforementioned cabin that's so buried in the woods with no easily spottable road(not even from the air, btw ^^ trees obscure everything except the cabin itself). At least at first. After a while though, as long as the zombies aren't sprinters(those are the kind I'm not tussling with, under any circumstance except 100% forced with no avoidance), I'd probably peek my head back into the world and probably try to team up with a local survivor group and clear out my town and make it a safe zone(something I actually outlined several pages ago).

[dehro]

so.. I'm not going to bother answering on a point by point base, other than stating that I disagree with most of what boredgremlin either posits or wishes to be facts. I could bring some convincing counters, but this would take several screens full of words.. it seems pointless as he's unshakeable in his penchant for pointless slaughter and in the validity of his strategy and decisionmaking.

assuming we're done with trying to verify un-verifiable ethical conundrums after having reached the conclusion that one person holds one stance and everybody else holds another one and we'll just have to wait and see what happens when it happens...
has this thread officially morphed from what would your role be in a group of survivors to "what would your survival strategy be"? or are we still adhering to the OP?

if the latter is true, then I would require aditional data on the nature of zombies we'd be facing, their durability, their "herd intelligence".. etc etc
do they swim? are they in any way social? do they even know how to operate doors or tools? do all of their senses work, and how? do their bodies decay and how?

[noparlpf]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Or the one.

Please don't group all youth with him. It hurts my feelings. But seriously please don't group me with him at least.

Ditto. I'm not quite eighteen.

I'll be the guy who gets all the girls, food and booze while you others slave away at my bidding.

Or is that job taken?

I'm cool with that, except that I need at least some food. Could that be arranged? Or do I have to eat while I'm out scavenging, before I bring my haul back to base?

[Asta Kask]

Memo to self: Always have asexual guys as your minions. That way you get all the chicks.

[dehro]

Memo to self: Always have asexual guys as your minions. That way you get all the chicks.

you're doing it wrong

always have sexy girls as minions..because they're minions

[Traab]

you're doing it wrong

always have sexy girls as minions..because they're minions

Agreed. If you like fanfiction, read A Spark of Genius. The main character gets sexy girl minions, and it goes EXACTLY as well as your fevered minds might hope.