They came to you for help. You have the choice of helping them, leaving them to die, harvesting their organs.

But whatever you do, your colonists know what happened and will respond psychologically to the outcome. You can't just make everyone pretend it never happened.

This is as designed. It's, a moral dilemma, and a choice between emotions and resources, and a piece of story. What kind of colony are you?

dalerian

Thanks for replying, Tynan. I appreciate you taking time away from making the game to reply - though I'm unconvinced by the reasoning.

You could make exactly the same argument for every event that offers a colonist. Whether they're a regular crash landed person, someone fleeing raiders or whatever. For each of those, there's a choice of what kind of colony we area, which includes the choice to reject the person.

Except this one. For this event, there is NO choice, and it's not a dilemma, because a dilemma is built around a choice. This is a forced circumstance without any agency to make that decision, I only have choice on how I respond to a decision that's made for me.

The crashlanded person is automatically a colonist, like it or not. Which is the problem.

If this event worked like the other colonist-with-a-trade-off events, it would be great. We'd be making a choice - do we rescue this person and accept the costs, or do we refuse? Sometimes, circumstances would mean my colony would accept the person. And sometimes, for various reasons, it wouldn't.

I'm not a fan of assuming that the existing colony members aren't ok with that choice, either. If I make a choice to make and sell space-meth, they're ok with that. If we get raiders attack, and I leave them all to bleed out, they're ok with that, too. If a slaver comes past, and I don't pay to rescue any of the slaves, my colonists don't bat an eyelid. If I sell luciferium to a backwards tribe, knowing it will slowly and agonisingly kill whoever takes it, my colonists are perfectly cool with that.

They may draw the line at abuse of prisoners, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to care about some random stranger who needs help.

For this event, there is NO choice, and it's not a dilemma, because a dilemma is built around a choice.

There is a choice. You can banish them, or kill them, or whatever.

We could alter the UI to make it look different (i.e. instead of banish them as a colonist, you reject them as a joiner, with the same mood outcomes), but that's just re-labeling what's already happening. Maybe we'll do that since this has come up before. I think it would solve the concern. It's just a framing issue. Framing changes solve game design problems all the time.

"If I make a choice to make and sell space-meth, they're ok with that. If we get raiders attack, and I leave them all to bleed out, they're ok with that, too. If a slaver comes past, and I don't pay to rescue any of the slaves, my colonists don't bat an eyelid. If I sell luciferium to a backwards tribe, knowing it will slowly and agonisingly kill whoever takes it, my colonists are perfectly cool with that."

These are all things they could respond to, yes, and I think it'd be cool if they did. But none of these are the same as literally forcing a specific innocent person, who is there in front of you suffering, to die painfully.

Also those would be problematic in gameplay since you can't reasonably save every raider, it would make drug selling non-viable, you can't afford every slave, etc.

Choices are good for games, especially ones with story, moral, gameplay, and emotional connections like this one.

NerdyBurner

I would prefer they functioned like the refugees where I can help them, then choose if they can stay, rather than being forced to accept a pyro with crappy skills just to be nice today.

You're not forced to help them at all. You can immediately kill or banish them. They're not willing to leave since they have nowhere else to go, so there is no "politely ask them to leave" option.

ImAdrivan

Im on OP's side on this. All that you said makes sense Tynan, except I dont know who invited the person to join the colony? The survivor crash landed. He is a stranger, not a colonist. If we want to help him, we can recruit him. Or we can take him as prisoner, or let him die. But who said he can join the colony just for crashing here?

The person is refugee. That means he invited himself, just like people fleeing danger who enter a country outside a border crossing. You can take those people who are now inside your community and banish them, or kill them, but there is no mind-control wall you can use to simply prevent them from entering your community. They walk in, and you have to choose how to respond.

ImAdrivan

Yeah but the issue is: the game makes a difference between killing a human (from another faction, or neutral) and killing a colonist. My colonists seem fine with us attacking visitors unprovoked (people just passing by), so they should be fine with us not taking in (or even killing) a refugee. Tbh i dont see why this event in particular has to be different than the regular transport pod crash

Honestly it would be better if the responded to more things, not less, but I see your point.

dalerian

I get what you mean about a framing issue.

You're saying that if it were presented as "here's a prospect, take them as a colonist or get a debuff" that would feel different to "here's your new colonist, keep them or kick them out for a debuff."

We'd at least get the illusion of a choice, even if the outcome was the same.

Technically, that's probably correct. And yes, you could extend that to other events.

And to all the things I listed. The person who's uncomfortable turning away a dying diseased stranger is probably also uncomfortable selling a lethal pleasure-drug to strangers.

Does this kind of samaritan exist? Definitely (I'm probably one myself).

Would declaring that all colonists feel that way improve the game? I don't think so.

That's building a specific moral view onto the existing colonists (one they don't already have), reducing the storytelling scope.

• Want a bunch of isolationists, maybe based around a faith or cult leader? Can do that now, won't be able to.
• Want a xenophobic tribe? No longer an option.
• Want a colony who knows that "abasia" is an Empire hoax and this person is a plant to overrule their soverign citizen rights as yeomen and thereby control them? Nope, can't do that. (Of course all colonists are rational people who accept medicinal science as real, because that's how humans are.)

But putting aside 'story telling scope' as a design goal, switch to realism. A thought experitment: when I put myself in the environment of RimWorld - a bunch of desperate survivors bombarded with life-ending threats and being regularly raided by gun-toting savages, do I think "trustingly inviting strangers into the colony" would be a healthy survival mechanic? No, I don't think so.

This is the Rim. Life is cheap. Law is whoever holds the gun, and you own only what you can defend, including your own emancipation. Trust is thin and hard-earned, and compassion is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

That is the setting, is it not?

I'm not seeing a police force. There is no "UN" nor a "League of Colonies." We are never helped by an NGO. No religious org is passing by and handing out charity, etc.

I'm seeing lawless raiders, travelling drug traders, and the closest thing to a "government" is a slave-trading Empire.

In that world - a settlement might rescue a dying stranger and patch them up, if they could spare the food, medicine, etc. But that person would be (at most) a guest, not a colonist. The patient would likely be in a secure hospital ward that probably is better described as "prison hospital."

Maybe they'd decide whether to invite the patient to join them once healed, and the patient would often accept. ("Often" because there are reasons they might not. Example: If I'm trying to reunite with my wife, I'd be forever grateful to these people for rescuing me, but I'm still leaving to find my wife.)

As an event, this would fit better if it were:

1. Here's this victim. Patch them up or not.
2. Time passed, they're healed - you have a choice to invite them to stay
3. They have a chance to accept/decline, with a high chance to accept.

"Maybe" have a consequence because this is the Rim, etc. But what consequence?

Maybe a rep hit with any nearby non-raider factions (assuming they can magically know about it)?

Maybe the slave-trading Empire takes a dim view of your lack of compassion and sends a psychic pulse to hurt people?

Maybe the human-hating mechanoids take this as a specific example of why they hate you, and send a raid?

But whatever it is, something that doesn't bake one specific moral compass into the colonists. Especially one that doesn't fit with life-is-cheap RimWorld.

TLDR; this would be enforcing a moral compass that doesn't fit the setting.

Edits: to break up wall of text and make this comment easier to read.

Colonists definitely have some specific moral beliefs, definitely. They make perfect sense for some backstories. Less so for others. This is an area of the game I've long wanted to improve.